Is it Fair to Incarcerate Christians for their Belief?

[1robin]

Don't tell me. I am a mathematician helping physicists sometimes. Tell all those physicists working on that, and see what they say when the hear of your missing piece theory.

You appear to be a full time blogger. Most modern scientists assume materialism is true, they will still be looking for a material cause of the universe when the sun ceases to be a main sequence star. I can't remember which parts your denying at this point. Is it the nothing, the beginning, causation? I need to narrow it down before I go through it again.

It is obvious that ancient philosophers and religious people believe that. Especially the latters seem happy and comfy with their missing piece they just made up. And their missing piece looks weird. Sometimes it has a son, sometimes it is three pieces in one, sometimes one piece. Sometimes it has an elephant head, sometimes it doesn't.

Of course it is obvious, that is why your denying it was so appalling. You claimed a universal negative existed if reference to anyone believing in creation out of nothing. Now you have admitted that was incorrect. Hopefully we can now move on to something meaningful, but I am all but sure we won't, we will stay right here. As bad as their differing claims may be (and they range from horrific to pretty solid) they are almost all better than claiming the universe lacks a cause, has always existed, or has a material explanation.

Do you think It would be rational to take them seriously?

If I had to start over, I would quickly conclude that only the supernatural can explain the coming into existence of the natural. That supernatural cause must be at least X, Y. and Z. I would find all God's described as at least X, Y, and Z, then use other methods to determine which one was the most deserving of serious investigation. In reality I accidentally (or maybe not by accident) did all that in reverse.

Coming into requires time. And, as you said, those secular scholars do not believe either in nothing.

Yes they do, they simply define nothing as something. Yet another reason I am as skeptical of theoretical science as claims to miracles.

Yes we need time, we need space, and we need matter. Actually what we need are for all three to come into existence at the same instant.

Fortunately:
New International Version
In the beginning (time) God (agent) created the heavens (space) and the earth (matter).

If there is no space where does the matter go, if no matter how do you define space, if neither how do you get chronology?

Do we need to get into Hebrew hermeneutics and biblical exegesis?

They probably believe that theologians are Far more qualified to speak about nothing. Who can say?

How do you do science on the lack of a thing? No - thing, has no properties, no laws, no nature.

Let's do Latin again:

Nothing comes from nothing (Latin: nihil fit ex nihilo) is a philosophical expression of a thesis first argued by Parmenides.
Nothing comes from nothing - Wikipedia

Did I? oh well, point taken.

Yes, but to be fair I probably didn't do it justice. Where I hear heavily speculative claims about science I literally can't stop myself from glazing over after a few minutes.

I hear "white holes" blah... blah... "multiple universes"... blah... blah... "tense less time"... blah... blah... "string theory, holographic universe, 11 dimensions" Which is probably what you hear when I speak about covenants, born again, Alexandrian textual integrity, etc......

Who was that God? Someone effective as a missing piece of a puzzle. Like all of them.

I do not think you have actually provided a single thing I have requested you to, in support of your own argument in a week. It was your own claim, give me the evidence for it.

And? I disagree with social Darwinism wit the same degree that humans always submit to a cost/benefit metric.

There is no ultimate right to agree to or deny without God. Thomas Huxley did not write evolution's constitution.

Do you agree that being faithful to your partner is morally right? Do you agree that sexual promiscuity is morally wrong? Well, you must if you are a Christian.

I do as both. On secularism I think the costs cannot be justified by the benefits, and as a Christian I believe the bible contains his word.

If yes, then why do you single out homosexual behaviour? Your previous moral imperatives should be independent of sexual orientation and cover them all. For I cannot imagine any costs arising from just following them.

I have never seen nor been in a heterosexual thread. This is epistemological, ontological confusion. A behavior is either justifiable or unjustifiable by reason irrespective of how I feel about the behavior personally. My preference would be that homosexual behavior was neither wrong nor harmful, but my beliefs are not governed by my preferences.

If two gay men have sex five times a day for 50 years, and they do and did that just between themselves, what social costs do you expect?

I allowed this twice, but no longer. You cannot subdivide a behavior up arbitrarily. I can't debate every subdivision you may cough forth.

You mean as unfashionable as stoning people today for not holding the Sabbath?

Who does that? You have a lot of work to do. Does a God exist? Which one? What are his laws? etc......

If I were you, I would review my sources of knowledge.

I made several claims, which one didn't you like?

Yes, thank you.

How many languages are you incompetent in, anyway? Just kidding.

Über does not mean Super in German. It means more like "over".

Oh brother, the semantic Gestapo rides again. Regardless, is claiming to be over others less vain than saying your superior to others?

And I am sure you sent back the super mega duper invincible task force to correct that. Note to the next Hitler or Stalin: just tell them what you will do after they left. Lol.

Ciao

- viole

Did you catch my mistake? I recently investigated the Korean war, so I got the 38th and the 17th parallel backwards. Regardless, I am not sure what your talking about. We lost the peace in Vietnam, not the war. We may do so again in Iraq. We are not discussing what we should have or should not have done, we were discussing whether we achieved what we set out to do. I actually have two ways we could have won the post war situation in Vietnam, but LBJ was president not me. You need to at least make an effort to keep political ideals and the roll the military plays compartmentalized. If you want to find the guys most responsible for the way Vietnam wound up they won't be in a uniform. It was LBJ followed closely by a well meaning but mistaken Walter Cronkite. Our troops shattered the VC out of existence during TET, then for some reason Walter said the war was now unwinnable. Since the secular revolution occurred the TV replaced God so it must be true.

"War is the continuation of politics by other means."
Carl von Clausewitz - Wikipedia

Politics fails, the military begins. The military finishes, the politics begins.

BTW using "task force" makes military people think of Leyte gulf, not Normandy, or Vietnam. I do not even remember what your driving at but since we spend more on our military that the rest of the world combined and could probably destroy the solar system I don't think your going to get there.

 

[1robin]

I think your bar on what qualifies as a miracle is pretty low.

You have arrange from the causing to exist of the universe, resurrections, to outlines on toast. Whatever your problems with miracles are it isn't related to their magnitude.

I don't want to be disrepectful about you losing your drinking habits. I just believe that instead of thanking an invisible fantasy in the sky, you should take a good look at yourself in a mirror and say: well done!

I did nothing, in fact I had been drinking that night. If your disrespecting the cause of my sobriety, it isn't me. BTW that was merely the tip of the ice burg as to what occurred that night. I do not know why I am bothering but I will give you another one. I do not remember what I did but I felt guilty about it as I was washing my dishes. I felt a deep gloom and regret, I prayed for forgiveness. 30 minutes later I was still lying in the kitchen floor in absolute contentment. You may relate better to another, I used to have a roommate who was a literal master at chess. I think he was rated around 1900. I lost every game we ever played except 3 out of hundreds. 2 times he was drunk, the third time I felt God with me the whole day but could not figure out why. I went home, sat in the car for a minute, decided if I couldn't use the anointing for anything else I would use it to play chess. I opened the door and told him to set up the board cause he was playing against God (that sounds and was arrogant but I didn't mean it like that). Regardless I beat him in about 10 moves. Decades later we still recall that day.

Yes, the problem is that among those million hits, you will have miracles performed by Allah. Or Ganesh. Or Whomever. Any claim that "proves" your religion has a similar claim concerning another religion.

In that case, seems to be the worst conclusion to reach is that no miracles ever occur.

Well, then show me a real miracle. You know: like someone growing a new limb, or being magically cured from a genetic disease. Stopping drinking or smoking, won't do.

