Is morality objective or subjective?

[Immanuel Can]

The fallacy of trying to give an implausible idea credibility by presenting the alternative to it as being even more unlikely.

Well, that's not a "fallacy," actually;

I think we both know very well that it is.

Ummm...no, no, we don't, actually.

I know of no supreme beings.

And if you know of no Atlantic Ocean, will that make it go away, too?

You seem to be saying that two fully formed adult human beings just came into existence,

Far from it. I'm saying that two adult human beings were made by God...which is actually what the Bible says happened, too.

I think you're (wrongly) imagining that there could be some prevenient, more ultimate set of "natural laws" that must govern God; because otherwise, I can't even make sense of the question. But if that's what you're imagining, then I have to say that nobody who advocates Monotheism of any kind thinks that's how it is. You've simply misunderstood what they claim, I guess.

But I am not a monotheist, and am under no obligation to accept any of their claims.

If you want to take issue with them, you should probably take issue with what they DO say, rather than make up something they DON'T say, and ask them to account for that.

I think that if you make something up, then you're going to have to look to that "creator" for your answers.

I am offering you no alternative to the Adam and Eve story;

If that's true, then it's the theory we should accept until further notice, since, as you claim, you have no other theory.

We both know there is a theory that I find infinitely more acceptable than yours,...

Great. What is it? How did it work, since you doubt the existence of any original mating pair?

[Harbal]

Well, that's not a "fallacy," actually;

I think we both know very well that it is.

Ummm...no, no, we don't, actually.

I know of no supreme beings.

And if you know of no Atlantic Ocean, will that make it go away, too?

You seem to be saying that two fully formed adult human beings just came into existence,

Far from it. I'm saying that two adult human beings were made by God...which is actually what the Bible says happened, too.

I think you're (wrongly) imagining that there could be some prevenient, more ultimate set of "natural laws" that must govern God; because otherwise, I can't even make sense of the question. But if that's what you're imagining, then I have to say that nobody who advocates Monotheism of any kind thinks that's how it is. You've simply misunderstood what they claim, I guess.

But I am not a monotheist, and am under no obligation to accept any of their claims.

If you want to take issue with them, you should probably take issue with what they DO say, rather than make up something they DON'T say, and ask them to account for that.

I think that if you make something up, then you're going to have to look to that "creator" for your answers.

If that's true, then it's the theory we should accept until further notice, since, as you claim, you have no other theory.

We both know there is a theory that I find infinitely more acceptable than yours,...

Great. What is it? How did it work, since you doubt the existence of any original mating pair?

I don't see any explanation of how two fully grown human beings can just be "created" yet.

[Immanuel Can]

I don't see any explanation of how two fully grown human beings can just be "created" yet.

That's because you're reckoning without God. You're thinking we're talking about some sort of Materialist process, or some odd set of "natural laws" that would pre-exist there being any such thing as "nature" or "laws." It's as if you're asking something quite absurd, like, "Why don't adults just spontaneously pop into existence all the time?" But of course they don't: we're talking about God doing something, not about some set of physical laws doing something.

So the problem is the assumption buried in your question, not the lack of an answer.

[Harbal]

I don't see any explanation of how two fully grown human beings can just be "created" yet.

That's because you're reckoning without God.

Not at all. I'm allowing you God, which is a huge concession on my part, considering I have absolutely no reason to think there is such a thing as God, and every reason to think there isn't.

You're thinking we're talking about some sort of Materialist process, or some odd set of "natural laws" that would pre-exist there being any such thing as "nature" or "laws."

Well of course I am, and neither of us has any entitlement to think otherwise, because absolutely everything we know of in the material world is subject to natural laws. We never see any exception to that principle, and we have no grounds for claiming such an exception could be possible.

It's as if you're asking something quite absurd

Asking you to substantiate an absurd claim isn't absurd; it would only be absurd if I expected you to be able to do it.

like, "Why don't adults just spontaneously pop into existence all the time?" But of course they don't

Exactly my point; they just don't, do they?

we're talking about God doing something, not about some set of physical laws doing something.

So all the scrutiny you applied to the various explanations of the workings of evolution that have been offered to you by various people, and your casual and arbitrary dismissal of them, is something that you feel you should be exempt from?

So the problem is the assumption buried in your question, not the lack of an answer.

Actually, the problem is the assumption buried in your ridiculous claim about the origin of human beings.

[bahman]

No, that's determinism. That's not good Christian theology.

That is what happened to Adam and Eve.

It's not, actually. They made a choice. Determinism assumes there's no such thing as a choice.

I didn't say that the cycle is deterministic. You start it first. I said it is meaningless and problematic.

Who told you that your "best" is good enough? I thought "sinlessness," moral perfection was your aim.

Yes, that is one of my aims.

Then you are confessing that you are not there yet. How are you assured that your "best," as you call it, is "far enough" to satify the demands of the perfect justice of a perfect God?

Sure I am not there yet.

