Is morality objective or subjective?

[Alexis Jacobi]

I don't know, I just don't know.

Yes, okay, it seems extreme. I get it. But can't the Olde Time devices that Christians themselves used with such wondrous efficacy against the unbelievers now be re-employed against their irritating intransigence?

Again I just don't know, just thinking out loud as the saying goes ....

[Immanuel Can]

..the Olde Time devices that Christians themselves...

No. The Catholic clergy, at the behest of the Spanish King, actually. It has zero to do with Christians. But somebody who doesn't know what a "Christian" actually is, having no definition for that, would be ignorant of that fact, I suppose.

[Harbal]

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?

There may be the perception of order in the "cosmos" to the human mind, and I understand that, although order does not seem quite the right word. Our planet does seem ideally suited to the life that inhabits it, and how could that possibly be coincidence? Well it isn't a coincidence, of course, except it is not the planet that has conformed to the requirements of the life, it is the life that has developed in accordance with the environment out of which it arose.

I don't have a problem with the concept of God, but I very much have one with all the specific Gods of the main stream religions I am aware of. This stuff is mythology. I don't believe in any sort of god myself, but allowing it as a possibility, it can only be concluded that this god is confined to working within the laws of nature, because we simply do not experience anything that works otherwise. Despite IC's assertions to the contrary, evolutionary theory has established its case beyond any reasonable doubt, and he cannot fail to be aware that his effort to discredit it amounts to no more than whistling in the wind, but his dogged commitment to that retched book of his leave him no choice. Although we have a very good picture of how life developed from something very simple into the complexity and diversity we see now, I don't think we can yet say what the actual spark was that brought life into existence on planet Earth, so IC would be wise to just settle for claiming that as the work of God. He never will, of course, and by fair means or foul -mostly foul- he will continue to push his agenda.

[Immanuel Can]

He asserts literally that Adam & Eve were created ex nihilo and dropped into that Garden.

Does this guy ever get anything right? You would think he would have, at least, read Genesis 2:7. If you have any inclination to take him seriously, I would suggest you take advantage of this better information.

There may be the perception of order in the "cosmos" to the human mind, and I understand that, although order does not seem quite the right word.

It's funny. Why would "order" be something you fear to admit? Physicists, chemists and biologists are not afraid to admit that our universe is full of different kinds of order. It's such an obvious fact that no scientist can actually deny it. The difference is that some of them attribute it to intelligent designing, and some to the luck of time and chance. But as to the existence of order qua order here, there really can be no question.

Our planet does seem ideally suited to the life that inhabits it, and how could that possibly be coincidence? Well it isn't a coincidence, of course, except it is not the planet that has conformed to the requirements of the life, it is the life that has developed in accordance with the environment out of which it arose.

That wouldn't even begin to answer the question as to why there was such a magnificiently ordered universe in place for life to "develop in accordance with," or how that it came to exist in the first place. For what belief in randomness would lead us to expect is utter chaos...a universe with no laws, no reasonableness, no complexity, no order and no life. And yet, here we are...

I don't have a problem with the concept of God, but I very much have one with all the specific Gods of the main stream religions I am aware of.

Well, maybe you've put your finger on the problem: not that you really believe God doesn't exist, but that you haven't liked the various versions of His nature that others have represented to you. And that could be fair enough.

Although we have a very good picture of how life developed from something very simple into the complexity and diversity we see know,

Actually, we don't. Here are four main stages which science has been completely stymied in describing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gIorXcloIac.

I don't think we can yet say what the actual spark was that brought life into existence on planet Earth,...

You're right! That's one of them. I think you'll find the video's short and entertaining. I hope you find it stimulating of further thought.

[Alexis Jacobi]

..the Olde Time devices that Christians themselves...

No. The Catholic clergy, at the behest of the Spanish King, actually. It has zero to do with Christians. But somebody who doesn't know what a "Christian" actually is, having no definition for that, would be ignorant of that fact, I suppose.

My suggestion to you is to place a mirror in front of yourself. The Eternal Torture punishment philosophy -- an absolutist metaphysics -- that you are deeply committed to can be examined from some distance. If you could succeed in doing this you would I think clearly see that when examined carefully and honestly Christianity is a belief-system that employs, as a psychic and psychological coercion tool, the threat of Eternal Damnation as a tool in the process of preparing the subject for conversion.