I did not say I could do miracles. God did not say he does miracles on demand, in fact he does not seem to like skeptics demanding them too much either. I do not see that I have any burden here. A lack of evidence is only a fault if given fact X there should be more evidence for X than we actually have. Good luck pulling that argument off.

The miracles at Lourdes are ridicolous. It is probably safer to stay home than make the whole journey, if we consider the hit ratio officially recognized by the Church. And they need to recognize some of them, if they want to keep selling high priced water in those Mary-shaped bottles. It is like a Casino estabilishment, you need some winners now and then, if you want to keep the business going. And in this case, I would say the mafia boss owning the Casino is morally superior: at least he relies on probability theory and people having money to spend, instead of making things up and make profit from misery.

It appears biased when you equate unequal things.

Thinking about it, the pope who got shot, claimed that the Lady of Fatima deviated the bullet aimed at him (with mixed results, requiring the additional help of not so divine surgeons). Probably one of those millions claims. But if that is true, then those Ladies are mobile. Or they can perform remote miracles. Or both. Portugal and Rome are not so close.

If you want to compete for who can name more legitimate faults of the Catholic church I would win. I already told you I pretty much deny 90% of all miracles and only then start investigating. I am not going to defend random claims to miracles you conjure up. I only have certainty of what I have experienced, pick on that.

What is then the rationality of making that journey, especially when you have no legs?

Are we really debating the justification of a journey based on the probability of a miracle, at the same time you deny the worth of even discussing the justification of a destructive sexual behavior.

Hope springs eternal. Rationality not so much.

I find your world view short of all of them. No hope, no rationality, and no eternity. Is it rational to accept a universal negative you cannot justify, to negate any eternal hope.

Good to know. Please inform all those amputees that they are wasting their time, if they pray to recover. No matter how they pray on Jesus name. For miracles are only of "spiritual" nature. Which is obviously implicit in the NT.

Please quote anything I have ever said or anything the bible says, that states God only does spiritual miracles. Good luck.

Well, maybe we do not have the mind of a child. Which is supposed to be a requirement to enter the kingdom. For obvious reasons, I would add.

Your resentment for what you do not understand is depressing. That story is not about rationality or IQ scores. It is about being technically guilty but not accountable.

No I am going to be as spiritually speculative as you are scientifically. Which means I am going to make up some stuff that isn't impossible. I believe that children live in the same state of grace as Christian adults do. They are guilty under the law, but unaccountable by virtue of grace. They are ministered to by the holy spirit similarly to the way adult Christians are. You ever seen a child who was in a state of abject misery and sadness who is perfectly happy and giggling 30 seconds later. I believe that might be the work of the holy spirit.

I will be gone for a while, so I am not sure when I can reply to your posts.

Ciao

- viole

Did the guys in the white coats show up? Why does everyone negate the motivation I have to reply at the END of their posts? Why not do it at the beginning? Just kidding, take your time, talk to you whenever.

 

[Riders]

Well, its all over my head, between Viole and 1Robin discussing science and philosophy theories, I cant understand any of it.

As a Zen Buddhist my answer is, what makes the sound of one hand clapping? Its a riddle some Monks give to their students.

I have never had the question asked but I know the answer. The 5 precepts have answers in life for me.

Dhamma or Dharma means Universal truth, the universal truth is all around you what you see here and now. If your not living in the moment your in a fantasy.
Be mindful.
Metis at least I understand your post. I wanted to visit a Jewish congregation, talked to one not long ago, its a not Orthodox not conservative but the other one.

Anyways, they told me as a Universalist Zen Buddhist I would be welcome. They said they're not Christian so I don't have to worry about them shoving the bible down my throat.

I want to visit one sometime this year, it should be interesting from a Universal view point.

 

[viole]

We should get our own webpage at this point. I have a very unique situation that compels and allows my to debate a lot, and it is a rare one. If you do not mind me what is it that compels / allows you to debate so much?

Your making this much harder on yourself than I am. I am not asking for you to account for al states of affairs using equations. I only want you to make a reasonable attempt to explain the five seconds in any kids life where they were compelled by physics to kick a ball. That should be easy, it's five seconds, one person, one choice.

It is not hard at all. The conservation principle is quite simple. Maybe difficult to swallow, but not hard. I also find it difficult to swallow, but what I find difficult to swallow is not important. Whenever I say my kids to behave, I also emit sound waves (my voice) that also change the physical state of my surroundings. Vocal chords oscillate, air particles are moved, ear drums oscillate, a whole lot of things take place inside some human skulls. Yet, physics does not make exceptions. All those physical things do not contain any new information that was not, in principle, inferable from the physical state of the Universe long before me and my kids existed.

If the laws of physics, as we know them today, are correct, then the conclusion is inescapable. No matter what principles are underlying the intermediate processes, which are not completely understood since we do not have a clue about consciousness, that ball still cannot be anywhere else.

I already looked into it. So far I am not impressed (which doesn't mean much), but I found that most of the links I clicked on were either refutations of it or using it in creation arguments. Even though it is used to support creationism, it is so vacuous that I would never use it for that purpose. Why is it you must support your arguments by either appealing to the most speculative of theoretical science or appeal to things who's only merit seems to be that we cannot prove their impossible? I use very basic science and philosophy because my position can survive the light of day, it does not have to hide in the darkest recesses of hypothetical academia. I can follow you part way into the deep end of theory but your headed to the Mariana's trench of speculation.

What do you mean with "speculative"? This is basic stuff. I told you: lesson one of any introductory course concerning the form and shape of the laws of physics. Any law of physics, speculative or not.

Thermodynamics is theoretically reversible, but we have no need of straying so far from shore. There is a non-zero probability an internal combustion engine will refrigerate its self, but I am not basing any plans on it.not

Of course not. But it is my point. Thermodynamics is subject to the same information conservation principle as anything else.

But what do you mean with probability? Whether that internal combustion engine will refrigerate or not, is not subject to inherent random processes. We use probability just because we do not know the perfect state of all particles involved in a thermodynamical process. Like a play of roulette. Like free will.

You see? We can still make sense of things and be effective by using epistemological tools that do not perfectly correspond to the underlying ontology.

You may not believe it but at one time I was mesmerized by theoretical science when in college. I went to the college Von Braun worked out of and I used to go listen to the professors give these amazing talks. I went to enough of them to learn they each seemed to contradict each other or I would find a half dozen or so that made conclusions that excluded the conclusions of the other 5. The veneer came sioff theoretical science for me in less than a year.

Well, since determinism and reversibility (which are basically the same thing since time is symmetric), do not seem to be very controversial, you must refer to something else. What was it?

My boss is a Phd and studied information theory. Information is only information if you have an originator and a receiver that are tuned the same. No one has even seen a black hole, let alone knows what happens to information if went in one. Using what happens in a black hole to support an argument sounds desperate.

I agree that using black holes to prove that information conservation is violated was wrong. Because, if you followed the debate (did you? ), black holes have been used as a possible violation, not as a confirmation.

Fine, show me a newspaper that was destroyed, that the universe brought back and contained the same information as the original.

Ha. I never said the Universe brings back things in their original form. Entropy increases, after all. What I say is that the information is not lost, it is just smeared out.

If you actually understood physics on the level your indicating you would be working in a lab a lot more exclusive than the one I do. If I may ask (again) what do you do for a living? I did not say any of that, I am not qualified to do so. I quoted scholars, among them a Russian mathematician.

