I think I've worked it out.
God is dark matter.
He is omnipresent and within us all and it makes him really big...I mean REALLY big.
Where do I pick up my Nobel prize?

__________________
When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing—they believe in anything
G.K.Chesterton

From:Kevin Trenberth U.S climate expert.
Date:Mon,12 Oct,2009

The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't.
(In an email debate over a BBC report on the apparent dip in global warming since 2001)

I just said we didn't expect an answer from that question. Again...that is the whole point.

Asking an unanswerable question is a pointless way to attempt any 'point'.
Especially when the 'point' is not to get an answer.
Who's 'we'?

__________________
When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing—they believe in anything
G.K.Chesterton

From:Kevin Trenberth U.S climate expert.
Date:Mon,12 Oct,2009

The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't.
(In an email debate over a BBC report on the apparent dip in global warming since 2001)

The laws of logic and of physics that we currently know simply describe the universe as we have observed it - the fact that they don't seem to explain all features of the universe show that they are not absolute. Universality of physical principles (so far observed) simply gives evidence that all of the universe originated from the same point, in the same way that the composition of the moon suggests that it was once part of the earth.

That one is most obviously a human construct, and is equally obviously false by the fact that many people worldwide have different moralities. Hitler was right - from Hitler's point of view. Talk to many vegans or pro-lifers and you will see that such moral divides are equally present today.

__________________
The truth may be out there, but lies are in your head.

All I have to say is that the original post on this thread is such a nonsequitur that any attempt to address it will inevitably lead to mass confusion. I do not respond to absurd nonsequiturs, so I will decline further comment.

I guess you're just not smart enough to get it.

Which, when translated, means you are not smart enough justify asking such a question but just dull enough to try.

__________________
When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing—they believe in anything
G.K.Chesterton

From:Kevin Trenberth U.S climate expert.
Date:Mon,12 Oct,2009

The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't.
(In an email debate over a BBC report on the apparent dip in global warming since 2001)

I did justify it. I will simplify. The question is hypothetical. That means it assumes conditions that are not necessarily true or are under scrutiny. In this case it is the necessity for a creator. If you conclude the world requires a creator then you by simple logic must also require someone to create the creator. You either conclude both or neither or else you are contradicting yourself. The question therefore points out a flaw in your logic and does so effectively whether it has a answer or not. I hope you understand this now and will stop saying the question is pointless. I used short sentences to help you get it.

YOU have to conclude that for the universe to have been created the creator itself needs a creator.
That does not mean that there is a need.
Science does not have an opinion on the condition of the universe before the singularity that was the big bang.
It can speculate but it does not know nor does it need to create unanswerable questions.
Once again your stupity is showing, please cover it up.
The flaw in the logic is all yours.

__________________
When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing—they believe in anything
G.K.Chesterton

From:Kevin Trenberth U.S climate expert.
Date:Mon,12 Oct,2009

The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't.
(In an email debate over a BBC report on the apparent dip in global warming since 2001)

You have missed the point. I understand that with infinite regression, there is no point of origin. That is why it is not logical. Everything we experience and see in our life is governed by time. All of our experience of time tells us that everything has a beginning. To suggest that there does not have to be a beginning due to time being infinite is arbitrary.

If there were to be an infinite regress regarding the "family tree of God," then God has a beginning, because it assumes the designer of our universe (God) has a designer that made Him.

The Bible tells us that God exists outside of time and that He is eternal and unchanging. By creating the physical universe He has also created time. You assert that if God has always existed, so has time, but to make this assertion you must be able to demonstrate that God is governed by time and that He is limited by time. With the inception of the universe time has come into being.

I believe in science (that which is testable and reproducible) and science tells us that the universe must have a beginning. I also believe in the supernatural (for a number of reasons) and one of those reasons is because science cannot account for many things, like origins. Through the laws of physics, etc, we know that the universe must have a beginning, but science cannot tell us why there was a beginning, and it cannot tell us what was before this beginning.

I agree with this statement. My point is that science simply tells us that the physical known universe must have a beginning, beyond that science cannot tell us anything else. Science is defined by that which is testable and reproducible. Here is a definition of the word "science" that comes from the New Oxford American Dictionary: The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

Can you validate this statement?

