Is morality objective or subjective?

[popeye1945]

Morality is a meaning, and all meanings are derived from the experiences of conscious subjects and are never the property of the object or the physical world as an object...

Repeating an erroneous claim, one you find impossible to defend, will not make your case for you. You would have to show that your view can do some moral work. And it can't even explain the phrase, "X is wrong."

Without that, all you're campaigning for is not morality: it's complete amorality, or complete moral nihilism. And that's the view that morality doesn't exist at all. Is that your actual view?

Again, you utterly miss the point, put me on your ignore list.

[Harbal]

But we know these things [laws of physics/nature] exist, there is no doubt about that.

What we don't know, though, and what is the real question here, as you point out, is HOW they exist. Do they exist as products of mere accident, or do they exist as the products of the creative wisdom of God.

The laws of physics might be fundamental, in the same way as you claim God is. But you are doing what I accused you of earlier; you are reducing the matter down to only two possibilities. The simple choice of accident or God is something you are arbitrarily imposing on the situation. The creative wisdom of chance, or merely God, are not the only conceivable possibilities. I did a quick search and found a few alternative idea/beliefs/theories:

Naturalism
Scientific Materialism
Determinism
Cosmic Order or Harmony
Multiverse Theory
Emergent Order
Simulation Hypothesis

Interestingly, "accident", didn't appear in the list that I found.

You're trying to use biology and natural laws to explain why the universe exists as it does, in its current specific and irreducibly complex form. But biology and natural laws are subfeatures of the very universe itself, the one you're trying to explain.

Well it seems obvious that the laws of physics are what cause the universe to be the way it is, but I don't see how we can say anything beyond that. If anything, the fact that the universe is governed by the laws of physics suggests the absence of God, as God does not bother with the laws of physics. According to the Bible, he simply suspends them when he wants to get something done.

It wouldn't make any difference if 100% of the world population all believed in the same God, that, in itself, is not evidence that God exists.

That is true. And it makes me wonder why you appealed to "public knowledge" when it was not even a good argument if you'd been 100% right. It's a much worse argument when you're 96% wrong, obviously.

I'm not sure what you mean, but what you call "public knowledge" is nothing of the sort. If 92% of the world population believes in God, that is merely public belief.

And that is all I am saying does not exist; genuine, objective evidence.

Well, again, you're running into the same problem: making an utterly implausible claim, there. For how are you, poor little Harbal of Lower Yorkshire, equipped to tell everybody what they are allowed to know, or what experience they can have in the world?

I'm not telling anyone what they are allowed to know, I am just saying there are minimum standards required for something to count as genuine evidence. Let me put it this way, then: I am not aware of any evidence for the existence of God, and I strongly doubt the existence of any such evidence. Is that acceptable?

If the historic character, Jesus, did actually exist, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest he was anything other than just a man.

Again, the overeach there. You don't know that. You can only say "Harbal doesn't know any evidence for Jesus' divinity." And if, as I would argue, such evidence does, indeed exist, how are you positioned to gainsay that?

I don't know what "gainsay" means. If you have evidence that Jesus was more than a bog standard human being, you are welcome to produce it.

Oh come on, you can't seriously believe that a being capable of bringing the entire universe into existence would mess about like it says in the Bible.

I'll hear your case. Why do you say that?

If my case is not fully apparent to you from just reading that comment, you probably wouldn't appreciate my case in any other form of description.

[Immanuel Can]

Morality is a meaning, and all meanings are derived from the experiences of conscious subjects and are never the property of the object or the physical world as an object...

Repeating an erroneous claim, one you find impossible to defend, will not make your case for you. You would have to show that your view can do some moral work. And it can't even explain the phrase, "X is wrong."

Without that, all you're campaigning for is not morality: it's complete amorality, or complete moral nihilism. And that's the view that morality doesn't exist at all. Is that your actual view?

Again, you utterly miss the point, put me on your ignore list.

Why? I'm not upset with you, and I'm not even vexed by your view. I just wanted to ask a simple question about how it worked. You don't need to be anxious: you could just answer the question, or be fine with the fact that it would seem that your view can't account for it, and maybe modify your view a bit. Isn't that what we're here for?