I am a mathematician. I help physicists with their math sometimes, since it is well known that physicists are not very good at math. They like sometimes to take shortcuts that make no mathematical sense, and that is dangerous.

And by the way, the physics I know does not require an academic degree in order to be understood. If you read the layman books of S.Carroll, or Susskind, or B. Greene, you will get the same knowledge. Without any math involved.

I had four semesters of physics from mechanics to light. I have heard of Lagrangian mechanics but none of my professors ever mentioned box universes, conservation of information, nor Hamiltonian formulations.

Shame on them. The Hamiltonian formulation makes mechanics amazingly simple. And provides the tools to move to things like relativity or QM. Yet, even basic Newtonian mechanics is both deterministic and reversible. So, it also satisfies the information conservation principle. The Hamiltonian formulation is just much more elegant and deep, but it does not say more than Newton.

Even what I remember along this line concerned partial differential equations, not physics. How on earth can any of that be in an introductory physics course?

Test it yourself. Math here is very basic. No PDEs.

State diagrams and the nature of physical laws | The Theoretical Minimum

If your willing to suspend belief to the point that you think the universe with reconstruct a destroyed newspaper I am not sure what to say. Why deny the possibility that God has ever suspended natural law, yet believe in the resurrection of a newspaper? Why believe that plasma can produce work, but that God could not turn water into wine? Why accept universes that lack any evidence, but deny a God that has given plenty of evidence?

I am not sure what you mean. I never talked of resurrections of newspapers. I talked of possible, in principle, retrieval of their physical information.

You clarified what you think is at stake but you did not do anything to clarify what I am supposed to choose from.

You are confusing epistemology with ontology.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Aberamentho]

Whereas Christians often tell people they will go to Hell for not 'believing jesus is their lord and savior'; what if the Bible was the other way around, and those accepting a human sacrifice as Kosher, are defiling the Law, and thus are the one's who shall be sent to the Pit (Hell)....

So is it fair to mislead the masses? To not explain the Laws to them? So they can at least try to understand why they've been charged in the first place? Especially when they think they're on a honey trail to Heaven...

Misleading the masses is what Christianity was designed to do by Paul and his Roman Aristocrat friends.

Look what kind of lies have been spread by Christians about Jews and Muslims, as well as other Christians as if there can be only one True Church, when Jesus said "2 or 3" people are acceptable on their own at a time when he was not starting a new religion but correcting the existing one.

While I am a Muslim specifically because of the negativity in Christianity regarding non Christians, where as despite the uneducated accusations made against Muslims that Mohammed(PBUH) was violent (He was much more successful because of diplomacy and according to all reputable historians of any or even no faith who certainly agree, the unlettered masses don't know the first thing about Islam, because of propaganda and subliminal programming) or converted by the sword this is untrue.

Being Christian is and always has been acceptable to Muslims who of the three faiths of Abraham(PBUH) have historically been the most tolerant. Even the Qur'an states that they will have "No grief, no fear" on the Day of the Lord or Judgement Day.

As it goes for Judaism. No religion should be persecuted but ALL have been. It's a sign of a great religion to survive persecution.

Although when your religion preaches persecution as the letters of Paul do to anyone who doesn't agree with his rambling epistles or believe Jesus is also a God, that only Christianity, the new chosen people if you ask them, goes to Heaven...

Don't be shocked when people object to your beliefs. Or when a True Prophet has to correct the ideas of a false prophet like Mohammed(PBUH) did with Islam, rejecting the status of Paul as anything other than a decieved deciever, accepting all True Prophets, including Zoroaster(PBUH).

Christians love to think they are persecuted but it is a crock, if a Christian is persecuted it's not because they are Christian but because they are jerks, telling people to believe us or go to hell.

Which is sickening to me. I have never had a member of any other religions say to me "you will go to hell if you don't accept Jesus as God."

It was the rejection of philosophy and knowledge that kept Christian Europe in the Dark ages at the same time as the Islamic Empire was experiencing the golden age of scientific inquiry and accomplishments.

When the first Europeans saw Arabia they were astonished, it was an Abrahamic paradise and the term "Mecca" is slang for something that is flourishing for a good reason.

Muslims made gifts of the Greek philosophic and scientific texts to the European Christians, the same philosophy they rejected made Islam great and once they saw the superiority of Arabia they decided to plunder and massacre the inhabitants of Jerusalem and steal it for "Christ."

Saladin took it back and actually let the Christians stay and let Jews come back AGAIN. Whenever Islam controlled Palestine the Jews flourished there, otherwise they flourished under Islam in all nations.

Did Christianity persecute people? More so than any organization in history.

Is that the fault of all Christian? Only if they participate, otherwise, no. No more so than a lone or a few terror attacks are the fault of all Muslims. Possibly they are done by non Muslims and blamed on Muslims to further the agenda of Israel.

VERY possibly. Although I don't deny that Muslims have acted with poor judgement and joined fake Islam, the Islam that is not really Islam but the creation of people in response to Western Imperialist attitudes that violate the concept of equitable retaliation, and return evil with more evil, violating the principle that one should return evil with good .

I do object to the attitude of some Christians that Islam is anything other than a legitimate Monotheistic religion dedicated to peace.

Because that is Islam.

 

[viole]

You have arrange from the causing to exist of the universe, resurrections, to outlines on toast. Whatever your problems with miracles are it isn't related to their magnitude.

I think it is. Praying, or being born again, and losing drinking habits does not count for me as a miracle. Why? Because there are more mundane explanations. Psychological mechanisms, like hating oneself and deciding to start a new life. Needing a big invisible dad that supports us and looks upon us, our fear to disappoint Him, and whatnot.The same for miracles involving internal medicine cures, like cancer, migraines, or whatever we cannot see what caused what. After all, there are people who lose their bad habits without being born again, or praying to any divinity.

On the other hand, if you are an amputee and you grow a brand new limb after praying in the name of Jesus, I might reconsider. Alas, reports of such miracles are overwhelmed by reports of other miracles that seem much less spectacular. Probably, Jesus (and the Others) prefers to help people with an alcohol problem, or other problems related to behavior, rather than people who lost an arm or suffer from some genetic disease. Which is odd.

I am with Hume on this: a miracle can be considered such only when all possible explanations are more miraculous than the event they try to explain.

I did nothing, in fact I had been drinking that night. If your disrespecting the cause of my sobriety, it isn't me. BTW that was merely the tip of the ice burg as to what occurred that night. I do not know why I am bothering but I will give you another one. I do not remember what I did but I felt guilty about it as I was washing my dishes. I felt a deep gloom and regret, I prayed for forgiveness. 30 minutes later I was still lying in the kitchen floor in absolute contentment. You may relate better to another, I used to have a roommate who was a literal master at chess. I think he was rated around 1900. I lost every game we ever played except 3 out of hundreds. 2 times he was drunk, the third time I felt God with me the whole day but could not figure out why. I went home, sat in the car for a minute, decided if I couldn't use the anointing for anything else I would use it to play chess. I opened the door and told him to set up the board cause he was playing against God (that sounds and was arrogant but I didn't mean it like that). Regardless I beat him in about 10 moves. Decades later we still recall that day.

I wonder what an ice burg is .

And by the way, chess masters do not lose chess games after about 10 moves. Not even against the world master. God or not God. Unless he had an alcohol problem as well, obviously. Or unless God messed with his cognitive functions. Was he a Christian, too, by any chance?

Do you still remember those 10 moves?

In that case, seems to be the worst conclusion to reach is that no miracles ever occur.

Do you believe you can get a miracle by praying to Allah?

