Is morality objective or subjective?

[Immanuel Can]

The singularity according to physicists/cosmologists is a very dense form of energy that existed at the beginning.

Yeah...I think you can see that won't work. "Energy just did it," isn't really an explanation of anything...and certainly not of things so complex as the universe with its causal chains.

It is not eternal.

Oh. Well, then, it's not even a candidate at all. Whatever the First Cause was, it can't have anything prior to it, or the mathematical impossibility of an actual infinite regress of causes applies.

We can't say "The Big Bang," obviously: because unless we want to say the Big Bang caused itself, with no prior prerequisites, such as space, or time, or elements such as hydrogen and oxygen (which, to my knowledge, no scientist says), then that's not going far enough back. And if we do say it was just the Big Bang, then we're again trying to say "an eternal explosion" made order, which is just as problematic as the "energy" explanation.

What else have you got, that might be a non-personal First Cause, then?

[Immanuel Can]

We have two options: (1) What physicists call the singularity, an entity that is uncaused cause and exists at the beginning, and 2) God, who is uncaused cause who created the singularity.

By the way, we have to accept (1) if we strive on Occam's razor but let's put it aside for a moment.

We don't, actually. Occam's Razor is not a hard-and-fast principle: it doesn't mean that the simpler explanation IS ALWAYS the only possible right one. But besides that, there needs to be a demonstration that believing in "the Singularity" is genuinely "simpler" (in the relevant sense of that word) than believing in God...and that's not been shown, and certainly isn't automatically obvious.

However, as you say, let's put that to one side, for the moment.

You're right: there are essentially two options, I think. One is obviously the Supreme Being (and we can leave aside, for a few moments, what sort of Being He is, and just say, "some intelligent, purpose-having, personal entity of some kind," maybe). The other is that some non-intelligent "force" did it.

But we should explore that alternate possibility: what would this so-called "singularity" or non-intelligent "force" be? It would have to be eternal, uncaused, and capable of producing the universe we see around us, with all its complexity, and its laws, and its regularities, and its people. What can we propose that can do that?

I wonder how this story will end; I really can't imagine.

I think you can. It's one of the manifestations of the fact that mankind is really not at all devoid of means to know that God exists. He just pretends to be. A little, simple thought is enough to take us in the right direction, every time.

[bahman]

The singularity according to physicists/cosmologists is a very dense form of energy that existed at the beginning.

Yeah...I think you can see that won't work. "Energy just did it," isn't really an explanation of anything...and certainly not of things so complex as the universe with its causal chains.

Have you ever studied cosmology?

It is not eternal.

Oh. Well, then, it's not even a candidate at all. Whatever the First Cause was, it can't have anything prior to it, or the mathematical impossibility of an actual infinite regress of causes applies.

There is no infinite regress involved. I am wondering how you get that.

We can't say "The Big Bang," obviously: because unless we want to say the Big Bang caused itself, with no prior prerequisites, such as space, or time, or elements such as hydrogen and oxygen (which, to my knowledge, no scientist says), then that's not going far enough back. And if we do say it was just the Big Bang, then we're again trying to say "an eternal explosion" made order, which is just as problematic as the "energy" explanation.

The singularity didn't cause itself. It just existed at the beginning. I think you agree with it.

What else have you got, that might be a non-personal First Cause, then?

There is no other option.

[Harbal]

Is not one always better to have a grip on how things really are, rather than to pretend they aren't that way?

Yes, so when you don't see a huge lion in your bedroom, and you don't see lion paw prints on the carpet, and your teddy bear remains completely unsavaged, why would the thought of a lion even enter your head? ...I do agree it is better to have a grip on reality, rather than pretend things are there when they are not.

That is also true.

So the only important question is not "What do I want to think about," but rather, "What is true?"

It is true that there is no lion in the bedroom, and it is true that there is only dust and the odd spider behind the wardrobe.

It's strange you should list a collection of qualities that are typically lacking in over religious types.

You need to meet a better class of "religious" person, I guess.

