Hawking theory about something coming from nothing

[tonyrey]

It is not this way at all, as I have explained before, I am a spiritual person, I find the universe to be beautiful, without the need for a God.

What does spirituality entail and how did it originate?

 

[Reivax]

My objections to the teapot argument would hold also if God were physical, yet outside our universe, just like a multiverse. There is no use in trying to defend this terrible argument.

I’m about to read it thoroughly now. I also posted the links to your articles on another thread, to get more (name removed by moderator)ut on your ideas and arguments. I’ll be interested what others have to say. It’s perhaps not the best argument against God, but I think it’s good when debunking pseudoscience and other bunk. As we are both skeptics, I assume you deny all other pseudoscience?

 

[You]

We don’t know they exist, they are currently theoretical. This theory is being tested as we speak. If they did exist however, they would increase the odds that our particular universe could exist. So would the theory of perpetual big bangs and big crunches.

…

Odds are not really a creation, probability governs your life whether you like it or not; flip a coin. How is it running away from a fact? Show me the fact, and I cannot run from it unless I am being irrational.

Multiverses are not theory. They are just an idea with no evidence whatsoever. Believing in them is irrational. Thinking about the possibility is fine, but awareness of the ideas origin is helpful, it was an idea postulated to make our universe’s existence sound more likely. But it was an idea not based on fact or evidence, it is worse than the Lough Ness monster idea, at least the monster was seen by St Columba in 565 AD !

 

[tonyrey]

I’m about to read it thoroughly now. I also posted the links to your articles on another thread, to get more (name removed by moderator)ut on your ideas and arguments. I’ll be interested what others have to say. It’s perhaps not the best argument against God, but I think it’s good when debunking pseudoscience and other bunk. As we are both skeptics, I assume you deny all other pseudoscience?

In wikipedia five counterarguments to the FTA are summarised. Can you refute them?

 

[Al_Moritz]

I’m about to read it thoroughly now.

Good. I would not want to be presented with objections that I have answered already.

As we are both skeptics, I assume you deny all other pseudoscience?

I don’t understand what you mean with ‘other’ in ‘other pseudoscience’. I deny all pseudoscience, period. Paranormal stuff, UFOs, telepathy, Pentawater, you name it. I would be willing to look into evidence for it, if it were credible, but so far I have not seen that.

As for being a skeptic, I am also a skeptic of the naturalistic worldview, as of course you have noticed. In addition, I am a skeptic of theistic philosophical views that have been debunked by science, such as biological ID.

 

[Al_Moritz]

But it was an idea not based on fact or evidence, it is worse than the Lough Ness monster idea, at least the monster was seen by St Columba in 565 AD !

Well, it can be argued that the multiverse is a natural outflow from the scientific concepts of inflation and string theory, even though nobody can convince me that there were not ulterior motives involved. Yet there is no experimental evidence for string theory – none whatsover. To have such a situation 30 years after postulation of the theory (or rather, hypotheses) is pretty bad.

 

[Abba]

Revelation and faith are a common answers to this, but this goes straight back to the fact that faith is unreliable and unreasonable, and that anecdotal experiences are equally unreliable. Note that previous deistic beliefs were held with the same faith-based conviction that the God’s of monotheistic religions are. How do you discredit Zeus, Isis or Krishna? All this is simply tied up as the
Last question, why doesn’t God heal amputees?

Thanks in advance for your replies!

I think an ‘argument’ or understanding that is missing from the search for God is one I would call Spiritual Design. People consider with so much importance the physical design of the universe which of course is marvelous and I believe it’s intelligence and beauty *does *reflect God, but, people stop at the visible and intellectual as if that is all there is.

I would suggest that you consider the Spiritual Design (coined by Abba ) of creation and of God’s beloved children. Perhaps, if only for a little while you can approach the ‘problem’ from this direction and perhaps, you may find some answers or at least, hopefully, get some illumination.