I did not say I could do miracles. God did not say he does miracles on demand, in fact he does not seem to like skeptics demanding them too much either. I do not see that I have any burden here. A lack of evidence is only a fault if given fact X there should be more evidence for X than we actually have. Good luck pulling that argument off.

I am not talking of skeptics. I am talking of suffering people who presumably prayed to have their condition cured. Like amputees, or people with Down Syndrome. Why is that so hard to have at least one miracle in that area?

It appears biased when you equate unequal things.

I don't think they are so unequal.

If you want to compete for who can name more legitimate faults of the Catholic church I would win. I already told you I pretty much deny 90% of all miracles and only then start investigating. I am not going to defend random claims to miracles you conjure up. I only have certainty of what I have experienced, pick on that.

I picked on that. Your claims can happen even without supernatural intervention.

Are we really debating the justification of a journey based on the probability of a miracle, at the same time you deny the worth of even discussing the justification of a destructive sexual behavior.

What rational justification have all those poor people to make that arduous and expensive journey on their rolling chairs if there is evidence that Mary is spiritually mobile? As it should be expected by a Lady that lives in Heaven and not in Lourdes, or whatever.

They have zero rational justification. They actually defeat their own belief system. They suffer and they hope, and that trumps everything.

I find your world view short of all of them. No hope, no rationality, and no eternity. Is it rational to accept a universal negative you cannot justify, to negate any eternal hope.

My world view is not everybody's cup of tea. Not even mine, sometimes. But I cannot possibly change it so that I have hope.

Please quote anything I have ever said or anything the bible says, that states God only does spiritual miracles. Good luck.

Alright. Then explain to me why God does not materially cure any of them.

Your resentment for what you do not understand is depressing. That story is not about rationality or IQ scores. It is about being technically guilty but not accountable.

No I am going to be as spiritually speculative as you are scientifically. Which means I am going to make up some stuff that isn't impossible. I believe that children live in the same state of grace as Christian adults do. They are guilty under the law, but unaccountable by virtue of grace. They are ministered to by the holy spirit similarly to the way adult Christians are. You ever seen a child who was in a state of abject misery and sadness who is perfectly happy and giggling 30 seconds later. I believe that might be the work of the holy spirit.

They are guilty of what? How could a 1 year old be possibly guilty of anything? Or a 5 days old embryo, if you count them as children, as I expect.

Did the guys in the white coats show up? Why does everyone negate the motivation I have to reply at the END of their posts? Why not do it at the beginning? Just kidding, take your time, talk to you whenever.

Nope. I am just moving to a new apartment.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

You appear to be a full time blogger. Most modern scientists assume materialism is true, they will still be looking for a material cause of the universe when the sun ceases to be a main sequence star. I can't remember which parts your denying at this point. Is it the nothing, the beginning, causation? I need to narrow it down before I go through it again.

I am denying all of them.

Of course it is obvious, that is why your denying it was so appalling. You claimed a universal negative existed if reference to anyone believing in creation out of nothing. Now you have admitted that was incorrect. Hopefully we can now move on to something meaningful, but I am all but sure we won't, we will stay right here. As bad as their differing claims may be (and they range from horrific to pretty solid) they are almost all better than claiming the universe lacks a cause, has always existed, or has a material explanation.

Better for you. Maybe.

If I had to start over, I would quickly conclude that only the supernatural can explain the coming into existence of the natural. That supernatural cause must be at least X, Y. and Z. I would find all God's described as at least X, Y, and Z, then use other methods to determine which one was the most deserving of serious investigation. In reality I accidentally (or maybe not by accident) did all that in reverse.

You assume that the natural came into existence from a state of non existence. In other words, you are assuming the conclusion in the premises.

Yes they do, they simply define nothing as something. Yet another reason I am as skeptical of theoretical science as claims to miracles.

Yes, my point. They do not believe in your version of nothing. Let's call it Nothing (upper case N) in order to avoid confusion.

Yes we need time, we need space, and we need matter. Actually what we need are for all three to come into existence at the same instant.

Well, they cannot come into existence at the same instant, since there is not such a thing as an instant, if you have no time. It would be like saying that they came into existence at the same place, with no space. That is viciously circular.

Fortunately:
New International Version
In the beginning (time) God (agent) created the heavens (space) and the earth (matter).

Fortunately . I would have probably written the same thing a few millennia ago.

So, it seems that God did not create time. Only the other two things, in time. At least it is not apparent in the verse. Which is understandable if we consider that they did not know nothing about relativity. By the way, that verse is nonsensical if we take into account what we know about time and space today.

If there is no space where does the matter go, if no matter how do you define space, if neither how do you get chronology?

What you call matter is the result of the Universe cooling down.

Do we need to get into Hebrew hermeneutics and biblical exegesis?

Do you think I would take them seriously?

How do you do science on the lack of a thing? No - thing, has no properties, no laws, no nature.

I can easily do science on the lack of a thing. Take a look at the science of semi-conductors; more specifically, electron holes.

Let's do Latin again:

Nothing comes from nothing (Latin: nihil fit ex nihilo) is a philosophical expression of a thesis first argued by Parmenides.
Nothing comes from nothing - Wikipedia

Again, nobody says that something comes from Nothing. You are erecting a straw man, I am afraid.

Yes, but to be fair I probably didn't do it justice. Where I hear heavily speculative claims about science I literally can't stop myself from glazing over after a few minutes.

I hear "white holes" blah... blah... "multiple universes"... blah... blah... "tense less time"... blah... blah... "string theory, holographic universe, 11 dimensions" Which is probably what you hear when I speak about covenants, born again, Alexandrian textual integrity, etc......

Could be. I am myself skeptical about some of them. But they are live options (among the ones we have not discovered yet) that attempt an explanation. Could be right, could be wrong. Cal them naturalistic pieces of puzzles if you prefer.

I do not think you have actually provided a single thing I have requested you to, in support of your own argument in a week. It was your own claim, give me the evidence for it.

Maybe it got lost in the Big Bang posts. In support of what argument?

There is no ultimate right to agree to or deny without God. Thomas Huxley did not write evolution's constitution.

What God? Yours? Or another one? And of course you can agree or disagree without a God. Consider the statement "God exists". Probably you will agree with it even if God does not exist. You don't have any other choice, logically speaking.

And you assume that there is such a thing as an ultimate right. Or an ultimate anything.

I do as both. On secularism I think the costs cannot be justified by the benefits, and as a Christian I believe the bible contains his word.

So, do you agree that the only requirement "be faithful to your partner" covers all cases?

I have never seen nor been in a heterosexual thread. This is epistemological, ontological confusion. A behavior is either justifiable or unjustifiable by reason irrespective of how I feel about the behavior personally. My preference would be that homosexual behavior was neither wrong nor harmful, but my beliefs are not governed by my preferences.

I allowed this twice, but no longer. You cannot subdivide a behavior up arbitrarily. I can't debate every subdivision you may cough forth.

That is not an answer. If a homosexual couple never had sex before and they just do sex between them, what secular objections would you be able to raise?

Who does that? You have a lot of work to do. Does a God exist? Which one? What are his laws? etc......

Your God, of course. The One who sends female bears to tear apart a few kids who made fun of a bald man. The source of your eternal and unchanging morality.

Oh brother, the semantic Gestapo rides again. Regardless, is claiming to be over others less vain than saying your superior to others?

It is not a question of vanity. It is a question of being able to find values even in the awareness of the total absence of ultimate meanings. One is not necessarily better than the other.

