Is morality objective or subjective?

[bahman]

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.

Then you're wildly leaping ahead. You're taking for granted the existence of everything, and not explaining the ultimate origins of anything. That seems a very different kind of conversation than we were having just a short while ago.

The ultimate origin of everything is the singularity in which either God created it or it simply existed. Are you interested in discussing that?

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.

"In the beginning" doesn't specify whether a day or a period of beginning is what we are supposed to understand there. So I don't conjecture on that.

You are conjecturing. What do you think that God means by the creation of light? The creation of the Sun?

I am not talking about the first cause here.

That's what I'm interested in discussing. That's what I'd like to resolve first: is the First Cause more likely to be a 'force' of some kind, or an intentional Agent? That's what I want us to decide.

To you, the first cause is the creation of Earth first and then the creation of Adam and Eve. Earth to the best of our knowledge was formed and was not created. The same applies to humans. Human is the result of evolution and not creation.

...the rest of things such as the manifestation of life can happen as a result of proper conditions that existed on Earth simply follows.

Oh, good heavens! Nobody thinks that any of this stuff is just automatic. That's not remotely plausible, and it has no hint of an explanation in it. That's just blind assumption, no more. When there's a universe, it's not automatic that it would be a coherent one. It's not automatic that it would have planets and stars in it. It's not automatic that it would have functional systems of physical laws in it. It's not automatic that it would have atmorpheres, or gravitational fields, or radiation patterns of a particular kind. It's not automatic that any planet would be of size and configuration to even potentially harbour life. It's not automatic that any such planetoid WOULD harbour any life. It's not automatic what that life would consist of...and so on. Anybody who imagines that this stuff "just follows" really is very far from understanding the first thing about the whole issue, or about the scientific requirements for a cohesive universe populated with beings capable of asking this very question.

I already asked whether God is involved in the natural process and your answer was no. So the natural process is due to natural laws. So it is automatic.

[Harbal]

Sure. A binary question requires an answer of YES or NO. etc..

So what I propose to you is that belief in the life of Christ is also a binary question: To believe Y or not to believe N.

(to be honest, I could not give a flying fuck weather you believe ) ..I think I just find the forum a form of entertainment at best.

I neither believe nor disbelieve that there was an actual man called Jesus on whom the New Testament was based. I don't know, and I don't give one of those flying things about whether there was or wasn't.

Yes you do Harbal. You have made it very clear that you don't believe in the life of Jesus the Christ.

Well it's probably safe to say that I don't believe what you or IC believe.

[attofishpi]

I neither believe nor disbelieve that there was an actual man called Jesus on whom the New Testament was based. I don't know, and I don't give one of those flying things about whether there was or wasn't.

Yes you do Harbal. You have made it very clear that you don't believe in the life of Jesus the Christ.

Well it's probably safe to say that I don't believe what you or IC believe.

..and that one thing only I have in common with IC - is that we both believe in the life of Christ, ergo I was correct above - that you don't believe this man Jesus and his life pertaining to God.

(I've had it confirmed - not certain IC has)

[Harbal]

Yes you do Harbal. You have made it very clear that you don't believe in the life of Jesus the Christ.

Well it's probably safe to say that I don't believe what you or IC believe.

..and that one thing only I have in common with IC - is that we both believe in the life of Christ, ergo I was correct above - that you don't believe this man Jesus and his life pertaining to God.

(I've had it confirmed - not certain IC has)

I think of Jesus in the same way as I think of King Arthur and Robin Hood. The stories may or may not be based on a real person, but either way they are mostly fictitious.

[Harbal]

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.

Then you're wildly leaping ahead. You're taking for granted the existence of everything, and not explaining the ultimate origins of anything. That seems a very different kind of conversation than we were having just a short while ago.

The ultimate origin of everything is the singularity in which either God created it or it simply existed. Are you interested in discussing that?

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.

"In the beginning" doesn't specify whether a day or a period of beginning is what we are supposed to understand there. So I don't conjecture on that.

