Is morality objective or subjective?

[Immanuel Can]

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.

Interesting. The one thing you didn't mention? The content. You argued with the poster, the alleged agenda, me, politics, Israel...but nothing the video actually said.

I wonder why.

[Harbal]

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.

I'm not judging what some Christians believe in comparison to any alternative, I am judging it absurd purely on its own account.

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.

I'm sorry, but some of the writings that seem to make sense to Biblicalists come across as gibberish out in the real world.

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.

Okay, I watched the video. It made no impression on me, but my intelligence came away from the experience feeling highly insulted.

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.

You must know how coming out with this sort of stuff makes you look, yet you just can't help yourself, can you?

[Immanuel Can]

I'm not judging what some Christians believe in comparison to any alternative,...

Well, you kind of have to. You must have some belief of your own that gets you by. Even if it's only an assumed-never-examined one, you couldn't manage to organize your life without some story you tell yourself about who you are, and how you got here, and what it all means.

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.

I'm sorry, but some of the writings that seem to make sense to Biblicalists come across as gibberish out in the real world.

That's expected. As the Bible says, "For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." (1 Cor. 1:18) So you're perishing.

In truth, I wish you weren't.

Okay, I watched the video.

Excellent. Very good of you.

Then you know there are four "big bangs" that you realize that the Materialist account of the universe is stumbling over. And you know what they are.

Do you have an answer for any of them?

[Alexis Jacobi]

The one thing you didn't mention? The content.

Yes, I did. Reference to the comments section which mercilessly ridicule the content.

Because you are, while not unintelligent, just severely blocked intellectually, you likely imagine that because I argue against Judaic and Christian absolutism that I am a “non-believer” in the notion of all creation arising (to use a common metaphor) from “the mind of God”. My make-up does not allow me to see it differently. (Or I could refer to my subjective hook-up). To grasp the miracle, one actually has to locate it. It is that ANYTHING EXISTS. Existence (being) is inconceivable.

So, stupid children’s tales of descending gods who scoop mud together to fashion an Original Mating Pair, and any of the outmoded ancient mythological Biblical stories, are diversions from the real facts: that we exist, that we have life here, now. It’s a question of lenses and their focus.

That dumbass video is quite in line with the general stupidity of your vainglorious vapid efforts at preaching the Gospel. Those are socio-political propaganda videos that fit into an ultra-American context. Strong, directed minds (Jewish minds like Prager and Shapiro) design them for projects of social manipulation of a public sadly incapable of guiding itself.

The whole thing disgusts me.

You reveal your hand by revealing what you think are proper apologetic tools. You are part of a CON-JOB Immanuel. And you are a con-artist and an intellectual charlatan.

We must recover ourselves from such con jobs and ask real questions about what “god” means and what spiritual or religious commitment even mean.

All of this — what I write about — flies over your head and I think always will.

I wonder why.

[Harbal]

I'm not judging what some Christians believe in comparison to any alternative,...

Well, you kind of have to.

Okay, then that alternative would be a basic standard of rationality.

You must have some belief of your own that gets you by.

I have beliefs about the actual world I live in that are based on experience, and enable me to live my life. I can't think of any beliefs I have that could be called remarkable in any way.

you couldn't manage to organize your life without some story you tell yourself about who you are, and how you got here, and what it all means.

I know who I am, and how I got here; I don't need to construct a story about it, why would I? None of it means anything, it just is.

Okay, I watched the video.

Then you know there are four "big bangs"

No, I don't know that. I know of one "Big Bang" that the scientists talk about, but I can't say I understand what they say.

Do you have an answer for any of them?

No. I didn't see anything in the video that seemed worthy of consideration.

May I suggest you watch this video as a lesson in conveying information in an honest, open, unassertive, straightforward way? You will notice how the presenter, a qualified physicist, freely acknowledges that there are things that are not known. If you are going to keep offering me videos to watch, I think you should have some idea of my tastes. The example I have given you is much more up my street than is the bald headed moron you last presented me with.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4I68xZ6dCc

[Alexis Jacobi]

Immanuel: 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.

