Is morality objective or subjective?

[Immanuel Can]

...there is nothing to discuss if you want to say that God created Heaven and Earth in the first place!

Well, then, we would be uninterested in discussing the origin of the universe. There is nothing like a real case for some impersonal 'force' creating things; nobody can even explain how that theory would go. What kind of 'force' do we know that is eternal, vastly powerful, and capable of generating irreducible complexity in immensely complex systems? To suppose that, in this one case, something happened that we have never ever seen happen since and cannot reproduce in any form would surely be less than scientific.

So the live option that's left is some sort of intelligence, and that's the hypothesis I would say is worthy of discussion. If we just arbitrarily rule that one out without thought, then we'd be out of options entirely.

There is a huge amount of literature about cosmology,

Yes, there is: but if is of two kinds, you will note: one, some takes for granted a starting point with a universe already in existence, which means it's not really asking about the First Cause, but of a subsidiary step in the chain of causality, and two, what does not do that is what we've identified as speculative literature that asks us to believe in things for which we have no data at all, such as "multiple universes," or "eternal recursions," or "folded time," and such.

abiogenesis, and evolution.

These would be examples of subsidiary steps. They assume not only the existence of a universe, but of this planet, and of life itself as well. So they are a long, long way down the inquiry chain, and by their own account, billions of years, ad the very least, after any First Cause.

Scientists are trying hard to find out what really happened in the past. We cannot simply ignore them.

I agree! We need to take their findings seriously, and consider them. The discovery of the "red shift" effect, for example, is currently being ignored by those people who still want to argue for an "eternal universe" or "oscillating universe" theory, and they simply refuse to discuss the data. That's a shame, because the evidence against their views is certainly in: but they don't want to hear about that.

For example from cosmology, we know that Earth is 4.5 billion years whereas the universe is 13.7 billion years. So we know that Earth was not created first.

I'm unfamiliar with anybody who thinks the Earth was created before the universe was created. Maybe you could point me to them, because I've never heard that any such exists.

[Immanuel Can]

Is Theism also "dogmatic"?

Well, "dogmatic" the adjective, often suggests a slightly different thing than "dogma" the noun. The latter merely means "precepts" or "basic beliefs," and every ideology has them. But "dogmatic" sometimes carries with it the nuance of "belief without reason," or even "enforced compliance." And some have that, too...Islam's a grand example, since above all it requires "submission" (which is what "Islam" actually means, you know). But most are not "dogmatic" in that second sense. Most of the religions you and I would likely encounter are more keyed to invoking belief through persuasion, which of course requires interaction with the rest of the world.

Do theists "refuse to consider any hypothesis that [lacks a concept] of God?"

Not in my experience. Far from it. Those I know spend a great deal of time thinking about such views, since they live in societies that are managed by a kind of informal "Atheism," or assumptive secularism. They can hardly avoid taking such things seriously into consideration, unless they are clannish, closed groups, like the Hutterites or Amish, who live on their own farms in their own communities and don't speak with the outside world.

[bahman]

Well, then, we would be uninterested in discussing the origin of the universe. There is nothing like a real case for some impersonal 'force' creating things; nobody can even explain how that theory would go. What kind of 'force' do we know that is eternal, vastly powerful, and capable of generating irreducible complexity in immensely complex systems? To suppose that, in this one case, something happened that we have never ever seen happen since and cannot reproduce in any form would surely be less than scientific.

So the live option that's left is some sort of intelligence, and that's the hypothesis I would say is worthy of discussion. If we just arbitrarily rule that one out without thought, then we'd be out of options entirely.

There is a huge amount of literature about cosmology,

Yes, there is: but if is of two kinds, you will note: one, some takes for granted a starting point with a universe already in existence, which means it's not really asking about the First Cause, but of a subsidiary step in the chain of causality, and two, what does not do that is what we've identified as speculative literature that asks us to believe in things for which we have no data at all, such as "multiple universes," or "eternal recursions," or "folded time," and such.

I agree. We have to work on scientific theory that we have data for it. The rest are mainly speculations.

abiogenesis, and evolution.

These would be examples of subsidiary steps. They assume not only the existence of a universe, but of this planet, and of life itself as well. So they are a long, long way down the inquiry chain, and by their own account, billions of years, ad the very least, after any First Cause.

We don't have access to any data about life on other planets. That is all they have, Earth.

Scientists are trying hard to find out what really happened in the past. We cannot simply ignore them.

I agree! We need to take their findings seriously, and consider them. The discovery of the "red shift" effect, for example, is currently being ignored by those people who still want to argue for an "eternal universe" or "oscillating universe" theory, and they simply refuse to discuss the data. That's a shame, because the evidence against their views is certainly in: but they don't want to hear about that.

Yes, I agree.

