Is morality objective or subjective?

[Immanuel Can]

...what is your account of how we today came into being from a single beginning of the universe to the present day?

If you check the Biblical account, Gary, you'll see that God made two entities: a man, and a woman. So that's pretty easy to say.

[Immanuel Can]

I don't think it unreasonable to accept what main stream science has to say about the subject.

But you've admitted you don't know what it "says." You don't have the data or evidence yourself. So you're just believing whoever can buy a white lab coat and say, "Look, I'm a mainstream scientist."

Kind of like Anthony Fauci, maybe.

[Immanuel Can]

The singularity that was nothing but energy could exist without a cause or it could have a cause. The problem is that we don't know which scenario is true. I am agnostic so I cannot tell which scenario is true. You are not agnostic. That means that you must have a reason why prefer one scenario over another one. Could you please tell us your reason?

Sure. I think the idea that an impersonal "force," like "energy" or something, would never be a plausible explanation for how the degree of complexity and interrelationship we observe every day in nature, or phenomena like mind and identity exist. I think the answer "Energy did it" would be absurdly implausible, utterly reductionistic, and entirely unhelpful. In short, I thing vast probabilities weigh against any such thing being the case.

I asked for an argument and not your opinion.

That's my argument. The argument is that if you're going to say something "caused" another thing, then the "cause" you claim has to be adequate to the effect you claim it produced. "Force" is not an adequate explanation. Nor is "Singularity." Really, neither is a genuine explanation of anything at all.

That's an argument, not an opinion.

How that could be a design from a highly creative intelligence if many of the mutations lead to failure?

Well, the Bible never claims the present world is perfect. In fact, it claims it's fallen from its original design, by being detached from the Source of light, life, truth and justice. So that it's flawed is simply to be expected.

But it's a much bigger problem for your view: for if this world is supposed to be perfect, why isn't it?

So you mean that scientists should leave all the literature aside and believe in a single book that they don't know who wrote it?

"The literature"? What "literature"? I would think science should be more concerned with data, facts and experiments than with the making of "literature."

[iambiguous]

Does He exist?

If He does exist how does one connect the dots between Him and the natural world?

Well whatever we assume God to look like we are always left without an image of God.
It's very clear and obvious that God does not have a physical body, in the way a human does, so we can only imagine what God actually looks like.

In fact we cannot come anywhere close to knowing what God could look like because we cannot put an image to God.

And what do you know...God is imagined by many to be in the vicinity of this...

https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=5 ... =610&dpr=1

White. Male.

The "Sky Daddy".

On the other hand...

"The term has its roots in Genesis 1:27, wherein "God created man in his own image. . ." This scriptural passage does not mean that God is in human form, but rather, that humans are in the image of God in their moral, spiritual, and intellectual nature." PBS

Whatever that means?

Still, when mere mortals die, the body becomes food for worms [or goes up in smoke] and we spend the rest of eternity in Heaven or Hell as...souls?

You tell me what exactly this entails. It's just one more example of blind faith not really giving a whole of thought to things like that.

As for things that seem "clear" to some, I'm back to making that crucial distinction between what seems clear to them "in their heads" and what they are able to demonstrate [empirically] that all rational men and women are obligated to be clear about in turn.

Maybe God is this, maybe God is that. Or maybe God does not exist at all. But, again, given the staggering consequences that are at stake here on both sides of the grave why on Earth [if He does exist] is he unwilling to make it crystal clear that He does exist.

Maybe the Deist explanation? Or maybe the pantheist rendition? Or maybe [in regard to theodicy] Harold Kushner's speculations?

We can only understand ourselves and the reality of existence in our own unique way, from the perception of our own direct understanding, what makes sense to us.

Yes, the part I root existentially in dasein. But only in regard to "value judgments" pertaining to morality and politics and religion.

[Harbal]

I don't think it unreasonable to accept what main stream science has to say about the subject.

But you've admitted you don't know what it "says." You don't have the data or evidence yourself.

I have a layman's knowledge of evolutionary theory, and I have a layman's knowledge of the Bible, and I have enough intelligence to know which makes most sense.

So you're just believing whoever can buy a white lab coat and say, "Look, I'm a mainstream scientist."

Do you really want to associate yourself with such an absurd comment?

Kind of like Anthony Fauci, maybe.

I know he's American and has something to do with the Covid thing, but that's all I know. I don't want to know any more, and I would appreciate your not using your replies to me as an opportunity to air your unrelated conspiracy propaganda.

[Gary Childress]

...what is your account of how we today came into being from a single beginning of the universe to the present day?

If you check the Biblical account, Gary, you'll see that God made two entities: a man, and a woman. So that's pretty easy to say.

At what point did God create Adam and Eve? Did God create them at the same time as the first vertebrates? And if so, what evidence do you suggest provides the support for that claim other than it says so in some of the lore of some early human civilizations in Mesopotamia seemingly tens of thousands of years AFTER the appearance of the first human-like beings in the fossil record? Or is your only evidence that of historical writings dating from a few thousand years before the common era?

[iambiguous]

I don't think it makes any difference whether God exists or not.

Then you're the only person who thinks so. It's pretty clear it's the consideration that makes the most difference in the world possible.

Here I'm more inclined to agree with IC.

Each of us as individuals will come to our own subjective conclusions regarding God. The part I root existentially in dasein. But from my own frame of mind "here and now", if objective morality on this side of the grave and immortality and salvation on the other side are important to you, it makes all the difference in the world that He does exist.

