What is this "scientific method" you all speak of?

[Peter_Plato]

**

I hope they do: “lack of evidence”. That is the common thread among all the “gods”, none of them have a shred of evidence going for them. And that is what the atheists are aware of. And that is what the theists deny. They readily admit the lack of evidence for all the so-called “false” gods, but they refuse to admit that their own “god” suffers from the same problem. Of course it is called “special pleading”.

Well, no, Hee_Zen, the proponents of “false” gods would only admit they are false if they accept your grounds for dismissing them - that merely “some” evidence must exist to prove their existence.

Zeus is dismissed because no evidence found on Mount Olympus supports the Zeus hypothesis. The classical theist does not admit particular or limited evidence can ever provide the kind of warrant necessary for believing in God. What the classical theist claims is that the entirety of existence is, itself, the only evidence that could possibly suffice to prove the existence of God. This is not special pleading because the classical theist does not claim God is anything like the other gods, Bigfoot or some other mythical creature nor that flimsy evidence that might prove the existence of those could ever suffice to prove the existence of Existence Itself. That is why evidence is never appealed to, but rather the Principle of Sufficient Reason or some version of the Cosmological Argument or Argument from Fine Tuning, etc.

I have never heard of Thor, Zeus, or Spaghetti Monster believers arguing that any of these must exist by their very nature. That would be ludicrous since there is nothing about any of those that would make them essentially necessary, unlike God, who by His very nature - Ipsum Esse Subsistens - his existence is required to sufficiently explain why there exists something rather than nothing.

Apparently, you think no such explanation is necessary - but that would be a limitation of your world view, to wit: that explanations must stop where the end of your nose for curiosity ends. I have to admit, your moral and metaphysical worldviews bear striking similarities to each other and both involve, coincidentally, the end of your nose.

 

[KidCatholic1]

Nothing new there. The God of classical theism, not just an overblown super-human, it is a ridiculously overblown super-human, whose attributes are partially nonsensical, partially mutually exclusive and partially contradicted by the observed physical reality. Being itself? Actus purus? What kind of nonsense is that? Acting without change? Timeless, yet active existence? Non-corporeal existence which is able to interact with the physical realm? These are not just physical nonsense, but also philosophical nonsense.

There is no epistemology presented which would enable someone to discover that there is an “immortal” soul - actually, there is no consensus of what the “soul” might be. An “animating principle”? Or the “form” of the body - which “form” is not the shape? Or some “supernatural” whatchamacallit which is undefined?

catholic.com/quickquestions/what-exactly-is-a-soul
exploregod.com/is-god-a-personal-god
That is the definition of a soul from the Catechism and the friendly staff of this site.
About the Catholic belief in a personal God, that is your opinion. We believe the Bible to hold truth regarding the divine status of God and his Son Jesus Christ. But you reject it. People ultimately have different opinions.

 

[KidCatholic1]

The libertarian concept of “free will” is rather simple. It refers to exactly three requirements. **One **is that the “locus of decision” is with the agent. **Two **is that the decision must have at least two different possibilities (that there are at least two possibilities to choose from) and **three **that there are no external factors that would determine our choice - though obviously the external factors will influence out choice. It says NOTHING about the INTERNAL methodology of HOW the decision is reached. The choice is free if it is not determined by the external factors.

Free will is lost when it is not sufficiently free… because external factors make it restricted to act. The internal choice is based off one’s morality and experience. To sin or not to sin is the question of morality. To give into temptation or not. Free will is destroyed when external factors almost or completely restrict one’s decision. There’s a difference between having a water pistol to your head than a tank.

newadvent.org/cathen/06259a.htm

You have shown you know little of Catholic doctrines by claiming things like, “free will is impossible” or “people can’t agree on the existence of a soul, or what it is”.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

catholic.com/quickquestions/what-exactly-is-a-soul
exploregod.com/is-god-a-personal-god
That is the definition of a soul from the Catechism and the friendly staff of this site.
About the Catholic belief in a personal God, that is your opinion. We believe the Bible to hold truth regarding the divine status of God and his Son Jesus Christ. But you reject it. People ultimately have different opinions.