For example from cosmology, we know that Earth is 4.5 billion years whereas the universe is 13.7 billion years. So we know that Earth was not created first.

I'm unfamiliar with anybody who thinks the Earth was created before the universe was created. Maybe you could point me to them, because I've never heard that any such exists.

I didn't say so. I said that Earth came into existence after the beginning of the universe. This is against the verse in Genesis which claims God first created Earth and Haven.

[Immanuel Can]

abiogenesis, and evolution.

These would be examples of subsidiary steps. They assume not only the existence of a universe, but of this planet, and of life itself as well. So they are a long, long way down the inquiry chain, and by their own account, billions of years, ad the very least, after any First Cause.

We don't have access to any data about life on other planets. That is all they have, Earth.

Well, thinking about the First Cause means thinking about how ALL and ANY planets came into existence, not just Earth. It's about how the very universe itself came to be. That's very important to realize.

I said that Earth came into existence after the beginning of the universe. This is against the verse in Genesis which claims God first created Earth and Haven.

I can't see at all that it is. Can you explain why you think it is?

Genesis 1:1 reads, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Are you thinking that this means He created them both at exactly the same moment? He may have; but it certainly doesn't say that there was no time interval involved: it just says, "in the beginning." For all we know, that could have been at the same instant or billions of years apart. Those would all constitute "the beginning," since it's a phase that's often being indicated, not merely a moment.

[bahman]

These would be examples of subsidiary steps. They assume not only the existence of a universe, but of this planet, and of life itself as well. So they are a long, long way down the inquiry chain, and by their own account, billions of years, ad the very least, after any First Cause.

We don't have access to any data about life on other planets. That is all they have, Earth.

Well, thinking about the First Cause means thinking about how ALL and ANY planets came into existence, not just Earth. It's about how the very universe itself came to be. That's very important to realize.

Yes, but we don't have access to another planet that sustains life. Earth is all we have so make our scientific theory base on the data that exist here and now on Earth.

I said that Earth came into existence after the beginning of the universe. This is against the verse in Genesis which claims God first created Earth and Haven.

I can't see at all that it is. Can you explain why you think it is?

Genesis 1:1 reads, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Are you thinking that this means He created them both at exactly the same moment? He may have; but it certainly doesn't say that there was no time interval involved: it just says, "in the beginning." For all we know, that could have been at the same instant or billions of years apart. Those would all constitute "the beginning," since it's a phase that's often being indicated, not merely a moment.
[/quote]
That verse means that God created both Heaven and Earth at the same point, namely the beginning. Anyway, I care less for Haven because we don't have access to it but Earth. Earth was not created first. What was created first whatever you want to call it was far before the creation of Earth. Moreover, Earth was not created. It was formed as the result of natural force and how the ingredients for it were formed from supernovas, commits, white dwarfs, etc.

[Immanuel Can]

We don't have access to any data about life on other planets. That is all they have, Earth.

Well, thinking about the First Cause means thinking about how ALL and ANY planets came into existence, not just Earth. It's about how the very universe itself came to be. That's very important to realize.

Yes, but we don't have access to another planet that sustains life. Earth is all we have so make our scientific theory base on the data that exist here and now on Earth.

This is true. And this is why all we can do is use the data we currently have, recognizing that it shows the effects of the real things that have happened; we can't go back to that original First Cause moments and take contemporaneous scientific measurements. We don't have a time machine. Nor does any science.

I said that Earth came into existence after the beginning of the universe. This is against the verse in Genesis which claims God first created Earth and Haven.

I can't see at all that it is. Can you explain why you think it is?

Genesis 1:1 reads, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Are you thinking that this means He created them both at exactly the same moment? He may have; but it certainly doesn't say that there was no time interval involved: it just says, "in the beginning." For all we know, that could have been at the same instant or billions of years apart. Those would all constitute "the beginning," since it's a phase that's often being indicated, not merely a moment.

That verse means that God created both Heaven and Earth at the same point, namely the beginning.

Oh. So you think that "in the beginning" has to mean, "at the exact same moment"? I don't think there's any reason to think that reading's required, or even invited by the text.

Earth was not created. It was formed as the result of natural force and how the ingredients for it were formed from supernovas, commits, white dwarfs, etc.

We don't know that. You're making an assumption, and then insisting we have to believe it. I don't see that we do. Did we not say that we were not present at that moment? So what data do we have that convinces us to suppose that God is a worse explanation of first cause than some nameless "force"?

[Harbal]

Genesis 1:1 reads, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Are you thinking that this means He created them both at exactly the same moment? He may have; but it certainly doesn't say that there was no time interval involved:

And neither does it say how vast the heavens were, and what an insignificant little spec the Earth was in comparison.

