Christianity v. Secular Humanism

[BilliardsBall]

But it's also moral to own an Israelite slave without that is not limited and because of economic exchange. And I'm not saying this just because I'm correct, it's actually your God that commands it.

Deuteronomy 15
12 And if thy brother, an Hebrew man, or an Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, and serve thee six years; then in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee.

13 And when thou sendest him out free from thee, thou shalt not let him go away empty:

14 Thou shalt furnish him liberally out of thy flock, and out of thy floor, and out of thy winepress: of that wherewith the Lord thy God hath blessed thee thou shalt give unto him.

15 And thou shalt remember that thou wast a bondman in the land of Egypt, and the Lord thy God redeemed thee: therefore I command thee this thing to day.

16 And it shall be, if he say unto thee, I will not go away from thee; because he loveth thee and thine house, because he is well with thee;

17 Then thou shalt take an aul, and thrust it through his ear unto the door, and he shall be thy servant for ever. And also unto thy maidservant thou shalt do likewise.


So it can be moral to own an Israelite woman slave forever. And sometimes own an Israelite man forever as well, therefore, it's not limited. And it's not for economic exchange, but because of his love for his wife.

Context is important. Depending on the context, it is morally right to own an Israelite slave and a Gentile slave. Your God just proved that I'm right and you're wrong about biblical morality, it's not absolute. So are you ready to be someone's slave for life yet?

I've already address these and your other objections several times in this thread. I heard you (and the Bible!) the first time.

You are judging morals without the very context you are recommending. I'm reminded of the story of the man who bought a slave at auction. The slave angrily spat upon the man, who said, "You don't understand! I paid for you at auction today to set you free!" The Bible contains just this type of story, but....

Feel free to have the last word on this subject, please.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I haven't appealed to any authority whatsoever. I pointed out that nobody has ever produced good evidence for the existence of the supernatural, and pointing out that such a finding would be worthy of a Nobel Prize, because it could be worldview-altering. That's not an appeal to any authority. And it's not fallacious to ask someone for the reasons/evidence they use to determine that something exists; It's just logic 101.

I asked you for evidence for your claims that supernatural anything exists. And now you're tap dancing.

No, you asked me rhetorically for evidence, not seeking evidence, and making an unneeded remark that some scientists use scientism to preclude the supernatural.

 

[SkepticThinker]

No, you asked me rhetorically for evidence, not seeking evidence, and making an unneeded remark that some scientists use scientism to preclude the supernatural.

I did no such thing.

You asserted the existence of something for which nobody has ever produced good, empirical evidence. I asked you for good evidence. Seeking actual evidence. Pointing out that you'd be demonstrating something nobody else has ever been able to provide demonstrable evidence for, in the history of humankind. You provided none, and instead attempt to read my mind or whatever this is.

I don't believe things for which there is no good evidence. Bottom line for me.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I did no such thing.

You asserted the existence of something for which nobody has ever produced good, empirical evidence. I asked you for good evidence. Seeking actual evidence. Pointing out that you'd be demonstrating something nobody else has ever been able to provide demonstrable evidence for, in the history of humankind. You provided none, and instead attempt to read my mind or whatever this is.

I don't believe things for which there is no good evidence. Bottom line for me.

I know what empirical evidence is. What would be an example of something for which there is no empirical evidence? I can give a supernatural example:

The laws of nature plus nothing plus quantum laws created everything--aka "In the beginning, God . . . "

Were the laws of nature different, we would not exist, and were those laws not pre-existent to the BB expansion, we would not exist. 50 years ago or so, most scientists considered the universe eternal, now they say before the BB expansion there was nothing, not a vacuum or space, which are things, but no-thing.

I anticipate, further, that your response will be "natural processes, we just don't know what they are yet", based on bias--rather than super-natural [GOD] processes."

 

[SkepticThinker]

I know what empirical evidence is. What would be an example of something for which there is no empirical evidence? I can give a supernatural example:

The laws of nature plus nothing plus quantum laws created everything--aka "In the beginning, God . . . "

Were the laws of nature different, we would not exist, and were those laws not pre-existent to the BB expansion, we would not exist. 50 years ago or so, most scientists considered the universe eternal, now they say before the BB expansion there was nothing, not a vacuum or space, which are things, but no-thing.

I anticipate, further, that your response will be "natural processes, we just don't know what they are yet", based on bias--rather than super-natural [GOD] processes."

There you go again, claiming the supernatural is real. Pointing out that if the laws of nature were different we wouldn't be here is neither evidence for the supernatural nor evidence for god(s).
So I have to ask again, based on what? Where is the evidence for the supernatural that you claim exists?




P.S. When theoretical physicists like Lawrence Krauss talk about "nothing," they're not talking about no-thing. Do we even know what "no-thing" would be or if it is even possible for "no-thing" to exist? Nope.