[Immanuel Can]

But we know these things [laws of physics/nature] exist, there is no doubt about that.

What we don't know, though, and what is the real question here, as you point out, is HOW they exist. Do they exist as products of mere accident, or do they exist as the products of the creative wisdom of God.

The laws of physics might be fundamental, in the same way as you claim God is.

Except that this answer makes the same mistake of leapfrogging past the basic question, and using created things to explain the existence of created things. Materials are created things, and subject to entropy, like other created things. And "laws" are but the regularities we observe among material entities, so those entities have to exist before the "laws" can exist.

But you are doing what I accused you of earlier; you are reducing the matter down to only two possibilities. The simple choice of accident or God is something you are arbitrarily imposing on the situation. The creative wisdom of chance, or merely God, are not the only conceivable possibilities. I did a quick search and found a few alternative idea/beliefs/theories:

Naturalism
Scientific Materialism
Determinism
Cosmic Order or Harmony
Multiverse Theory
Emergent Order
Simulation Hypothesis

Interestingly, "accident", didn't appear in the list that I found.

Well, I could show you how all of these depend on the thesis that mere chance plus time can create order...in other words, on mere "accident." So "accident" is the essential dynamic behind each of these alternatives. I'm just keeping things simple for us, because when the ultimate cause is assumed to be "accident," then the rest of the nomenclature here becomes mere window dressing.

But in point of fact, there's a true dichotomy here: either things were created by some sort of Intentional Agent, or they were not. If there was no Intentional Agent behind creation, then things were a product of accident. There really is no third alternative there.

God does not bother with the laws of physics. According to the Bible, he simply suspends them when he wants to get something done.

It's funny...you're making a common mistake there. You're thinking that the "laws" have some sort of force or demand of their own, as if you can't contravene the "laws" of physics without becoming some sort of bad or irrational entity. But that's an error of amphiboly. A real scientist is going to understand that "law," when used in regard to material entities, means merely the regularity we seem to observe in a given case, after the fact. If it seems to hold generally, we call that phenomenon a "law": especially if it repeats under experimental and observational conditions.

But it's not some kind of moral fiat handed down by the universe itself, you know...it's just a pattern of observation. And if we observe something different to happen, we just need a different category of explanation. No crime has been committed. And the law that generally holds for the phenomenon is not "violated" thereby. It's merely intercepted by something greater than itself.

For example, if I leave ￡10 in change in my dresser drawer, and then return later and find only ￡5, it's not that the "laws of mathematics" have been violated, or that they've failed to hold: it's merely that my wife has buzzed in and borrowed ￡5, and hasn't told me yet. Likewise, if the Creator of all the scientific laws wants to intervene and change how things work out, what's your objection to Him doing so? He's not obligated morally to submit himself to the laws He creates for the mere material universe, you know, and to prevent them ever being contravened, even by Him.

So if He wants to raise a man from the dead, it's no good protesting, "But the laws of biology show that dead men don't rise." The answer is, "Yes, we know that: and that is exactly why we see in that resurrection the hand of One greater than the law He created."

It wouldn't make any difference if 100% of the world population all believed in the same God, that, in itself, is not evidence that God exists.

That is true. And it makes me wonder why you appealed to "public knowledge" when it was not even a good argument if you'd been 100% right. It's a much worse argument when you're 96% wrong, obviously.

I'm not sure what you mean, but what you call "public knowledge" is nothing of the sort. If 92% of the world population believes in God, that is merely public belief.

That's assumptive. Maybe some of them know something you don't. They say they do. You insist they cannot possibly. But they can ask you the very reasonable question, "How do you know what I can know or not know?"

I am just saying there are minimum standards required for something to count as genuine evidence. Let me put it this way, then: I am not aware of any evidence for the existence of God, and I strongly doubt the existence of any such evidence. Is that acceptable?