You are conjecturing. What do you think that God means by the creation of light? The creation of the Sun?

I am not talking about the first cause here.

That's what I'm interested in discussing. That's what I'd like to resolve first: is the First Cause more likely to be a 'force' of some kind, or an intentional Agent? That's what I want us to decide.

To you, the first cause is the creation of Earth first and then the creation of Adam and Eve. Earth to the best of our knowledge was formed and was not created. The same applies to humans. Human is the result of evolution and not creation.

...the rest of things such as the manifestation of life can happen as a result of proper conditions that existed on Earth simply follows.

Oh, good heavens! Nobody thinks that any of this stuff is just automatic. That's not remotely plausible, and it has no hint of an explanation in it. That's just blind assumption, no more. When there's a universe, it's not automatic that it would be a coherent one. It's not automatic that it would have planets and stars in it. It's not automatic that it would have functional systems of physical laws in it. It's not automatic that it would have atmorpheres, or gravitational fields, or radiation patterns of a particular kind. It's not automatic that any planet would be of size and configuration to even potentially harbour life. It's not automatic that any such planetoid WOULD harbour any life. It's not automatic what that life would consist of...and so on. Anybody who imagines that this stuff "just follows" really is very far from understanding the first thing about the whole issue, or about the scientific requirements for a cohesive universe populated with beings capable of asking this very question.

I already asked whether God is involved in the natural process and your answer was no. So the natural process is due to natural laws. So it is automatic.

My turn to congratulate you, bahman. You are conducting the argument in a very calm and level headed way, under what can often be very frustrating circumstances.

[bahman]

Then you're wildly leaping ahead. You're taking for granted the existence of everything, and not explaining the ultimate origins of anything. That seems a very different kind of conversation than we were having just a short while ago.

The ultimate origin of everything is the singularity in which either God created it or it simply existed. Are you interested in discussing that?

"In the beginning" doesn't specify whether a day or a period of beginning is what we are supposed to understand there. So I don't conjecture on that.

You are conjecturing. What do you think that God means by the creation of light? The creation of the Sun?

That's what I'm interested in discussing. That's what I'd like to resolve first: is the First Cause more likely to be a 'force' of some kind, or an intentional Agent? That's what I want us to decide.

To you, the first cause is the creation of Earth first and then the creation of Adam and Eve. Earth to the best of our knowledge was formed and was not created. The same applies to humans. Human is the result of evolution and not creation.

Oh, good heavens! Nobody thinks that any of this stuff is just automatic. That's not remotely plausible, and it has no hint of an explanation in it. That's just blind assumption, no more. When there's a universe, it's not automatic that it would be a coherent one. It's not automatic that it would have planets and stars in it. It's not automatic that it would have functional systems of physical laws in it. It's not automatic that it would have atmorpheres, or gravitational fields, or radiation patterns of a particular kind. It's not automatic that any planet would be of size and configuration to even potentially harbour life. It's not automatic that any such planetoid WOULD harbour any life. It's not automatic what that life would consist of...and so on. Anybody who imagines that this stuff "just follows" really is very far from understanding the first thing about the whole issue, or about the scientific requirements for a cohesive universe populated with beings capable of asking this very question.

I already asked whether God is involved in the natural process and your answer was no. So the natural process is due to natural laws. So it is automatic.

My turn to congratulate you, bahman. You are conducting the argument in a very calm and level headed way, under what can often be very frustrating circumstances.

Thanks.

[iambiguous]

What do you think that God means by the creation of light? The creation of the Sun?

There are three things about God I come back to over and again...

1] Does He exist?
2] If He does exist how then do you explain this...

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


...other than by assuming He is either a sadistic monster or is not omnipotent?

3] If He does exist how does one connect the dots between Him and the natural world?

Consider: https://science.nasa.gov/sun/facts/

In other words, did God invent these facts about the Sun "on His own"? Or is He too [like all the rest of us] merely the embodiment of the only possible world given the laws of matter.

