Is morality objective or subjective?

[Alexis Jacobi]

And for us, "God" means "First Cause," "Supreme Being," "Necessary Being" and "the Grounds of all other being." If you're asking questions about a different entity, then all we can tell you is that you don't know what we mean by "God."

In a word *horseshit”.

Some “intellectual” Aquinian Christians may have such a conceptual/theological platform, but the largest segment of growing Christian congregation have chosen to believe for other reasons.

People seek anchors in a world they perceive as treacherous, unstable, and untrustworthy. They also seek established moral codes and paradigms. In a chaotic and delinquent world they seek what they perceive as a sound and trustworthy educational platform for their children, and one that will induce them to avoid trouble and cleave to a sane, productive path.

Islam, in areas where it has reach, offers something very similar: brotherhood, family oriented values, discipline, defined roles, strict social rules, and authority structures to enforce these chosen values.

“…. then all we can tell you ….”

You are one (absurd) Christian in a sea of Christians. You do not speak for all. And you are ignorant of core motivations. No one — no one! — comes to Christianity (or Islam) through intellectual argumentation.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Over and again with me alone he transfigures into Mr. Snippet and Mr. Wiggle.

So, there’s two of us then? Would you kindly label him — my arch competitor! — Mr Wiggle 1 and Mr Snippet 1. I’ll take second place if that seems fitting.

[Harbal]

If He were, then -- by definition -- He would not be either the First Cause or God. He would be what's called a "contingent being," meaning "an entity which might not have existed, and which depends for its existence on something prior to it."

Humans are "contingent beings." God is the sole Necessary Being. If what you are imagining is something less than that, then what you are imagining is not what Monotheists understand to be God, but something less than God.

So you are saying that God wouldn't be God if he weren't the first cause,

Not quite. That much might be true, but I was only making a simpler claim. It's only that if you want to talk about what Christians believe, you have to be willing to talk about the God they believe in. It's no good you inventing one for them that does not fit the profile, and then being annoyed because they won't defend your version of "god."

And for us, "God" means "First Cause," "Supreme Being," "Necessary Being" and "the Grounds of all other being." If you're asking questions about a different entity, then all we can tell you is that you don't know what we mean by "God."

We started this off by talking about what Christians believe, but it somehow changed into something else. If your claims about God and his creations are only meant for Christians, I will say no more, but if they are for general consumption you can't expect anyone to believe something just because it says so in the Bible. I am not a Christian, so when I ask how God supposedly created human beings I am not asking how a supreme being or a first cause created them, because those terms don't mean anything to me. As we have both agreed, fully formed human beings don't just appear from nowhere, and I am asking by what means such a thing could conceivably be possible. I know you can't answer that, which means you believe something wildly incredible without having the slightest idea of how it could possibly be true.

[Alexis Jacobi]

To understand what we are dealing with, we must understand the credal statements. These are non-negotiable.

Starting from the Catholic confession:

I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord. He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried. He descended into hell. On the third day he rose again. He ascended into heaven, and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Holy Catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen.

And from a general Christian confession:

Today, in this country and elsewhere, Evangelicals and Catholics attempt to win “converts” from one another’s folds. In some ways, this is perfectly understandable and perhaps inevitable. In many instances, however, such efforts at recruitment undermine the Christian mission by which we are bound by God’s Word and to which we have recommitted ourselves in this statement. It should be clearly understood between Catholics and Evangelicals that Christian witness is of necessity aimed at conversion. Authentic conversion is-in its beginning, in its end, and all along the way-conversion to God in Christ by the power of the Spirit. In this connection, we embrace as our own the explanation of the Baptist-Roman Catholic International Conversation (1988):

Conversion is turning away from all that is opposed to God, contrary to Christ’s teaching, and turning to God, to Christ, the Son, through the work of the Holy Spirit. It entails a turning from the self-centeredness of sin to faith in Christ as Lord and Savior. Conversion is a passing from one way of life to another new one, marked with the newness of Christ. It is a continuing process so that the whole life of a Christian should be a passage from death to life, from error to truth, from sin to grace. Our life in Christ demands continual growth in God’s grace. Conversion is personal but not private. Individuals respond in faith to God’s call but faith comes from hearing the proclamation of the word of God and is to be expressed in the life together in Christ that is the Church.