In fact, you regularly resort to a *reminder* of what will soon occur for those who do not believe as you believe. It is of the same general sort of use of anguish and mental pain to achieve the result you seek: conversion.That threat is, in my view, torturous.

Judaism and Christianity are based in notions of conquest and domination of The Nations. To conquer someone at that level involves a core attack on *what they believe* and *how they see*. The invalidation of other people is, essentially, a use of torture. True, it might not take shape as a physical assault, and is more geared toward a spiritual conquest, but seen in this way it is devious and undermining.

You seem to be deliberately unaware of the root of the religious philosophy, and though it is not the only element in it, it is a significant one. Christian apologetics employs anxiety and discomfort to achieve a state where conversion takes place.

Okay look. I was only kidding about the rack, alright? But what about finger screws? For a limited time, with limited pressure. I mean, please, give me something to work with there ...

How else can you expect me to make you better?!?

[Immanuel Can]

..the Olde Time devices that Christians themselves...

No. The Catholic clergy, at the behest of the Spanish King, actually. It has zero to do with Christians. But somebody who doesn't know what a "Christian" actually is, having no definition for that, would be ignorant of that fact, I suppose.

My suggestion to you...

Your "suggestions" invariably seem to turn out unhelpful.

[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.

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,

But I am not a Christian, and cannot be expected to accept that their God does exist, nor that he could have the supposed abilities you have projected onto him if he did exist. It is the act of bringing about the spontaneous manifestation of a complex living organism that I am claiming to be impossible, regardless of who or what is said to perform the act. All your back story of first causes and supreme beings is nothing more than a fantastic claim, and certainly constitutes no kind of argument.

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?

I believe I have a general grasp of the process that gave rise to human beings and all other life on the planet, but I have no beliefs about how the planet itself came to exist or, indeed, the universe. I don't know, but that doesn't tempt me to just make something up, or feel the need to adopt someone else's explanation, thinking it preferable to an admission of not knowing. And I don't know how you managed to come up with that "alternative theory" you are trying to saddle me with. Actually, if you just substitute the word, "randomness", with "God", it looks remarkably similar to your theory. Very naïve and poorly thought out.

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?

Not really. Your "alternative" is totally unworkable, and deserves no attempt at investigation, not least because it is deliberately designed to be uninvestigable, and I don't have an alternative, because when I don't know something, I can accept I don't know.

[Harbal]

I don't think we can yet say what the actual spark was that brought life into existence on planet Earth,...

You're right! That's one of them. I think you'll find the video's short and entertaining. I hope you find it stimulating of further thought.

I won't bother with the video, but feel free to claim the first emergence of life on the planet as God's doing. I wouldn't agree with you, of course, but I wouldn't object.


PS, I have made two consecutive posts in reply to you, and the last time that happened, you missed one, so I'm just drawing your attention to it.

[Immanuel Can]

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,

But I am not a Christian, and cannot be expected to accept that their God does exist, nor that he could have the supposed abilities you have projected onto him if he did exist.

I'm not telling you you have to. I'm just explaining what Christians believe, so if you care to engage that you will be able to engage the right view.

It is the act of bringing about the spontaneous manifestation of a complex living organism that I am claiming to be impossible, regardless of who or what is said to perform the act.

Actually, the very thing you HAVE TO BE claiming is that life appeared "spontaneously," even though we are "complex living organisms." You can't mean that it was "not spontaneous," but "done by" something; because that "something" could very well be God.

Instead, what you must think, and what you have to argue is the case if you're an Evolutionist, is that life did indeed "spontaneously" erupt and "become complex" all by itself. If that's absurd, then you just have to think that more and more time, and more and more reference to chance might make the absurd into the plausible.

I don't think it will.

I believe I have a general grasp of the process that gave rise to human beings and all other life on the planet,

Well, watch the video, and see if you're right. It's only a few minutes long.

[Alexis Jacobi]

...

I have only referred to your post with [...] not to diminish any part of it but only so that you would be alerted that my comment was made.

My question to you s: How do you, or how would you, explain the existence of existence if you were asked to? How it is possible that *things exist*?

In what, or of what, are things ultimately composed? I mean, if as they say all is composed of *energy*, what ultimately is the origin of Energy?

Does the question Why does anything exist? provoke in you a need to answer?