What I mean is approaching an understanding of God and his creation not only from an intellectual, physical - this world perspective but, from God’s perspective. Suppose, if only as a mental exercise that God does exist, then ask the question in a different way: Why would God want people to come to know him by faith? What advantage is there for the people to come to know God by faith? What is it about the design of human beings that makes it best for them to come to know the existence of God by faith?

---

Just quickly, in regards to the existence of different religions - they exist because people are seeking their creator in the liberty and freedom and reality of this world that they live in. They are seeking their creator and they naturally wonder. This wonder is part of their own being, their own construct, and historically, and cross-culturally people have found different answers in the freedom of existence that God has given them. But, there is only one God and two thousand years ago he sent his only begotten Son so that whoever may believe in him shall have eternal life.

John 3:16
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

Gotta go to work now, hope this helps,

Peace,

Abba

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Reivax;8495720:

I am a spiritual person, I find the universe to be beautiful, without the need for a God.

What does spirituality entail and how did it originate?

Not that I can answer for Reivax, but I know a couple of people that call themselves “spiritual atheist.” The only thing common about them is that they don’t hold a belief in anything of the concepts that I’ve seen labeled as a god. One of them believes in “the power of prayer.” Not that she sees a personal god as intervening but that she thinks we all exert some amount of influence on the universe through our wills and that were exert fields through our emotional state ( like an “aura”).

 

[danserr]

Firstly, thanks for your in depth reply! I am enjoying this discussion…

I have to flat out disagree here. I believe that science and religion can exist in the same brain, but I don’t believe they are compatible. This article goes into depth about this idea. Miracles, prayer and historical accounts of divination do not stand up to scrutiny. … Prayer is statistically inconsistent. … Show me scientific proof of a miracle, and we’ll talk. Most miracle accounts that I have seen, have been thoroughly debunked to my satisfaction. So far there has always been a natural explanation… This goes for all your claims that you can prove the existence of God through science. I’m pretty much showing you how to become a millionaire for free (if you are not already). This money could go a long way for a charity, and would be useful in promoting the definitive proofs of Catholicism.

…

Prayer
Thank you for your concern to help me become a millionaire. As a poor graduate student, I admit this appeals to me very much. However, I think I must question your understanding of prayer. Your understanding of prayer would make prayer more like “magic” than a matter of what Christians believe prayer is. God is not a soda machine. Prayer is not a matter of depositing the required change. This notion of contact with the divine is more pagan than Christian. Prayer is request, which may be refused and at center it is, as CS Lewis says, the contact between limited incomplete persons and the utterly complete person, God.

Scientific experiments to verify prayer are flawed. For example, some tests are to have people pray for group of patients in a hospital, A, but not for those in another, B. But such prayers are not really for the patients, but to see if prayer works. And Claudius in Hamlet found, “words without thoughts never to heaven go.” I know of no way to scientifically verify prayer.

Perhaps you will say, “well, you should not believe things that can not be scientifically verified.” But this is not only obviously untrue, but self contradictory. You cannot scientifically verify the statement “one should only believe what can be scientifically verified.” You cannot scientificially verify the statement, "the universe was not created as it 5 minutes ago with appearances of age and built in memory traces and food from meals we never ate in our stomaches.

Indeed, this is a problem for your multiverse theory. If the multiverse is true, then as the agnostic Oxford physicist Penrose pointed out, it is more probable that our universe was created spontaneously in an instant fluctuation, than that it is really 13 billion years old. If you really believe in a multiverse, then you should also deny that the universe is 13 billion years old.

Finally, as for that article about science and religion. It is flawed. It proclaims that science and religion are not compatible, but then it says “It doesn’t mean, first, that there is any necessary or logical or a priori incompatibility between science and religion.” So the article admits that science and religion are not logically or philosophically incompatible. Hence why so many first rate scientists are also Christian, including Francis Collins, former director of the human genome project. The claim that science and religion reach incompatible conclusions is too broad. Regarding intellectually viable versions of Christinity, it is simply untrue. And you cannot discount this simply by pointing to religions that are incompatible with science. I do not believe the earth is 5,000 years old, nor does the Bible teach this, despite mistaken claims to the contrary. And of course

And I reiterate that science can actually support belief in God, as with evidence for the origins of the universe its fine-tuning for life. The main ways to escape this, multiverse theory, is not only severly problematic (increasing the complexity of non-theism), but perhaps even unscientiific, since the multiverse may be unverifiable scientifically!

