# 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:** 15
**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, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/281 "2010-09-02T03:33:28Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > > 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? The universe does not have an “outside.” By definition, the universe is everything that exists. If it does not exist in the universe, it doesn’t exist. Even if your God were able to somehow exist nonsensically “outside” the universe, that would still make it indistinguishible from non-existent as far as the universe was concerned, because it would not be able to affect or interact with the universe. ---
**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, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/282 "2010-09-02T03:35:54Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > > What does “wrong” mean? > > Morally, objectively wrong. Bad. The opposite of good. You can’t define a word by restating the same word. Defining it as the opposite of something is fine. So what does “good” mean? ---
**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, 3:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/283 "2010-09-02T03:37:06Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > > 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? Scroll up and read the Wiki entry on Bell’s Theorem. ---
**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, 3:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/284 "2010-09-02T03:39:26Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > > 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.? I would still be emotionally repulsed by it. Others might not. It would still be subjective, though. Most humans think that shit stinks, that doesn’t mean that shit objectively stinks, because “stink” only describes a human biological response, not an objective quality. ---
**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, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/285 "2010-09-02T03:40:35Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > Not so, however I will rephrase. Are you suggesting that anything proposed outside the natural universe is non-existent? > > The universe does not have an “outside.” By definition, the universe is everything that exists. If it does not exist in the universe, it doesn’t exist. > > Even if your God were able to somehow exist nonsensically “outside” the universe, that would still make it indistinguishible from non-existent as far as the universe was concerned, because it would not be able to affect or interact with the universe. 1\> Which just goes to show you limit your sphere of thought to the physical universe. On what basis? 2\> Again I ask…on what basis do you argue a God who is apart fomr the physical universe could not interact with the universe? This has not been answered. ---
**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, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/286 "2010-09-02T03:46:03Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > > The universe does not have an “outside.” By definition, the universe is everything that exists. If it does not exist in the universe, it doesn’t exist. > > > > Even if your God were able to somehow exist nonsensically “outside” the universe, that would still make it indistinguishible from non-existent as far as the universe was concerned, because it would not be able to affect or interact with the universe. > > 1\> Which just goes to show you limit your sphere of thought to the physical universe. On what basis? On the basis of pure definition, and physics. Do you know anything at _all_ about physics? Who told you that the universe has a boundary with an “outside” part to it? > [@](#): > > 2\> Again I ask…on what basis do you argue a God who is apart fomr the physical universe could not interact with the universe? This has not been answered. Because that would be a logical contradiction. If it interacts with the unverse, it’s part of the universe. You can’t have it both ways. ---
**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, 3:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/287 "2010-09-02T03:46:49Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > Morally, objectively wrong. Bad. The opposite of good. > > You can’t define a word by restating the same word. Defining it as the opposite of something is fine. So what does “good” mean? An action is good if it is (broadly) beneficial, conducted without unjustifiable harm to others. The definition can go on. Most sane people recognise fundamental differences between good and evil without a lesson in ethics. ---
**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, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/288 "2010-09-02T03:47:58Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > 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.? > > I would still be emotionally repulsed by it. Others might not. It would still be subjective, though. Most humans think that shit stinks, that doesn’t mean that shit objectively stinks, because “stink” only describes a human biological response, not an objective quality. You aren’t answering the question. Why would you be repulsed by it? What would you think of the person who was not? ---
**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, 3:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/289 "2010-09-02T03:50:35Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > 1\> Which just goes to show you limit your sphere of thought to the physical universe. On what basis? > > On the basis of pure definition, and physics. Do you know anything at _all_ about physics? Who told you that the universe has a boundary with an “outside” part to it? > > > [@](#): > > > > 2\> Again I ask…on what basis do you argue a God who is apart fomr the physical universe could not interact with the universe? This has not been answered. > > Because that would be a logical contradiction. If it interacts with the unverse, it’s part of the universe. You can’t have it both ways. We’ve been here before. Even in the physical universe I can demonstrate this is a fallacy. I can interact with my fish pond and not be part of it. If an entity had the wherewithall to make the physical universe, it is absurd to suggest that entity was then divorced from it. Unless you can demonstarte this is a logical impossibility. ---
**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, 3:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/290 "2010-09-02T03:52:29Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > > You can’t define a word by restating the same word. Defining it as the opposite of something is fine. So what does “good” mean? > > An action is good if it is (broadly) beneficial, conducted