Did you catch my mistake? I recently investigated the Korean war, so I got the 38th and the 17th parallel backwards. Regardless, I am not sure what your talking about. We lost the peace in Vietnam, not the war. We may do so again in Iraq. We are not discussing what we should have or should not have done, we were discussing whether we achieved what we set out to do. I actually have two ways we could have won the post war situation in Vietnam, but LBJ was president not me. You need to at least make an effort to keep political ideals and the roll the military plays compartmentalized. If you want to find the guys most responsible for the way Vietnam wound up they won't be in a uniform. It was LBJ followed closely by a well meaning but mistaken Walter Cronkite. Our troops shattered the VC out of existence during TET, then for some reason Walter said the war was now unwinnable. Since the secular revolution occurred the TV replaced God so it must be true.

"War is the continuation of politics by other means."
Carl von Clausewitz - Wikipedia

Politics fails, the military begins. The military finishes, the politics begins.

BTW using "task force" makes military people think of Leyte gulf, not Normandy, or Vietnam. I do not even remember what your driving at but since we spend more on our military that the rest of the world combined and could probably destroy the solar system I don't think your going to get there.

My impression is that you have been kicked out from Vietnam pretty badly. And if you are not able to win the peace, then I recommend to either stay in war forever, or to not start any.

Ciao

- viole

 

[1robin]

It is not hard at all. The conservation principle is quite simple. Maybe difficult to swallow, but not hard. I also find it difficult to swallow, but what I find difficult to swallow is not important. Whenever I say my kids to behave, I also emit sound waves (my voice) that also change the physical state of my surroundings. Vocal chords oscillate, air particles are moved, ear drums oscillate, a whole lot of things take place inside some human skulls. Yet, physics does not make exceptions. All those physical things do not contain any new information that was not, in principle, inferable from the physical state of the Universe long before me and my kids existed.

I hate it when I type a very involved post and then somehow delete it. So this attempt will be a stripped down version.

Actually let me ask you first, does this site auto save drafts? If so where are they?

 

[Nakosis]

Whereas Christians often tell people they will go to Hell for not 'believing jesus is their lord and savior'; what if the Bible was the other way around, and those accepting a human sacrifice as Kosher, are defiling the Law, and thus are the one's who shall be sent to the Pit (Hell)....

No one should be punished for their beliefs. Being punished for their actions is another matter.

 

[viole]

I hate it when I type a very involved post and then somehow delete it. So this attempt will be a stripped down version.

Actually let me ask you first, does this site auto save drafts? If so where are they?

I don't know. This happened to me, too, and it is indeed very frustrating. And the frustration is more than linearly proportional to the size of the post.

My trick is to write the post on a standard editor on a computer, or on the notes application of ipad, save it periodically, and then cut it and paste here when I am finished.

At least, When I remember to do that.

Ciao

- viole

 

[1robin]

I don't know. This happened to me, too, and it is indeed very frustrating. And the frustration is more than linearly proportional to the size of the post.

My trick is to write the post on a standard editor on a computer, or on the notes application of ipad, save it periodically, and then cut it and paste here when I am finished.

At least, When I remember to do that.

Ciao

- viole

I have thought of doing that but was always afraid I would type a long post just to find that the origination formatting and the destination formatting would not be compatible. That whole tuned information thing. I also thought about "canning" the arguments I have to make over and over but never pulled the trigger on doing so. Regardless, I will go back and reply to your posts soon.

 

[1robin]

It is not hard at all. The conservation principle is quite simple. Maybe difficult to swallow, but not hard. I also find it difficult to swallow, but what I find difficult to swallow is not important. Whenever I say my kids to behave, I also emit sound waves (my voice) that also change the physical state of my surroundings. Vocal chords oscillate, air particles are moved, ear drums oscillate, a whole lot of things take place inside some human skulls. Yet, physics does not make exceptions. All those physical things do not contain any new information that was not, in principle, inferable from the physical state of the Universe long before me and my kids existed.

If the laws of physics, as we know them today, are correct, then the conclusion is inescapable. No matter what principles are underlying the intermediate processes, which are not completely understood since we do not have a clue about consciousness, that ball still cannot be anywhere else.

We were either created with or evolved to trust our sensory experiences and intuitions. We are wise to heed things that just do not seem right until enough evidence exists to overturn that trust. However that is the opposite of what is going on here. Concerning both determinism and conservation of information you claim that both have materialistic explanations. You made a claim to knowledge and so it is your burden. Show me the equations that govern that child's decision to kick the ball. Also, about 150,000 people x 32 billions bits of DNA information was disintegrated in a matter of seconds in Japan in 1945. Show how the universe reconstituted that information some other place so that no net loss or gain of information occurred.

What do you mean with "speculative"? This is basic stuff. I told you: lesson one of any introductory course concerning the form and shape of the laws of physics. Any law of physics, speculative or not.

QM, black holes, and the theorem of Liouville are basic stuff?

Of course not. But it is my point. Thermodynamics is subject to the same information conservation principle as anything else.

Thermodynamics is the net increase of disorder over time, which does not in anyway demonstrate a steady state of information.

But what do you mean with probability? Whether that internal combustion engine will refrigerate or not, is not subject to inherent random processes. We use probability just because we do not know the perfect state of all particles involved in a thermodynamical process. Like a play of roulette. Like free will.

You said thermodynamics was irreversible, I said that is reversible.

You see? We can still make sense of things and be effective by using epistemological tools that do not perfectly correspond to the underlying ontology.

This really stinks, counting the time I lost replying the first time only to delete it and the time in between I can no longer remember the contexts. Regardless, we have both agreed that physics determines what happens after the wheel is spun, but what you just will not show is how physics caused the casino employee to spin the wheel.

Well, since determinism and reversibility (which are basically the same thing since time is symmetric), do not seem to be very controversial, you must refer to something else. What was it?

Are you choosing the least intuitive positions on purpose? Your not merely begging the question, your begging an entire circular argument. Sorry, at this point the original contexts are so far in the past I can't give but a cursory response.

I agree that using black holes to prove that information conservation is violated was wrong. Because, if you followed the debate (did you? ), black holes have been used as a possible violation, not as a confirmation.

Did I follow what debate? Use math, science, or philosophy to demonstrate choices are mandated, instead of using one assumption to validate another.

Ha. I never said the Universe brings back things in their original form. Entropy increases, after all. What I say is that the information is not lost, it is just smeared out.

That is the conservation of mass / energy. Not information.

My computer is screwing up again. I will continue below.

 

[1robin]

I am a mathematician. I help physicists with their math sometimes, since it is well known that physicists are not very good at math. They like sometimes to take shortcuts that make no mathematical sense, and that is dangerous.

Then figure out why the 3 computers I use all lock up and fail to highlight text in this forum alone.

And by the way, the physics I know does not require an academic degree in order to be understood. If you read the layman books of S.Carroll, or Susskind, or B. Greene, you will get the same knowledge. Without any math involved.



Shame on them. The Hamiltonian formulation makes mechanics amazingly simple. And provides the tools to move to things like relativity or QM. Yet, even basic Newtonian mechanics is both deterministic and reversible. So, it also satisfies the information conservation principle. The Hamiltonian formulation is just much more elegant and deep, but it does not say more than Newton.

I know of Sean Carroll, he is the best debater atheists have IMO. I no longer remember what it is your trying to show by listing names. We both agree that everything (I can think of anyway) other than choice, intentional states, or aboutness is governed by physics. I want you to show the physics that applies to the areas we do not agree on.

Test it yourself. Math here is very basic. No PDEs.