As for miracles, I have presented evidence for the Resurrection in other threads, but for now let me say that the Resurrection of Jesus is one pretty big miralce you cannot explain away easily, despite facile internet attempts to do so. Gary Habermas, for instance, was a non-theist, until he did his doctoral dissertation on the Jesus Resurrection. He is now a Christian. Lee Strobel, likewise, The Case of Christ was an atheist journalist before exploring evidence for God in a journalistic investigation. He is now a Christian. Rather than go into the arguments here I mention some authors to look into (I have given some links in my last post): NT Wright, William Lane Craig, Lee Strobel are a couple places to start.

Faith
I mentioned 2 senses of faith:

1. Intellectual assent to truths above reason.
2. Committment of one’s entire being to God.

You dismiss the first as saying it means nothing to you, but I explained precisely what I mean. One believes in God and Christianity on rational grounds, on evidence, and then this belief may entail accepting other beliefs that though not irrational or contradictory cannot be directly proven by reason. This is a perfectly coherent understanding of faith.

You don’t respond to faith in the second sense, so I gather we can agree that there is an intellectually respectable understanding of faith that is perfectly compatible with having good reasons for believe.

 

[danserr]

Evil

You actually say that you dont believe in objective moral values and duties. This seems to me irrational, but notice that if you are correct, then there is no problem of evil! So I don’t say much more here.

It seems evidence to me that objective moral values and duties exist. A human being is objectively more valuable than an ant. Rape, torture, child abuse are not simply social taboos, but moral abominations. We simply perceive these things to be wrong, and in the same way that we believe the external world of our senses, we should believe our moral sense that tells us such things are wrong. That some people disagree and think rape is right does not prove rape is not objectively wrong, but only that such people are morally handicapped.

Finally, the Resurrection. You lay alot out, and I will be as brief as possible. A case for the resurrection does not depend on the reliability of the bible. I am a history grad student myself and historians can use even imperfect sources to gain historical knowledge. Ever flawed sources can contain valuable nuggets of information that we can use to build a widely accepted picture of the past. If we demanded perfection from our sources, we could never know anything, even from the 20th century!

Theories about Jesus as a nice man all tend to fall apart on inspection. NT Wright takes apart cognitive dissonence in his book, Surprised by Hope and observes that it is no longer a popular theory to explain away the Resurrection.

Rather than discuss the evidence for the Resurrection in detail, let me make a couple points. I think evidence for the Resurrection is very good. I think this evidence makes it rational to believe in both God and Christianity. I commend to your attention the books and links I have mentioned. And if the reading list is too large (I’m busy too, but then this is a pretty important subject), you could always watch some online debates involving those people. Here William Lane Craig debates Bart Ehrman, while Craig has also debated Richard Carrier, a debate that even Carrier admitted that he lost.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Prayer
…However, I think I must question your understanding of prayer. Your understanding of prayer would make prayer more like “magic” than a matter of what Christians believe prayer is…

Well, it’s antithetical to what some Christians believe that pray is but aligned with what others believe it is along with being in positions in between. There’s a broad range of beliefs under the umbrella of Christianity. And there are ministries that preach and teach that prayer is a means to material goods.

“Prayer” is among the many words in religion where the meanings and concepts associated with it can vary some from one person to another.

Scientific experiments to verify prayer are flawed. For example, some tests are to have people pray for group of patients in a hospital, A, but not for those in another, B.

I think you are talking about the Mayo Clinic’s 2001 double-blind study of prayer on cardiovascular patients. For those interested: mayoclinicproceedings.com/content/76/12/1192

Finally, as for that article about science and religion. It is flawed. It proclaims that science and religion are not compatible, but then it says “It doesn’t mean, first, that there is any necessary or logical or a priori incompatibility between science and religion.” So the article admits that science and religion are not logically or philosophically incompatible.