Thanks for your links KidCatholic. Those are really great.

 

[Gregory_Olson]

Hey again Hee Zen,

Again, I’m impressed by just how much heat you can take! I think most of us would have gave it up by now–Hee Zen is made of tough stuff.

Benevolence is a different question. No one would call a human even remotely “benevolent” if he acted like God does. At best he would be called indifferent.

But I think this is the end. (Don’t you like how dramatic I can get? )

You say you gave up on believing in a creator.

The Church teaches the sins against the Holy Spirit are: “mortal sins that harden a soul by its rejection of the Holy Spirit. Six sins are in this category. They are despair, presumption, envy, obstinacy in sin, final impenitence, and deliberate resistance to the known truth.” (source)

On one of my other threads, another member on this forum expounded on this:

The Holy Spirit is the Love between the Father and the Son. To hate the Holy Spirit is the state or condition that inhibits forgiveness which requires Love.

How does one hate the Holy Spirit, Love itself? By being unforgiving, holding a grudge, toward the Holy Spirit.

For a person to say “I hate God” and mean it, for whatever reason.
To deny their faith because God did not do what they wanted, and therefore they resent him and hate him.
Their prayer was not answered the way they thought it should be and they hate God or deny him.
They hate God for a family death, disappointment in love.
For losing their job, or because of suffering, or because of evil that has happened to them or others.
And any other multitude of reasons.

And as long as this kind of resentment continues, sorrow is not possible.
But if and when this softens, then sin of hate disappears, and forgiveness is possible.

It seems to me this is what hell is about. Hating God for one reason or another.

Please consider this with an open mind: Why do 2+ billion Christians consider God to be a loving creator, gift-giver, redeemer, animator, and friend, while you don’t? Why do so many see his actions as benevolent, while you don’t?* It’s not because we’ve forced the definitions of love and other moral concepts to fit our precepts; in fact, because and only because of God, these words have objective meaning for us (and all). Really if there’s a question on the meaning of these, it must lie with you, since you have rejected the only authority on which any moral truth may be founded. (Just because the golden rule is old and popular doesn’t make it true, it’s true because it’s part of the moral law which God established.) Morality is founded in love–it’s the cold hard truth. If you struggle or are ambiguous morally, it might be because you continue to baselessly and obstinately reject Love Himself.

I’m just saying, the reason Peter Plato seems to be getting the better of you here might not just be because he’s an eloquent, philosophical BA cool, he might actually be right.

-Greg

*I know this smells like bandwagon fallacy; I’m just suggesting there might be a cause for the correlation.

 

[Hee_Zen]

Merely because fine distinctions are not easily made does not entail no distinction is possible.

If two people look at the same picture or listen to the same music, and one of them likes it while the other one does not, how can anyone decide who is right and who is wrong?

This seems to be a pretty poor principle (PPP) since I can begin pushing my nose into your interests. Does that mean your fist ought to refrain from stopping my nose from doing so, since the right of your fist ends where the extent of my nose has reached?

I don’t think you are as dumb as you pretend to be. Obviously the phrase is a metaphor and it means: “do not intrude into other people’s domain”. Whether it is the fist, or the nose, keep it to yourself.

The classical theist does not admit particular or limited evidence can ever provide the kind of warrant necessary for believing in God. What the classical theist claims is that the entirety of existence is, itself, the only evidence that could possibly suffice to prove the existence of God.

Emphasis mine. Claims are only worth as much as the supporting evidence. Claims without supporting evidence are called empty claims. Savvy?

This is not special pleading because the classical theist does not claim God is anything like the other gods, Bigfoot or some other mythical creature nor that flimsy evidence that might prove the existence of those could ever suffice to prove the existence of Existence Itself. That is why evidence is never appealed to, but rather the Principle of Sufficient Reason or some version of the Cosmological Argument or Argument from Fine Tuning, etc.