The reason I ask these questions (many more could be asked) is because I am not sure that you are seeing the types of questions that have always been asked, and will always be asked.

Some demand answers. Others feel no internal need to answer such large, strange and difficult questions. So they seem to shrug and say "I dunno, It simply exists".

The theologically-minded are, let's say, internally geared toward discovering, or imposing, a Divine Creator as a 'necessary', well, creator. They cannot do without it. To say "Things just exist. No one created it" is not a possible statement for them to make.

The existence of the totality of existence necessarily implies (to these minds) an intelligence that created it.

[Harbal]

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,

But I am not a Christian, and cannot be expected to accept that their God does exist, nor that he could have the supposed abilities you have projected onto him if he did exist.

I'm not telling you you have to. I'm just explaining what Christians believe, so if you care to engage that you will be able to engage the right view.

Given what you say Christians believe about God, then their beliefs about creation might be justified, except that their beliefs about God are totally unjustified, so that obviously throws any beliefs that follow out of the window.

It is the act of bringing about the spontaneous manifestation of a complex living organism that I am claiming to be impossible, regardless of who or what is said to perform the act.

Actually, the very thing you HAVE TO BE claiming is that life appeared "spontaneously," even though we are "complex living organisms." You can't mean that it was "not spontaneous," but "done by" something; because that "something" could very well be God.

Instead, what you must think, and what you have to argue is the case if you're an Evolutionist, is that life did indeed "spontaneously" erupt and "become complex" all by itself. If that's absurd, then you just have to think that more and more time, and more and more reference to chance might make the absurd into the plausible.

I seem to think that the first emergence of life at its simplest is said to be the result of some sort of chemical process involving amino acids, or something, but I am in absolutely no position to say how plausible that is. I assume those with degrees in chemistry or other sciences are in such a position. The subsequent development of life into complex organism was, of course, due to evolution and natural selection, which I have no difficulty in accepting as being possible under natural laws and processes. I could be mistaken, of course, but I hardly think my position is an eyebrow raising matter.

I believe I have a general grasp of the process that gave rise to human beings and all other life on the planet,

Well, watch the video, and see if you're right. It's only a few minutes long.

I have watched loads of videos about evolution, none of which you would be likely to recommend, and quite frankly, I wouldn't touch one you do recommend with a barge pole.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Does this guy ever get anything right? You would think he would have, at least, read Genesis 2:7. If you have any inclination to take him seriously, I would suggest you take advantage of this better information.

To say that God created Adam & Eve ex nihilo is, truthfully, non-different than to say he grabbed some dirt (which he had just created) and fashioned that now eternally famous Original Mating Pair. To say that God *dropped them* into the Garden is, naturally, not quite right, but conceptually it is also non-different.

Are there any videos -- perhaps AI animations or cartoons (?) -- that depict God hovering over the Earth and moulding the Original Mating Pair? Did he paddycake paddycake bakers man? Was he whistling? Did he first come up with one design, reject it, mash the bits down, and start all over? Did His tongue stick out to one side as He worked? Did he get it right on the first go? Or where there successive versions?

Did God appear as a manlike being? Or more like some sort of amorphous energy? Was the Creation of Man a solemn event? Or a joyful lark by a Supreme Being who was amusing himself? Was the atmosphere of his newly created world thunderous and threatening? Did lightning flash as he labored? Or -- this is how I have it -- were the birdies chirping in the Primeval Garden like in Snow White's world?

[Immanuel Can]

Given what you say Christians believe about God, then their beliefs about creation might be justified,

Now you've got it. All I'm saying is that "Christians believe X," not "Christians believe X, therefore Harbal has to." And the other thing I'm saying is that Christianity has a narrative that, at least on its own terms, makes sense with itself, whether one believes it or not -- that is, it's coherent with itself. But the alternative does not have such a narrative: it requires us to believe in "spontaneous creation," and "spontaneous order," which you have pointed out is an absurd thing for you to believe, given your own suppostions -- so it's not an option coherent with your own beliefs.

except that their beliefs about God are totally unjustified, so that obviously throws any beliefs that follow out of the window.

Actually, the Apostle Paul himself says that that is true: if what Christians believe about God and particularly about His Son were false, Christians would be "of all men most miserable." However, as he also points out, that's simply not the case, so they're not.

It is the act of bringing about the spontaneous manifestation of a complex living organism that I am claiming to be impossible, regardless of who or what is said to perform the act.