What reason do you have to imagine that truth is "limited"? And you'll need it to be "limited" enough for the amount of "time" you have...which is about 78 years, on the average, and for the fact of your bodily limitedness, in that you can't be everywhere, or even most places, to discover the relevant sufficiency of truth...

Looks like you've cut yourself a task you'll never do.

By we I mean humans, not only me.

That does you absolutely no good. The human race itself is not infinite, but mortal, limited, local and flawed. Whatever ultimate truth is out there, you can be quite certain already it will never be possessed by the human race. But even if the human race could somehow do the impossible, and drink the ocean of possible truth that's out there, how would that help you? You'll be personally long dead before any such thing could even be possible.

Well, first there could be life after death. Second, it does not matter whether I can know the truth. What matters is that I try to make my contribution to finding it.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Great. What is it? How did it work, since you doubt the existence of any original mating pair?

We have been over this in the Christianity thread Lo the many months. Here Immanuel *confuses epistemes*, which is to say he tries to present Adam & Eve of the Biblical tale through employing a term proper to biology and zoology. In his odd way of thinking, which he imagines to be *reasonable* and *debatable*, the Bible tale must necessarily be compatible with scientific view, even if the scientific view thoroughly contradicts the Biblical story. The faith-story must be conserved at all costs and that means that the science-story will be bent to conform to it. All those videos are rehearsals of this effort.

Since Immanuel Can has demonstrated that he is incapable to making any admission that could undermine the Biblical story, and insists that the issue is *up for debate*, he asks that people examine absurd *evidence* (those now-famous apologetic videos) where Christians present strange pseudo-scientific *arguments* to support the foundational belief in Adam & Eve, in The Garden, in an Ark, in the parting of the waters of the Red Sea (et cetera). Thus one is presented with two basic choices. One is to engage with the *arguments* that he imagines are even possible by reviewing the videos, by reading the faith-based essays, and attempting to refute the faith-assertions in those terms. Immanuel enjoys this *game* and feels it has validity.

The other is to refuse on all levels to engage with the absurd game. (This is my choice). To categorically state that if you really think that God materialized Adam & Eve -- and all creatures, and the entire cosmos -- in the way pictured in Genesis, then you are suffering a mental problem. If you take this tack you will be, eventually, forced to see fanatical religious belief as a type of mental disorder. And if you arrive at that point, I assure you, then all religious belief comes under the gun as it were.

Therefore Immanuel Can, though he wishes to be an apologists for his religious convictions, has only achieved the sheer opposite of what he pretends to desire from his audience: that is, their conversion. Christianity began as a religion demanding (radical) *conversion*. What Immanuel seems to imagine is that if one did *become a Christian* as he proposes one should, then God Himself would oversee the restructuring of one's erroneous view-structure, and bring it in accord with the *truth*. I.e. Genesis.

So, conversion in the present age is rather different than it was in the former age (the First Century). You have to convince yourself that, like the White Queen, it is morally necessary to believe "as many as six impossible things before breakfast". Once you have crossed that barrier then anything is possible. What interests me is this mental-psychological process. Since I know that Immanuel Can cannot be reasoned with, I refuse to engage with his mishegoss. Further, I am left with no other choice but to label him as *a sick puppy* or *religious fanatic*, but it is really not personal. What I suggest that we all focus on is that there are masses of people who choose, voluntarily, to believe "six impossible things before breakfast", but then those six compound into any number of utterly absurd beliefs. And these people, with these viewpoints, infect our present. True, the world *infect* is a bit strong yet not misused.

The belief in a divinely manifested couple, dropped into a Garden, and indeed a world manifested as the Biblical tale has it, is an *episteme* from a former time:

Episteme: The fundamental body of ideas and collective presuppositions that defines the nature and sets the bounds of what is accepted as true knowledge in a given epistemic epoch.

We certainly are in a strange and difficult *twilight* between a fading episteme and a newly emergent one. The better we understand this, the better we will be able to understand a great deal about the world and also about ourselves. It us a bit arcane, I admit, and those who bother to read what I write will know of my interest in the Seventeenth Century where a revolution in epistemes is very evident. Our immediate background (400-500 years ago) is in a Weltanschauung where God, spirits, a angelical celestial overworld, and certainly a demon-ruled underworld, were descriptions of the world and the cosmos as real and and dominant as our science-view of today.

[Immanuel Can]

I don't see any explanation of how two fully grown human beings can just be "created" yet.

That's because you're reckoning without God.

Not at all. I'm allowing you God, which is a huge concession on my part, considering I have absolutely no reason to think there is such a thing as God, and every reason to think there isn't.

You're thinking we're talking about some sort of Materialist process, or some odd set of "natural laws" that would pre-exist there being any such thing as "nature" or "laws."

Well of course I am,

Well, that's a logical contradiction. It means you're asking me, "What pre-existing rules does the First Cause of all rules have to live by?" And that's unfortunately just an incoherent way of trying to imagine the situation. How can the FIRST Cause be "caused" to do anything?

like, "Why don't adults just spontaneously pop into existence all the time?" But of course they don't

Exactly my point; they just don't, do they?

