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.
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.
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?
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
There is an inherent disgust of the abuse of children amongst sane adults. This is an objective moral law. What is it’s origin?
[quote=“aigonz, post:168, topic:551952”]
Not at all. The God hypothesis is far more compatible with science than the multiverse hypothesis.
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.
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?
Huh? What is “evil?” and how does it prove the existence of sky gods?
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.
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.
Evil is the antithesis of good.
Good is only known to us because there is a God.
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.
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?
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.
I would aks him for evidence and argumentation to support his claims.
I do the same regarding the multiverse.