That's much better, and perfectly reasonable for you to say. We can believe all that. And yet, it doesn't have any implication for anybody else's awareness of evidence, nor does it remotely imply they have a duty to share your doubt. Perhaps, like me and Boston, you simply lack the very experience that some others actually have, and don't know of evidence they do. That's reasonable to suppose.

I don't know what "gainsay" means.

Sorry: it means "contradict," or "say the opposite of." If you have evidence that Jesus was more than a bog standard human being, you are welcome to produce it.

How about the resurrection?

I'll hear your case. Why do you say that?

If my case is not fully apparent to you from just reading that comment, you probably wouldn't appreciate my case in any other form of description.

That's also unreasonable to suppose. You could try, and we'll see. Other than that, it's just an uncharitable assumption.

I'm prepared to see it; why are you unprepared to present it?

[Harbal]

What we don't know, though, and what is the real question here, as you point out, is HOW they exist. Do they exist as products of mere accident, or do they exist as the products of the creative wisdom of God.

The laws of physics might be fundamental, in the same way as you claim God is.

Except that this answer makes the same mistake of leapfrogging past the basic question, and using created things to explain the existence of created things. Materials are created things, and subject to entropy, like other created things. And "laws" are but the regularities we observe among material entities, so those entities have to exist before the "laws" can exist.

But why can't the laws be the "first cause"? It would be the laws that brought the material entities into existence, so that makes sense. And we can do repeatable experiments to confirm the presence of the laws, whereas God can only be assumed to be there, with no means of confirmation. Actually, now that I've thought about it, I really think I might be onto something.

But you are doing what I accused you of earlier; you are reducing the matter down to only two possibilities. The simple choice of accident or God is something you are arbitrarily imposing on the situation. The creative wisdom of chance, or merely God, are not the only conceivable possibilities. I did a quick search and found a few alternative idea/beliefs/theories:

Naturalism
Scientific Materialism
Determinism
Cosmic Order or Harmony
Multiverse Theory
Emergent Order
Simulation Hypothesis

Interestingly, "accident", didn't appear in the list that I found.

Well, I could show you how all of these depend on the thesis that mere chance plus time can create order...in other words, on mere "accident." So "accident" is the essential dynamic behind each of these alternatives. I'm just keeping things simple for us, because when the ultimate cause is assumed to be "accident," then the rest of the nomenclature here becomes mere window dressing.

And now you are doing what you accused me of doing when you said I was claiming to know what other people did or didn't know. How do you know how many versions of the ideas in the above list might not involve accident? And that list is just what I randomly came across, there are bound to be more theories and hypotheses that it doesn't include. And just because it seems to you that the universe could not come about by "accident", that by no means proves it is not the case that it did.

But in point of fact, there's a true dichotomy here: either things were created by some sort of Intentional Agent, or they were not. If there was no Intentional Agent behind creation, then things were a product of accident. There really is no third alternative there.

Well, technically, all we can really say is that we can't, at this moment in time, think what a third alternative might be. But I think the term, "Intentional agent", could be applied to a variety of alternative concepts to the one you hold about God.

God does not bother with the laws of physics. According to the Bible, he simply suspends them when he wants to get something done.

It's funny...you're making a common mistake there. You're thinking that the "laws" have some sort of force or demand of their own, as if you can't contravene the "laws" of physics without becoming some sort of bad or irrational entity.

What I am thinking is that the laws of physics cannot be be contravened, full stop. Are you saying that such a thought is to be regarded as a mistake?

But that's an error of amphiboly. A real scientist is going to understand that "law," when used in regard to material entities, means merely the regularity we seem to observe in a given case, after the fact. If it seems to hold generally, we call that phenomenon a "law": especially if it repeats under experimental and observational conditions.

This is too complicated, or something, for my simple mind to understand your point. Could you do a dumbed down version for me?

But it's not some kind of moral fiat handed down by the universe itself, you know...it's just a pattern of observation. And if we observe something different to happen, we just need a different category of explanation. No crime has been committed. And the law that generally holds for the phenomenon is not "violated" thereby. It's merely intercepted by something greater than itself.