And, in part, I believe this revolves far more around someone's circumstances than their philosophy of life. If you are thriving -- in good health, have a great job, have lots of friends, have a loving spouse and children, have many fulfilling experiences, etc. -- you can put religion on the back burner.

But if for any number of reasons your life is in the toilet, God may well seem to be the only option.

[bahman]

Sure. I think the idea that an impersonal "force," like "energy" or something, would never be a plausible explanation for how the degree of complexity and interrelationship we observe every day in nature, or phenomena like mind and identity exist. I think the answer "Energy did it" would be absurdly implausible, utterly reductionistic, and entirely unhelpful. In short, I thing vast probabilities weigh against any such thing being the case.

I asked for an argument and not your opinion.

That's my argument. The argument is that if you're going to say something "caused" another thing, then the "cause" you claim has to be adequate to the effect you claim it produced. "Force" is not an adequate explanation. Nor is "Singularity." Really, neither is a genuine explanation of anything at all.

That's an argument, not an opinion.

There is a huge literature about how things can emerge from something simple. You simply ignore them and stick to the Bible.

How that could be a design from a highly creative intelligence if many of the mutations lead to failure?

Well, the Bible never claims the present world is perfect. In fact, it claims it's fallen from its original design, by being detached from the Source of light, life, truth and justice. So that it's flawed is simply to be expected.

So to you, God randomly creates species and destroys some with no insight in what he is doing?

But it's a much bigger problem for your view: for if this world is supposed to be perfect, why isn't it?

I didn't say things in my world are perfect. That is you who believe in a perfect God who plays random when it comes to creation.

So you mean that scientists should leave all the literature aside and believe in a single book that they don't know who wrote it?

"The literature"? What "literature"? I would think science should be more concerned with data, facts and experiments than with the making of "literature."

There is data available so-called fossils. You cannot ignore them. Could you?

[Immanuel Can]

I have a layman's knowledge of evolutionary theory, and I have a layman's knowledge of the Bible, and I have enough intelligence to know which makes most sense.

Well, if you'll forgive me, a "layman's knowledge" often doesn't amount to very much. Often it's just an assemblage of second-hand predispositions, absent any real or first-hand knowledge. It doesn't even entail knowledge of the key issues, I'm sad to say. So perhaps you're giving yourself too little credit. We can hope so.

So you're just believing whoever can buy a white lab coat and say, "Look, I'm a mainstream scientist."

Do you really want to associate yourself with such an absurd comment?

That's what a "layman's knowledge" is like. It's "layman's" precisely because it is like that. What does it matter if its the guy in the funny mitre hat or the guy in the lab coat one is believing? One still is just trusting a poser, with no way of knowing whether or not he's more than that.

[Immanuel Can]

At what point did God create Adam and Eve?

May I recommend a reading of Genesis 1-3? It would take you all of 15 minutes, and save me going over some territory we should all already know.

[bahman]

I have a layman's knowledge of evolutionary theory, and I have a layman's knowledge of the Bible, and I have enough intelligence to know which makes most sense.

Well, if you'll forgive me, a "layman's knowledge" often doesn't amount to very much. Often it's just an assemblage of second-hand predispositions, absent any real or first-hand knowledge. It doesn't even entail knowledge of the key issues, I'm sad to say. So perhaps you're giving yourself too little credit. We can hope so.

And from where do you know what the Bible says is credible?

[iambiguous]

I would say it's interesting that you both claim to "know" things without either of you having any access to sufficient evidence -- by your own admission, just shortly ago.

He's got you there!

Really, he has provided us with a simply staggering amount of scientific and historical evidence for the existence of the Christian God here: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=P ... SjDNeMaRoX

[Immanuel Can]

I have a layman's knowledge of evolutionary theory, and I have a layman's knowledge of the Bible, and I have enough intelligence to know which makes most sense.

Well, if you'll forgive me, a "layman's knowledge" often doesn't amount to very much. Often it's just an assemblage of second-hand predispositions, absent any real or first-hand knowledge. It doesn't even entail knowledge of the key issues, I'm sad to say. So perhaps you're giving yourself too little credit. We can hope so.

And from where do you know what the Bible says is credible?

I was speaking to Harbal, about his statement that he had "layman's knowledge" of the Bible and science. I wasn't making a comprehensive argument for Biblical authority, even though I could. However, even if one does not agree that the Bible is true, one has to acknowledge that "layman's knowledge" of anything is often not very much.

[Harbal]

Do you really want to associate yourself with such an absurd comment?

That's what a "layman's knowledge" is like. It's "layman's" precisely because it is like that. What does it matter if its the guy in the funny mitre hat or the guy in the lab coat one is believing? One still is just trusting a poser, with no way of knowing whether or not he's more than that.

It would just be plain wrong to dignify that rubbish with a response, IC.

[iambiguous]

Let's put it this way: You cannot deny the fossils that remain from all species. Can you? If not, then it means that the act of creation of humans was gradual and not spontaneous as it is declared in the Bible.

Again, the whole point of embracing God and religion is to anchor "I" in one or another rendition of moral Commandments and in one or another rendition of immortality and salvation. All this "philosophical" stuff changes none of that.

In fact, I once met a woman at Essex Community College, a staunch Catholic, who insisted that all those fossils [dinosaurs and such] were actually planted in the ground by God Himself. Why? Because it was a way to test our faith in Him. A leap of faith has little or nothing to do with reasons, she insisted. You worship and adore God despite all of the many reasons not to.

Such as these:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_earthquakes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_l ... _eruptions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... l_cyclones
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tsunamis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_landslides
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fires
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_epidemics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_deadliest_floods
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... ore_deaths
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_diseases
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_extinction_events