Harbal: I'm sorry, but some of the writings that seem to make sense to Biblicalists come across as gibberish out in the real world.

Immanuel: That's expected. As the Bible says, "For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God." (1 Cor. 1:18) So you're perishing.

In truth, I wish you weren't.

I benefit from watching you operate, Immanuel, through I find it rather wretched.

St Paul employs a rhetorical construct, a rhetorical device, that most won't catch. We can assume, even if we are mildly generous, that St Paul really & truly believed his experience. But so too do all religious personalities and prophets. Take as an example Chaitanya Mahaprabhu, an Indian saint of the 14th century who ignited a devotional faith movement in India preaching Krishna. Is the strength of his conviction *evidence* that that of which he is convinced and certain is *true*? These are extremely subjective realities and states.

Your apologetic method has been quite low-key and somewhat smooth up till now but I guess you spotted your moment: an opening, a crack. So you play the cards you hold in abeyance. I've noticed your methods over the months so it is transparent by now.

It works like this (my contrived paraphrase):

Since you do not see that St Paul's experience was real, and that he even admitted what a miserable looser he'd be if it were not true (the doctrine of a god risen from death to eternal life), then this shows that you are *perishing*. To be perishing is, indeed, a sorry state to be in because, as the narrative runs, the next step on the elevator is Eternal Damnation. Do you recognize that my preaching to you is actually a gilded poison? Had you not been told what perishing really means, you could claim innocence when you confront the Divine Judge. But now you've been told. If you fail to grasp the message, in the way that I structure it, Eternal Damnation will be your own choice. I wish this weren't true, but it is true.

In the Vaishnava religion -- a more complex and nuanced religious and metaphysical philosophy -- similar idea are broached about what *perishing* means. So, to social and religious reformers, these general ideas are always present: the world is a pit. A trap. A mistake. Your error. You are enmeshed in it and I tell you you need thus and such to get out of the mess.

These are dynamics of psychological manipulation to prime the subject for a religious conversion.

[Alexis Jacobi]

That Red Telephone on Sabine's desk? I happen to know the number and have been tempted to call it.

[Immanuel Can]

None of it means anything, it just is.

That's a tidy summary of where that worldview leads. Thanks for the frankness.

Okay, I watched the video.

Then you know there are four "big bangs"

No, I don't know that. I know of one "Big Bang" that the scientists talk about, but I can't say I understand what they say.

Do you have an answer for any of them?

No. I didn't see anything in the video that seemed worthy of consideration.

Didn't understand, then?

[Harbal]

That Red Telephone on Sabine's desk? I happen to know the number and have been tempted to call it.

If you do, would you tell her I'm available? She'll know what that means.

[Harbal]

None of it means anything, it just is.

That's a tidy summary of where that worldview leads. Thanks for the frankness.

Why do you need to find meaning ?

No. I didn't see anything in the video that seemed worthy of consideration.

Didn't understand, then?

Understood all too well, actually.

[iambiguous]

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.

On the other hand, come on, what on Earth does it mean for mere mortals to grapple with understanding an omnipotent God?

Start here:

https://facts.net/universe-facts/
https://www.skyatnightmagazine.com/spac ... e-universe
https://www.tutordoctor.com/blog/2023/f ... our-unive/

What part of "all powerful" is not being understood here?

In fact, what still fascinates me most is connecting the dots between God and nature itself. Did God create the universe wholly in sync with the laws of nature, or did He create the laws of nature first? Is the astounding complexity of human biology -- the human brain -- just one of those things that God had to work around? Or could He just "will" them into existence?

One thing seems certain. We'll never know unless He does exist and decides to tell us.

Then back to why so many take leaps of faith to Him. How about this: given moral commandments, immortality and salvation, He is still the only show in town.

Well, unless, of course, someone here can provide us with an alternative.

[Immanuel Can]

May I suggest you watch this video as a lesson in conveying information in an honest, open, unassertive, straightforward way? You will notice how the presenter, a qualified physicist, freely acknowledges that there are things that are not known. If you are going to keep offering me videos to watch, I think you should have some idea of my tastes. The example I have given you is much more up my street than is the bald headed moron you last presented me with.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4I68xZ6dCc

I did.