without unjustifiable harm to others. Why do you think humans being able to agree on this definition requires magic? > [@](#): > > The definition can go on. Most sane people recognise fundamental differences between good and evil without a lesson in ethics. Most people have general ideas about what they decide to call “good and evil.” Where things break down is when they try to agree on what goes where. There is no universal ethos, though some taboos come close (as they do in non-human animals as well). ---
**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, 3:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/291 "2010-09-02T03:57:38Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > > I would still be emotionally repulsed by it. Others might not. It would still be subjective, though. Most humans think that shit stinks, that doesn’t mean that shit objectively stinks, because “stink” only describes a human biological response, not an objective quality. > > You aren’t answering the question. Yes I am. That was exactly the answer to your question. > [@](#): > > Why would you be repulsed by it? This is a DIFFERENT question, but I’ve already answered this one as well, and answered it multiple times. > [@](#): > > What would you think of the person who was not? It would depend on why they were not. ---
**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, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/292 "2010-09-02T03:58:32Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > Your source/support for this claim? > > Scroll up and read the Wiki entry on Bell’s Theorem. I’d rather keep Wiki on the sidelines thanks. But I’ll happily read anything from a reputable physicist that speaks of virtual particles originating out of nothing. ---
**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, 3:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/293 "2010-09-02T03:59:10Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > > On the basis of pure definition, and physics. Do you know anything at _all_ about physics? Who told you that the universe has a boundary with an “outside” part to it? > > > > Because that would be a logical contradiction. If it interacts with the unverse, it’s part of the universe. You can’t have it both ways. > > We’ve been here before. Even in the physical universe I can demonstrate this is a fallacy. I can interact with my fish pond and not be part of it. No you can’t. ---
**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, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/294 "2010-09-02T04:01:27Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > > Scroll up and read the Wiki entry on Bell’s Theorem. > > I’d rather keep Wiki on the sidelines thanks. But I’ll happily read anything from a reputable physicist that speaks of virtual particles originating out of nothing. Familiarize yousrself with Bell’s Theorem. Wiki didn’t invent it. You’re also going about things wrong by asking for an authority. You would do better by actually learning something about scientific method. ---
**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, 4:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/295 "2010-09-02T04:01:58Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > An action is good if it is (broadly) beneficial, conducted without unjustifiable harm to others. > > Why do you think humans being able to agree on this definition requires magic? > > > [@](#): > > > > The definition can go on. Most sane people recognise fundamental differences between good and evil without a lesson in ethics. > > Most people have general ideas about what they decide to call “good and evil.” Where things break down is when they try to agree on what goes where. There is no universal ethos, though some taboos come close (as they do in non-human animals as well). ‘Some taboos’ come more than close. There is a fairly universal (human) recognition that child abuse, murder, theft, rape are ‘wrong’. It is only in very small minorities, or amongst the insane, where these are considered anything other than 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, 4:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/296 "2010-09-02T04:03:00Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > We’ve been here before. Even in the physical universe I can demonstrate this is a fallacy. I can interact with my fish pond and not be part of it. > > No you can’t. Yes I can. I can throw in fish food. ---
**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, 4:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/297 "2010-09-02T04:04:40Z")
No, they don’t come more than close. There is no universal ethos. Sorry. Even the ones that tend to come close (because of obvious shared evolution among humans) are typically filled with loopholes and exceptions and are often not intended to apply universally to alll humans, but only to the in-group. ---
**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, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/298 "2010-09-02T04:06:59Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > I’d rather keep Wiki on the sidelines thanks. But I’ll happily read anything from a reputable physicist that speaks of virtual particles originating out of nothing. > > Familiarize yousrself with Bell’s Theorem. Wiki didn’t invent it. You’re also going about things wrong by asking for an authority. You would do better by actually learning something about scientific method. I am familiar with Bells Theorum. I prefere to read the source; Wiki has it’s problems, as I’m sure you are aware. So can you name a physicist who has been published claiming virtual particles derive from nothing? ---
**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, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/299 "2010-09-02T04:08:48Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > No, they don’t come more than close. There is no universal ethos. Sorry. Even the ones that tend to come close (because of obvious shared evolution among humans) are typically filled with loopholes and exceptions and are often not intended to apply universally to alll humans, but only to the in-group. So prohibitions against child abuse are only supposed to apply to the ‘in group’? And how does a prohibition against murder have an evolutionary background when killing off ones competition would provide more resources for oneself? ---
**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, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/300 "2010-09-02T04:21:44Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > > No you can’t. > > Yes I can. I can throw in fish food. That makes you part of the pond. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952.md?page=14) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952.md?page=16)