I'm not familiar with this principle; what branch of science does it fall under?

For example, if I leave ￡10 in change in my dresser drawer, and then return later and find only ￡5, it's not that the "laws of mathematics" have been violated, or that they've failed to hold: it's merely that my wife has buzzed in and borrowed ￡5, and hasn't told me yet. Likewise, if the Creator of all the scientific laws wants to intervene and change how things work out, what's your objection to Him doing so? He's not obligated morally to submit himself to the laws He creates for the mere material universe, you know, and to prevent them ever being contravened, even by Him.

How does the fact that your wife is able to open a drawer and take out some money demonstrate that the laws of physics can be ignored?

This concocted scenario where the "creator" can just intervene and override the laws of physics explains nothing, it's just unrealistic speculation, or fantasy, as it is sometimes known as.

So if He wants to raise a man from the dead, it's no good protesting, "But the laws of biology show that dead men don't rise." The answer is, "Yes, we know that: and that is exactly why we see in that resurrection the hand of One greater than the law He created."

But the point is, we don't see it.

Sorry: it means "contradict," or "say the opposite of." If you have evidence that Jesus was more than a bog standard human being, you are welcome to produce it.
How about the resurrection?

I am aware of some old story in some old book that tells of a resurrection, but I know of no actual resurrection.

If my case is not fully apparent to you from just reading that comment, you probably wouldn't appreciate my case in any other form of description.

That's also unreasonable to suppose. You could try, and we'll see. Other than that, it's just an uncharitable assumption.

I'm prepared to see it; why are you unprepared to present it?

Our occasional exchanges can be very time consuming, and there comes a point at which it becomes necessary to be selective about what is worth spending time on.

[Peter Holmes]

A causal explanation with no evidence for the existence of the cause, or the nature of the causal mechanism, is no explanation at all.

For example, the claim that the universe is evidence for the existence of a god that caused it is completely irrational. It could just as reasonably be evidence for the existence of universe-creating pixies. Or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

But then, even if there were a supernatural cause for the universe and human life, that still wouldn't mean morality is objective - that there are moral facts.

[Immanuel Can]

But why can't the laws be the "first cause"?

That's like asking why traffic laws can't be the cause of roads. The "laws" are not agents. They don't do things, or cause things to happen. They're descriptions of how materials regularly behave, when they're already present. But we're trying to talk about the origin of the materials, of the universe itself...which means we're asking the question, "What gave rise to the material conditions that produced what we call our scientific 'laws' and made these 'laws' became observable to us?"

What you're asking is much like wondering why It would be the laws that brought the material entities into existence, so that makes sense.

Right. 'Laws' don't make things happen: they're descriptions of how things that already exist behave, after the fact.

God can only be assumed to be there, with no means of confirmation.

I don't believe that's true at all. And Creation is but the first of the many evidences for it. But you've already pre-decided there is not allowed to be any "means of confirmation," so it's not surprising if you continue to believe there isn't.

However, it's also clear that as a mere person, a mere individual, you have no basis for your conclusion that they do not exist. All you can rationally say is, "Harbal doesn't know any evidence," which I have no reason to doubt is true, in this case. Maybe you don't.

Well, I could show you how all of these depend on the thesis that mere chance plus time can create order...in other words, on mere "accident." So "accident" is the essential dynamic behind each of these alternatives. I'm just keeping things simple for us, because when the ultimate cause is assumed to be "accident," then the rest of the nomenclature here becomes mere window dressing.

How do you know how many versions of the ideas in the above list might not involve accident?

I've encountered them all before, and thought them through. But let's make it even simpler. The dichotomy is this: either something intelligent created the universe, or the universe came into existence by something unintentional (i.e. an "accident"). If you pick one, I can give you details.

For example, take the Multiverse Hypothesis. It's a non-answer to why the universe exists, because all it does is push back the explanation one step. It assumes that there are an infinite range of "universes" we cannot see, of which this universe is only one. Never mind the unscientific nature of believing in infinite universes we cannot ever see, or experience, or test for: let's leave that huge fault aside. And never mind the mathematical contradiction of a supposedly "infinite" set of universes that don't have "infinite" alternate possibilities, which is a crippling rejoinder to the MV. Let's disregard all that, for the moment.