__________________
"In [Christ] are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge."

(Colossians 2:3)

I believe, on the basis of societal structure around the world, that people do assent to an absolute morality. That is why we have laws and ethics that are accepted worldwide. The problem is that people deviate from these because of the sinful nature of man. Man is not able to live a perfect life due to his nature, but he is inbred with a sense of right and wrong and this is evidenced by the laws and rules and ethical policies that we have in place.

All people have the freedom to do what is right in their own eyes. But, doing what is right in your own eyes does not make something right. How could we have a right and wrong in this world if each and every person was able to invent their own right and wrong? Yes, people do invent their own right and wrong, and yet, evidence shows this to be impractical and counterintuitive to human reason.

In an evolutionary worldview survival of the fittest tells me to put myself first. So why would there be any reason for me to subject myself to a shared morality? If morality was relative why would I care about abrogating a social agreement between myself and someone else?

Since the fall of man people have always done what is right in their own eyes. They have acted immorally. However, the inception of laws and justice for all on the basis of an accepted code of ethics shows that there is an absolute morality that we hold to.

How does that change the sense of what the person is saying? If morality is relative, how can a person say I "ought not" to kill him or that I "may not" kill him? In a world where morality is relative his comments would be arbitrary because I can do whatever I feel like doing.

Evidence shows that people aspire to a morality that is universal. Again, laws and rules that are in place all around the world show this to be true. People will always fight against these due to the sinful nature of man. A person is always free to do what is right in his own eyes, but, if there was no underlying sense of right and wrong built into humanity, why would a person ever feel guilty about something? Why would anybody experience a guilty conscience?

Here in Britain there is a law that says I cannot walk into the supermarket and collect a basket of groceries without paying. That would be stealing and if I was caught I would be arrested. That is an absolute. The law of the land tells me that I would be arrested. Many crimes deemed more serious are often settled in court. Your statement that we do not have courts that enforce an absolute morality makes no sense in light of this.

Nations have of course developed due to culture, etc, and these countries each govern themselves individually. However, each nation has rules and laws and a system of government, and the vast majority of these laws are accepted worldwide. Nations have formed because over time people groups have come together because they share the same cultural components and so forth. Each nation is recognised as being independent and so justice within that country is handled by that country. The fact that each country around the world by and large ascribes to a shared and universal morality shows that this morality is inbred and definite.

A vast majority of rules and laws have been universally in place for a very long time. People wrangle over laws and they fight against various laws, this often comes about because people seek to resist them. Sometimes a rule is not very clear and needs to be better defined. Sometimes a law is dismissed because it is seen to be unjust and should not have been in place in the first place. These changes can only be agreed if all people have built into them the same sense of right and wrong.

Suppose I desired to walk up to a man (someone I do not know) on a street in order to kill him. National laws aside (since it could be in any country), would it or would it not be wrong for me to kill him? If it would be wrong for me to kill him, please tell me why.

__________________
"In [Christ] are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge."

(Colossians 2:3)

Actually, you're the one being illogical. It is not written in stone that time is linear. There's no proof for it. Just because something is "in our experience" doesn't make it real.

Logically, if we accept the premise that time isn't necessarily linear, then there isn't necessarily a point of origin. If there is no point of origin, then nothing need be "created," since it was already there.

Yes, and then you have the question of who designed the designer of the designer.

Theism depends on the linearity of time. It collapses without it.

There is every reason to believe time existed long before the Big Bang. You have no logical reason to posit that our universe is the only universe there is, or that time is linear.

It does not, because science stops at cosmology.

But your belief isn't based on knowledge. It is based on fear.

More of your sophistry. The idea of curved space-time goes back to the early days of Einstein.

A perfect life isn't desirable.

An absolute morality doesn't survive a single exception. In the end everything becomes justifiable, depending on circumstances. That is true in every society.

It is counterintuitive to human reason to insist on absolute conformity to an ethical ideal.

What is right and what is wrong differs from state to state and from nation to nation. Absolute morality is a cruel fiction.

Correct.

Because the social agreement is motivated by self-interest, not altruism.

It's not immoral if they acted according to their own morals.

If there were an absolute morality there would be no need for laws and for justice. We would simply not do what we say we won't do.

