Questions on Christianity (Again...)

[aigonz]

@aigonz

You miss the point entirely. If an event occurs within something that is not ‘nothing’, then it is far from clear that it is uncaused. The existence of virtual particles (which by the way spend at least some time as parts of other particles) arise from vaccum fluctuations. How then can they be described as ‘uncaused’?

How? They’re uncaused. Did you not read the Hawking essay that you pointed us to? He describes it clearly. The term “vacuum fluctuations” (one c, two u’s in both words) is simply another way of saying the uncertainty due to Heisenberg’s famous principle.
[/QUOTE]

You misunderstand Hawking, and I suspect you misunderstand the uncertainty principle also.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@aigonz

@CurtC

Because it’s a human child and forcing human children to have sex causes them harm.

What other possible answer could there be? I’m not taunting you here, I really can’t imagine any other reasonable answer.

No problem, I appreciate your questions are genuine.

Are you referring physical harm? If so, I have answered that already. We inflict physical harm in other instances in the name of good (eg an innoculation). Who is to say that the harm imposed in child abuse is ‘wrong’?

Me. I’m to say.

[aigonz]

@Der_Trihs

@aigonz

2> ‘We know it did because it did’? What nonsense.

“Nonsense”? Hardly. Our present moral system, including the prohibition against murder is something that had to be learned and developed. It didn’t just appear. We can see that process in history.

Nonsense again. Evolutionary theory explains it easily; it can be a useful strategy to act generally benevolent even if there’s no immediate benefit. And evolution doesn’t have much if any places where it fails, it’s one of the best confirmed theories in science. It’s certainly far better than your “god did it” idea, which has never, ever been anything but wrong in all of human history. Why should I believe this is the one time it will turn out to be right after all these centuries?

I already answered it; if you don’t like the answer too bad. The opinion of a god certainly has nothing to do with it even if gods were anything other than a delusion. And there IS no “moral dilemma of atheism”.

Which is a religious idea and nothing more. I was making the obvious point that you keep harping on how your god is somehow necessary for morality without demonstrating that to be true, and despite religion having a long history of being overwhelmingly a force for evil.

@aigonz

Design
The evidence to design is well documented, and there is wealth of material on the web if you are really interested. However to whet your appetite, the following is a list of just some of the intellectuals who have been persuaded on the evidence for an intelligent agent in creation:

<snips list>

Meaningless. There is no such evidence; a list of people who supposedly support creationism doesn’t matter especially since the creationists and religious believers in general have a pervasive history of lying about who supports them; and again, creationism fails to answer any meaningful questions.

It seems you best answer is evasion or manipulation.

1> I did not claim these eminent minds supported creationism. They acknowledge the evidence to design.

2> If you wish to look for deceit, study the history of evolution. The list of deceit and hoax is damning.

3> Benevolence IS a moral dilemna for atheism, and for evolution in particular. Evolution cannot explain beenvolent actions. Full stop.

4> If religion has been a source for evil, then atheism has been a source for infintely more. Nore people dies in the 20th century alone from atheistic/secular humanist ideology that from all religions for the history of mankind.

[aigonz]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

@aigonz

To abuse is to misuse or mistreat. Of course that requires a moral judgement.

No it doesn’t. It’s just an observation. Your “objective morality” doesn’t exist. Give it up. Morality is just a matter of opinion. Something is “wrong” if I DECIDE it is wrong. I don’t “recognize” it as wrong. I DECIDE it. So do you. So does everybody else. We’re all George W. Bush when it comes to morality.

When someone has the honesty to answer me directly on the case of the raape of a 3 year old, the point will be made.

[aigonz]

@monavis

@aigonz

You are wrong. You have claimed they have no beginning. The onus of proof is on you.

Any entity needs a place ot exist, so if God is an entity He would first need a place , so who created that? If God always exised then existence would have to proceed Him, unless God and existence are the same thing!

God is not limited by our concepts of time or space.

So again I state…the onus of proof is on you.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@aigonz

You misunderstand Hawking, and I suspect you misunderstand the uncertainty principle also.

No, son, it’s you who misunderstands.

[aigonz]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

@aigonz

No problem, I appreciate your questions are genuine.

Are you referring physical harm? If so, I have answered that already. We inflict physical harm in other instances in the name of good (eg an innoculation). Who is to say that the harm imposed in child abuse is ‘wrong’?

Me. I’m to say.

Yes, but why?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@aigonz

God is not limited by our concepts of time or space

This is a semantically meaningless statement.

[aigonz]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

@aigonz

You misunderstand Hawking, and I suspect you misunderstand the uncertainty principle also.

No, son, it’s you who misunderstands.

I don’t think so. But happy fathers day anyway.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@aigonz

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

Me. I’m to say.

Yes, but why?

Because I say so, and I say so for multiple reasons. For one thing, it’s damaging to the welfare of the social groups as a whole, and for another thing it offends my empathic response.

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@aigonz

When someone has the honesty to answer me directly on the case of the raape of a 3 year old, the point will be made.

I’ll answer you directly: God’s opinion of whether that rape is right or wrong is of no more interest to me than anyone else’s opinion on the matter. My opinion is that raping a 3-year-old is wrong – which means that, if you try it, I’ll do my best to stop you regardless of God’s approval or condemnation of your actions.