I am here to make it as plain as possible: these expressions of Christianity are, in their essence, Judaic. As such it is possessive in the extreme; absolutely intolerant (when it has the power to be do) and allows no other world-interpretations or competing metaphysical ‘pictures’. Yahweh is “a jealous God” and destroys unbelievers, no mercy. “Don’t accept the terms — off to eternal punishment with you.”

You have to clearly see what the belief system entails; it’s advantages and disadvantages, to then be able to decide if you choose to adopt them.

[Immanuel Can]

So you are saying that God wouldn't be God if he weren't the first cause,

Not quite. That much might be true, but I was only making a simpler claim. It's only that if you want to talk about what Christians believe, you have to be willing to talk about the God they believe in. It's no good you inventing one for them that does not fit the profile, and then being annoyed because they won't defend your version of "god."

And for us, "God" means "First Cause," "Supreme Being," "Necessary Being" and "the Grounds of all other being." If you're asking questions about a different entity, then all we can tell you is that you don't know what we mean by "God."

We started this off by talking about what Christians believe, but it somehow changed into something else. If your claims about God and his creations are only meant for Christians, I will say no more, but if they are for general consumption you can't expect anyone to believe something just because it says so in the Bible.

Well, that's nothing like what I said. I only said that if you want to complain about Christian theology, you should know at least to Whom Christian theology refers. And the "god" you have in mind is clearly a contingent being, and so not the God of Christian theology.

If your real beef is with Zeus or Loki or Ashtaroth, then as a Christian, I have nothing to say about that. They are not any "gods" I recognize or defend. Likewise, the "god" concept you seem to have is quite different from mine, and I have no ability to defend that imaginary version of "god."

As we have both agreed, fully formed human beings don't just appear from nowhere, and I am asking by what means such a thing could conceivably be possible.

"Possible" for whom? "Possible" under what conditions?

It's not possible for you to manufacture any human beings. It's not possible for human beings to be accidentally created by material forces (despite what the Evolutionism myth requires us to suppose to the contrary). But it IS possible for human beings to be created by God, out of the same materials He had already created, or even ex nihilo, if He had done it that way. The thing about God is that He can do things people cannot.

That should not surprise you, if you understand what the word "God" means. If you don't, what should really surprise you is that you then believe that human beings appeared by accident, out of mere material forces.

Now THAT'S a belief that requires some faith.

[Age]

If He were, then -- by definition -- He would not be either the First Cause or God. He would be what's called a "contingent being," meaning "an entity which might not have existed, and which depends for its existence on something prior to it."

Humans are "contingent beings." God is the sole Necessary Being. If what you are imagining is something less than that, then what you are imagining is not what Monotheists understand to be God, but something less than God.

So you are saying that God wouldn't be God if he weren't the first cause,

Not quite. That much might be true, but I was only making a simpler claim. It's only that if you want to talk about what Christians believe, you have to be willing to talk about the God they believe in. It's no good you inventing one for them that does not fit the profile, and then being annoyed because they won't defend your version of "god."

And for us, "God" means "First Cause," "Supreme Being," "Necessary Being" and "the Grounds of all other being." If you're asking questions about a different entity, then all we can tell you is that you don't know what we mean by "God."

Why does 'your' first cause, supreme, and necessary being have to be male gendered?

Does it not seem to you to be very anthropomorphic, or just a coincidence, that the so-called first, supreme, and necessary being just happens to coincide with the exact same gender of the actual beings who wrote the stories in the bible?

That doesn't even go to the question of whether or not God exists, which you can still doubt, if you wish -- it only goes to the question of whether or not you know what we mean when we say "God."

I, for one, am still waiting for why you would even want to give 'your' version of God the 'male gender' for. After all, and obviously, God, Itself, could never be gendered, no matter whatever you mean, when you say, 'God'.

And don't think I haven't noticed that you didn't answer the main question that cam before the supplementary question.

I can't see any coherent question I haven't answered. But if you point it out, I'll give it a go.

[Age]

Not quite. That much might be true, but I was only making a simpler claim. It's only that if you want to talk about what Christians believe, you have to be willing to talk about the God they believe in. It's no good you inventing one for them that does not fit the profile, and then being annoyed because they won't defend your version of "god."

And for us, "God" means "First Cause," "Supreme Being," "Necessary Being" and "the Grounds of all other being." If you're asking questions about a different entity, then all we can tell you is that you don't know what we mean by "God."

