# 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:** 9
**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:** [August 31, 2010, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/161 "2010-08-31T23:40:57Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > Are you denying that there is an objective moral law? > > > [@Der Trihs](#): > > > > Define “objective”. I think that there are basic moral rules that are simply the best choices to make given our biology and psychology. But that isn’t objective the way laws of physics are objective; different rules would apply to a sufficiently different species. > > By objective I mean absolute, unchanging, not subject to the whims of man. No, I don’t believe in those. And even if such rules existed they by definition wouldn’t have anything to do with the decisions of gods, or they wouldn’t be objective. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2010, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/162 "2010-08-31T23:41:13Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > The statement “I know God does not exist” is a definitive truth claim, beyond that of an hypothesis. The person who makes such a claim should be able to provide empirical evidence to support such a claim. No special case for religion required. > > Yes, it is an attempt to make a special case. That’s why people pretend that there is a difference between not believing in Sauron and not believing in God. > > And as for “empirical evidence”; the fact that so many claims made about God violate physical law is strong evidence against him existing. As is the fact that so many such claims are logically impossible. And the fact that religions have a long history of being flat wrong. 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. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2010, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/163 "2010-08-31T23:43:20Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > By objective I mean absolute, unchanging, not subject to the whims of man. > > No, I don’t believe in those. And even if such rules existed they by definition wouldn’t have anything to do with the decisions of gods, or they wouldn’t be objective. Is it your position that there is not a single moral law that is objective? So you would be prepared to live in a society that legalised child abuse? ---
**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:** [August 31, 2010, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/164 "2010-08-31T23:44:07Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > > > That’s a long solved problem with any number of solutions that don’t require a god. The most obvious being presuming that there are many universes and we re in one “perfect tuned” to produce life for the same reason we are on a planet “perfectly tuned” for life; otherwise, we wouldn’t be alive to ask questions like that. > > ‘Presuming’. > > My position is the God hypothesis is more plausible than the multiverse hypothesis. Presuming nothing. That’s flat wrong. The multiverse hypothesis is very plausible, it fits the facts, it’s logical, it violates no physical laws. Claiming that a myth creates by Bronze Age barbarians is the answer violates all of those. “God” is one of the least plausible, outright silly explanations one can make for anything. ---
**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:** [August 31, 2010, 11:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/165 "2010-08-31T23:49:04Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > > > Yes, it is an attempt to make a special case. That’s why people pretend that there is a difference between not believing in Sauron and not believing in God. > > > > And as for “empirical evidence”; the fact that so many claims made about God violate physical law is strong evidence against him existing. As is the fact that so many such claims are logically impossible. And the fact that religions have a long history of being flat wrong. > > 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. Neither was Sauron. And all your claim does is demonstrate how ridiculous belief in God is, since you need to deny all of science to defend it. > [@aigonz](#): > > > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > > > No, I don’t believe in those. And even if such rules existed they by definition wouldn’t have anything to do with the decisions of gods, or they wouldn’t be objective. > > Is it your position that there is not a single moral law that is objective? > > So you would be prepared to live in a society that legalised child abuse? Not the same thing at all; I think rules against child abuse make society better, so I support them. No need to appeal to “objective morality” or the wrath of megalomaniacal supernatural beings. Nor is religion some sort of shield against child abuse or any other evil. It is an excuse for and a source of evil, not a protection against it. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2010, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/166 "2010-08-31T23:52:20Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > > > No, I don’t believe in those. And even if such rules existed they by definition wouldn’t have anything to do with the decisions of gods, or they wouldn’t be objective. > > Is it your position that there is not a single moral law that is objective? > > So you would be prepared to live in a society that legalised child abuse? Sure - in any society in which there are not children and could never be children, that would be fine. A society of robots, perhaps. The word “objective” has a meaning; I think you and I might disagree what that meaning is. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2010, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/167 "2010-08-31T23:55:41Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > ‘Presuming’. > > > > My position is the God hypothesis is more plausible than the multiverse hypothesis. Presuming nothing. > > That’s flat wrong. The multiverse hypothesis is very plausible, it fits the facts, it’s logical, it violates no physical laws. Claiming that a myth creates by Bronze Age barbarians is the answer violates all of those. “God” is one of the least plausible, outright silly explanations one can make for anything. What facts? The existence of this universe? So does the God theory. Logical? No it is not, because on one hand you reject a super-batural explanation for the universe, yet you invoke one that itself has no defined cause. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2010, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/168 "2010-08-31T23:57:17Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > > [@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. > > Neither was Sauron. And all your claim does is demonstrate how ridiculous belief in God is, since you need to deny all of science to defend it. > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > Is it your position that there is not a single moral law that is objective? > > > > So you would be prepared to live in a society that legalised child abuse? > > Not the same thing at all; I think rules against child abuse make society better, so I support them. No need to appeal to “objective morality” or the wrath of megalomaniacal supernatural beings. Nor is religion some sort of shield against child abuse or any other evil. It is an excuse for and a source of evil, not a protection against it. There is an inherent disgust of the abuse of children amongst sane adults. This is an objective moral law. What is it’s origin? ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [August 31, 2010, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/169 "2010-08-31T23:59:10Z")
[quote=“aigonz, post:168, topic:551952”] > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Neither was Sauron. And all your claim does is demonstrate how ridiculous belief in God is, since you need to deny all of science to defend it. Not at all. The God hypothesis is far more compatible with science than the multiverse hypothesis. ---
**Author:** ![MatthewGerlach](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5e9695/32.png) [@MatthewGerlach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MatthewGerlach)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2010, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/170 "2010-09-01T00:26:15Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > Hi Matthew > > \<\\> > > No it doesn’t. > > \> The original Hebrew from which we derive day is ‘yom’, which does not necessarily refer to a 24 hour period. It can be used to refer to any period of time of a ‘fixed duration’. > \> The 6,000 years is based on calculations by 17th century scholar James Bishop Ussher. These calculations were required to use a number of assumptions, because the genealogies are not complete. Regrettably Mr Usshers work has been been taken as authoritative by some who see religion as needing to be in conflict with science. > > The Bible is not inconsistent with an ‘old’ earth, and Christianity does not rely on a 6,000 year old planet. Oh. I apologize for my mistake. I have recently found out that it was James Usher who, by constructing a chronology of the events in the bible, deduced that Creation was 6000 years ago. ---
**Author:** ![MatthewGerlach](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5e9695/32.png) [@MatthewGerlach](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MatthewGerlach)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2010, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/171 "2010-09-01T00:45:14Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > There is nothing in th Bible that claims that there was a time before time or that creation took a multitude of years. A day means a 24 hour period.\>\> > > I share your scepticism about modern dating methods, however let’s not subject the Word of God to ridicule simply to pursue a singular interpretation that is not demanded. I don’t understand why modern dating methods are considered flawed. They’re supported by concrete, scientific proof and in my opinion serve as irrefutable evidence. Also, if the bible was written by man for man to read, why would the term ‘day’ mean anything other than a 24 hour period? ---
**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, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/172 "2010-09-01T00:58:25Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > > Name one thing that suggests the existence of your sky god. > > The existence of evil…and our recognition of it. Huh? What is “evil?” and how does it prove the existence of sky gods? ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2010, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/173 "2010-09-01T00:59:49Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > > > So God didn’t tune the Earth for “life”. He tuned it for “life as we know it”. > > > > Isn’t that remarkably fortunate for God? > > > > I tuned your keyboard perfectly to be the keyboard that you’re using. > > What you are conceding is that God is the best explanation. You really want to defend the statement that “X is X, thus proving that Y made it.”? :dubious: To do that, you have to link X and Y. You also need to show that both X and Y actually exist. ---
**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, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/174 "2010-09-01T01:10:08Z")
> [@MatthewGerlach](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > There is nothing in th Bible that claims that there was a time before time or that creation took a multitude of years. A day means a 24 hour period.