 

[BilliardsBall]

There you go again, claiming the supernatural is real. Pointing out that if the laws of nature were different we wouldn't be here is neither evidence for the supernatural nor evidence for god(s).
So I have to ask again, based on what? Where is the evidence for the supernatural that you claim exists?




P.S. When theoretical physicists like Lawrence Krauss talk about "nothing," they're not talking about no-thing. Do we even know what "no-thing" would be or if it is even possible for "no-thing" to exist? Nope.

No, but we can conceive of nothing - creatio ex nihilo - and also the absurdity of a steady state universe, and further, the paradox/problem of infinite regression if the BB singularity came from elsewhere in a multiverse. I'm not buying what you're selling, but am a little surprised that you are.

I say a little because I see logic go out the door when the Big G is implied--not invoked, IMPLIED.

 

[SkepticThinker]

No, but we can conceive of nothing - creatio ex nihilo - and also the absurdity of a steady state universe, and further, the paradox/problem of infinite regression if the BB singularity came from elsewhere in a multiverse. I'm not buying what you're selling, but am a little surprised that you are.

I say a little because I see logic go out the door when the Big G is implied--not invoked, IMPLIED.

I'm not selling anything. You're the one who brought up this talk about no-thing in an attempt to demonstrate the existence of the supernatural. What I'm wondering is why you think what you're positing is evidence for the supernatural.


I can't conceive of no-thing. What would that be, exactly? Can no-thing even exist in the first place? Does that even make sense? Who knows. I'm not the one using it to claim that the supernatural is real.

Claiming that a god exists doesn't solve this problem for you either. Where did God(s) come from? You're still in the same boat as everyone else. Except that you're the one making claims that gods and supernatural worlds exist.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I'm not selling anything. You're the one who brought up this talk about no-thing in an attempt to demonstrate the existence of the supernatural. What I'm wondering is why you think what you're positing is evidence for the supernatural.


I can't conceive of no-thing. What would that be, exactly? Can no-thing even exist in the first place? Does that even make sense? Who knows. I'm not the one using it to claim that the supernatural is real.

Claiming that a god exists doesn't solve this problem for you either. Where did God(s) come from? You're still in the same boat as everyone else. Except that you're the one making claims that gods and supernatural worlds exist.

You're asking me why I think scientific, universal consensus that the universe is not eternal but came from elsewhere--in a moment when all natural laws we know were violated--then natural laws made everything, is a proof that something supernatural (outside the natural/NATURAL LAW) exists?

Skeptics agree--NATURAL laws like conservation of matter and energy were violated by the BB expansion, that is, SUPER-natural occurance.

 

[SkepticThinker]

You're asking me why I think scientific, universal consensus that the universe is not eternal but came from elsewhere--in a moment when all natural laws we know were violated--then natural laws made everything, is a proof that something supernatural (outside the natural/NATURAL LAW) exists?

You claimed the "fine tuning" of the universe as some kind of evidence for the supernatural.
I'm asking you why and how think that is evidence for the supernatural.

Skeptics agree--NATURAL laws like conservation of matter and energy were violated by the BB expansion, that is, SUPER-natural occurance.

Physicists don't agree those laws were/are violated by the BB expansion.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You claimed the "fine tuning" of the universe as some kind of evidence for the supernatural.
I'm asking you why and how think that is evidence for the supernatural.


Physicists don't agree those laws were/are violated by the BB expansion.

Your two questions bring up a paradox solved by the existence of the super-natural.

Either the fine tuning potential "natural law" was in place prior to the existence of the universe (the metaphysical prior to the physical) or the law of conservation was not in effect when the universe came to be (before Planck time) etc. - that is supra- or super-natural law existed when the BB singularity expanded.

Put differently, either an internal catalyst expanded the singularity (no known natural law) or an external catalyst outside the no-thing outside the singularity acted.

 

[night912]

I've already address these and your other objections several times in this thread. I heard you (and the Bible!) the first time.

Sorry, but giving strawman arguments is considered as not addressing my objections. Addressing my objections means that you are actually addressing what I've said, not something that you came up with, then claimed that those were my objections. It was the first time that I raised the point about it being possible for an Israelite man and woman to be slaves forever, so it's a straight up lie from you.

You are judging morals without the very context you are recommending.

You're talking about the context that you have been arguing for, that slavery is immoral when it's being done to Jews but totally moral if done to Gentiles? Then continue to still argue that biblical morality is morally absolute. In that context, you are most definitely wrong. Content, context, and comprehension skills in reading is important when referring to moral absolute.

I'm reminded of the story of the man who bought a slave at auction. The slave angrily spat upon the man, who said, "You don't understand! I paid for you at auction today to set you free!" The Bible contains just this type of story, but....