We started this off by talking about what Christians believe, but it somehow changed into something else. If your claims about God and his creations are only meant for Christians, I will say no more, but if they are for general consumption you can't expect anyone to believe something just because it says so in the Bible.

Well, that's nothing like what I said. I only said that if you want to complain about Christian theology, you should know at least to Whom Christian theology refers. And the "god" you have in mind is clearly a contingent being, and so not the God of Christian theology.

If your real beef is with Zeus or Loki or Ashtaroth, then as a Christian, I have nothing to say about that. They are not any "gods" I recognize or defend. Likewise, the "god" concept you seem to have is quite different from mine, and I have no ability to defend that imaginary version of "god."

As we have both agreed, fully formed human beings don't just appear from nowhere, and I am asking by what means such a thing could conceivably be possible.

"Possible" for whom? "Possible" under what conditions?

It's not possible for you to manufacture any human beings. It's not possible for human beings to be accidentally created by material forces (despite what the Evolutionism myth requires us to suppose to the contrary).

Why is this supposedly not even a possibility to you "Immanuel can"?

Obviously, what 'we' have here is another possible example of just how beliefs did not allow these human beings, back then, to see and think clearly.

But it IS possible for human beings to be created by God, out of the same materials He had already created, or even ex nihilo, if He had done it that way.

So, "immanuel can" believes, absolutely that some 'he' thing could could create human beings out of things that that that 'he' thing could have created out of absolutely nothing, but adamantly believes that the human body could never have been created without some 'he' thing.

Talk about this one here providing another prime example of 'blind believe and/or blind faith' leading the absolutely blind.

The thing about God is that He can do things people cannot.

That is if that 'he' thing even actually exists. But please do you not let your own personal beliefs here stop you from being blind to anything else other than what you believe is true here "immanuel can".

That should not surprise you, if you understand what the word "God" means.

Do you mean, 'understand what the word 'God' means, to you', or, 'understand what the word 'God' means, which could actually be consistent with what is actually True and Real instead'?

If you don't, what should really surprise you is that you then believe that human beings appeared by accident, out of mere material forces.

Well, obviously, this seems far more Realistic, and 'believable', than some 'he' thing molding two human beings out of mere material forces, somehow, and just plonking them down on earth, somehow, for them to produce an 'inbred race', which are 'now' called you human beings.

Now THAT'S a belief that requires some faith.

But your belief, "immanuel can", does not require any 'faith' at all right, especially considering the fact that absolutely anyone can see and find 'the proof' written in 'the bible'? And, that is all any one ever really needs, right?

[Harbal]

As we have both agreed, fully formed human beings don't just appear from nowhere, and I am asking by what means such a thing could conceivably be possible.

"Possible" for whom? "Possible" under what conditions?

I am asking you under what conditions it could be possible, because, to the best of human knowledge, what you claim about the creation of human beings, or anything else, is not possible. You can endow an imaginary being with as many imaginary super powers as you like, but that won’t make it possible. The fact that some uneducated primitive once wrote down that it happened does not make possible, and you nor anyone else is able to describe any means or process by which it could even be theoretically possible. How you feel able to even suggest that it could happen, let alone definitely did happen, is something I find bewildering.

[Age]

As we have both agreed, fully formed human beings don't just appear from nowhere, and I am asking by what means such a thing could conceivably be possible.

"Possible" for whom? "Possible" under what conditions?

I am asking you under what conditions it could be possible, because, to the best of human knowledge, what you claim about the creation of human beings, or anything else, is not possible. You can endow an imaginary being with as many imaginary super powers as you like, but that won’t make it possible. The fact that some uneducated primitive once wrote down that it happened does not make possible, and you nor anyone else is able to describe any means or process by which it could even be theoretically possible.

But explaining how 'it' happened could well be a very simple and easy process indeed. However, if a so-called "uneducated primitive" could understand, as easily and as simply, how 'it' happened is another matter.

See, there are actually some who can actually describe 'the means' and 'process' by which 'it' is not just theoretically possible, but was, in fact, an actuality.

But, just to make sure that 'we are on the same page here', as some might say, what is the 'it' word actually referring to, exactly?

And, if I could you, indeed, be able to describe the 'means' and/or the 'process' of how 'it' happened, then would you be interested in hearing and seeing how, exactly?

How you feel able to even suggest that it could happen, let alone definitely did happen, is something I find bewildering.

