# Questions on Christianity (Again...) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 30, 2010, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952 "2010-08-30T02:13:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2010, 6:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/201 "2010-09-01T06:53:55Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > Let me make this point. > > I could easily claim the following: > > “The multiverse and panspermia hypotheses are simply the desperate pleadings of men who will believe anything to avoid the moral accountability inherent in accepting the existence of a God.” > > Now that may be my opinion, however it would be intellectually lazy to claim this without argumentation. And yet you are doing just that.let me reassure you. I have no fear of moral accountability. That’s just wishful thinking on the part of religious apologists. I am a way better person than your God is.The multiverse and panspermia hypotheses have nothing to do with each other, by the way. You need to stop confusing evolution with the origin of the universe. One has nothing to do with the other. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2010, 7:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/202 "2010-09-01T07:00:05Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > > > By testing the aspects of physics that we can that would naturally lead to a multiverse. And not everything in science can be tested you know, so that’s a red herring. > > What, precisely, are the ‘aspects of physics’ that would lead to a multiverse? And how can they be tested? The fact that our universe exists; one universe implies at least the possibility of others. Our understanding of the structure of spacetime and the Big Bang implies various ways in which a new universe could spawn off an old one. And so on. > [@aigonz](#): > > > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > > > And? Adding a god to that just makes it 100,001 people, even if there was any reason to consider gods anything other than fantasies, which there isn’t. > > You misunderstand, so here is my point restated. Man is incapable of devising an objective moral law, because history demonstrates how problematic human agreement is. Yet we observe an objective moral law. It cannot have derived from man. Again; you have yet to demonstrate that such a law exists, or that humans couldn’t discover such a law if it existed. And gods add nothing to the debate, since something does not become true just because a god says so. > [@aigonz](#): > > That doesn’t make it evil, just undesirable. Why is child abuse evil? Because “collectively undesirable” pretty much IS evil. > [@aigonz](#): > > There are many, many scientists, philospohers etc who have been convinced by the argument to design. Dismissing them as wrong is arrogance, not argument. Nonsense. Any modern scientist or philosopher who says he buys the argument from design reveals himself as ignorant, irrational or a liar. It’s a long and completely discredited idea. > [@aigonz](#): > > Let me make this point. > > I could easily claim the following: > > “The multiverse and panspermia hypotheses are simply the desperate pleadings of men who will believe anything to avoid the moral accountability inherent in accepting the existence of a God.” What “moral accountability?” God has nothing to do with moral accountability; quite the opposite. The God of myth is evil, and belief in him leads to evil. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2010, 7:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/203 "2010-09-01T07:34:32Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > You misunderstand, so here is my point restated. Man is incapable of devising an objective moral law, because history demonstrates how problematic human agreement is. Yet we observe an objective moral law. > > No we don’t. There is no such thing as objective morality and we observe nothing of the kind. All human moral codes are arrived at by consensus. None of it is universal and all of it is subjective. > > Why does shit stink? “Morality” is a subjective aesthetic. Nothing more. Saying hild molesteation is “evil” is just a way of saying that it provokes negative neurological responses. > > > [@](#): > > > > There are many, many scientists, philospohers etc who have been convinced by the argument to design. Dismissing them as wrong is arrogance, not argument. > > This is little more than a pathetic appeal to authority. What ever scientists (not very many, any more) or philosphers are “convinced” by the argument for design are not convinced by actual science, but arrive there through _a priori_ religious assumptions. You can’t point to any actual scientific evidence or peer reviewed studies for design. Can you put up any evdience or can’t you? I’ll give you a hint: the answer is no. 1\> Objective moral laws exist. The abhorrence of child abuse being just one. On moral issues mankind is notoriously incapable of consensus, let alone objectivity. 2\> Your ‘not convinced by actual science’ is amusing. Have you interviewed them? I bet not. But more the point, many, if not most, come from an a-priori position of unbelief. 3\> What is a question on peer reveiws other than an apeal to authority? ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2010, 7:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/204 "2010-09-01T07:37:57Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > Let me make this point. > > > > I could easily claim the following: > > > > “The multiverse and panspermia hypotheses are simply the desperate pleadings of men who will believe anything to avoid the moral accountability inherent in accepting the existence of a God.” > > > > Now that may be my opinion, however it would be intellectually lazy to claim this without argumentation. > > And yet you are doing just that.let me reassure you. I have no fear of moral accountability. That’s just wishful thinking on the part of religious apologists. I am a way better person than your God is.The multiverse and panspermia hypotheses have nothing to do with each other, by the way. You need to stop confusing evolution with the origin of the universe. One has nothing to do with the other. Oh I think the point of my illustration was fairlly obvious, even if you missed it. As for the multiverse and panspermia hypotheses, there is no confusion here. Merely both fit the illustartion. And yes evolution cannot explain origins. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2010, 7:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/205 "2010-09-01T07:43:30Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > What, precisely, are the ‘aspects of physics’ that would lead to a multiverse? And how can they be tested? > > The fact that our universe exists; one universe implies at least the possibility of others. Our understanding of the structure of spacetime and the Big Bang implies various ways in which a new universe could spawn off an old one. And so on. So your claim is that an implication of existence of second universe, derived from the existence of one universe, is an apsect of physics? Nothing you state extends beyond science fiction. [quote=“Der\_Trihs, post:202, topic:551952”] > [@aigonz](#): > > Again; you have yet to demonstrate that such a law exists, or that humans couldn’t discover such a law if it existed. And gods add nothing to the debate, since something does not become true just because a god says so. I have given an example of one objectove moral law…the abhorrence of child abuse. > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > Nonsense. Any modern scientist or philosopher who says he buys the argument from design reveals himself as ignorant, irrational or a liar. It’s a long and completely discredited idea. > > You use nothing more than opinion piece and disguise it as argument. > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > Let me make this point. > > > > I could easily claim the following: > > > > “The multiverse and panspermia hypotheses are simply the desperate pleadings of men who will believe anything to avoid the moral accountability inherent in accepting the existence of a God.” > > What “moral accountability?” God has nothing to do with moral accountability; quite the opposite. The God of myth is evil, and belief in him leads to evil. How do you recognise evil? ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2010, 7:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/206 "2010-09-01T07:47:01Z")
The multiverse, panspermia and other ideas still do not answer the fundamental question. How does something (physical) come from nothing? There are no other examples of this in the natural universe that we are aware of, yet somehow a purely naturalistic explanation is accepted. Why? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2010, 7:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/207 "2010-09-01T07:51:23Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > 1\> Objective moral laws exist. No they don’t. Sorry. If you disagree, then point to an “objective moral law” and prove that it can exist outside of human thought. > [@](#): > > The abhorrence of child abuse being just one. This is not an “objective moral law.” This is a widely shared (though not universal) subjective, human emotional response based in an evolutionary impulse to protect offspring. > [@](#): > > 2\> Your ‘not convinced by actual science’ is amusing. Have you interviewed them? I bet not. It’s not necessary to interview them to know they have not produced any scientific reasoning to support their religious beliefs. I have read some of them, like Behe and Dembski. They are charlatans. > [@](#): > > But more the point, many, if not most, come from an a-priori position of unbelief. This is complete horsehit. You’re a big Lee Strobel fan, aren’t you? The “skeptical atheist persuaded by hard evidence canard.” I love that one. > [@](#): > > 3\> What is a question on peer reveiws other than an apeal to authority? Peer review is the method of empirically reviewing evidence. It’s not just “authorities” giving opinions. Add that to the long list of terms, phrases and concepts you don’t seem to comprehend very well. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2010, 9:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/208 "2010-09-01T09:07:51Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > And yes evolution cannot explain origins. That’s because it isn’t a theory about “origins” in the first place. That’s abiogenesis, not evolution. Unless you are referring to the origin of species, in which case like it or not it explains them quite well. > [@aigonz](#): > > > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > > > The fact that our universe exists; one universe implies at least the possibility of others. Our understanding of the structure of spacetime and the Big Bang implies various ways in which a new universe could spawn off an old one. And so on. > > So your claim is that an implication of existence of second universe, derived from the existence of one universe, is an apsect of physics? Nothing you state extends beyond science fiction. Hardly, it’s a well known idea in cosmology and has been for many years. > [@aigonz](#): > > How do you recognise evil? By its effect on people. > [@aigonz](#): > > The multiverse, panspermia and other ideas still do not answer the fundamental question. > > How does something (physical) come from nothing? > > There are no other examples of this in the natural universe that we are aware of, yet somehow a purely naturalistic explanation is accepted. Why? Because as previously mentioned in quantum mechanics something can come from nothing, and does. And because in all of human history there’s never been any evidence for anything not “naturalistic”; you are ignoring the fact that even if “the multiverse, panspermia and other ideas” don’t pan out that makes “God” no less baseless and ridiculous an alternative. And by the way; panspermia isn’t all that popular an idea in scientific circles anyway. Nor do I see what relevance it has to this conversation. ---
**Author:** ![Don123](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e19adc/32.png) [@Don123](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Don123)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2010, 9:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/209 "2010-09-01T09:09:16Z")
Not to make things overly complicated; I would be interested if a person could give a definition of a god that would not be in contradiction with itself. God is all powerful and made everything. Ok then God gave man laws, man breaks the laws, God is not all powerful. I do not see how any can say a God exist unless they can give a definition of a God that holds water. If any are interested in a “not so” all powerful God, I don’t know what to tell you, other than live a good life and don’t hurt any one, as stories abound to no end, and do we ever love our stories. I always thought to disprove an all powerful god would body shaking, mind redeploying, with great emotional travail in pain, but not so. Two sentences does it and easily understood. So look on the bright side, if you count yourself a sinner don’t worry about an all powerful god as one does not exist. You might forgive yourself and do better next time. Welcome to the human race, it is not so bad. Don ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2010, 12:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/210 "2010-09-01T12:15:16Z")
[quote=“aigonz, post:132, topic:551952”] > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > You said it right there, when you deny that God is made of anything we have any evidence actually exists or know anything about. Unless you want to claim the government has secret stocks of supernaturalium. > You are confusing three things: > > 1\> Understand. > 2\> Evidence. > 3\> Know anything about. > > These are three different things. > We do not fully understand GGod, but we understand some things about Him. > > We do have evidence for God. > > We do know some things about God. What you claim to be knowledge of God, is not knowledge, but 'Belief". Some thing you were taught, read, or thought in your own mind. What is called evidence for God is a matter of belief, not fact. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2010, 12:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/211 "2010-09-01T12:19:27Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > > > Resting is sub-optimal. It’s an adaptation due to the state of the world. It’s more efficient on a world like ours to specialize as a day or night creature and rest during the off-time. On a planet with a constant light source, we wouldn’t have evolved this way. > > > > And of course, that’s if we’re talking about evolution. For a reasoned, goal-oriented creator, adding in random stuff like night, free-floating continents, molten planetary cores, etc. are all needless waste. > > Once agian you are pretending to know the mind and purposes of God. Remember He set aside the 7th day for rest. Rest is an intentional part of creation. Do you realize you are also pretending to ‘know’ the mind of God? Some human said God set the 7th day aside for rest. it is belief in that person…not God!! ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2010, 1:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/212 "2010-09-01T13:13:02Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > The multiverse, panspermia and other ideas still do not answer the fundamental question. > > How does something (physical) come from nothing? > > There are no other examples of this in the natural universe that we are aware of, yet somehow a purely naturalistic explanation is accepted. Why? Who says that something came from nothing? It seems to me that theists do. IIRC, most philosophers accept the B theory of time, which means, there is no need to accept the idea that something came from nothing. That said, let’s suppose it’s possible that something can come from nothing. It make no sense to say that this could be _caused_ by anything - unless you mean something by ‘caused’ that is not what is commonly understood. To cause something to exist, is to create something with pre-existing materials/energy within time and space. It takes an agent acting upon something. Now, take away materials/energy, what is there for an agent to act upon? Take away time and how is there any time for an agent to act? It’s nonsensical. ---