\>\> > > > > I share your scepticism about modern dating methods, however let’s not subject the Word of God to ridicule simply to pursue a singular interpretation that is not demanded. > > I don’t understand why modern dating methods are considered flawed. They’re supported by concrete, scientific proof and in my opinion serve as irrefutable evidence. Also, if the bible was written by man for man to read, why would the term ‘day’ mean anything other than a 24 hour period? Hi Matthew 1\> My scepticism of modern dating methods does not extend to thinking the world is 6,000 years old, merely to recognising that dating methods do not, and in fact do not claim to, provide precise measuerments of age. But an approximation of an age of 40 miliion years, when in reality it may be 35 milliion years, still means ‘old’. 2\> The Bible was written in three different languages. Genesis was written around 1400BC in Hebrew. Like any ‘ancient’ language there was an economy of words. Throughout the Bible the word Yom is used to mean a number of diferent time periods, that’s just the way the language of the time worked. As an aside, in my opinion the Bible is categoric that the ‘days’ of genesis are not 24 hour time periods. To support that i would point to the creation of plants, which genesis describes as sprouting from seeds (Hebrew _'dasha_’) a process that must have taken longer than 24 hours. ---
**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, 1:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/175 "2010-09-01T01:11:10Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > The existence of evil…and our recognition of it. > > Huh? What is “evil?” and how does it prove the existence of sky gods? Evil is the antithesis of good. Good is only known to us because there is a God. ---
**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, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/176 "2010-09-01T01:12:33Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > What you are conceding is that God is the best explanation. > > You really want to defend the statement that “X is X, thus proving that Y made it.”? :dubious: > > To do that, you have to link X and Y. You also need to show that both X and Y actually exist. I need to nothing of the sort. You consider the responses I have gievn as conveniently placing God in the frame. I submit they are argument that He always was. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2010, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/177 "2010-09-01T01:19:03Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > > > You really want to defend the statement that “X is X, thus proving that Y made it.”? :dubious: > > > > To do that, you have to link X and Y. You also need to show that both X and Y actually exist. > > I need to nothing of the sort. You consider the responses I have gievn as conveniently placing God in the frame. I submit they are argument that He always was. That’s not what I’ve said at all, nor even anything like it. Nor do I see how you have moved from a conversation that “Earth’s Earthiness is proof that God created it” to “God always was.” Don’t change the subject. Show me why Earth’s Earthiness proves that God exists and is the creator of Earth. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2010, 1:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/178 "2010-09-01T01:23:13Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > > > Then why are you defending it? > > I’m not. I was responding to you. Well then instead of “just responding”, why don’t you simply answer the question that began your non-defense with a nice ‘yes’ or ‘no’? Would you trust someone who claimed that he had an invisible, intangible bunny standing next to him? Or would the “invisible, intangible” portion lead you to doubt him? ---
**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, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/179 "2010-09-01T01:25:35Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > I need to nothing of the sort. You consider the responses I have gievn as conveniently placing God in the frame. I submit they are argument that He always was. > > That’s not what I’ve said at all, nor even anything like it. Nor do I see how you have moved from a conversation that “Earth’s Earthiness is proof that God created it” to “God always was.” > > Don’t change the subject. Show me why Earth’s Earthiness proves that God exists and is the creator of Earth. One of your comments was “So God didn’t tune the Earth for “life”. He tuned it for “life as we know it”. Isn’t that remarkably fortunate for God?” And we should get some terms clear. I do not use the word proof in connection with God, because proof is a term related to the physical universe. In that sense, God is beyond ‘proof’. However there is evidence and argument that makes God’s existence plausible. If you can explain what on earth you mean by ‘earth’s earthiness’ I will try to answer that point. ---
**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, 1:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/180 "2010-09-01T01:26:38Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > I’m not. I was responding to you. > > Well then instead of “just responding”, why don’t you simply answer the question that began your non-defense with a nice ‘yes’ or ‘no’? > > Would you trust someone who claimed that he had an invisible, intangible bunny standing next to him? Or would the “invisible, intangible” portion lead you to doubt him? I would aks him for evidence and argumentation to support his claims. I do the same regarding the multiverse. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952.md?page=10)