The ones who are able to keep things in proportion and not let it completely dominate their lives, you mean?

Only a few pages back you stated that people in sexual relationships were wanting to commit "evil".

I did not. Sorry that you imagine that. I said that adultery was evil, and even that lusting is evil; but I did not ever criticize "relationships." Check back, and you'll see.

In reply to my question: "You think people give in to their sexual whims because of Freud?"

You said:

No. I think they've been convinced they have to give in to their sexual whims...or more precisely, that they can escape blame for having lost self-control and having given in to bad desires, just because Freud told them they could plead that it was necessary. The reason they give in to their sexual whims is obvious...they want to do evil, and don't want to be told that something as important and powerful as sexuality needs a moral context.

I don't see any mention of adultery.

What has atheism got to do with answering important questions? Atheism isn't a system of thought. Logic, critical thinking and common sense are things that you need to answer questions.

Great! Then how does an Atheist, using only critical thinking and common sense, explain the existence of evil? I'm keen to know. All I've been able to find are dusty answers.

To the best of my understanding of what you mean by "evil", I don't believe there is such a thing.

And what is evil;

Yeah...that's one of the old answers I found so dusty. One of the things Atheists do is just try to "define away" evil. But I don't find them consistent in that, because they then often turn around and want to claim that such things as "religious zealotry" or "genocide," or "racism" are....(they struggle for words here, and then choose a synonym to conceal their failure of logic) wrong, bad, nasty, dsyfunctional, naughty, unfortunate, improper, inappropriate, offensive...and so on.

So they know there's evil. They just don't want to talk about it, because they have no conceptual "handles" with which to get any purchase on it.

Please give a complete description of what you think evil is, then. I would genuinely welcome full clarification of what the word means in your opinion.

Then you can explain how you, as a Christian, are able to solve the problem of it, if you want to.

[iambiguous]

Most of us grapple with morality on this side of the grave and immortality and salvation on the other side. And God and religion seem to be [by far] the path one takes in order to sustain a comforting and consoling frame of mind.

And even those who take a secular route to "the right thing to do" take it only to the grave. There's still the grim reality [for most] of oblivion.

No, for those like me, I'm willing to accept that God is one possible explanation for the existence of existence itself. And if those like IC insist it is the Christian God, I say, "show me".

Then this part:

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

For example: https://www.cnn.com/asia/live-news/japa ... index.html

I know this is the "ethical theory" forum and God and religion are generally explored here...philosophically.

But sooner or later the arguments come down out of the technical clouds and we are confronted with the reality of actual conflicting goods, of death and dying.

[promethean75]

"That's why we all know we need saving...we aren't what we should be, and we all can't face what we deserve. Without rescue, there's no hope"

What you're missing is the fact that the game is rigged. It's not as if we have, or had, the chance to not be sinful creatures and instead choose to be good people. If we actually did, the old testament would have two alternate endings. One in which everything didn't go up in smoke because we got our act together, and another in which we didn't and everything went to shit. But there is only one ending, the second of the two.

Now, since god knows everything and can't be wrong (i.e. mistaken about what he knows), and the second of the two endings will come to pass, we couldn't have gotten our act together and prevented everything from going up in smoke.... becuz if we could have, it would have meant god was mistaken to have chosen the second of the two endings. Rather he would have included both possible endings and let us play it out. So, the game is rigged, and we are inherently wretched creatures created and fated to be so.

See what i just did there? The same reasoning demonstrates the impossibility of freewill, too. I explained all this to u months ago but u wuzzint tryna hear it.

It's a fatal flaw in christian mechanics.

[Immanuel Can]

There is no infinite regress involved. I am wondering how you get that.

Very easily. If something is said to have no cause, but still to be in the causal chain, then something caused that...and something caused that...and something caused that...infinitely. And that means that the chain never began, which means it could not possibly be going on now.

But the causal chain is going on now. We can see that it is. So there is not an infinite regress of causes involved.

The singularity didn't cause itself.