As for morality, that always brings us back to Judgment Day. Who goes up, who goes down. And why one and not the other given all of the many conflicting renditions of Judgment Day itself?

[Dontaskme]

Does He exist?

If He does exist how does one connect the dots between Him and the natural world?

Well whatever we assume God to look like we are always left without an image of God.
It's very clear and obvious that God does not have a physical body, in the way a human does, so we can only imagine what God actually looks like.
In fact we cannot come anywhere close to knowing what God could look like because we cannot put an image to God.
We can though, only identify with the things that are seen as real factual objects as evidence for their existence.
But so far, God has not shown up in that context. Unless God is just another WORD for that which appears and disappears upon the birth and death of a body, namely, the sense of sensing you are an alive conscious being. Maybe that's what God is.
This means God must be some kind of imageless invisible force that animates the physically seen visible world of objects and bodies.

The invisible part of the physical world is not able to be detected as an image, but at the same time, is that which makes the imageless appear as an image as and through the process of birth and death.

We can only understand ourselves and the reality of existence in our own unique way, from the perception of our own direct understanding, what makes sense to us. But what religious believers tends to do, is to imagine God as being some independent creator that is separate from creation, when in truth, that's an absurdity. In truth, God either has to be Everything, all One Thing, One without a Second, or absolutely Nothing at all.


.

[Immanuel Can]

Sometimes, that's all it is. And in such cases, it's not really about science, but about a belief system called "Scientism," which is the naive belief that science is the universal key to knowledge of everything.

How come you are not critical of that 'ism' that is similar to the immature thinking of 'scientism', i.e.
'theism' which is the naive belief that the omniscient-God-driven-theology is the universal key to knowledge of everything?

Actually, that's not what anybody I know thinks. Everybody knows that knowledge of theology is one kind of various knowledges. Nobody I know tries to fix their sink, or medicate their babies, or calculate the square root of 63 by way of a theological premise.

But I do know people who believe that "in principle, science can teach us everything that's true," (Scientism) and "only the things our five physical senses can register is real" (Physicalists, or possibly Empiricists), or that "there is no such thing as non-material truths or reality" (Materialists), and so on.

[Immanuel Can]

Science is the only key to knowledge if we want to know the origins of our universe, it's as simple as that.

Scientism.

Well, if you're prepared even to entertain the possibility that God might exist, even if you consider it remote, then you'd have to admit that would not be true IF God exists. The One who created it all would surely be able to tell us something about that.

And yet, you get the point. The worth of something is not defined by the amount of "stuff" that may be around it.

No, I don't get it...

Look at the above statement. Kind of obvious, wouldn't you think? A ruby in a pile of rocks is still a ruby. And the rocks are still rocks.

[Immanuel Can]

The ultimate origin of everything is the singularity in which either God created it or it simply existed. Are you interested in discussing that?

Sure. If God created what you call "the Singularity," then "the Singularity" isn't the First Cause in the causal chain: God is. "The Singularity" isn't the name of anything, either: it just means, "a single thing." So "the Singularity" isn't even an explanation of a cause, but rather just a contentless generalization.

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.

"In the beginning" doesn't specify whether a day or a period of beginning is what we are supposed to understand there. So I don't conjecture on that.

You are conjecturing.

No, I'm kind of doing the opposite of "conjecturing." I'm leaving the question open in precisely the way the text does, and not pretending to have more knowledge than I do from that.

To you, the first cause is the creation of Earth first

That's not what Genesis says. And it's not what I believe. What the Bible says is that God is the First Cause of the existence of things.

I already asked whether God is involved in the natural process and your answer was no.

Then I misunderstood what you meant by "the natural process." I thought that what you were asking is "Does God routinely intervene to upset normal physical laws," and to me, the answer is obviously, "No." But that does not imply that God did not create the universe, nor even that so often as God wishes, He is able to intervene to alter a particular "natural law," which is not really a "law" at all, but merely a physical regularity. Obviously, as a Christian, I believe He has done that on various occasions: the parting of the Red Sea, for example, or the changing of water into wine, or the Resurrection...