Even the most ardent proponents of the Multiverse Hypothesis have had to propose some sort of "universe generator" pre-existing all the alleged universes, and accounting for their having been produced. So what they've essentially done is push back the question only one step, and said, "The multiverse is created by the generator, and the generator exists by mere accident." Which then means that the ultimate reason for the existence of all the alleged universes is still accident.

Got time? We can do more.

But in point of fact, there's a true dichotomy here: either things were created by some sort of Intentional Agent, or they were not. If there was no Intentional Agent behind creation, then things were a product of accident. There really is no third alternative there.

Well, technically, all we can really say is that we can't, at this moment in time, think what a third alternative might be. But I think the term, "Intentional agent", could be applied to a variety of alternative concepts to the one you hold about God.

That's a secondary question, and a legit one. Essentially, it's the question, "What kind of God?" But so long as we haven't even established that any God exists, we're not in a position to pose it, are we?

And if we don't know of any third explanation, what sense does it make to invest our present theory in a third explanation we can't even imagine right now?

God does not bother with the laws of physics. According to the Bible, he simply suspends them when he wants to get something done.

It's funny...you're making a common mistake there. You're thinking that the "laws" have some sort of force or demand of their own, as if you can't contravene the "laws" of physics without becoming some sort of bad or irrational entity.

What I am thinking is that the laws of physics cannot be be contravened, full stop. Are you saying that such a thought is to be regarded as a mistake?

Absolutely. It's a mistake on two fronts: one, to think that scientific laws are somehow insulated against contravention by a greater Force, and two, to think that something's been violated if a greater Force changes the outcome you expect.

But that's an error of amphiboly. A real scientist is going to understand that "law," when used in regard to material entities, means merely the regularity we seem to observe in a given case, after the fact. If it seems to hold generally, we call that phenomenon a "law": especially if it repeats under experimental and observational conditions.

This is too complicated, or something, for my simple mind to understand your point. Could you do a dumbed down version for me?

The word 'law' is a miswording. We should call them "observed regularities," because that's all they actually are. They don't have some sort of quasi-legal authority or right to always hold.

But it's not some kind of moral fiat handed down by the universe itself, you know...it's just a pattern of observation. And if we observe something different to happen, we just need a different category of explanation. No crime has been committed. And the law that generally holds for the phenomenon is not "violated" thereby. It's merely intercepted by something greater than itself.

For example, if I leave ￡10 in change in my dresser drawer, and then return later and find only ￡5, it's not that the "laws of mathematics" have been violated, or that they've failed to hold: it's merely that my wife has buzzed in and borrowed ￡5, and hasn't told me yet. Likewise, if the Creator of all the scientific laws wants to intervene and change how things work out, what's your objection to Him doing so? He's not obligated morally to submit himself to the laws He creates for the mere material universe, you know, and to prevent them ever being contravened, even by Him.

How does the fact that your wife is able to open a drawer and take out some money demonstrate that the laws of physics can be ignored? [/quote]
Not "ignored." The laws of physics or mathematics here are not even being challenged. Rather, what's happened is your wife has entered and borrowed the cash, and so your expectation was defeated. But it did not mean maths failed: it means that your understanding of what 'laws' were involved in the transformation were faulty. You didn't know your wife would intervene. So what you observed did not mean that ￡10 can magically transform itself into￡5, or that 10 = 5. The 'laws' didn't fail. Another kind of physical 'law,' the law of deduction of cash by your wife, intervened.

So if He wants to raise a man from the dead, it's no good protesting, "But the laws of biology show that dead men don't rise." The answer is, "Yes, we know that: and that is exactly why we see in that resurrection the hand of One greater than the law He created."

But the point is, we don't see it.

The point is, we did.

Sorry: it means "contradict," or "say the opposite of." If you have evidence that Jesus was more than a bog standard human being, you are welcome to produce it.
How about the resurrection?