Empty claims again. No, the “lack of appeal to the evidence” is the indicator that no such evidence exists. If there would be an actual evidence, it would be heralded from the rooftops of the Vatican. It is very strange that the catechism “claims” that the existence of God can be known by pure reason alone, but does not supply the necessary details. All the alleged “arguments” (principle of sufficient reason, cosmological argument or argument from fine tuning) fail to deliver the “goods”.

I have never heard of Thor, Zeus, or Spaghetti Monster believers arguing that any of these must exist by their very nature. That would be ludicrous since there is nothing about any of those that would make them essentially necessary, unlike God, who by His very nature - Ipsum Esse Subsistens - his existence is required to sufficiently explain why there exists something rather than nothing.

I wonder, how many empty CLAIMS can you squeeze into one post?

 

[Hee_Zen]

Again, I’m impressed by just how much heat you can take! I think most of us would have gave it up by now–Hee Zen is made of tough stuff.

Come on. We are talking about fun here.

The Church teaches the sins against the Holy Spirit are: “mortal sins that harden a soul by its rejection of the Holy Spirit. Six sins are in this category. They are despair, presumption, envy, obstinacy in sin, final impenitence, and deliberate resistance to the known truth.”

Sorry, the phrase “known truth” should be “alleged truth”. The church also teaches that for a sin to be mortal, three conditions must be met:

1. Its subject must be a grave (or serious) matter.
2. It must be committed with full knowledge, both of the sin and of the gravity of the offense
3. It must be committed with deliberate and complete consent, enough for it to have been a personal decision to commit the sin

The problem is that I do not know that some act “called grave matter” by the church is really “grave” or not. I only know that the church claims them to be “grave”. Moreover, I do not accept the concept of “sin”. And since I do not trust the church’s opinion, I am off the hook - since requirement #2 is inapplicable.

How does one hate the Holy Spirit, Love itself? By being unforgiving, holding a grudge, toward the Holy Spirit.

I do not hold a “grudge”. I simply do not believe that there is a God, or a Holy Spirit. How could one “hate” a nonexistent “thing”?

Please consider this with an open mind: Why do 2+ billion Christians consider God to be a loving creator, gift-giver, redeemer, animator, and friend, while you don’t? Why do so many see his actions as benevolent, while you don’t?*

There are probably multiple reasons. The most important is that they were “indoctrinated” into it from their childhood. I do not use the word “indoctrination” in a pejorative manner. The most accurate predictor for someone’s religion is the prevailing religion of the area they were brought up. Another reason is its “comfort” factor. Most people never even give a thought to these matters, they go to church out of habit, or for the company. And there are probably many more.

It’s not because we’ve forced the definitions of love and other moral concepts to fit our precepts; in fact, because and only because of God, these words have objective meaning for us (and all).

Sorry, but this is sheer nonsense.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Emphasis mine. Claims are only worth as much as the supporting evidence. Claims without supporting evidence are called empty claims. Savvy?

The difficulty here is that supporting evidence is only as strong as the inductive logic that links the evidence to the conclusion. Unfortunately, logic demands that we be more complete than the mere observable or probative connection between A and B. A has been consistently observed to bring about B is not sufficient to meet the demands of logic. The observed connection between A and B does not meet the standards of the PSR because the connection between A and B must not only be “observed” but explained - not merely taken as self-evident because observed.

If the “discovery” of the connection is grounded solely upon frequency that does not come close to establishing epistemic certainty or knowledge. If the frequency correlation between A and B leads us to accept that A functions as evidence for B that is because we have made a connection between A and B through the consistency of our observations. That is merely an inductive case or generalization. There is nothing in the inductive case that says A is a logically necessary and sufficient condition for B merely because it has in the past given us the expectation that it will result in B The evidential case may be tentatively accepted because of frequency correlation rather than logic, but that is insufficient for certainty in a logical sense.

What you assume is that observational frequency or correlation (evidence) IS sufficient to establish epistemological certainty. I would say it provides strong but insufficient grounds for certainty. My reason is that I have a higher standard - one of sufficient reason. In other words, frequency is not enough but rather a complete accounting for how and why causal conditions result in the effects is required over and above mere frequency correlation.