[Immanuel Can]

Genesis 1:1 reads, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Are you thinking that this means He created them both at exactly the same moment? He may have; but it certainly doesn't say that there was no time interval involved:

And neither does it say how vast the heavens were, and what an insignificant little spec the Earth was in comparison.

No, it doesn't. You're right. But why would it need to? I can't see how that would be problematic, either way.

But maybe your word "insignificant" gives a clue as to what you have in mind -- maybe that the universe is big, and Earth is comparatively small, so it couldn't possibly be that God is interested in something so comparatively small as a man on the Earth. Is that it?

Well, the Bible says the same thing. It asks of God,

"When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your hands,
The moon and the stars, which You have set in place;
What is man that You think of him,
And a son of man that You are concerned about him?" (Psalm 8:3-4)

And yet, the Bible also says that God is very much concerned with us, despite our smallness. It seems our importance is different from our physical size.

[Harbal]

Genesis 1:1 reads, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Are you thinking that this means He created them both at exactly the same moment? He may have; but it certainly doesn't say that there was no time interval involved:

And neither does it say how vast the heavens were, and what an insignificant little spec the Earth was in comparison.

No, it doesn't. You're right. But why would it need to? I can't see how that would be problematic, either way.

But maybe your word "insignificant" gives a clue as to what you have in mind -- maybe that the universe is big, and Earth is comparatively small, so it couldn't possibly be that God is interested in something so comparatively small as a man on the Earth. Is that it?

Well, the Bible says the same thing. It asks of God,

"When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your hands,
The moon and the stars, which You have set in place;
What is man that You think of him,
And a son of man that You are concerned about him?" (Psalm 8:3-4)

And yet, the Bible also says that God is very much concerned with us, despite our smallness. It seems our importance is different from our physical size.

Yes, we do think we are important, don't we?

[bahman]

Well, thinking about the First Cause means thinking about how ALL and ANY planets came into existence, not just Earth. It's about how the very universe itself came to be. That's very important to realize.

Yes, but we don't have access to another planet that sustains life. Earth is all we have so make our scientific theory base on the data that exist here and now on Earth.

This is true. And this is why all we can do is use the data we currently have, recognizing that it shows the effects of the real things that have happened; we can't go back to that original First Cause moments and take contemporaneous scientific measurements. We don't have a time machine. Nor does any science.

We have access to fossils and minerals.

I can't see at all that it is. Can you explain why you think it is?

Genesis 1:1 reads, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." Are you thinking that this means He created them both at exactly the same moment? He may have; but it certainly doesn't say that there was no time interval involved: it just says, "in the beginning." For all we know, that could have been at the same instant or billions of years apart. Those would all constitute "the beginning," since it's a phase that's often being indicated, not merely a moment.

That verse means that God created both Heaven and Earth at the same point, namely the beginning.

Oh. So you think that "in the beginning" has to mean, "at the exact same moment"? I don't think there's any reason to think that reading's required, or even invited by the text.

So you have your interpretation!?

Earth was not created. It was formed as the result of natural force and how the ingredients for it were formed from supernovas, commits, white dwarfs, etc.

We don't know that. You're making an assumption, and then insisting we have to believe it. I don't see that we do. Did we not say that we were not present at that moment? So what data do we have that convinces us to suppose that God is a worse explanation of first cause than some nameless "force"?

Yes, we know that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenes ... able_Earth

[Immanuel Can]

Yes, but we don't have access to another planet that sustains life. Earth is all we have so make our scientific theory base on the data that exist here and now on Earth.

This is true. And this is why all we can do is use the data we currently have, recognizing that it shows the effects of the real things that have happened; we can't go back to that original First Cause moments and take contemporaneous scientific measurements. We don't have a time machine. Nor does any science.

We have access to fossils and minerals.

Fossils come AFTER the Earth exists. And minerals come into being only AFTER the universe itself is created. So neither was present when the First Cause, whatever it was, acted.

That verse means that God created both Heaven and Earth at the same point, namely the beginning.

Oh. So you think that "in the beginning" has to mean, "at the exact same moment"? I don't think there's any reason to think that reading's required, or even invited by the text.

So you have your interpretation!?

I think interpretation should respect the text. That means it should say less than the text says, and it shouldn't assume more, either. That's why I say it's possible that God made both at the same time, but not at all necessary that we believe that's what He did. The text does not tell us, either way. So I'm honouring the text, not interpreting my own way.

Earth was not created. It was formed as the result of natural force and how the ingredients for it were formed from supernovas, commits, white dwarfs, etc.

We don't know that. You're making an assumption, and then insisting we have to believe it. I don't see that we do. Did we not say that we were not present at that moment? So what data do we have that convinces us to suppose that God is a worse explanation of first cause than some nameless "force"?

Yes, we know that.