And you're surprised? I'm certainly not. I can't find a problem for me in that, though.

Maybe you'll clear up what it is you're asking.

we're talking about God doing something, not about some set of physical laws doing something.

So all the scrutiny you applied to the various explanations of the workings of evolution that have been offered to you by various people, and your casual and arbitrary dismissal of them, is something that you feel you should be exempt from?

Not at all. All I'm asking is for a coherent question, not for any exemption from answering.

[Immanuel Can]

Well, first there could be life after death.

Yes, of course.

Second, it does not matter whether I can know the truth. What matters is that I try to make my contribution to finding it.

Actually, it should matter to you a whole bunch. Why should you value contributing to anything the whole value of which you are guaranteed to miss entirely? Why not simply prefer a happy delusion? Why not "Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die"?

[Immanuel Can]

Great. What is it? How did it work, since you doubt the existence of any original mating pair?

We have been over this ...

And still, no answer.

[bahman]

Well, first there could be life after death.

Yes, of course.

Second, it does not matter whether I can know the truth. What matters is that I try to make my contribution to finding it.

Actually, it should matter to you a whole bunch. Why should you value contributing to anything the whole value of which you are guaranteed to miss entirely?

Don't worry, I don't miss the truth entirely.

Why not simply prefer a happy delusion?

I cannot do that, prefer a happy delusion.

Why not "Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die"?

I am trying hard to find the truth, sometimes I am sleepless because I know I might die tomorrow.

[Harbal]

That's because you're reckoning without God.

Not at all. I'm allowing you God, which is a huge concession on my part, considering I have absolutely no reason to think there is such a thing as God, and every reason to think there isn't.

You're thinking we're talking about some sort of Materialist process, or some odd set of "natural laws" that would pre-exist there being any such thing as "nature" or "laws."

Well of course I am,

Well, that's a logical contradiction. It means you're asking me, "What pre-existing rules does the First Cause of all rules have to live by?" And that's unfortunately just an incoherent way of trying to imagine the situation. How can the FIRST Cause be "caused" to do anything?

You wanted to know how human beings could be produced by evolution, well I'm asking how they could be created by God. You are making a claim when you are unable to explain how it could possibly be true. The argument for evolution comes with tons of research and evidence, but you reject it. That's okay, you are entitled to do that, but the information is there for you to base your judgement on. But when it comes to your account of how human beings came to exist, all you've got is, "well, God just created them". And you seem to think that's an end to the matter.

like, "Why don't adults just spontaneously pop into existence all the time?" But of course they don't

Exactly my point; they just don't, do they?

And you're surprised? I'm certainly not. I can't find a problem for me in that, though.

Maybe you'll clear up what it is you're asking.

I wasn't asking anything, I was just acknowledging that we appear to agree on something: That adult human beings don't just pop into existence.

So all the scrutiny you applied to the various explanations of the workings of evolution that have been offered to you by various people, and your casual and arbitrary dismissal of them, is something that you feel you should be exempt from?

Not at all. All I'm asking is for a coherent question, not for any exemption from answering.

You wanted to know how evolution could produce human beings, well I want to know how God could produce them. I know you don't have an answer, so all you are doing is making a claim that you can't support.

[Alexis Jacobi]

And still, no answer.

Et voilà:

Since I know that Immanuel Can cannot be reasoned with, I refuse to engage with his mishegoss.

I resolve not to talk with you but about you.

The issue is that people live, amphibiously, within two very differently grounded epistemes. Where fantastic inner content (religious mythology) intrudes into perception and indeed determines what is seen.

[Alexis Jacobi]

I am trying hard to find the truth, sometimes I am sleepless because I know I might die tomorrow.

You might check out The 10-Week Email Course. We offer both dental and final burial plans (at sensible prices).

[Immanuel Can]

Why not "Eat, drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die"?

I am trying hard to find the truth, sometimes I am sleepless because I know I might die tomorrow.

Well, here's two more profitable responses: one is to get over it and go to sleep, because you can't change it. The other is to do something in light of it. But worrying...that doesn't get you anything.

[Immanuel Can]

You wanted to know how human beings could be produced by evolution,...

No. I wanted to know about evolution. I wanted to know how it could happen without gene mutation passing through a particular mating pair. And you can't seem to explain how would even be possible.

...well I'm asking how they could be created by God. You are making a claim when you are unable to explain how it could possibly be true.

No, I'm not. I'm pointing out that God is the right explanation, the First Explanation; and if you want something prior to that, you're asking for something logically self-contradicting.

So all the scrutiny you applied to the various explanations of the workings of evolution that have been offered to you by various people, and your casual and arbitrary dismissal of them, is something that you feel you should be exempt from?

Not at all. All I'm asking is for a coherent question, not for any exemption from answering.

You wanted to know how evolution could produce human beings,

No. See above. Read it carefully, because you seem to be having trouble understanding it. Then I'll answer anything you want to ask.