I likewise don’t believe homosexuals should be put to death; some folks say God believes they should (which I ignore as irrelevant), and others say God believes they shouldn’t (which I ignore as irrelevant). Should we abolish slavery or practice it? Some say God has an opinion about whether it’s right or wrong; my opinion is that it’s wrong; God’s opinion doesn’t much interest me.

Now, let’s see if you likewise have the honesty to answer me directly on the case of the rape of a 3-year-old: is it right to engage in such a rape if God approves? Is it wrong only if God forbids it? Do morals enter into the picture either way if God is silent on the matter?

[aigonz]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

@aigonz

Yes, but why?

Because I say so, and I say so for multiple reasons. For one thing, it’s damaging to the welfare of the social groups as a whole, and for another thing it offends my empathic response.

But why? Why does it ‘damage your empathetic response’? And if it didn;t, would it be acceptable?

[aigonz]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

@aigonz

When someone has the honesty to answer me directly on the case of the raape of a 3 year old, the point will be made.

I’ll answer you directly: God’s opinion of whether that rape is right or wrong is of no more interest to me than anyone else’s opinion on the matter. My opinion is that raping a 3-year-old is wrong – which means that, if you try it, I’ll do my best to stop you regardless of God’s approval or condemnation of your actions.

I likewise don’t believe homosexuals should be put to death; some folks say God believes they should (which I ignore as irrelevant), and others say God believes they shouldn’t (which I ignore as irrelevant). Should we abolish slavery or practice it? Some say God has an opinion about whether it’s right or wrong; my opinion is that it’s wrong; God’s opinion doesn’t much interest me.

Now, let’s see if you likewise have the honesty to answer me directly on the case of the rape of a 3-year-old: is it right to engage in such a rape if God approves? Is it wrong only if God forbids it? Do morals enter into the picture either way if God is silent on the matter?

Your questions are hypothetical, mine are real. And as you seem intent on avoiding them (where did your comment ‘God’s opinion’ come from???) let me ask you another way.

If the majority of people agreed to remove a prohibition against child rape, would you agree with such a law?

[The_Other_Waldo_Pepper]

@aigonz

Your questions are hypothetical, mine are real. And as you seem intent on avoiding them (where did your comment ‘God’s opinion’ come from???) let me ask you another way.

If the majority of people agreed to remove a prohibition against child rape, would you agree with such a law?

Interesting that you refuse to answer a hypothetical question and then follow up by asking a hypothetical question. Possibly if I answer this one, you’ll answer mine?

Either way: no, I would not. In the post you just copy-and-pasted, I said that “God’s opinion” about the rightness or wrongness of raping a 3-year-old is of as little interest to me as anyone else’s; you can therefore deduce that if, hypothetically, the majority of people agreed to remove such a prohibition, I’d still find such a rape objectionable. I’d find it objectionable regardless of a hypothetical change in majority opinion; I’d likewise find it objectionable regardless of a hypothetical change in God’s opinion.

Would you find it objectionable regardless of either hypothetical change?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@aigonz

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

Because I say so, and I say so for multiple reasons. For one thing, it’s damaging to the welfare of the social groups as a whole, and for another thing it offends my empathic response.

But why? Why does it ‘damage your empathetic response’?

Because I am neurologically evolved that way.

And if it didn’t, would it be acceptable?

Acceptable to who?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

Aigonz, since you are such a big fan of appeals to authority, here’s a really good one from Stephen Hawking which should really clear up any dispute over his position.

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing.

"Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.

“It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.”

Stephen Hawking: God did not create Universe

[aigonz]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

Let’s see a single piece of evidence for design. Quit ducking the question and pony something up.

Single piece? The entire universe is finely tuned for it’s very existence. The odds against such fine tuning without an intelligent agency are infinitesimal.

Start with the ‘constants’ and go from there. The strong nuclear force constant,
the weak nuclear force constant, the gravitational force constant, the
electromagnetic force constant, the ratio of electromagnetic force constant to gravitational force constant…there are over 30, all of which suggest design and make the notion of random chance simply rediculous.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

The “fine tuning” canard? That’s the best you’ve got?

[aigonz]

@The_Other_Waldo_Pepper

@aigonz

Your questions are hypothetical, mine are real. And as you seem intent on avoiding them (where did your comment ‘God’s opinion’ come from???) let me ask you another way.

If the majority of people agreed to remove a prohibition against child rape, would you agree with such a law?

Interesting that you refuse to answer a hypothetical question and then follow up by asking a hypothetical question. Possibly if I answer this one, you’ll answer mine?

Either way: no, I would not. In the post you just copy-and-pasted, I said that “God’s opinion” about the rightness or wrongness of raping a 3-year-old is of as little interest to me as anyone else’s; you can therefore deduce that if, hypothetically, the majority of people agreed to remove such a prohibition, I’d still find such a rape objectionable. I’d find it objectionable regardless of a hypothetical change in majority opinion; I’d likewise find it objectionable regardless of a hypothetical change in God’s opinion.

Would you find it objectionable regardless of either hypothetical change?

The differnece is my question is asked specifically of YOU.

[aigonz]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

The “fine tuning” canard? That’s the best you’ve got?

Well the question was about design.

Here’s one for you:

The strong nuclear force constant:
if larger: no hydrogen would form; atomic nuclei for most life-essential elements would be unstable; thus, no life chemistry
if smaller: no elements heavier than hydrogen would form: again, no life chemistry