The principle of sufficient reason (PSR) leads us to expect a clearly explicated accounting as a logical requirement for “knowledge” or assent. A must provide sufficient reasons for bringing about B before we accept that A fully explains B. Some of that sufficiency comes from observation, but not entirely. Not mere correlation, but a theoretically sound case must be made for how A could be required as a necessary and sufficient reason for B before we accept that A causes B. Sufficiency requires meeting a basic standard in terms of epistemological certainly, such that both correlation and complete explication are required.

Based upon the principle of sufficient reason, the existence of the universe, therefore, requires a sufficient and complete causal accounting. Appeal to brute fact as sufficient to explain why the universe exists does not meet epistemic adequacy. If we allow brute fact as sufficient to explain the existence of the universe, that sets a precedent. Why would we require sufficient reason for believing anything if we do not require sufficient reasons to account for everything - the universe itself, for starters?

Given that nothing in the universe nor the universe itself explains its own existence, we have grounds for expecting an explanation “outside” of the universe. It is reasonable to propose that a self-existing, immaterial, timeless ground of Being is necessary to sufficiently account for why there is something rather than nothing.

Evidential arguments for God always fall short because there is no logical case to be made for why any particular event B requires God to explain it. Explaining all events, in toto, however, does require a more sufficient accounting than any one or all of them together can possibly provide. This is why the PSR entails we must go beyond the universe to explain the universe, beyond all the possible evidence to explain how evidence itself could possibly be explanatory in the first place.

This is not special pleading, it is necessary pleading.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

If two people look at the same picture or listen to the same music, and one of them likes it while the other one does not, how can anyone decide who is right and who is wrong?

It isn’t necessary for the two to decide. De gustibus non est disputandem.

But objectively, we know that relativism starts from a self contradicting objective premise.

The proof of this is in the fact that if all truth claims are regarded as relative, that would constitute an objective (absolute) declaration regarding all truth claims.

If there can be that one objective truth claim, why can’t there be others?

 

[Gregory_Olson]

\Sorry, the phrase “known truth” should be “alleged truth”. The church also teaches that for a sin to be mortal, three conditions must be met:

1. Its subject must be a grave (or serious) matter.
2. It must be committed with full knowledge, both of the sin and of the gravity of the offense
3. It must be committed with deliberate and complete consent, enough for it to have been a personal decision to commit the sin

The problem is that I do not know that some act “called grave matter” by the church is really “grave” or not. I only know that the church claims them to be “grave”. Moreover, I do not accept the concept of “sin”. And since I do not trust the church’s opinion, I am off the hook - since requirement #2 is inapplicable.

I was unclear here. I wasn’t accusing you of mortal sin; without sure knowledge and regardless of who you were, that would be sinful of me.

I was trying to say: because your total rejection of God is necessarily irrational, it’s probably rooted in something besides reason. The Church even has a name for that; it’s numbered among the sins against the Holy Spirit. I’m not condemning you; for me this is a sad and senseless thing. Why do you think I work so hard writing these posts?

I’ve half-explained it before now… You must think I’m biased towards him, but Trent Horn is able to explain logically and clearly exactly why you’re wrong here:

Sorry, but this is sheer nonsense.

In this short video.

-Greg

 

[Al_Moritz]

This is not special pleading, it is necessary pleading.

Splendidly said. :tiphat:

 

[KidCatholic1]

Come on. We are talking about fun here.

Sorry, the phrase “known truth” should be “alleged truth”. The church also teaches that for a sin to be mortal, three conditions must be met:

1. Its subject must be a grave (or serious) matter.
2. It must be committed with full knowledge, both of the sin and of the gravity of the offense
3. It must be committed with deliberate and complete consent, enough for it to have been a personal decision to commit the sin

The problem is that I do not know that some act “called grave matter” by the church is really “grave” or not. I only know that the church claims them to be “grave”. Moreover, I do not accept the concept of “sin”. And since I do not trust the church’s opinion, I am off the hook - since requirement #2 is inapplicable.