Yes it is somewhat very bewildering, to some, how and why other people do say and claim things like, 'It could happen and/or it did happen', especially when those people have absolutely no idea nor clue of how 'it' could have even happened, theoretically nor physically.

I found that if no one can actually imagine how 'it/whatever' could even theoretically possible, then this is a closer sign of 'it' not being physical possible, let alone a closer sign of 'it' being an actuality.

But, the creation of human beings is not just theoretically/logically possible, and not just physically possible, but what actually did happen. However, what the 'it' word you have been using here may not be referring to 'the creation of human beings' at all.

[Harbal]

"Possible" for whom? "Possible" under what conditions?

I am asking you under what conditions it could be possible, because, to the best of human knowledge, what you claim about the creation of human beings, or anything else, is not possible. You can endow an imaginary being with as many imaginary super powers as you like, but that won’t make it possible. The fact that some uneducated primitive once wrote down that it happened does not make possible, and you nor anyone else is able to describe any means or process by which it could even be theoretically possible.

But explaining how 'it' happened could well be a very simple and easy process indeed. However, if a so-called "uneducated primitive" could understand, as easily and as simply, how 'it' happened is another matter.

See, there are actually some who can actually describe 'the means' and 'process' by which 'it' is not just theoretically possible, but was, in fact, an actuality.

But, just to make sure that 'we are on the same page here', as some might say, what is the 'it' word actually referring to, exactly?

"It" refers to the spontaneous coming into existence of human beings.

And, if I could you, indeed, be able to describe the 'means' and/or the 'process' of how 'it' happened, then would you be interested in hearing and seeing how, exactly?

Yes, most certainly.

[Age]

I am asking you under what conditions it could be possible, because, to the best of human knowledge, what you claim about the creation of human beings, or anything else, is not possible. You can endow an imaginary being with as many imaginary super powers as you like, but that won’t make it possible. The fact that some uneducated primitive once wrote down that it happened does not make possible, and you nor anyone else is able to describe any means or process by which it could even be theoretically possible.

But explaining how 'it' happened could well be a very simple and easy process indeed. However, if a so-called "uneducated primitive" could understand, as easily and as simply, how 'it' happened is another matter.

See, there are actually some who can actually describe 'the means' and 'process' by which 'it' is not just theoretically possible, but was, in fact, an actuality.

But, just to make sure that 'we are on the same page here', as some might say, what is the 'it' word actually referring to, exactly?

"It" refers to the spontaneous coming into existence of human beings.

If 'spontaneous' you mean by, actually, coming into existence from absolutely nothing, and not just, appearing to or apparently, coming into existence from absolutely nothing, then I have absolutely no way of explaining 'this'.

And, if I could you, indeed, be able to describe the 'means' and/or the 'process' of how 'it' happened, then would you be interested in hearing and seeing how, exactly?

Yes, most certainly.

Oh sorry. I thought the 'it' word might have been in relation to something that was actually possible, but which only might have just first seemed impossible.

Thank you for clarifying, it saved a great deal of confusion and misunderstandings.

[Harbal]

But explaining how 'it' happened could well be a very simple and easy process indeed. However, if a so-called "uneducated primitive" could understand, as easily and as simply, how 'it' happened is another matter.

See, there are actually some who can actually describe 'the means' and 'process' by which 'it' is not just theoretically possible, but was, in fact, an actuality.

But, just to make sure that 'we are on the same page here', as some might say, what is the 'it' word actually referring to, exactly?

"It" refers to the spontaneous coming into existence of human beings.

If 'spontaneous' you mean by, actually, coming into existence from absolutely nothing, and not just, appearing to or apparently, coming into existence from absolutely nothing, then I have absolutely no way of explaining 'this'.

The claim I am disputing, as I understand it, is that "God" brought a fully formed human being directly into existence. Apparently, there was no fundamental starting point, or stage, and there was no process of development; things just went from nothing straight to finished product. Such a claim does not deserve to be taken seriously, in my opinion, but, regardless of that, I offered IC the opportunity of explaining just how such a thing could be achieved. For his part, IC insists that the question, how did God actually do it?, makes no sense, while entirely overlooking the fact that his claim makes no sense.

I hope this clarifies the situation.

[Age]

"It" refers to the spontaneous coming into existence of human beings.

If 'spontaneous' you mean by, actually, coming into existence from absolutely nothing, and not just, appearing to or apparently, coming into existence from absolutely nothing, then I have absolutely no way of explaining 'this'.