Right...or God didn't "cause" Himself. But we're trying to figure out which of the two it really is.

What else have you got, that might be a non-personal First Cause, then?

There is no other option.

Then we are left with only one option: "In the beginning, God..."

The next question would be, "Who is God?" or "What is this God like?"

[Immanuel Can]

You need to meet a better class of "religious" person, I guess.

The ones who are able to keep things in proportion and not let it completely dominate their lives, you mean?

No, of course: I mean you need to spend more time with people who are Christians than with those who only say they are, but "keep things in proportion" by being equally unchristian.

Only a few pages back you stated that people in sexual relationships were wanting to commit "evil".

I did not. Sorry that you imagine that. I said that adultery was evil, and even that lusting is evil; but I did not ever criticize "relationships." Check back, and you'll see.

In reply to my question: "You think people give in to their sexual whims because of Freud?"

You said:

No. I think they've been convinced they have to give in to their sexual whims...or more precisely, that they can escape blame for having lost self-control and having given in to bad desires, just because Freud told them they could plead that it was necessary. The reason they give in to their sexual whims is obvious...they want to do evil, and don't want to be told that something as important and powerful as sexuality needs a moral context.

I don't see any mention of adultery.

Where is the word "relationships"? I see "bad desires," and I see "sexual whims," and I see "loss of self-control," and I see "sexuality [devoid of] a moral context." And I'll stand behind every one of those. However, I don't see your word, "relationships".

In point of fact, I think relationship is the very key to everything. But there are good and bad "relations," of course.

What has atheism got to do with answering important questions? Atheism isn't a system of thought. Logic, critical thinking and common sense are things that you need to answer questions.

Great! Then how does an Atheist, using only critical thinking and common sense, explain the existence of evil? I'm keen to know. All I've been able to find are dusty answers.

To the best of my understanding of what you mean by "evil", I don't believe there is such a thing.

And what is evil;

Yeah...that's one of the old answers I found so dusty. One of the things Atheists do is just try to "define away" evil. But I don't find them consistent in that, because they then often turn around and want to claim that such things as "religious zealotry" or "genocide," or "racism" are....(they struggle for words here, and then choose a synonym to conceal their failure of logic) wrong, bad, nasty, dsyfunctional, naughty, unfortunate, improper, inappropriate, offensive...and so on.

So they know there's evil. They just don't want to talk about it, because they have no conceptual "handles" with which to get any purchase on it.

Please give a complete description of what you think evil is, then.

Well, you were the one who promised me an Atheist answer to what evil is...and now you say there's no such thing. Not much of an answer, is it?

But I have given the Biblical answer, which is my answer, many times. I'll do it again: evil is anything contrary to the nature and will of God.

Then you can explain how you, as a Christian, are able to solve the problem of it, if you want to.

Quite readily.

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his unique Son, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." That's it, in the tidiest form you'll find it.

[bahman]

There is no infinite regress involved. I am wondering how you get that.

Very easily. If something is said to have no cause, but still to be in the causal chain, then something caused that...and something caused that...and something caused that...infinitely. And that means that the chain never began, which means it could not possibly be going on now.

But the causal chain is going on now. We can see that it is. So there is not an infinite regress of causes involved.

Think of the causal chain that goes to the past until the Big Bang. The Big Bang is the beginning so no regress is involved.

The singularity didn't cause itself.

Right...or God didn't "cause" Himself. But we're trying to figure out which of the two it really is.

OK.

What else have you got, that might be a non-personal First Cause, then?

There is no other option.

Then we are left with only one option: "In the beginning, God..."

The next question would be, "Who is God?" or "What is this God like?"

It is too early to come to such a conclusion. Let's see if we can discard the first option.

[Alexis Jacobi]

The Big Bang is the beginning so no regress is involved.

There is all kinds of upset, confusion, and debate about ‘beginning’ in cosmology now. Seems to have resulted from the discoveries of the new telescope. Not ‘a beginning’ or a ‘singular beginning’ but seeming beginnings that are continuations.