But.......unfortunately for you, the bible does not contain that type of story when it comes to slavery. In fact, biblical slavery stories reminds me of the story of the man who bought a slave at auction. The slave angrily spat upon the man, who said, "You don't understand! I paid for you at auction today to own you as a slave. I now own you as my property forever!"

It does help if you read the bible and not spew ideas that you came up with in your head. There's a term for that, it's called "headcanon."

Here, I'll gladly help you out.

Deuteronomy 15
12 “And if thy brother, a Hebrew man or a Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee and serve thee six years, then in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee.

So buying a man to set him free, according to you, actually means that he is now owned by another human being as property, then after six years, might decide to permanently own you forever. Because let's not forget verses 16 and 17 of the same chapter.........

16 And it shall be, if he say unto thee, ‘I will not go away from thee,’ because he loveth thee and thine house, because he is well with thee,

17 then thou shalt take an awl and thrust it through his ear unto the door, and he shall be thy servant FOREVER . And also unto thy maidservant thou shalt do likewise.

Feel free to have the last word on this subject, please.

Yes of course, because it is immoral to take away the freedom a non Jew and own him/her as property.

PS
The honesty test comes into play here. Will you give me the last word?

A) If no, then it shows that you were dishonest and just committed an immoral act, according to your beliefs about biblical morality.

B) If yes, then obviously, it's only reasonable for the last word to be that which corrects what you've falsely claimed and said.

 

[night912]

Your two questions bring up a paradox solved by the existence of the super-natural.

Either the fine tuning potential "natural law" was in place prior to the existence of the universe (the metaphysical prior to the physical) or the law of conservation was not in effect when the universe came to be (before Planck time) etc. - that is supra- or super-natural law existed when the BB singularity expanded.

That's not a paradox. Please explain why you think it is. You're forgetting at least one more, the natural law that wasn't fine turned, existed prior to the existence of the universe. Even with the one that you forgot, it still doesn't make it a paradox.

Put differently, either an internal catalyst expanded the singularity (no known natural law) or an external catalyst outside the no-thing outside the singularity acted.

And both the internal and external catalysts are not known as of now.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Your two questions bring up a paradox solved by the existence of the super-natural.

How so?

Either the fine tuning potential "natural law" was in place prior to the existence of the universe (the metaphysical prior to the physical) or the law of conservation was not in effect when the universe came to be (before Planck time) etc. - that is supra- or super-natural law existed when the BB singularity expanded.

You're assuming the universe is "fine tuned." Why do you make that assumption?

We have no idea what laws existed prior to the big bang, which itself is something of a nonsensical statement, since time began at the big bang, as far as we can understand.

Put differently, either an internal catalyst expanded the singularity (no known natural law) or an external catalyst outside the no-thing outside the singularity acted.

You're still assuming "no-thing" can exist, which doesn't make sense to me. Can you explain what "no-thing" is, or not?


What it sounds to me like you are doing here is trying to cram God into the gaps in our knowledge about the origins of our universe. That hasn't been a very fruitful endeavor in the past.

My answer is "I don't know" and your answer is "God." How did you get there?

 

[night912]

You claimed the "fine tuning" of the universe as some kind of evidence for the supernatural.
I'm asking you why and how think that is evidence for the supernatural.

Your two questions bring up a paradox solved by the existence of the super-natural.

How so?

From my observations, some people like to use words eventhough they themselves are ignorant of its definition.

 

[BilliardsBall]

That's not a paradox. Please explain why you think it is. You're forgetting at least one more, the natural law that wasn't fine turned, existed prior to the existence of the universe. Even with the one that you forgot, it still doesn't make it a paradox.


And both the internal and external catalysts are not known as of now.

I'm asking you to choose:

Was natural law suspended at Planck time (super- or supra-natural law in effect) or did natural law, including conservation, change nothing to everything?

Or consider this issue: Did an internal catalyst expand the singularity (creation) or an external catalyst expand it (super- or supra-natural law at work)?

Or rephrase what you wrote, "both the internal and external catalysts are not known as of now" aka "NO KNOWN NATURAL LAW DID THIS, BUT FOR SURE, IT WAS A NATURAL PHENOMENON, THE MAKING OF EVERYTHING FROM NOTHING."

 

[BilliardsBall]

How so?



You're assuming the universe is "fine tuned." Why do you make that assumption?

We have no idea what laws existed prior to the big bang, which itself is something of a nonsensical statement, since time began at the big bang, as far as we can understand.

You're still assuming "no-thing" can exist, which doesn't make sense to me. Can you explain what "no-thing" is, or not?


What it sounds to me like you are doing here is trying to cram God into the gaps in our knowledge about the origins of our universe. That hasn't been a very fruitful endeavor in the past.