**Author:** ![Meatros](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/b4bc9f/32.png) [@Meatros](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Meatros)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2010, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/213 "2010-09-01T14:03:26Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > There is no difference. If I made a statement that ‘Sauron does not exist’ I would expect to be able to substantiate it. And the idea that God cannot exist because He violates physical laws is simply nonsense. God is not a physical entity. Therefore He is not bound by physical laws. Saw this on the previous page. So God is not a physical entity. What is God then? ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2010, 2:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/214 "2010-09-01T14:18:30Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > > Name one thing that suggests the existence of your sky god. > > The existence of evil…and our recognition of it. I recognize that religion is evil, therefore that is evidence that God exists?!? > [@aigonz](#): > > Man is incapable of devising an objective moral law, because history demonstrates how problematic human agreement is. Yet we observe an objective moral law. But here, your first sentence disproves your second! You yourself recognize that humans can’t agree on what morality IS, which is another way of saying that morality is not objective. Then you go on to baldly assert that morality is objective. Do you not see how you’ve contradicted yourself here? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2010, 2:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/215 "2010-09-01T14:36:06Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Cuaseless things happena ll the time. Oh really? Then you should be able to offer a few examples of this rather easily. Please do so. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2010, 2:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/216 "2010-09-01T14:38:19Z")
Already cited above. Virtual particles are uncaused. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2010, 2:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/217 "2010-09-01T14:43:37Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Yes, they literally appear from nothing. So then, at the time when the causes for things like solar eclipses, pregnancies, and warts were beyond man’s knowledge, you would classify them as being “causeless”, as well? I’m not sure you’re using the concept of “cause” the same we others are. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2010, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/218 "2010-09-01T14:44:47Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Already cited above. Virtual particles are uncaused. See above. ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2010, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/219 "2010-09-01T14:48:05Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > > Yes, they literally appear from nothing. > > So then, at the time when the causes for things like solar eclipses, pregnancies, and warts were beyond man’s knowledge, you would classify them as being “causeless”, as well? > > I’m not sure you’re using the concept of “cause” the same we others are. The current understanding of quantum physics is that these particle events are _really_ uncaused. The idea that there are some as-yet unknown hidden causes has been disproved, and until that proof is shown to be incorrect I think DtC is correct in saying they are causeless. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2010, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/220 "2010-09-01T14:58:31Z")
> [@Superfluous\_Parentheses](#): > > I’m interrupting here, because there is NO evidence that leads us to assume that there in fact IS a cause for whatever we currently call the “universe”. This is not correct. There might not be _proof_, but there is _evidence_. And that evidence is that every single thing we are aware of has a cause—EVERYTHING. This is a foundational tenet of science, discovery and learning. We have bazillion beyond bazillion events we look at and see that they ALL have causes. We asked to be shown the other side of the ledger, those events that are causeless, the one example than is offered up is Quantum Mechanics, and presented incorrectly. QM is silent on cause. It simply observes that the particles can appear and disappear in and from different locations it what we perceive as random. There are two possibilities, neither having anything to do with a god of any sort: 1. We simply do not understand what the causes are, but we will. The same way we came to see that there are actual causes for things like solar eclipses, pregnancies and warts. And they were not just the will of Og. 2. They are, in fact, causeless. So, in weighing those two possibilities, we look for evidence as to which is more likely to be true. And since the thing we are looking at is QM, we look elsewhere and find ZERO instances of things existing without a cause. That makes Option 1 a much, much, much, much more likely scenario, does it not. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952.md?page=12)