Name any conceivable act, like the torture of a child, and I can give you a moral justification for it.

Now you're getting it.

You can say someone ought not to kill you out of pure self-interest. You don't need to argue an absolute moral against killing in expressing your own desire to live.

Aspirations and a dollar won't buy a cup of coffee. It doesn't matter what people want -- it matters how they act, and they always act out of self-interest.

No, they fight against arbitrary moral absolutes because people are people.

Easy. Self-interest.

There is an intellectual chasm between an underlying sense of right and wrong and the existence of moral absolutes.

We may have a natural aversion to killing (although I am not convinced we do), but we have no compunction to the dropping of incendiary or nuclear bombs on civilian targets. Given the right circumstances, it's all good.

Oh please. Is the penalty for shoplifting death? Are you saying ALL shoplifters in the United Kingdom are arrested on the spot, prosecuted and sentenced to prison?

What about the 11 year old who grabs a candy bar and runs, without paying? Is an example made of him or her?

Boy, talk about shooting yourself in the foot. There isn't a law in your country that is absolutely enforced with absolute determination. It's ALL relative.

No, it makes perfect sense. An absolute morality would mean no one would shoplift or commit murder. Even if you don't adhere to that, surely an absolute morality would demand absolute enforcement of the laws -- but that obviously isn't true, is it. I'm sure your prosecutors are engaged in plea bargains with criminals, just as American prosecutors do. Where's the "absolute morality" in that?

Are they?

Most people live in countries that use the death penalty. Is the death penalty accepted worldwide?

Again you're conflating innate morals with absolute morals. An individual moral sense is easily and frequently compromised. No one lives by an absolute moral code. You break such a code every time you break the speed limit, every time you park your car in an illegal space or longer than is permitted by law, every time you fail to pay every nickel in taxes your government wants you to pay.

Absolute morals? Absolute c#rap.

I'm not saying it is.

It should be, and I wish it was in all circumstances, but it isn't.

I can conceive of a number of circumstances in which killing a total stranger is justified. What if the stranger was Orenthal James Simpson? What he were a genocidal maniac? What if he was a terrorist?

So much for absolute morals.

Alienrighteousn wrote:
"In an evolutionary worldview survival of the fittest tells me to put myself first. So why would there be any reason for me to subject myself to a shared morality? If morality was relative why would I care about abrogating a social agreement between myself and someone else?"


Walking-fish
I'll decline comment on all the other gibberish about "absolute morality" and its supposed relationship to creation or evolution. I just want to say a few words about this mischaracterization of natural selection. "Survival of the fittest" is a social darwinist phrase to begin with and it is missing one essential feature - adaptation to the environment which results in differential reproduction rates. That's the difference between "survival of the fittest" and natural selection. With respect to evolution survival is nothing but a means to passing genes onto the next generation. Passing these genes on may involve the survival of many individuals working together for their mutual survival. And if this mutual aid results in more genes being passed on, then natural selection will favor compassion, cooperation and social behavior.

Even at the cellular level, natural selection has favored the evolution of colonies and multicellularity because it allowed for passing more genes onto the next generation. So the key concept is survival, adaptation to the environment and differential reproduction - not individual selfishness. In order to make the case that religion or belief in God is necessary for being moral, these evo-deniers have to manufacture this straw man depiction of evolution as the product of immoral, or amoral, God deniers. This ruse is older than God.

Do you not conclude the universe must have a creator? How did you reach this conclusion? Could I not use the same line of reasoning (hypothetically, remember this, very important) in saying that your God must have a creator? This is the question and while I realize that it has been asked many times, you can't argue with me that it is meaningless and refuse to tackle it. Doing this demonstrates your inability/refusal to reason. Can you point out the flaw in my logic? Is there an assumption that I made somewhere that was any different from the assumptions you made?

XXX are you talking about? You're just throwing in concepts to try to complicate the conversation and make it seem like your response has substance. Science does not need to create unanswerable questions? With statements like that you are claiming that my stupidity is showing?


You've shown no flaw in my logic. Instead you have just tried to confuse the matter bringing in irrelevant comments. What a childish statement anyway. My response - no it's not, it's yours.

You seem like a kid to me, maybe just out of high school. You can respond to this, but I'm done with this line of arguments.