State diagrams and the nature of physical laws | The Theoretical Minimum

I had state tables in digital logic class. They do not seem to apply to choices. I will get into more of this at the bottom of the post.

I am not sure what you mean. I never talked of resurrections of newspapers. I talked of possible, in principle, retrieval of their physical information.

No your talking about either energy or matter. Information is not just semiotic, not just complexity, no just specified complexity, it is "tuned" specified semiotic complexity.

You are confusing epistemology with ontology.

Ciao

- viole

I can appreciate a good joke but I can't see how this is one. I am not sure what your saying.

Anyway, I asked you for the equations that govern any single choice ever made. You could have selected any of them your self and I probably would not have checked the math, but I couldn't get you to make the attempt. So if a person can't see something in a small package I try and increase the size of the package.

Let's say that instead of a child deciding to kick a ball, we consider the Vought corsair. Lets say that a prior state of affairs caused the idea of it and a WW2 fleet carrier to occur in two men's brains (or minds). Why would an unintentional and irrational mechanism like physics spit out the plane and the ship in the same year? Forget the math, no one can model that much math, give me the reasoning behind physics being so obliging as to cause the millions of decisions to occur in the right order to accomplish that. Also why does physics act is chronological sequences at all. Why didn't it produce the fleet carrier a billion years ago and the plane a billion years from nor on another planet?

My intuitions have so far not been countered by the data you have yet to supply.

 

[1robin]

I think it is. Praying, or being born again, and losing drinking habits does not count for me as a miracle. Why? Because there are more mundane explanations. Psychological mechanisms, like hating oneself and deciding to start a new life. Needing a big invisible dad that supports us and looks upon us, our fear to disappoint Him, and whatnot.The same for miracles involving internal medicine cures, like cancer, migraines, or whatever we cannot see what caused what. After all, there are people who lose their bad habits without being born again, or praying to any divinity.

I mangled my grammar in what you responded so much I need a crime scene investigator to reconstruct my meaning. The mountain of potential miracles includes the coming into existence of every atom that may exist, the dead coming back to life, to the most mundane things imaginable. Maybe you think God is like a celestial Burger King, but having a God that is bound by our demands wouldn't be much of a God. I am not sure what exactly your asking for, what my burden is, nor what the argument is.

On the other hand, if you are an amputee and you grow a brand new limb after praying in the name of Jesus, I might reconsider. Alas, reports of such miracles are overwhelmed by reports of other miracles that seem much less spectacular. Probably, Jesus (and the Others) prefers to help people with an alcohol problem, or other problems related to behavior, rather than people who lost an arm or suffer from some genetic disease. Which is odd.

I actually found a few references online for healing amputated limbs but I was too skeptical to use any of them for evidence. Claims to a lack of evidence do not equal evidence of absence, however let's pretend they do. You must first show how much evidence, of what kind, and in what form should exist if God exists, then you must show we lack it.

I am with Hume on this: a miracle can be considered such only when all possible explanations are more miraculous than the event they try to explain.

I have never heard that from Hume or anyone else. What does it mean? What it sounds like is the argument that causes must be less complex than their effects, which I do not even believe is true. I have three types of experience concerning miracles.

1. Personal - what happened to me (and nothing you posted comes close to explaining them). However lets simplify this. Tell me the explanation for why I was praying about a specific thing three different times, felt moved to turn on the TV (which I tried to excuse and not do), to one every occasion have a TV tuned into the same station, with the same preacher, giving 3 distinct sermons of that specific issue. Did I mention I also prayed in the parking lot of a book store, asked the first person I met for a book about the same issue, I was shown a book by the same preacher on the same issue.
2. Perception - What I observe happen to third parties (I am skeptical of these even when I have seen them).
3. Academic - An example......For legal reasons (if no other) the Catholic church must (when given a request to investigate) rule out every natural cause possible before sending anyone to actually determine if a miracle has occurred. (I am skeptical of even these but with thousands of potential I am confident there is at least 1 actual, miracle).

I wonder what an ice burg is .

You ought to know, you live on one.

And by the way, chess masters do not lose chess games after about 10 moves. Not even against the world master. God or not God. Unless he had an alcohol problem as well, obviously. Or unless God messed with his cognitive functions. Was he a Christian, too, by any chance?

What is a world master? There are masters, grandmasters, and world champions. It is possible to loose in one move, we made about ten, I was 2 - 3 pieces up and he was in a bad position so he conceded.

1. I am not satisfied whether he is or is not a Christian.
2. You or I mixed up events. I nor he were drinking that night. I beat him 3 times, the other two he had been drinking.
3. I had been drinking a little (and not even thinking about quitting) the night I was born again.
4. If miraculous I do not think God messed with him, he messed with me. I had been feeling God's presence all that day, I used to have that occur and then shortly find out the reason why, that day I couldn't. I decided to go home and play chess. I literally opened the door and told him to set up the pieces because he was playing against God. I know that is arrogant sounding, and I do not claim God cared about my playing chess, just that I felt him and then played the best game of chess in my life by far.

Do you still remember those 10 moves?

I don't even remember how to notate moves. That was like 15 years ago.

Do you believe you can get a miracle by praying to Allah?

That is tricky. I think it possible in theory. Yahweh and Allah are exclusionary, if you have one you can rule out any others.

I am not talking of skeptics. I am talking of suffering people who presumably prayed to have their condition cured. Like amputees, or people with Down Syndrome. Why is that so hard to have at least one miracle in that area?

Christians all have doubts and complaints concerning God. One of the most common is the amount of suffering that exists. If you can separate the emotional resentment we have towards suffering there really is nothing left. Carried to it's logical conclusion the standard you require for God is irrational. Only a God that prevented all suffering would be acceptable to everyone, but that kind of God and true love could not exist at the same time. I hate both my own and the suffering of others and I give God an earful of complaining, however he at least showed me there was no philosophical incompatibility with a good God and the existence of some level of suffering. I can spend hour explaining this or you could look up Craig's "problem of evil" argumentation.



I have to leave, I will try and go back and finish this soon.

 

[1robin]

I picked on that. Your claims can happen even without supernatural intervention.

No, you generalized that some other explanations caused those events. I was there, none of what you suggested explained those events even occurred. It also seemed that even if your explanations had occurred they lacked sufficient scope and power to compete with my explanations.

Why do you swallow the most theoretical of science, yet become hyper skeptical or miracles? Your swallowing a camel but chocking on a gnat. The only difference between a black hole and a healed cancer would be the name of what type of power caused it. Between the two, cancers have been documented to have healed without any natural explanation, and black holes have never been seen.

What rational justification have all those poor people to make that arduous and expensive journey on their rolling chairs if there is evidence that Mary is spiritually mobile? As it should be expected by a Lady that lives in Heaven and not in Lourdes, or whatever.

Why do you think you should be able to understand everything an infinite mind may do? Why not just keep following your argumentation to it's conclusion and claim that only a God made in your image would satisfy you? There are no standards nor laws which determine how God must do what, when, or where concerning miracles. BTW Mary's doing anything miraculous is a Catholic heresy, if miracles occur there it isn't Mary doing them.

They have zero rational justification. They actually defeat their own belief system. They suffer and they hope, and that trumps everything.

Billions of believers are not a monolithic group where each member's faith is equivalent to another's. I only know about what happened to me, and my conclusions about God are as rational as my beliefs about anything else.

My world view is not everybody's cup of tea. Not even mine, sometimes. But I cannot possibly change it so that I have hope.