My understanding of that part of the article that it was one of the parts where it’s author was making clear what his argument was not. I think this is the line that best summarizes the article.

Sean:

The reason why science and religion are actually incompatible is that, in the real world, they reach incompatible conclusions. It’s worth noting that this incompatibility is perfectly evident to any fair-minded person who cares to look.

(emphasis is from the author).

 

[danserr]

My understanding of that part of the article that it was one of the parts where it’s author was making clear what his argument was not. I think this is the line that best summarizes the article.

(emphasis is from the author).

Agreed on both counts. That was my point, the author says they are not claiming that science and religion are logically incompatible, but that they are incompatible because they reach incompatible conclusions. This claim seems barely coherent, but I have addressed it above. Redefining incompatible in this way defines it away from what most people use the term “incompatible” to mean.

 

[JDaniel]

—to an excellent, thoughtful post. Do you realize that after at least two years of irrelevant squabbling, you and I are having a fine conversation? Thank you!

Et tu, greylorn!

For the record, I must quibble with one part of the Wiki definition:

Electric field: an influence produced by an electric charge on other charges in its vicinity.

The existence of an electric field is independent of the existence of other charges.

Help me out here: how can you know that what you have is an electric field if you can’t determine that it exhibits effects (presumably on other charges)? Without other charges, you have no way to demonstrate effects, except via postulation.

I think not, While I don’t believe that “particles,” or LHBs (Little Hard Balls) actually exist at the subatomic level, they are at the core of what is commonly known as matter. Therefore they are best regarded as “material.” aspects of the universe.

Do I understand you correctly: you have a problem with virtual particles?

Another question: you posit a dichotomy between matter (material substances, I suspect) and physical, pseudo-matter that can affect matter. Or?

This does not seem to comport with any other definitions I have ever read. Is this a spot where the “other” definitions need more precision?

I’ve never insisted that God is, as you put it, “physico-material.” The term I use is simply physical. There is no implication in any of my statements that God contains any material components.

Then what are his properties? Should I think of him as a field?

If I did adhere to dogmas of science and physics, I would be guilty as charged. Let me try to explain my positions.

With respect to my Catholic teachings, I accept many aspects. For example, God and soul. However I do not accept the Church’s explanation for the existence of those entities, or the description of their properties.

This is a very confusing statement to me: on the one hand, you “accept God and soul,” and, on the other hand, you “do not accept the Church’s explanation for the existence” of them. This sounds contradictory. What do you mean?

I apply most of Christ’s teachings as models for personal behavior, just like I use the working laws of physics when building a structure or repairing a computer or TV, or installing plumbing or electrical wiring. I don’t regard any of these practical applications as having squat to do with dogma. They are about how the universe works at the practical and human levels.

So . . . a dogma (belief, hypothesis) must be workable?

For example, I don’t believe that God created the soul, or that God is omniscient, omnipotent, all-present, and singular.

OK. But I see contradictions here, too. On the one hand, you do believe in Creation, per se. And, you have said something to the effect that you recognize the enormous effort (for want of a better word) that such an endeavor would consist in - particularly for mere mortals (even a multiplicity of them) to attempt to accomplish. And you (it seems to me) have admitted to the extraordinary intelligence of whoever, or whatever, created the universe. Furthermore, you have suggested that god can flit around the universe, covering an enormous span of “time” (however you wish to define “time”) from time to time to “check up on angels.” And, I guess, finally, you are saying that god is not singular. Do you have a scenario as to how He co-exists with other gods, or others that make up a generalized "god)?

jd

 

[JDaniel]

Absolutely. I lied to my kids about Santa Claus, at the behest of my programming, as I was lied to by my parents. Dumb? I do not know, because I compensated with heavy doses of reality, later.

We commonly lie to others who, in our opinions, cannot competently deal with the truth. The government does not tell us about Roswell or other mysterious events, for fear that we cannot deal with them. And they are correct in that wretched assessment of the quality of the human mind.

Greylorn, I don’t share you disdain for other “brains.” All too often I have been proven to be not only wrong, but also, overly proud.

