# 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:** 14
**Author:** ![Askance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/askance/32/8281_2.png) [@Askance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Askance)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2010, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/261 "2010-09-02T01:39:50Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > > [QUOTE=aigonz] > > It would seem rather obvious. God is seperate from the physical/natural universe. God is non-physical. > > How is this any different from saying God is non-existent? You mean you cannot grasp the concept of anything outside the physical universe? [/QUOTE] You mean you cannot grasp the concepts that 1/ the universe encompasses everything, by definition - that’s what we mean by the term 2/ even granting that there could be “something” “outside it” (whatever that might mean) the instant it affected anything within the universe it must perforce be within the universe. There is no effective difference between there being no god, and there being a god outside the universe. Note, by the way, that your argument does not support the existence of _your_ god, just the existence of _an entity_ which may or may not resemble your concept of god in any way. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2010, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/262 "2010-09-02T02:15:29Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > Events without causes most certainly happen. Which statement would you associate yourself with more as far as a position, the above, or this?: Events without known causes most certainly happen. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2010, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/263 "2010-09-02T02:15:49Z")
> [@Askance](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > You mean you cannot grasp the concept of anything outside the physical universe? > > You mean you cannot grasp the concepts that > > 1/ the universe encompasses everything, by definition - that’s what we mean by the term > > 2/ even granting that there could be “something” “outside it” (whatever that might mean) the instant it affected anything within the universe it must perforce be within the universe. There is no effective difference between there being no god, and there being a god outside the universe. > > Note, by the way, that your argument does not support the existence of _your_ god, just the existence of _an entity_ which may or may not resemble your concept of god in any way. 1\> Your understanding of the universe fails on two counts. Firstly for proponenets of the multiverse hypothesis, ‘the’ universe does not encompass everything. Secondly, the universe encompasses everything physical/natural. Anything ‘supr’ natural is distinct. 2\> This has previously been addressed. There is no logical reason why an entity who is not within the physical universe cannot interact upon it. That is simply a fallacy. 3\> I am not arguing for ‘my’ God, whatever that is. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2010, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/264 "2010-09-02T02:24:41Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > When they say, “No physical theory which assumes a deterministic variable inside the particle that determines the outcome, can account for the experimental results,” that’s physicists talk for “uncaused.” “No deterministic variable” means “no cause.” I take that to simply mean: nothing that they can point to. Look at early man and his views on a solar eclipse. Their knowledge base was to small. They couldn’t see patterns. They were unaware of the relationship of the moon, earth and sun. They were ignorant of orbits, etc. They could have made a similar statement about eclipses using terms like “no deterministic variable”. They could have been of the sincere opinion that there is no cause we can theorize. And they would have been wrong. Just as claims like this are very likely wrong now. I’m gobsmacked by the hubris of people who come to these conclusions. Particularly those with science backgrounds. To paraphrase Newton, all discovery is built on the soldiers of previous discoveries. The history of science is of the absolutely inexplicable giving way to explanation. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2010, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/265 "2010-09-02T02:37:15Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > You digress. The abhorrence of child abuse was explained as an evolutionary response to self preservation. This is absurd. Many species harm their young, including humans. Yet we somehow know it to be wrong. Well, I sure don’t want to be raped or beaten. And I didn’t back when I was a kid, either. So it’s not especially difficult for me to sympathize with the abused child in such a scenario, and readily make with a"do unto others as you’d have done unto you" sentiment; that way of looking at stuff has long been pretty danged approachable, which is why it kept popping up in secular philosophies and various religions well before Christianity hit the scene. Enlightened self-interest is a powerful motivator that can explain plenty, but it ain’t the _ **only** _ thing; putting yourself in someone else’s shoes _ **also** _ packs a psychological punch. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2010, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/266 "2010-09-02T02:41:50Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > > When they say, “No physical theory which assumes a deterministic variable inside the particle that determines the outcome, can account for the experimental results,” that’s physicists talk for “uncaused.” “No deterministic variable” means “no cause.” > > I take that to simply mean: nothing that they can point to. Look at early man and his views on a solar eclipse. Their knowledge base was to small. They couldn’t see patterns. They were unaware of the relationship of the moon, earth and sun. They were ignorant of orbits, etc. They could have made a similar statement about eclipses using terms like “no deterministic variable”. They could have been of the sincere opinion that there is no cause we can theorize. And they would have been wrong. Just as claims like this are very likely wrong now. I’m gobsmacked by the hubris of people who come to these conclusions. Particularly those with science backgrounds. To paraphrase Newton, all discovery is built on the soldiers of previous discoveries. The history of science is of the absolutely inexplicable giving way to explanation. DtheC is confused. Most interpretations of quantum mechanics are deterministic. And don’t presume that virtual particles come into existence uncaused. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2010, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/267 "2010-09-02T02:44:27Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > You digress. The abhorrence of child abuse was explained as an evolutionary response to self preservation. This is absurd. Many species harm their young, including humans. Yet we somehow know it to be wrong. > > Well, I sure don’t want to be raped or beaten. > > And I didn’t back when I was a kid, either. > > So it’s not especially difficult for me to sympathize with the abused child in such a scenario, and readily make with a"do unto others as you’d have done unto you" sentiment; that way of looking at stuff has long been pretty danged approachable, which is why it kept popping up in secular philosophies and various religions well before Christianity hit the scene. > > Enlightened self-interest is a powerful motivator that can explain plenty, but it ain’t the _ **only** _ thing; putting yourself in someone else’s shoes _ **also** _ packs a psychological punch. This isn’t about empathy, sympathy, like or dislike. It’s about what is whether there is an objective moral law that says child abuse is wrong. Your ‘if it feels good do it’ answer cannot withstand the obvious question…“If a child enjoyed the abuse, would it be ‘good’?” ---