You most certainly can change your mind. Your gender is actually known for doing so. I am not even saying believe in God by default, I am saying don't presume your only eternal hope doesn't exist without giving it every chance to convince you other wise. If your a determinist and can't change your mind why are you constantly mentioning things like whether others consider whether your views are their cup of tea and trying to convince me of various things? I do not care what you say you think, you act as if you have freewill, that objective moral values exist, and inconsistently with social Darwinism.

Alright. Then explain to me why God does not materially cure any of them.

I believe there are hundreds of billions of claims to miracles, I strip out 90% because I am skeptical, all I need is for 1 of the remaining 10% to be true. The odds are stacked heavily for my world view.

They are guilty of what? How could a 1 year old be possibly guilty of anything? Or a 5 days old embryo, if you count them as children, as I expect.

The bible commands selflessness, prayer, no lying, no stealing, not being angry without cause, etc...........x 1000s. Children break thousands of these moral values, commands, duties. Yet God holds them unaccountable until the reach a certain maturity level. Exactly where is the injustice here?

Nope. I am just moving to a new apartment.

Ciao

- viole

Moving, sucks.

 

[1robin]

I am denying all of them.

Ok, we have a universe that came into being a finite time ago. If you start from this state of affairs, and explain it by the previous state, and so on until T=0, you will be out of things but still in need of an explanation and a cause. My worldview contains both.

So which conclusion is the most consistent with the facts.

1. The universe came from nothing, by nothing, and for nothing.
2. Something similar to my God brought the universe into being, from nothing, for something, and by his own power.

Better for you. Maybe.

Better being more rational, more explanatory scope, more explanatory power, more sufficiency, all but mandatory.

You assume that the natural came into existence from a state of non existence. In other words, you are assuming the conclusion in the premises.

What a prophecy, I said we would remain stuck right here, and here we are. It's like uncle Remus's tar baby. It is virtually a philosophic slam dunk. Infinite regressions for things that change, are impossible.

"Now this sufficient reason for the existence of the universe cannot be found in the series of contingent things....Although the present motion...arises from preceding motion, and that in turn from motion which preceded it, we do not get further however far we may go, for the same question always remains. The sufficient reason, therefore, which needs not further reason, must be outside of this series of contingent things and is found in a substance which...is a necessary being bearing the reason for its existence within itself; otherwise we should not yet have a sufficient reason with which to stop. This final reason for things is called God."
Leibniz's Argument from Sufficient Reason
The above is one page, please read it.

If no one believes the universe came from nothing, then why are Dawkins, Krauss, and Carroll trying so hard to refute it? However it only get worse because they equate nothing with something. It is a rhetorical exorcise in semantics. Your world view only contains contingents, a few possible abstract brute assumptions that do not stand in causal relationships, and no necessary being to account for the previous two. Mine does, I have a complete puzzle, you have a single piece from each of a thousand different puzzles.

Yes, my point. They do not believe in your version of nothing. Let's call it Nothing (upper case N) in order to avoid confusion.

Yes, they mangle the definition of nothing until it is unrecognizable, and then reconstruct it to mean the exact opposite of what it actually means. That slight of hand would make Copperfield envious, if it was not so blatant and obvious. Nothing literally means, no-thing.

Well, they cannot come into existence at the same instant, since there is not such a thing as an instant, if you have no time. It would be like saying that they came into existence at the same place, with no space. That is viciously circular.

I see the semantic SWAT team has been deployed. It is actually secular scientists that claim the singularity was infinite energy, infinite density, etc...... your condemning your own folks. I have no idea what the exact parameters apply to the singularity beyond that the only thing they couldn't be is infinite, and that natural laws do not create themselves or bring anything into existence.

Fortunately . I would have probably written the same thing a few millennia ago.

Find me any religious text equivalent to the verse I posted from any religion from ancient history.

So, it seems that God did not create time. Only the other two things, in time. At least it is not apparent in the verse. Which is understandable if we consider that they did not know nothing about relativity. By the way, that verse is nonsensical if we take into account what we know about time and space today.

How do you what (if any) parameters God or his actions are subject to? Except for logically incoherencies.

What you call matter is the result of the Universe cooling down.

The semantic national guard has joined the SWAT team. Let's just skip on down and claim everything natural is simply energy in different forms.

Do you think I would take them seriously?

So you do not care what the bible ever said, whatever it was must be wrong?

I can easily do science on the lack of a thing. Take a look at the science of semi-conductors; more specifically, electron holes.

Semiconductors are things. Even with what seem to be voids are other things. You can't use science on a lack of material, time, and space.

Again, nobody says that something comes from Nothing. You are erecting a straw man, I am afraid.

I did, Leibniz did, thousands upon thousands have.

Could be. I am myself skeptical about some of them. But they are live options (among the ones we have not discovered yet) that attempt an explanation. Could be right, could be wrong. Cal them naturalistic pieces of puzzles if you prefer.

I have never seen anyone defend anything tey were skeptical of with such vigor. As General Armistead said after witnessing the confederates shatter charge after charge of Burnside's army. "Their devotion is worthy of a better cause, who could imagine that men could carry on in the face of such destruction". The irony there was that a year later Armistead had to charge his brigade into even worse destruction and it was utterly annihilated.

Maybe it got lost in the Big Bang posts. In support of what argument?

I told you to pick any choice, made by any person, at anytime and show that physics alone fully explains the decision made was unavoidable.

What God? Yours? Or another one? And of course you can agree or disagree without a God. Consider the statement "God exists". Probably you will agree with it even if God does not exist. You don't have any other choice, logically speaking.

No objective moral values and duties exist without God's similar to mine existing. They must be personal, must be moral agents, must be necessary, must be eternal, must exist, etc..........

And you assume that there is such a thing as an ultimate right. Or an ultimate anything.

Look up the 1 of 5 of Thomas Aquinas' 5 ways that applies to degrees.

So, do you agree that the only requirement "be faithful to your partner" covers all cases?

No, the bible clearly states what gender relationships were intended to be, and it also condemns those inconsistent with them in quite a lot of detail.

That is not an answer. If a homosexual couple never had sex before and they just do sex between them, what secular objections would you be able to raise?

I let it go at first but I gradually put the breaks on anyone trying to subdivide homosexuality into further arbitrary splinter groups. I spent quite a bit of time explaining why. I can't do so forever.

Your God, of course. The One who sends female bears to tear apart a few kids who made fun of a bald man. The source of your eternal and unchanging morality.

There are a half dozen passages in the bible that I not only do not get, have never spent enough time to hold a confident interpretation for, and hate. That is among them. One day I intend to get to the bottom of that verse, that day is not today. Regardless, are you going to withhold faith in a God who paid the entire price to redeem all of us from the moral insanity we so obviously have, but affirm a God who allowed a bear some kids. Bears eat kids either way, but only by accepting God is there hope for any eternal justice or restitution.

It is not a question of vanity. It is a question of being able to find values even in the awareness of the total absence of ultimate meanings. One is not necessarily better than the other.

This is lost on me.

My impression is that you have been kicked out from Vietnam pretty badly. And if you are not able to win the peace, then I recommend to either stay in war forever, or to not start any.

Ciao

- viole

Your impression is wrong. The loss KIA ratio was the US lost 59,000 while the NVA and VC lost KIA 1,100,000. Too many more "victories" like that and North Vietnam would be a ghost nation.

It is neither moral nor pragmatic to never fight or always fight. Human behavior is not digital in that respect, nor should it be.

 

[metis]

Again, we must keep in mind that "infinity" is a possibility that simply cannot be discounted and is not being discounted by cosmologists. Now, whether it is the correct answer, that I don't know.