So your objection isn't correct. But the misunderstanding may have been equally mine, plausibly.

[bahman]

The ultimate origin of everything is the singularity in which either God created it or it simply existed. Are you interested in discussing that?

Sure. If God created what you call "the Singularity," then "the Singularity" isn't the First Cause in the causal chain: God is. "The Singularity" isn't the name of anything, either: it just means, "a single thing." So "the Singularity" isn't even an explanation of a cause, but rather just a contentless generalization.

OK, so we are back to the basics: Singularity. Could we agree that singularity could simply exist without being caused? If not, why?

To you, the first cause is the creation of Earth first

That's not what Genesis says. And it's not what I believe. What the Bible says is that God is the First Cause of the existence of things.

But if the earth is created then it must be a room that it can exist within, namely the universe has to exist first to create Earth. Earth simply cannot be created in nowhere. The creation of the universe however is not mentioned in Genesis so we are having a problem.

I already asked whether God is involved in the natural process and your answer was no.

Then I misunderstood what you meant by "the natural process." I thought that what you were asking is "Does God routinely intervene to upset normal physical laws," and to me, the answer is obviously, "No." But that does not imply that God did not create the universe, nor even that so often as God wishes, He is able to intervene to alter a particular "natural law," which is not really a "law" at all, but merely a physical regularity. Obviously, as a Christian, I believe He has done that on various occasions: the parting of the Red Sea, for example, or the changing of water into wine, or the Resurrection...

So your objection isn't correct. But the misunderstanding may have been equally mine, plausibly.

I can buy that God can intervene when He wants to. But my question is whether the creation of singularity was a perfect act or not. God does not need to intervene if the creation is perfect. Everything naturally and automatically follows from the singularity, including the emergence of Earth, the Sun, all other objects, and also life on Earth. If the creation was not perfect then God has to intervene here and there to make sure that things evolve as He intended. So to you, was the creation of singularity a perfect act, or it was imperfect?

[Immanuel Can]

The ultimate origin of everything is the singularity in which either God created it or it simply existed. Are you interested in discussing that?

Sure. If God created what you call "the Singularity," then "the Singularity" isn't the First Cause in the causal chain: God is. "The Singularity" isn't the name of anything, either: it just means, "a single thing." So "the Singularity" isn't even an explanation of a cause, but rather just a contentless generalization.

OK, so we are back to the basics: Singularity.

I don't think we are. I have no idea what you mean when you say "Singularity." At one point, you said it was the Big Bang. Now you say it was something prior to the Big Bang. Well...what was it?

Whether it could exists as "uncaused" will be determined by what you think the alleged "Singularity" means.

To you, the first cause is the creation of Earth first

That's not what Genesis says. And it's not what I believe. What the Bible says is that God is the First Cause of the existence of things.

The creation of the universe however is not mentioned in Genesis so we are having a problem.

Do you know what the term "the heavens" refers to? It's not the same term as what popular thought thinks "Heaven" (capital "H") means. It means the universe...all the stuff that's not Earth, all the stuff above it, like when we talk about "the stars in the heavens."

"In the beginning," reads Genesis, "God created the heavens and the earth."

So the universe came first, or contemporaneous with the creation of the Earth, not after it.

But my question is whether the creation of singularity was a perfect act or not.

I still don't know what you mean by "the Singularity," so I don't know how to answer that for you. What the text says is that the Creation was "good," and "very good." It does not say "perfect." But then, I don't know what you mean by "a perfect act," either: because "perfect" can mean, "flawless," or "morally good," or "complete," or several other things.

God does not need to intervene if the creation is perfect.

That's what the Deists used to think. The reason they wanted God to be absent after Creation is that they overestimated the possible perfection of what they were beginning to perceive as "natural laws." They imagined that perhaps science itself would be perfect, or at least would find that the universe ran entirely along invariable rules that, once put in place by the Deistic god, would no longer be subject to his interventions at all. He would then be what they called an "absentee landlord," the Creator but not the sustainer of the world. He made it, then left, they thought, and would have no further interest in his Creation once it had been created.