Immanuel’s mistake is not so much in positing a creator (the concept is rational) but in his insistence that the god divined (intuited) as being necessary is the god our own yiddishim believe is their god.

But the god of the early Hebrews was never conceived of as the author of the manifest world and cosmos. That notion was borrowed from other races and retrofitted into Judaism.

Existence and being must by definition be eternal. There is no contrary or inverse notion to existence and being. Eternality is the sole *logical* option. There was never a beginning, and there is no ending — except as eternal continuations.

Infinite regress can then be seen as a false idea.

[bahman]

The Big Bang is the beginning so no regress is involved.

There is all kinds of upset, confusion, and debate about ‘beginning’ in cosmology now. Seems to have resulted from the discoveries of the new telescope.

Could you please share the link to the debate?

Not ‘a beginning’ or a ‘singular beginning’ but seeming beginnings that are continuations.

I am trying to have a simple picture of how things started from a beginning. I am not aware of any study or perhaps I don't recall any study about beginnings. Could you please share a link?

Immanuel’s mistake is not so much in positing a creator (the concept is rational) but in his insistence that the god divined (intuited) as being necessary is the god our own yiddishim believe is their god.

But the god of the early Hebrews was never conceived of as the author of the manifest world and cosmos. That notion was borrowed from other races and retrofitted into Judaism.

Could you please expound? I am very interested to understand the detail.

Existence and being must by definition be eternal. There is no contrary or inverse notion to existence and being. Eternality is the sole *logical* option. There was never a beginning, and there is no ending — except as eternal continuations.

I must disagree here. There must be a beginning.

Infinite regress can then be seen as a false idea.

So you agree that there is a beginning?

I will watch this shortly.

[Immanuel Can]

The Big Bang is the beginning so no regress is involved.

Then you think the BB happened without things like hydrogen, or oxygen, or space, or time?

The singularity didn't cause itself.

Right...or God didn't "cause" Himself. But we're trying to figure out which of the two it really is.

OK.

There is no other option.

Then we are left with only one option: "In the beginning, God..."

The next question would be, "Who is God?" or "What is this God like?"

It is too early to come to such a conclusion. Let's see if we can discard the first option.

When you said, "There is no other option," I was thinking you meant, "There is no other option."

Okay, what is the other option?

[bahman]

The Big Bang is the beginning so no regress is involved.

Then you think the BB happened without things like hydrogen, or oxygen, or space, or time?

There was not anything like hydrogen or oxygen... at the Big Bang. We still don't know the theory of quantum gravity so we cannot talk about the nature of spacetime at the Big Bang point.

Then we are left with only one option: "In the beginning, God..."

The next question would be, "Who is God?" or "What is this God like?"

It is too early to come to such a conclusion. Let's see if we can discard the first option.

When you said, "There is no other option," I was thinking you meant, "There is no other option."

Okay, what is the other option?

The first option.

[Immanuel Can]

The Big Bang is the beginning so no regress is involved.

Then you think the BB happened without things like hydrogen, or oxygen, or space, or time?

There was not anything like hydrogen or oxygen... at the Big Bang. We still don't know the theory of quantum gravity so we cannot talk about the nature of spacetime at the Big Bang point.

Okay. Then, if we say the BB was the First Cause, then our theory has to be that a random, uncaused, unintelligent explosion accidentally caused all the order we find in the universe -- and as well, conscious beings capable of knowing about that.

Is that the theory?

[bahman]

Then you think the BB happened without things like hydrogen, or oxygen, or space, or time?

There was not anything like hydrogen or oxygen... at the Big Bang. We still don't know the theory of quantum gravity so we cannot talk about the nature of spacetime at the Big Bang point.

Okay. Then, if we say the BB was the First Cause, then our theory has to be that a random, uncaused, unintelligent explosion accidentally caused all the order we find in the universe -- and as well, conscious beings capable of knowing about that.

Is that the theory?

Yes, the singularity just existed at the beginning, and from that, all sorts of things emerged.