My answer is "I don't know" and your answer is "God." How did you get there?

Creation with great energy and light--and time, aka the expansion of the BB singularity, disobeys the law of conservation--matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, but were incepted at the expansion. Your claim is that unknown natural laws existed prior to the expansion. If it was a natural law, it violated another natural law--conservation.

What do you call an occurrence of law that violates a law or precedent? Action from an outside agency superior to law. That's true whether we're speaking of physical laws or jurisprudence.

Stated differently, I'm not putting God in a known gap. I'm stressing that on the cosmologist/physicist side, the expansion violated known natural law, making it by definition supra- or super-natural. That it aligns with Genesis 1 is affirming and pleasant to me.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Creation with great energy and light--and time, aka the expansion of the BB singularity, disobeys the law of conservation--matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, but were incepted at the expansion. Your claim is that unknown natural laws existed prior to the expansion. If it was a natural law, it violated another natural law--conservation.

Who says nothing existed before the BB?

See, this is why I keep asking you what "no-thing" is.
Physicists don't say that nothing is "no-thing." And they don't say that "no-thing" expanded. That doesn't make any sense.

I'm not claiming anything about the BB. I'm not even sure I fully understand it or accept it. I really don't know how everything got here, and don't claim to know.
On the other hand, you are trying to use it to demonstrate the existence of the supernatural, remember? You're the one who brought it up in the first place.

What do you call an occurrence of law that violates a law or precedent? Action from an outside agency superior to law. That's true whether we're speaking of physical laws or jurisprudence.

You don't just get to assert things like that. You need to demonstrate them.

Maybe invisible pixies had too much gas one day and belched the universe into existence.

Stated differently, I'm not putting God in a known gap. I'm stressing that on the cosmologist/physicist side, the expansion violated known natural law, making it by definition supra- or super-natural. That it aligns with Genesis 1 is affirming and pleasant to me.

You are though. You are declaring that there is a god - a very specific god - in fact, and that god is the explanation for the universe, as you suggest that anything else would violate the laws of nature without realizing that the god you've posited would violate those same laws of nature. But you're fine with that as an answer, because that's the answer you wanted to pop in there to begin with.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Who says nothing existed before the BB?

See, this is why I keep asking you what "no-thing" is.
Physicists don't say that nothing is "no-thing." And they don't say that "no-thing" expanded. That doesn't make any sense.

I'm not claiming anything about the BB. I'm not even sure I fully understand it or accept it. I really don't know how everything got here, and don't claim to know.
On the other hand, you are trying to use it to demonstrate the existence of the supernatural, remember? You're the one who brought it up in the first place.



You don't just get to assert things like that. You need to demonstrate them.

Maybe invisible pixies had too much gas one day and belched the universe into existence.



You are though. You are declaring that there is a god - a very specific god - in fact, and that god is the explanation for the universe, as you suggest that anything else would violate the laws of nature without realizing that the god you've posited would violate those same laws of nature. But you're fine with that as an answer, because that's the answer you wanted to pop in there to begin with.

You are conflating "Process X in the natural world is of unknown origin" with "Process Y violates natural law and is therefore de facto supra- or super-natural."

You don't accept the BB because you don't understand (it as you wrote), or because you disagree with nearly 100% of modern cosmologists? Sounds like a variation of the most common atheist objection that starts, "Personally, I do not believe that X . . . "

Any number of skeptics at RF have written on threads with me that at Planck time or just prior to, natural law was suspended. That's different than "an unknown natural law must have been at work." I know you know the difference between a suspension of law and an unknown law, but in case others are reading:

1+1=8675.3432 in this case, put differently, a supernatural occurrence.

"You don't just get to assert things like that. You need to demonstrate them."

Although neither of us were present at the expansion of the BB singularity, I agree with nearly all modern cosmologists who assert that natural law was not in operation at Planck time. THEY are asserting something, not me.

 

[night912]

I'm asking you to choose:

Was natural law suspended at Planck time (super- or supra-natural law in effect) or did natural law, including conservation, change nothing to everything?

Or consider this issue: Did an internal catalyst expand the singularity (creation) or an external catalyst expand it (super- or supra-natural law at work)?

Or rephrase what you wrote, "both the internal and external catalysts are not known as of now" aka "NO KNOWN NATURAL LAW DID THIS, BUT FOR SURE, IT WAS A NATURAL PHENOMENON, THE MAKING OF EVERYTHING FROM NOTHING."

But it's not a paradox. So why did you call it a paradox?

 

[BilliardsBall]

But it's not a paradox. So why did you call it a paradox?

What's not a paradox? Skeptics who say "natural law did not exist at Planck time because of [unknown] natural law" are making a self-defeating, paradoxical remark!