I am aware of some old story in some old book that tells of a resurrection, but I know of no actual resurrection.

Well, again, that speaks to the limitations of one man's experience, but not to anything else, obviously. I also have no actual evidence of Boston. Would I be wise to remain Boston-cynical until future notice?

[Immanuel Can]

A causal explanation with no evidence for the existence of the cause, or the nature of the causal mechanism, is no explanation at all.

And yet, the evidence is exactly what H. and I are discussing.

[Peter Holmes]

A causal explanation with no evidence for the existence of the cause, or the nature of the causal mechanism, is no explanation at all.

And yet, the evidence is exactly what H. and I are discussing.

Yes. And, as I recall, the evidence you offer for the existence of your team's universe-creating god is: the universe, morality, revelation and Jesus.

These don't constitute evidence for the cause of the universe, or the nature of the causal mechanism. They just assume the existence of your team's god and what it did and does. Hence the irrationality of the explanation.

And the failure to justify moral objectivism remains.

[Skepdick]

And the failure to justify moral objectivism remains.

Do you take yourself seriously when you say such things?

Ought moral beliefs be justified?

[Immanuel Can]

A causal explanation with no evidence for the existence of the cause, or the nature of the causal mechanism, is no explanation at all.

And yet, the evidence is exactly what H. and I are discussing.

Yes. And, as I recall, the evidence you offer for the existence of your team's universe-creating god is: the universe, morality, revelation and Jesus.

These don't constitute evidence for the cause of the universe, or the nature of the causal mechanism.

Evidence that is refused is still evidence. Reality does not alter if one simply refused to acknowledge it.

You'll find out that morality is the same.

[Peter Holmes]

And yet, the evidence is exactly what H. and I are discussing.

Yes. And, as I recall, the evidence you offer for the existence of your team's universe-creating god is: the universe, morality, revelation and Jesus.

These don't constitute evidence for the cause of the universe, or the nature of the causal mechanism.

Evidence that is refused is still evidence. Reality does not alter if one simply refused to acknowledge it.

You'll find out that morality is the same.

So the evidence of Qur'anic revelation that you refuse is still evidence?

[Immanuel Can]

Yes. And, as I recall, the evidence you offer for the existence of your team's universe-creating god is: the universe, morality, revelation and Jesus.

These don't constitute evidence for the cause of the universe, or the nature of the causal mechanism.

Evidence that is refused is still evidence. Reality does not alter if one simply refused to acknowledge it.

You'll find out that morality is the same.

So the evidence of Qur'anic revelation that you refuse is still evidence?

You'll have to be more specific: what particular evidence do you regard as compelling for the Koran?

[Peter Holmes]

Evidence that is refused is still evidence. Reality does not alter if one simply refused to acknowledge it.

You'll find out that morality is the same.

So the evidence of Qur'anic revelation that you refuse is still evidence?

You'll have to be more specific: what particular evidence do you regard as compelling for the Koran?

Don't be obtuse. You said, foolishly, that evidence that is refused is still evidence. So you think that the story told about the revelation to Mohammed, which you and I both 'refuse' or reject, is still evidence.

It isn't - and it wouldn't be if you and I accepted it. It's just a story, like your team's story.

[Harbal]

But why can't the laws be the "first cause"?

That's like asking why traffic laws can't be the cause of roads.

I am using the word, "laws" because I can't think of a better term, but by it I mean some state of affairs by which the conditions for how matter is able to exist and behave are set. There does seem to be such a state of affairs, and you say God is responsible for it, but I say to bring God into the situation is just adding an unnecessary link to the chain.

The "laws" are not agents. They don't do things, or cause things to happen. They're descriptions of how materials regularly behave, when they're already present. But we're trying to talk about the origin of the materials, of the universe itself...which means we're asking the question, "What gave rise to the material conditions that produced what we call our scientific 'laws' and made these 'laws' became observable to us?"