Years ago I met J. Allen Hynek at a dinner party populated by very intelligent people, one of them my boss, whose science dogmas were so challenged by Hynek’s real life, in-field observations, that this normally gentle, thoughtful scientist/engineer became so violently drunk and angry that he felt compelled to apologize, even to me, later.

That must have been eye-opening!

It does not work to tell people more information than their tiny, programmed minds can absorb. Suppose, for example, that my theories are correct. What would have happened if Christ had tried to teach them? He’d have only put people to sleep, as I have done way too often. As it is, despite our supposedly well educated and technologically advanced society, my ideas will be accessible to no more than 1% of the population.

(Just kidding!)

The best that God could do, if He even tried to teach us what the universe is all about (which I do not believe he’s done) would be to offer snippets of truth and clues as to where we can look for more, if interested. We rarely are, for it is our nature to prefer reliable dogma to uncertainty, no matter how absurd the dogma.

Well, I wish I could say that I fully disagree with this assessment, but I can’t. I can only say that I believe it to be partially correct.

First off, with all due respect to your beliefs, previously my own beliefs, I do not believe in divine revelation.

All that work; all those men and women; all those years; the advent of Jesus; the Resurrection; Christ’s words to his Disciples; Christ’s covenants with us; the (horrendous) death’s of His Apostles; the corroboration of much of the clues He did leave us by minds such as Aristole and Aquinas; etc., etc.

I don’t think that God inspired Jim Jones, or the nitwits who predict the end of the world hundreds of times every century. IMO the angel Moroni who gave Joseph Smith some golden tablets was a fiction invented by J. Smith— yet look at the millions of Mormons who bought into the notion and did a lot of good in the name of their religion. IMO the prophet Mohammed was indeed the very ordinary thief and worse depicted by honest secular history, whose teachings were the channelings of some evil and stupid spooks

Ditto.

I propose that all of these things are stories invented by humans,

Their continuity belies the probability of invention, don’t you think? 3,500 years of history-telling; 600 years of New Testament history; hundreds of different people, over the span of hundreds of years; 73 selected books by 43 writers covering a span of hundreds of years: how can - even considering the far less than obliviating contraries - all of that continuity be merely a “fiction?”

It is all too easy for people to make things up. If we know anything for certain, it is that some humans are masters of inventions and lies,

But, all those people? All those years?

and others are so stupid that they will believe anything.

Again, but all those people? All these years?

Don’t believe me? Half the network TV programming comes with laugh tracks to tell people what’s funny. Still unconvinced? Try distilling any honest intellectual content from a TV commercial or an Obama speech.

No disagreements here!

Humans can easily invent religious beliefs, declare them to be the Word of God, and get others to buy into that. But humans cannot invent atoms, stars, planets, and critters. It is in those mysterious places and inspiring creations where I seek God’s revelation.

Keep the updates for your first book coming!

Earlier you asked, essentially, Would God lie to us? I answered yes.

I expected you would answer this way. I have to say that I believe that He would not.

In this comment you get a bit closer to the bone, implying the possibility that God actually did lie to us.

Actually, all I wanted to determine is whether or not you did. Remember, there are well over two billion Christians and only about 400 million Agnostics and Atheists. I suspect that these are the people you want to appeal to to read your book?

IMO God has paid little attention to us, perhaps stopping by the planet at two or three billion year intervals to see if the angels to whom He’d entrusted its development were following orders.

This theosophy requires another, huge discussion.

There are way too many contradictions in the Bible for its so-called revelations to be blamed upon the Creator of the universe.

Can you give me one (or more) overwhelming contradiction(s) that could disrupt the entire fabric of Theology and Catholic philosophy?

continued . . .

 

[JDaniel]

continuation . . .

God, IMO, hasn’t bothered with us. He does not give a hoot what we believe. He turned us loose to develop some measure of consciousness, and it is up to us to do so or not, and to make what we can best make of it.