You are not “off the hook” simply because you disagree with it or do not believe in it. If you know something is sinful and do it anyway, it is still sinful up to your knowledge of how sinful it was. It says “full knowledge”. And the Church makes what is grave matter on the Bible. Your opinion or not, a mortal sin is mortal if you know not to do it and choose to do it with sufficient freedom to choose. Ultimately, it is not a matter of agree/disagree, but a matter of exist/not exist. You may reject it’s existence, but it still exists, but you can’t reject the existence of morality. This is all, of course, Catholic belief, I am speaking from an objective point of view, not my own opinion.

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a8.htm

 

[Hee_Zen]

If the “discovery” of the connection is grounded solely upon frequency that does not come close to establishing epistemic certainty or knowledge.

Epistemic “certainty”? Certainty only happens in the abstract sciences. The evidence for God should at least indicate that there is “something” to consider. The different attempts to show that there is a correlation between the alleged divine actions and the observed reality all come back as nonexistent.

By the way, if I would surmise that a dice in my hand is not a “fair” one, and would perform a million tosses which all come back with “six” showing on it, it would not make it “certain” that the dice has been “tempered” with, but I would bet my life on it. Either all sides show a “six”, or there is a heavy lead to distort the result. We don’t need “certainty”, only a reasonable assumption that there is “something” worthy to explore. And you cannot provide anything.

The evidential case may be tentatively accepted because of frequency correlation rather than logic, but that is insufficient for certainty in a logical sense.

You are obsessed with this “certainty”.

Not mere correlation, but a theoretically sound case must be made for how A could be required as a necessary and sufficient reason for B before we accept that A causes B.

Which is always tentative.

Based upon the principle of sufficient reason, the existence of the universe, therefore, requires a sufficient and complete causal accounting.

And the best that you cam up with would be: “an unknowable being, using unimaginable means made it somehow happen”. Is that an “explanation”?

If we allow brute fact as sufficient to explain the existence of the universe, that sets a precedent. Why would we require sufficient reason for believing anything if we do not require sufficient reasons to account for everything - the universe itself, for starters?

There are brute facts out there. For example the virtual size of the Sun and the virtual size of the Moon are approximately the same, when observed from the Earth - hence the solar eclipse. That is a brute fact, which needs no explanation. Their sizes and their distance just happen to be correct to allow for this fact.

Given that nothing in the universe nor the universe itself explains its own existence, we have grounds for expecting an explanation “outside” of the universe.

And now you left rationality. The Universe is not an object, it is a collection of objects. The word means “everything that exists”. There is nothing “outside” the universe. If there is a “god”, it is part of the universe. It may not be part of the “physical” universe, that would be acceptable. But there is no ground why should one posit a “dual” universe, one physical and one “non-physical”, where the non-physical created the “physical”.

By the way the expression of “explains itself” is a grammatical and philosophical nonsense. Inanimate objects do not “explain themselves”.

It is reasonable to propose that a self-existing, immaterial, timeless ground of Being is necessary to sufficiently account for why there is something rather than nothing.

Which, of course means that the existence of that immaterial and timeless “whatever” is just a “brute” fact. And fully irrational one. There is no such thing as action without a change. A change means that there is a “before” and an “after”. Which means some kind of a “time”. A timeless and yet active existence is an oxymoron. No, it is not a “mystery”, it is an oxymoron.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Which, of course means that the existence of that immaterial and timeless “whatever” is just a “brute” fact. And fully irrational one. There is no such thing as action without a change. A change means that there is a “before” and an “after”. Which means some kind of a “time”. A timeless and yet active existence is an oxymoron. No, it is not a “mystery”, it is an oxymoron.

Well, no, brute facts, by definition, have no explanation and allow none. A mystery, by definition is open to discovery. Time had a beginning, that is known with near certainty. Space had a beginning, that is known with near certainty. Matter had a beginning, that is known with near certainty. These require a sufficiently compelling explanation that cannot include time, space or matter. That may be a mystery, but it cannot be an oxymoron because that is what occurred - they somehow began, so timeless activity would have to be at least part of the explanation. We know that with near certainty.