 

[viole]

Ok, we have a universe that came into being a finite time ago. If you start from this state of affairs, and explain it by the previous state, and so on until T=0, you will be out of things but still in need of an explanation and a cause. My worldview contains both.

So which conclusion is the most consistent with the facts.

1. The universe came from nothing, by nothing, and for nothing.
2. Something similar to my God brought the universe into being, from nothing, for something, and by his own power.

Time is a physical component of the UNiverse. Are you telling me that time came into being a finite amount of time ago?

Better being more rational, more explanatory scope, more explanatory power, more sufficiency, all but mandatory.

Yes, like Thor with lighnings. A gap filling God.

What a prophecy, I said we would remain stuck right here, and here we are. It's like uncle Remus's tar baby. It is virtually a philosophic slam dunk. Infinite regressions for things that change, are impossible.

Bold claim. Impossible things entail a logical contradiction. and infinite regress, independently from being relevant for our reality, does not show any obvious one.

"Now this sufficient reason for the existence of the universe cannot be found in the series of contingent things....Although the present motion...arises from preceding motion, and that in turn from motion which preceded it, we do not get further however far we may go, for the same question always remains. The sufficient reason, therefore, which needs not further reason, must be outside of this series of contingent things and is found in a substance which...is a necessary being bearing the reason for its existence within itself; otherwise we should not yet have a sufficient reason with which to stop. This final reason for things is called God."
Leibniz's Argument from Sufficient Reason
The above is one page, please read it.

I don't need to read it. I am quite acquainted with Leibnitz's cosmological argument. And its modal version. I personally like it, even if flawed. Especially the part that goes from a necessary entity to that cause being conscious. For sure it turns Kalam into a ridicolous alternative. And it puzzles me that Craig does not use it as much as Kalam.

Mabe because of this:
Are you aware that the PSM entails the necessity of everything?

If no one believes the universe came from nothing, then why are Dawkins, Krauss, and Carroll trying so hard to refute it? However it only get worse because they equate nothing with something. It is a rhetorical exorcise in semantics. Your world view only contains contingents, a few possible abstract brute assumptions that do not stand in causal relationships, and no necessary being to account for the previous two. Mine does, I have a complete puzzle, you have a single piece from each of a thousand different puzzles.

i meant nobody in the scientific community. At least to my knowledge. As you correctly observed, their nothing is not your Nothing, usually.

Yes, they mangle the definition of nothing until it is unrecognizable, and then reconstruct it to mean the exact opposite of what it actually means. That slight of hand would make Copperfield envious, if it was not so blatant and obvious. Nothing literally means, no-thing.

Correct. I wonder why they insist with this nothing nonsense when it is much easier to defuse the whole causality and beginning thing without any speculation whatsoever.

I see the semantic SWAT team has been deployed. It is actually secular scientists that claim the singularity was infinite energy, infinite density, etc...... your condemning your own folks. I have no idea what the exact parameters apply to the singularity beyond that the only thing they couldn't be is infinite, and that natural laws do not create themselves or bring anything into existence.

Scientific reasoning requires absolute precision. So, it is a fact that there cannot be an instant without time. Saying that time started at the same instant as space is utterly nonsensical.

And as I said, it is like saying space and time started at the same location.

Where can that be? Can you pinpoint it for me?

Find me any religious text equivalent to the verse I posted from any religion from ancient history.

I would have been more impressed if it mentioned atoms. Like the ancient greeks. And not nonsense like water existing before the stars. True, you can apply some metaphors. But with a sufficient amount of metaphors, I could turn any book into a holy book.

How do you what (if any) parameters God or his actions are subject to? Except for logically incoherencies.

I don't know. But if I created time, I would have said it. Instead of restricting to the heavens and the earth. Alas, the more logical explanation for this omission is that the authors had no clue of what they were talking about.

The semantic national guard has joined the SWAT team. Let's just skip on down and claim everything natural is simply energy in different forms.

So you do not care what the bible ever said, whatever it was must be wrong?

The Bible is like the Odyssey. interesting mythology with some truths. Which is obvious if we consider that the authors were humans living in some geographycal location.

But since Apollo and Jaweh share the same evidence, I cannot tell you why I should prefer the metaphysical claims of one over the other.

Semiconductors are things. Even with what seem to be voids are other things. You can't use science on a lack of material, time, and space.

Electronic holes are no-thing. And without them, semiconductors would not work.

I have never seen anyone defend anything tey were skeptical of with such vigor. As General Armistead said after witnessing the confederates shatter charge after charge of Burnside's army. "Their devotion is worthy of a better cause, who could imagine that men could carry on in the face of such destruction". The irony there was that a year later Armistead had to charge his brigade into even worse destruction and it was utterly annihilated.

I told you to pick any choice, made by any person, at anytime and show that physics alone fully explains the decision made was unavoidable.

I told you. I don't know. But I can tell you that it must be. I don't know the internal mechanisms of many physical things, but I can tell you that they conserve energy. In the same way, those mysterious mechanisms must preserve information. Ergo, that ball cannot really be anywhere else.

No objective moral values and duties exist without God's similar to mine existing. They must be personal, must be moral agents, must be necessary, must be eternal, must exist, etc..........

Bold statement. Prove it to me. Show me that raping children cannot be a moral value if there is a God that appreciates the raping of children.

Don't you realize that you are setting a priori requirements on what God could be the real value giver, that assume in advance what is good and evil?

No, the bible clearly states what gender relationships were intended to be, and it also condemns those inconsistent with them in quite a lot of detail.

I let it go at first but I gradually put the breaks on anyone trying to subdivide homosexuality into further arbitrary splinter groups. I spent quite a bit of time explaining why. I can't do so forever.

This is not an explanation. It is trying to get out of the corner. You are perfectly aware that if homosexuals were virgin at marriage and faithful all their life, you would have nada secular arguments against that to show us.

So, all your pseudo secular arguments reduce to targetting homosexual male gays who are promiscuous. A minority of all gays. Not really against homosexuality per se.

There are a half dozen passages in the bible that I not only do not get, have never spent enough time to hold a confident interpretation for, and hate. That is among them. One day I intend to get to the bottom of that verse, that day is not today.

We are very different. I usually go first to the bottom of things that seem absurd before accepting the whole package. Probably my mathematical bias. A beautiful theorem just needs a little tiny imperfection to be completely useless.

Regardless, are you going to withhold faith in a God who paid the entire price to redeem all of us from the moral insanity we so obviously have, but affirm a God who allowed a bear some kids. Bears eat kids either way, but only by accepting God is there hope for any eternal justice or restitution.

What entire price? Are you talking of Jesus short passover vacation?

Your impression is wrong. The loss KIA ratio was the US lost 59,000 while the NVA and VC lost KIA 1,100,000. Too many more "victories" like that and North Vietnam would be a ghost nation.

It is neither moral nor pragmatic to never fight or always fight. Human behavior is not digital in that respect, nor should it be.

Yes, but they won. Like the russians in WW2. They probably lost more men than the nazi. Does that entail, that the Germans won the war? Or they also lost the peace?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Nobody should ever be incarcerated for their beliefs. Just throw them in jail instead.

 

[1robin]

Again, we must keep in mind that "infinity" is a possibility that simply cannot be discounted and is not being discounted by cosmologists. Now, whether it is the correct answer, that I don't know.

Natural infinites are impossible, only abstracts (like mental experiments, or a theoretical set of numbers) and spiritual concepts are potentially infinite.