Do you think that Christ’s admonition that the most important commandment is to Love God with all of our hearts, souls and minds and to Love our neighbors as ourselves, that God does not “give a hoot” what we believe? What do you think the disregard of such a “commandment” might portend to?

Except for occasional bits of contrary nonsense inserted ex post facto, the first three books of the New Testament show Christ as teaching exactly that— self-reliance, personal responsibility, and acceptance of reality,

So, I take it that St. John is the beginning of the nonsense “inserted ex post facto?”

I would have a major problem with throwing out John’s Gospel.

jd

 

[Abba]

Letter of Paul to the Romans:
Chapter 1:
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

Hello Folks,

I want to follow through with my idea, inspired by Reivax, of Spiritual Design and I have added another; Physical Design. I have worked on it a little not like this but like this or maybe it was like this or like this :byzsoc:.

We can observe three ways the universe reflects the existence of God:

1. Spiritual Design.
2. Physical Design.
3. Intelligent Design.
4. Let’s take Physical Design first, the physical is not only limited to the intelligence we can observe in the construction this will go under the category of Intelligent Design; but we also see the beauty and harmony of the physical world. I can appreciate the beauty of the animal kingdom and the sun, moon and stars. I can appreciate nature, the valleys, the streams and rivers, the ocean, the trees, fishes, and all these things of nature and all of nature with its variaties I can abserve the delicacy and love and care of the creation of the physical world. Not just the, let’s call it the barbaric brute force of survival in the animal kingdom. The love of the creator is reflected in the nature of the living organism, like in the ultruism of birds who pretend to have a broken wing to get a cat to follow them away from the nest with little ones or dolphins trying to save human beings out at sea. There are acts in living species that do not necessarily show intelligent design but the love, care and harmony of a creator God. This we also see in the homo sapiens. I have seen the beauty and love of human beings and I have also seen how humans can do ugly and hateful things. But, I have seen the beauty and love and this reflects their creator. The mere desire of survival of self or of the specie does not explain the desire to live and the joy of living. Why survive? (LIke I said, I am working on it - please feel free to help).
5. Intelligent Design, is as we know it, the proposition that:

“certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.” It is a form of creationism and a contemporary adaptation of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, presented by its advocates as “an evidence-based scientific theory about life’s origins” rather than “a religious-based idea”. It avoids specifying that the hypothesized intelligent designer is God. Its leading proponents are associated with the Discovery Institute, a politically conservative think tank, and believe the designer to be the Christian God. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_Design

The credit is solely being given by Wiki to this think tank called Discovery Institute which I learned about today through the definition provided in the Wiki article. But, long before this think tank came into existence I heard of this idea which has been adopted, devated and what have you in the hallways of academia for some time now. I would not attribute the origin of intelligent design to this think tank just because they took the argument to the supreme court.

Anyhow, as I understand it, intelligent design is the idea that because we see intellingence in the design of creation the existence of God is evidenced. I remember back in the eighties speaking with a microbiologist. He told me that he had been an atheist and the more he studied the more he became convinced of the existence of God. He said, that he studied things, well let me phrase it my way; thousands of time pass them being visible to the eyes and in that micro existence with it’s complexities he could not come to believe that it was all an accident. He said that it would take more faith for him to believe it was an accident than to believe God exists. Even though, especially in the eighties, a time when science students were pressured to discard the idea of the existence of God or risk their intellectual prowess questioned if they maintained such an observed scientifically unprovable idea. So, the theist went hiding in the closet and simply kept their professional life separate from their religous life or gave up their belief in God or beacme convinced of the superior value of scientific knowledge and worshipped science. I recall, this scientist also mentioning the ‘beauty’ he saw in the geometry of the designs.