**Author:** ![Blut\_Aus\_Nord](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/9e8a1a/32.png) [@Blut\_Aus\_Nord](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blut_Aus_Nord)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2010, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/268 "2010-09-02T02:52:29Z")
Abuse by definition is not good. If for some reason the child was deranged and enjoyed it, it would still be wrong to further his or her sadomasochistic, self-destructive impulses. ---
**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 2, 2010, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/269 "2010-09-02T03:10:50Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > > Look at the animals who protect their young. Not every species is evolved the same way. > > > > Prove that “morality” exists outside of human thought. > > You digress. The abhorrence of child abuse was explained as an evolutionary response to self preservation. This is absurd. Many species harm their young, including humans. Yet we somehow know it to be wrong. Not all species are evolved to protect young, and child abuse is absolutely not “known” to be wrong. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2010, 3:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/270 "2010-09-02T03:11:42Z")
> [@Chakra Nadmara](#): > > Abuse by definition is not good. If for some reason the child was deranged and enjoyed it, it would still be wrong to further his or her sadomasochistic, self-destructive impulses. Oh I agree. But the question is why? How do you identify this as ‘wrong’? Here is my point. Man is remarkably unsuccesful at establishing an objective moral code, yet able to identify one an objective moral law. This objective moral law exists, yet must, logically, come from outside of man. The atheist must either: 1\> Deny that an objective moral law exists, or 2\> Maintain that such a law is able to be devised by man. In my view neither proposition is sustainable. ---
**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 2, 2010, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/271 "2010-09-02T03:12:22Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > > How is this any different from saying God is non-existent? > > You mean you cannot grasp the concept of anything outside the physical universe? Neither can anyone else. Those words are logically contradictory. ---
**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 2, 2010, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/272 "2010-09-02T03:13:26Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > > Humans have never recognized any such thing. > > Is child abuse wrong? What does “wrong” mean? ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2010, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/273 "2010-09-02T03:14:23Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > You digress. The abhorrence of child abuse was explained as an evolutionary response to self preservation. This is absurd. Many species harm their young, including humans. Yet we somehow know it to be wrong. > > Not all species are evolved to protect young, and child abuse is absolutely not “known” to be wrong. 1\> But those species who have not ‘evolved’ to protect their young would surely be heading for extinction? 2\> Under what circumstances would child abuse be ‘right’? ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2010, 3:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/274 "2010-09-02T03:15:36Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > You mean you cannot grasp the concept of anything outside the physical universe? > > Neither can anyone else. Those words are logically contradictory. Not so, however I will rephrase. Are you suggesting that anything proposed outside the natural universe is non-existent? ---
**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 2, 2010, 3:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/275 "2010-09-02T03:15:40Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > DtheC is confused. Most interpretations of quantum mechanics are deterministic. And don’t presume that virtual particles come into existence uncaused. This is the opposite of the truth. ---
**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 2, 2010, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/276 "2010-09-02T03:20:08Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > > [@CurtC](#): > > > > Events without causes most certainly happen. > > Which statement would you associate yourself with more as far as a position, the above, or this?: > > Events without known causes most certainly happen. Virtual particles are inconsistent with any deterministic variable. This means that a cause can’t exist at all, not just that it’s unknown. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2010, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/277 "2010-09-02T03:20:42Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > Is child abuse wrong? > > What does “wrong” mean? Morally, objectively wrong. Bad. The opposite of good. ---
**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 2, 2010, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/278 "2010-09-02T03:25:06Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > This isn’t about empathy, sympathy, like or dislike. It’s about what is whether there is an objective moral law that says child abuse is wrong. Your ‘if it feels good do it’ answer cannot withstand the obvious question…“If a child enjoyed the abuse, would it be ‘good’?” All opinions on child abuse stem from human emotional responses and nothing else. The empathic response is an evolved neurological responses. So is the impulse to protect children. There is nothing “objective” about it. Saying it over and over again doesn’t make it so. Human morality is an expression of evolved human neurology. The end. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2010, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/279 "2010-09-02T03:28:03Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > [@magellan01](#): > > > > Which statement would you associate yourself with more as far as a position, the above, or this?: > > > > Events without known causes most certainly happen. > > Virtual particles are inconsistent with any deterministic variable. This means that a cause can’t exist at all, not just that it’s unknown. Your source/support for this claim? ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2010, 3:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/280 "2010-09-02T03:30:08Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > This isn’t about empathy, sympathy, like or dislike. It’s about what is whether there is an objective moral law that says child abuse is wrong. Your ‘if it feels good do it’ answer cannot withstand the obvious question…“If a child enjoyed the abuse, would it be ‘good’?” > > All opinions on child abuse stem from human emotional responses and nothing else. The empathic response is an evolved neurological responses. So is the impulse to protect children. There is nothing “objective” about it. Saying it over and over again doesn’t make it so. Human morality is an expression of evolved human neurology. The end. So why not address the questions posed? If a child wanted and enjoyed being abused, would the abuse of that child be acceptabel to you.? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952.md?page=15)