According to her, the "smartest" thing is to have no theory about "the singularity" at all...but then she says, "What fun would that be?" and goes on to have one anyway.

Now, she goes on to say that "eternal inflation" is only one theory, and she thinks it may be wrong. And I agree with her: I think there's extremely decisive mathematical considerations that should eliminate that theory...and she's right about the Multiverse Hypothesis being a non-answer that only moves the question back one step, but leaves it just as pressing...but I'm at a bit of a loss to know why I'm watching this, since we agree about that...

She says that the answer to the question, "What happened before the BB," is that physicists say, "We don't know." Well, is that supposed to be surprising? Human calculations currently cannot fully describe the Creation event? That's a mind-blower? Hardly. It's been that way for all of history up to now, and possibly for the indefinite future, as well.

I'm missing the problem here.

She says, at the end, that she doesn't even know if Brian Cox (whoever that is) is wrong. She just thinks he may have misspoken. I don't see what we can make of that. I suppose there's some merit in her having thrown some shade on ol' Brian, but she's not helped us make any progress toward any better answers...just sort of bounce of some other possible theories she recognizes as not very good either.

If I were being ironic, I might say that she seems to have a nice sense of problems, but also to have mastered the 'virtue' of not having a conclusion. And this is something that is according to your "taste"? Okay.

Well?

[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.

On the other hand, come on, what on Earth does it mean for mere mortals to grapple with understanding an omnipotent God?

It's more a case of understanding the mere mortals who invented him.

[iambiguous]

..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.

Damnit, IC, you leave me no choice...

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

Or is the Pope, in not being an actual Christian, behind all that too?

Perhaps God Himself is not an actual Christian.

[Harbal]

May I suggest you watch this video as a lesson in conveying information in an honest, open, unassertive, straightforward way? You will notice how the presenter, a qualified physicist, freely acknowledges that there are things that are not known. If you are going to keep offering me videos to watch, I think you should have some idea of my tastes. The example I have given you is much more up my street than is the bald headed moron you last presented me with.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4I68xZ6dCc

I did.

According to her, the "smartest" thing is to have no theory about "the singularity" at all...but then she says, "What fun would that be?" and goes on to have one anyway.

Now, she goes on to say that "eternal inflation" is only one theory, and she thinks it may be wrong. And I agree with her: I think there's extremely decisive mathematical considerations that should eliminate that theory...and she's right about the Multiverse Hypothesis being a non-answer that only moves the question back one step, but leaves it just as pressing...but I'm at a bit of a loss to know why I'm watching this, since we agree about that...

She says that the answer to the question, "What happened before the BB," is that physicists say, "We don't know." Well, is that supposed to be surprising? Human calculations currently cannot fully describe the Creation event? That's a mind-blower? Hardly. It's been that way for all of history up to now, and possibly for the indefinite future, as well.

I'm missing the problem here.

What you are missing is that there is no problem. It's okay to say "I don't know". Besides, I wasn't really taking any notice of the content of the video, I just wanted to show you my preferred style. Who cares what she said? It's all about the way she says it.

She says, at the end, that she doesn't even know if Brian Cox (whoever that is) is wrong.

We may never know if Brian Cox (whoever that is) was wrong, and that is something we have to accept, and learn to live with.

She says, at the end, that she doesn't even know if Brian Cox (whoever that is) is wrong. She just thinks he may have misspoken. I don't see what we can make of that. I suppose there's some merit in her having thrown some shade on ol' Brian, but she's not helped us make any progress toward any better answers...just sort of bounce of some other possible theories she recognizes as not very good either.

So her lack of an agenda is something you find puzzling?

If I were being ironic, I might say that she seems to have a nice sense of problems, but also to have mastered the 'virtue' of not having a conclusion. And this is something that is according to your "taste"? Okay.

It is more than okay, it's wonderful. If you valued truth as much as I do, you would understand why I say that.