We can see a similiarity between the Physical and the Intelligent Design, that being that, these can be observed in the physical stuff of the universe. I will also note how the visibility of the Spiritual Design is also evident in the physical stuff.

continues…

 

[Abba]

There is also a similiarity with some of the properties of Intelligent and Physical Design with - Spiritual Design. That being that, some of the properties that can be observed are not visible/ For Intelligent Design it would be for example the laws of physics - like gravity and for Physical Design aethetics and love. We cannot see the laws but we know that they exist. We cannot physically see the beauty and reflection of a caring and loving creator when we observe compassion and love but we know that these exist. It’s not as though the physical things are transformed and appear as something else necessarily; but we are able to observe love and beauty outside of the material things that may manifest them. Not necessarily because of a certain act or appearance of the material thing that is manifesting these qualities but these qualities exist outside of these things and human being have the innate capacity to observe them. This capacity cannot simply be done away with by scientist by simply defining it as sensory or sensori-emotional values. There is more to them than meets the eye. But, let me wrap this up and present the Spiritual Design.

1. Spiritual Design

My obligations are calling again…I have to take my son to the university…

To be continued…

Peace,

Abba

 

[lemondiesel]

Does Hawking think that protons and electrons come in and out of existence, and at a certain point, two actually connected?

 

[Trevor_Stamm]

You actually say that you dont believe in objective moral values and duties. This seems to me irrational, but notice that if you are correct, then there is no problem of evil! So I don’t say much more here.

Exactly my observation while observing this debate here. If the person believes in subjective morality and denies objective morality, then this person is at fault using the problem with evil argument against theists. For this argument requires the person to presuppose evil to be an objective and universal epistemology, or if you subscribe to possibility that certain universal abstractions are ontological.

Reivax, you either have to throw out the argument or embrace objective morality.

On the side, haven’t seen you on the philosophy boards before so allow me to welcome you here and hope you enjoy the view

 

[greylorn]

continuation . . .

Do you think that Christ’s admonition that the most important commandment is to Love God with all of our hearts, souls and minds and to Love our neighbors as ourselves, that God does not “give a hoot” what we believe? What do you think the disregard of such a “commandment” might portend to?

So, I take it that St. John is the beginning of the nonsense “inserted ex post facto?”

I would have a major problem with throwing out John’s Gospel.

jd

I almost missed this, since you neglected to address it to me.

I’ve never encountered the extensive, encompassing admonition, “Love God with all of our hearts, souls and minds and to Love our neighbors as ourselves.” There are abbreviated versions of it in various gospels.

Nonetheless, this is a behavioral recommendation, not a religious belief. If you read even a little bit about other religions, you’ll find this recommendation repeated in all the great religions, including Confucianism, which has no theology and is as belief-independent as a religion can possibly be.

There are many other teachings from Christ which duplicate those found in other great religions. You might consider reading Gina Cerminara’s Insights for the Age of Aquarius. Yes, the title put me off too, but the book is required reading for anyone who wishes to defend his faith and remain intellectually honest.

Consequences of failure to love thy neighbor? People won’t like you, and can’t use you. You will have few phony friends and won’t get invited to parties populated by shmoos. People won’t try to borrow money from you that they hadn’t figured on repaying. People won’t pretend to like you when they don’t. Your transactions will be businesslike and honest. You can stop pretending to respect the inane utterances of mindless pinheads. Works for me!

Christ’s behavioral recommendations were mostly about socialization, getting along in the context of human nature. They really cannot apply to anyone who chooses to maintain his personal integrity and tell jerks the truth. They are for people who want to spend their eternity hanging out with other Christians. My experience has shown that very, very few Christians can be trusted, and I’d just as soon not spend more time in their company than is absolutely necessary. I’m hoping for just such a consequence.

Yes, I’m not keen on John’s gospel. He introduces his own stuff and colors Christ’s teachings with his mystical theories. Note that he wrote it about 60 years ex-post crucifixion— three generations removed from the time and culture during which J.C. taught, long removed from any possible contact with an original disciple. His only access to Christ’s teachings were human hearsay 60 years removed— worthless information. His only other access was through writings of the other evangelists. Having no real content to add to their works, all he could do was embellish. Yuk! He’d have made a perfect New York Times reporter.

Also, John writes flowery, in the Arabic tradition, obfuscating any real meaning. I do not trust him as a genuine representative of Christ’s teachings, which I do regard as insightful. No intelligence will be lost if John’s Gospel is purged from the Bible.