Actually, the very thing you HAVE TO BE claiming is that life appeared "spontaneously," even though we are "complex living organisms." You can't mean that it was "not spontaneous," but "done by" something; because that "something" could very well be God.

Instead, what you must think, and what you have to argue is the case if you're an Evolutionist, is that life did indeed "spontaneously" erupt and "become complex" all by itself. If that's absurd, then you just have to think that more and more time, and more and more reference to chance might make the absurd into the plausible.

I seem to think that the first emergence of life at its simplest is said to be the result of some sort of chemical process involving amino acids, or something, but I am in absolutely no position to say how plausible that is.

You really should take the time to watch that video. I can see you don't want to, but it's a bit of a shame. It would clear up, at least these different concerns you're accidentally combining in your objections, such as the problem of a universe existing and the problem of life allegedly having emerged from non-life.

I assume those with degrees in chemistry or other sciences are in such a position.

They're even more baffled, actually; because they can actually see the problems in all their depth. That's why even those that prefer the Evolutionist narrative prefer to avoid any protracted public discussion of the four "Bangs" spoken of in the video. There just aren't a lot of good answers, from their perspective.

I believe I have a general grasp of the process that gave rise to human beings and all other life on the planet,

Well, watch the video, and see if you're right. It's only a few minutes long.

I have watched loads of videos about evolution,...

It's not actually about that. But I can't make you watch it, of course. Still, it's there at your convenience.

[Alexis Jacobi]

You're right! That's one of them. I think you'll find the video's short and entertaining. I hope you find it stimulating of further thought.

I watched the (cringe) video. If you talk and gesture like that man I'm afraid I will toss the Finger Screw and go back to The Rack. Are you as intolerable in person as you are on-screen?

God Help us.

Read any of the COMMENTS to the video, which ridicule it mercilessly.

PragerU, by the way, is a mass-propaganda and ideological organization. It was set up by a committed Orthodox Jew (Dennis Prager) for the purpose of harnessing, and perhaps corralling and channeling, Gentile Christian American belief to dovetail with Jewish belief, to culminate in Christian Zionism and *support of Israel*.

This is a philosophy forum, Immanuel, not a forum dedicated to Christian-Zionist or Jewish-Zionist religious ideological projects. The messages of this sort of video has to be looked at critically. But to do so requires a mind at least somewhat free of restraints.

[Harbal]

...

I have only referred to your post with [...] not to diminish any part of it but only so that you would be alerted that my comment was made.

My question to you s: How do you, or how would you, explain the existence of existence if you were asked to? How it is possible that *things exist*?

In what, or of what, are things ultimately composed? I mean, if as they say all is composed of *energy*, what ultimately is the origin of Energy?

I can't explain the existence of existence, and I don't believe anybody can. I simply don't have an answer to your questions.

Does the question Why does anything exist? provoke in you a need to answer?

It provokes a high level of curiosity in me, and I would love to have the answer, but I have no means of arriving at it.

The reason I ask these questions (many more could be asked) is because I am not sure that you are seeing the types of questions that have always been asked, and will always be asked.

Contrary to the impression I seem to have given you, I am an intensely curious person, so I have most likely considered the types of questions that have always been asked, and probably more besides that have rarely been asked. Maybe I even come up with speculative possibilities now and then, most of which probably wouldn't stand up to informed scrutiny.

Some demand answers. Others feel no internal need to answer such large, strange and difficult questions. So they seem to shrug and say "I dunno, It simply exists".

I fall somewhere between the two. I want to know, but I can cope with not being able to know.

The theologically-minded are, let's say, internally geared toward discovering, or imposing, a Divine Creator as a 'necessary', well, creator. They cannot do without it. To say "Things just exist. No one created it" is not a possible statement for them to make.

I would say they are driven more by a psychological need for belonging, or security of some sort, than by curiosity about the physical world. That's just my theory.

The existence of the totality of existence necessarily implies (to these minds) an intelligence that created it.

I accept the possibility, but don't see the necessary implication. Neither do I see any intelligence that might be involved in the existence of the universe as necessarily having to resemble the more commonly held concepts of God. When we think of intelligence, we can only envisage the sort of intelligence we have experience of; human intelligence. That's the sort of intelligence we attribute to God, albeit it in much larger than usual quantity. Who knows what other sorts of intelligence there might be?