Well here's another thing: It is my honest opinion that we cannot just assume there is such a thing as the material universe. I think we can however assume that there is consciousness, and what is perceived as the physical universe is actually some sort of immaterial actualisation within consciousness. I've not thought this out much, and I don't really have the means to think it out much, but I do take the general idea of something along these lines a lot more seriously than I once would have.

I'm sure you will be tempted to stick a label, such as idealism, on this, and then attack the idea on that basis, but I have no fixed notions or presuppositions, so it would be inappropriate to do so. That doesn't prevent you from calling it a stupid idea, but you shouldn't just assume my thoughts.

God can only be assumed to be there, with no means of confirmation.

I don't believe that's true at all. And Creation is but the first of the many evidences for it. But you've already pre-decided there is not allowed to be any "means of confirmation," so it's not surprising if you continue to believe there isn't.

The fact that things exist is only evidence of things existing; it is not evidence of their being created by God.

How do you know how many versions of the ideas in the above list might not involve accident?

I've encountered them all before, and thought them through.

In which case I have asked everyone in the world if they have genuine evidence of God's existence, and nobody could provide any. I'm assuming you have lifted the ban on claiming to know what everyone else thinks and knows.

But let's make it even simpler. The dichotomy is this: either something intelligent created the universe, or the universe came into existence by something unintentional (i.e. an "accident"). If you pick one, I can give you details.

No, I don't accept those restrictions.

Well, technically, all we can really say is that we can't, at this moment in time, think what a third alternative might be. But I think the term, "Intentional agent", could be applied to a variety of alternative concepts to the one you hold about God.

That's a secondary question, and a legit one. Essentially, it's the question, "What kind of God?"

No it isn't a question of what kind of God, it's more a question of why even bring the idea of God into the question.

What I am thinking is that the laws of physics cannot be be contravened, full stop. Are you saying that such a thought is to be regarded as a mistake?

Absolutely. It's a mistake on two fronts: one, to think that scientific laws are somehow insulated against contravention by a greater Force, and two, to think that something's been violated if a greater Force changes the outcome you expect.

I am working from the assumption that science knows of no circumstances under which the laws of physics are, or can be, contravened or violated. I am no expert on science, so that might be an incorrect assumption, but I would need more than your say so to be convinced that it is. I know there are things that don't fit in with the current understanding of the laws of physics, but the conditions for their observation can be regularly created or found by scientific method, and so do not appear to be subject to the whim of God. So, as things currently stand, I can only look on your above assertion as nonsense.

The word 'law' is a miswording. We should call them "observed regularities," because that's all they actually are. They don't have some sort of quasi-legal authority or right to always hold.

But on what authority do you claim to know that it is ever possible for the laws of physics, or observed regularities, not to hold?

How does the fact that your wife is able to open a drawer and take out some money demonstrate that the laws of physics can be ignored?

Not "ignored." The laws of physics or mathematics here are not even being challenged. Rather, what's happened is your wife has entered and borrowed the cash, and so your expectation was defeated. But it did not mean maths failed: it means that your understanding of what 'laws' were involved in the transformation were faulty. You didn't know your wife would intervene. So what you observed did not mean that ￡10 can magically transform itself into￡5, or that 10 = 5. The 'laws' didn't fail. Another kind of physical 'law,' the law of deduction of cash by your wife, intervened.

The fact that your wife can act in a way that is contrary to your expectations in no way supports the theory that a supposed God is able to override the laws of physics.

So if He wants to raise a man from the dead, it's no good protesting, "But the laws of biology show that dead men don't rise." The answer is, "Yes, we know that: and that is exactly why we see in that resurrection the hand of One greater than the law He created."

But the point is, we don't see it.

The point is, we did.

By that I assume you mean you have read an account of it, which isn't really the same thing as seeing something.

I am aware of some old story in some old book that tells of a resurrection, but I know of no actual resurrection.

Well, again, that speaks to the limitations of one man's experience, but not to anything else, obviously. I also have no actual evidence of Boston. Would I be wise to remain Boston-cynical until future notice?

For one thing, the idea of Boston is plausible, while that of resurrection isn't, and for another thing, the existence of Boston is verifiable, whereas your claim of resurrection isn't.