No, we don't, actually. What we know is only that life appeared. HOW it appeared is not known to us. And we know for sure, either way, that it only came into being AFTER the universe itself was created. So again, "abiogenesis," if we believe in such a thing, is considerably down-the-chain-of-events from the First Cause, not an explanation OF the First Cause.

[bahman]

This is true. And this is why all we can do is use the data we currently have, recognizing that it shows the effects of the real things that have happened; we can't go back to that original First Cause moments and take contemporaneous scientific measurements. We don't have a time machine. Nor does any science.

We have access to fossils and minerals.

Fossils come AFTER the Earth exists. And minerals come into being only AFTER the universe itself is created. So neither was present when the First Cause, whatever it was, acted.

I am taking your attention to the natural phenomena in which first Earth was formed and then we have life on it. I am not talking about the first cause here.

Oh. So you think that "in the beginning" has to mean, "at the exact same moment"? I don't think there's any reason to think that reading's required, or even invited by the text.

So you have your interpretation!?

I think interpretation should respect the text. That means it should say less than the text says, and it shouldn't assume more, either. That's why I say it's possible that God made both at the same time, but not at all necessary that we believe that's what He did. The text does not tell us, either way. So I'm honouring the text, not interpreting my own way.

Why in your opinion God mean to include the creation of Earth in the beginning? He could say otherwise. For example, God created Heaven first in the beginning. He then created Earth. As He says about the creation of light.

We don't know that. You're making an assumption, and then insisting we have to believe it. I don't see that we do. Did we not say that we were not present at that moment? So what data do we have that convinces us to suppose that God is a worse explanation of first cause than some nameless "force"?

Yes, we know that.

No, we don't, actually. What we know is only that life appeared. HOW it appeared is not known to us. And we know for sure, either way, that it only came into being AFTER the universe itself was created. So again, "abiogenesis," if we believe in such a thing, is considerably down-the-chain-of-events from the First Cause, not an explanation OF the First Cause.

Yes, I am not talking about the first cause here. I am saying that assuming that there was a singularity, whether it was caused or simply existed, the rest of things such as the manifestation of life can happen as a result of proper conditions that existed on Earth simply follows.

Would you like to discuss singularity and whether it was caused or simply existed?

[Harbal]

And neither does it say how vast the heavens were, and what an insignificant little spec the Earth was in comparison.

No, it doesn't. You're right. But why would it need to? I can't see how that would be problematic, either way.

It's just that a detail like how microscopically miniscule the Earth is in an unimaginably vast universe seems like something one would mention when describing creation. Perhaps God never told the guy who wrote Genesis because he never expected us to find out.

[Alexis Jacobi]

This idea is expressed with metaphysical clarity by Hamlet:

The time is out of joint — O cursèd spite,
That ever I was born to set it right!

That's a somewhat different idea. Hamlet's idea is determinism. He thinks that by nature of his birth as Prince of Denmark, he's been fated to purge the country of its evil, and that he can't get out of that role, no matter what he does. Hence it's an expression of "cursed spite."

Says Hamlet:

Virtue cannot so inoculate our old stock / but we shall relish of it.

How narrow your perspective. You often surprise me. Your supreme narrowness infects all categories.

There is *the story* in Hamlet but there is also an astounding metaphysical dimension.

Thus what Hamlet must set right is really something far larger.

The Queen is not merely Hamlet’s mother: she is his ancestral line going back to Eve herself: the fallen human soul.

Says Gertrude:

“Oh Hamlet, speak no more! Thou turn’st my eyes into my very soul: And then I see such black and grained spots / As will not leave their tinct.”

The reason — or a major reason — Hamlet resonates so powerfully for us (still) is because like us he is confronting metaphysical conditions so demanding it can drive someone mad.

You are an enemy of real understanding and you drive people away from metaphysical comprehension because you sicken people with your fanatic dogmatism.

Eve can be taken at a level that transcends the Christian story (and your faux-apologetics certainly) as an emblem of our own acute weakness.

What a blind dolt you are, Immanuel!

Amazing.

[Dontaskme]

IC wrote:

We don't know that. You're making an assumption, and then insisting we have to believe it. I don't see that we do. Did we not say that we were not present at that moment? So what data do we have that convinces us to suppose that God is a worse explanation of first cause than some nameless "force"?

That’s right,we don’t know that.

The universe doesn’t have a need to explain itself. Only humans have those needs.

And so it appears that each explanation never comes into direct contact with the absolute truth, as nothing we can say will ever touch the absolute truth because relative theories about the absolute nondual reality that is NOT A THEORY is absurd.

If we all knew then that would make each and every one of us omnipresent.

Which is impossible and so the question QUEST I ON for the theory of everything continues on indefinitely without definitive conclusion.


Carry on getting nowhere then and just see how far that will get you. Nowhere that’s where.