The claim I am disputing, as I understand it, is that "God" brought a fully formed human being directly into existence.

Bringing human beings directly into existence is very simple and easy, and can be explained just as easily and simply. However, and again, bringing human beings into existence from absolutely nothing is logically and, of course, physically impossible, and how 'it' could even be a possibility is actually an impossibility to do.

Apparently, there was no fundamental starting point, or stage, and there was no process of development; things just went from nothing straight to finished product.

Well those who think or believe that God, and/or the big bang, was 'the beginning' have no other choice but to claim the impossible, that is; 'things come from nothing', and have and hold this view.

Such a claim does not deserve to be taken seriously, in my opinion, but, regardless of that, I offered IC the opportunity of explaining just how such a thing could be achieved. For his part, IC insists that the question, how did God actually do it?, makes no sense, while entirely overlooking the fact that his claim makes no sense.

Of course "immanuel can" would insist that the question, 'How did God actually do 'it'?' makes no sense, to "immanuel can", because obviously "immanuel can" and no one else has absolutely any other way of answering this question. As you said and pointed out, earlier.

I hope this clarifies the situation.

[Alexis Jacobi]

The claim I am disputing, as I understand it, is that "God" brought a fully formed human being directly into existence.

Yet the Genesis story proposes that the world, the heavens, man and all creatures, came into existence by fiat.

Immanuel operates on two fronts but illicitly as I point out. He asserts literally that Adam & Eve were created ex nihilo and dropped into that Garden. But that Garden is a picture of the Kosmos before the Fall, so it is not *our world*.

On the other front, he makes a simple, and also intelligible statement that is a question answered: How could all this wondrous order, of the larger cosmos but also of all elements of our own world, have come to be if the Order of All Things had not been ordained a priori?

It is the classical (Aquinian) theological question which, naturally, demands an answer, which answer is supplied by multitudinous layers of theological speculation. The Scholastic system in fact.

What he is willfully ignorant of is that Judaism’s god did not originate as ‘the creator of all things’. That idea was •reverse engineered• into the Yahweh god-concept. It should be obvious that such a gambit was necessary to establish a god-concept sufficiently universal to then claim •dominion• over The World and all souls in the World.

We are dealing with a conceptual game that plays by rules it establishes, then dominates.

So, it may indeed be true, and it certainly appears true, that the Order that did result had to have been implicit or pre-structured even before manifestation unfurled; but it does not follow that the biblical Yahweh, nor the Christian world-concept, nor necessarily its moral and ethical codes, nor its self-assumed right to universal dominion, follow from accepting the metaphysical predicates of Intelligent Design.

Immanuel’s ploy, and the ploy of this school of Christian (i.e. Judaic) theology, is to make a speculative claim and to ground it in at least a semi-intelligible idea that most can accept: How could such Order arise and take shape if it was not pre-ordained?

My objection is against the imperious, domineering and absolutist nature of The Christian Personality as expressed in the Yahweh symbol. And Immanel Can embodies this personality. Absolutely unmovable. Absolutely certain. Absolutely closed to self-examination. And thus susceptible to a Power-Complex which, I suggest, is the darker face, or shadow, inextricably associated with the religion.

[Immanuel Can]

As we have both agreed, fully formed human beings don't just appear from nowhere, and I am asking by what means such a thing could conceivably be possible.

"Possible" for whom? "Possible" under what conditions?

I am asking you under what conditions it could be possible, because, to the best of human knowledge, what you claim about the creation of human beings, or anything else, is not possible.

Not possible to human beings, you mean. Not possible under conditions of strict Materialism, perhaps. But there's no question that if the God of the Christians exists, He is quite capable of it, as He is of anything He desires to do. If, as we Christians, Jews and others believe, He created the whole universe, the minor manufacture of a human being out of substrate is not at all difficult to add to that. One has already "swallowed the camel," and one is hardly therefore positioned to start "choking on the gnat," therefore.

You find that surprising. But then, you don't even believe in God. That probably means you have to believe human beings, as well as the whole universe with its intricate systems, laws and structures, popped into existence from non-existence, by the miraculous powers you assign to randomness, time and chance. If that's it, I have to confess I'm not terribly impressed with your alternate theory. But we can at least be civil and discuss that, can we not?

And if we can't agree to each other's terms, we can at least investigate whether each alternative even makes sense on its own terms, can we not?