To the extent that that is even true (plenty of sane adults abuse children), it’s obviously evolution. Protecting your progeny has obvious evolutionary benefit.
That’s nonsense. The multiverse hypothesis is completely compatible with science; the god hypothesis directly contradicts science. As you yourself implicitly admit every time you insist that physical laws don’t apply do your god.
And your evidence for that is?
Since you believe in Yahweh, this indicates that when someone proposed that Yahweh – an invisible, intangible force – exists to you that you asked that person for evidence and argumentation to support his claim and that that evidence was provided.
What is it?
It’s a restatement of ‘So God didn’t tune the Earth for “life”. He tuned it for “life as we know it.”’
If this can be ascribed to evolution, why do some of the most prolific breeder enage in this behaviour?
[quote=“Der_Trihs, post:181, topic:551952”]
The multiverse theory is incompatible with science because the sceintific method demands testing. How can the multiverse be tested?
And your evidence for that is?
[/QUOTE]
Because if you and 100,000 other people defined good, your definitions would almost certainly diverge.
Why is child abuse evil?
Yes indeed. Two examples of many…
Design. The existence of an objective moral law.
God fine tuned the earth for life as HE knew it.
What is “good” and how does it prove the existence of sky gods?
“This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in - an interesting hole I find myself in - fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!’ This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it’s still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything’s going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise.”
-Douglas Adams
I fine tuned your keyboard as I knew it, ergo, I created your keyboard.
Neither of these is true. I’ll admit that in your perception they are, but your perception does not make them so. Your perception was that the Earth being fine tuned to be the way God likes it is proof that God designed it. That only works as a proof if we pre-emptively assume God exists and know what God wanted.
The only way we have to know what God wanted is by reading the Bible. But the Bible was written after the fact.
Let’s stay with science.
Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”
The Bible does not explain the moral argument. The Bible does not expain the design argument. It may enighten them, but these are self evident from witho=in human experience and knowledge.
You seem of the view that theists make this up as we go. Your charge is better directed at the authors of multiverse and panspermia hupotheses.
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.
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.
Because everyone is at some point a child and they wouldn’t want to be abused. And because those abused children can become damaged adults.
And he was wrong, about that and other things.
“Human experience” as you are putting it is a very poor guide to truth. The design argument is long-discredited garbage based on ignorance and a lack of imagination. And the moral argument is just a matter of people egotistically claiming their own personal hatreds are divinely ordained.
Because you do, or base it off books that other theists just made up. You have no facts, no evidence and your beliefs make no sense. It is all nothing but fantasies and lies, with nothing of worth to it; religion is the intellectual garbage heap of humanity where people put all their stupid or evil ideas that they can’t defend but don’t want to give up. So they slap the religion label on their favored bits of foolishness or evil, and demand that everyone respect it because it’s called religion. But it’s still baseless, empty nonsense whatever label you put on it.
Jesus was always, that path of grace offered by Jesus existed always. King David obviously knew the Lord, and was able to take the path of grace, violating the law and found sinless, but the Israelites were blinded, so they couldn’t know Jesus by name.
Other gods exist today, and are the gods of Greek mythology, people still worship them, nothing has changed.
Aphrodite god of beauty and youth, worshiped today by makeup, breast implants, ect.
Ares, god of war worshiped today by comfort in the military might for security.
Dementor god of agriculture worshiped today by people with bumper stickers ‘no farms, No food’
etc.
The alternative is to depend on our heavenly father, who loves us, to provide all our needs, and to know what they are. Our Abba-father does not want us to worry about defense, our food source, or our looks, but jsut to know He will provide. Going outside of Him will cause other gods to rule us.
IMHO No. God is overflowing with mercy and Love for His children. What seems to happen is they go into a veiled form of death, called Sheol, where they are ‘reborn’ in a harsher world, perhaps instead of middle class, they may be born a slave. it’s a gentil form of Hell, but they will have a earthly existence. God desires none to be lost, and God designed the perfect plan to do that. Ironically those who stand the greatest chance of experiencing Hell in it’s full fury (except for demons) are people who know Christ.
Also Hell is not a barrier to salvation as Jesus has overcome the grave, and we have the power in His name to raise people from the dead, and this has always been even in old testament times. Additionally believing and being baptized does not guarantee that you won’t spend time in hell, just that you will be ultimately saved (as Jesus believed and was baptized yet entered the grave.
You define your reality that you live in by who you chose to believe (reality is subjective), if you worship science then the gods of science will have you believe that the world is 13.8b yrs old, and will define your reality accordingly. If you chose to have Jesus define your reality He will much differently, IMHO much differently then the 6000 yrs also.
What, precisely, are the ‘aspects of physics’ that would lead to a multiverse? And how can they be tested?
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.
That doesn’t make it evil, just undesirable. Why is child abuse evil?
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 hearty opinion piece, but it is not valid argumentation.
Oh and your musings on religion are irrelevant. The subject here is the existence of God, not religion.
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.
Get the idea?
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.
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.