That's not the God of the Bible. The God of the Bible is intimately interested in His Creation, and loves especially His chief creature, man. He is not a "divine watchmaker," or "absentee landlord," who, once having made things, lost interest and moved away. He can interevene when He wishes to, although He ordinarily lets creation run according to its own internal laws. However, from the very beginning, He had a much larger and more sustained plan in view, and has never lost interest in us.

[Harbal]

Science is the only key to knowledge if we want to know the origins of our universe, it's as simple as that.

Scientism

Yes, if the only alternative is Godism.

Well, if you're prepared even to entertain the possibility that God might exist, even if you consider it remote, then you'd have to admit that would not be true IF God exists. The One who created it all would surely be able to tell us something about that.

I don't think it makes any difference whether God exists or not. Science is gradually figuring out what laws of physics exist and how they interact with each other, and so forth. The more we learn, the more accurately we can predict what happens under any particular set of circumstances, and also more accurately deduce what happened in the past. We know that the universe (all existence) behaves in accordance with certain principles, so if God does exist, he is obviously part of that system, because nothing deviates from it. To explain God, we need science. Starting out with the assumption of God, and what God is, will lead us nowhere.

No, I don't get it...

Look at the above statement. Kind of obvious, wouldn't you think? A ruby in a pile of rocks is still a ruby. And the rocks are still rocks.

But your assumption that we are a ruby, and the rest of the stuff in the universe is just rocks, is what I think is called begging the question. You are not allowed to do that in philosophy. We know we are a miniscule spec in the universe, that is not a matter of dispute, but we by no means know if there is anything special about us that sets us apart from the infinitely massive quantity of other stuff that we just seem to be part of. Let's just stick to the facts as we know them, shall we?

[Immanuel Can]

I don't think it makes any difference whether God exists or not.

Then you're the only person who thinks so. It's pretty clear it's the consideration that makes the most difference in the world possible.

To explain God, we need science. Starting out with the assumption of God, and what God is, will lead us nowhere.

How ironic. Historically, it's actually the opposite: if we had had no conception of God, we would never have had any science either. It's science that's the derivative, and Theism that's the source, actually.

Want proof? Ask yourself this: there are billions of very smart people in places like India, China, Subsaharan Africa, aboriginal North America...and so on. Why, then, did science appear in the West, and nowhere else?

Answer: a certain conception of God has to exist in a society before one can even conceive of natural laws, or of a systematic and rational method to predict them. One has to believe in a lawgiving kind of God, a rational God, a God of order and sequence...and then one has to have motive to discover His doings through the examination of creation. That's why the discoverer of the scientific method itself was a devout Christian, Francis Bacon. Check it out.

This, by the way, is not my own insight. It's known as "Whitehead's Thesis," invented by the philosopher of science, Alfred North Whitehead," https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/whitehead/. He was also a clergyman.

No, I don't get it...

Look at the above statement. Kind of obvious, wouldn't you think? A ruby in a pile of rocks is still a ruby. And the rocks are still rocks.

But your assumption that we are a ruby, and the rest of the stuff in the universe is just rocks, is what I think is called begging the question.

I'm simply pointing out the illogic in your own argument. You said that the abundance of the "stuff" means we should be skeptical that we have any value; I pointed out that that's not logical. I didn't try to argue we were a "ruby," just that you can't know we AREN'T one by trying to deduce it from the size of the universe.

So no, I didn't beg any question. I didn't, in fact, make any argument of the kind. I just pointed out that yours didn't work.

We know we are a miniscule spec in the universe, that is not a matter of dispute, but we by no means know if there is anything special about us that sets us apart from the infinitely massive quantity of other stuff that we just seem to be part of.

This was your argument...plus one more step...that you seem to think that repeatedly speaking about the amount of 'stuff' that apparently doesn't count should also count against any possiblilty of our specialness.

And it doesn't. That's the only point worth making from that.