Otherwise we have to accept your claim that no explanation is possible for the universe even though everything within it explains something of the working of all of other parts. Why would we accept that everything within the universe bears explanation but not the universe as a whole, merely because you are content to end the need for explanation at a physical rather than logical terminus?

The problem isn’t that it could end there or that it has been determined to end there after exhausting every possible reason for why it shouldn’t but that you simply make an arbitrary determination that it will end it there. Not the epitome of intellectual openness, for sure.

 

[magnet]

Why do 2+ billion Christians consider God to be a loving creator, gift-giver, redeemer, animator, and friend, while you don’t? Why do so many see his actions as benevolent, while you don’t? It’s not because we’ve forced the definitions of love and other moral concepts to fit our precepts; in fact, because and only because of God, these words have objective meaning for us (and all). (Just because the golden rule is old and popular doesn’t make it true, it’s true because it’s part of the moral law which God established.) Morality is founded in love–it’s the cold hard truth. If you struggle or are ambiguous morally, it might be because you continue to baselessly and obstinately reject Love Himself.

The ten commandments were given to Moses not in the spirit of love, but as obligations that the Israelites must observe. To not observe them sometimes resulted in God’s punishment. Supposedly this was the reason that the Assyrians were sent to attack the Israelites because they were not following God’s Law.

 

[Peter_Plato]

The ten commandments were given to Moses not in the spirit of love, but as obligations that the Israelites must observe. To not observe them sometimes resulted in God’s punishment. Supposedly this was the reason that the Assyrians were sent to attack the Israelites because they were not following God’s Law.

Have you read the accounts of God giving the Commandments to Moses? The people, for the most part were in rebellion. It takes two to tango, no?

A parent faced with a disobedient child might resort to “laying down the law” out of love, for the ultimate good of the child, even if the child doesn’t see it that way.

I am not sure what you mean by “the spirit of love.” It seems to imply some kind of positive feeling. That isn’t always the case. A feeling of love is neither necessary nor sufficient for doing what is for the ultimate good of the one loved. Sometimes a loving act must be unilateral when the individual being “loved” has totally misconceived what their ultimate good really is.

It appears you haven’t been a parent to a two year old. Otherwise, I am unclear why you would even raise this issue. The Israelites, for the most part were acting like two year olds. They had the benefit of the omniscient and omnipotent Lord of All to guide them, but they still wanted their own misconceived way.

Yes, of course, you will side with the Israelites on this one because you think human beings have “rights” to self-determine. Where, precisely do those rights come from and who accords them?

AND, wait for it…

 

[magnet]

Was Lenin’s liquidation of his rivals intended to help his Russian people? Was this love or political expediency?

Was Stalin’s purges of the 1930’s intended to help his Soviet people? After exterminating most of the high ranking Russian army officers in 1939, he was left unprepared when Germany invaded Russia with the loss of 1,000,000 Russian lives.

How about the Nazi establishment of huge concentration camps. Were they intended to help his German Volk by performing a loving act?

Then there were the Fascisti of Mussolini. Did Italians feel loved when the Fascist started their violence?

 

[Hee_Zen]

Well, no, brute facts, by definition, have no explanation and allow none.

Not exactly, “have no explanation, and require none”.You keep dancing around the “brute facts”. I gave you just one example in the previous post, and you skimmed over it. Brute facts are dime a dozen. The maximum number of electrons in each electron shell is a fixed number, 2 for the innermost shell, then 6 more on the next one, etc… It is an invalid question: “why only 2”, “why not 3”? or “why six and why not 5 or seven”? This is just another brute fact. No physicist would care to look at such a nonsensical question.

The lowest temperature is zero kelvin, which is about -273.16… Celsius. Why “-273.16”, why not some other value. There is no logical need that it should be this value, and not some other. Brute fact, no explanation.

Humans have 46 chromosomes… why not more or fewer would be a nonsensical question. Brute fact.

A mystery, by definition is open to discovery. Time had a beginning, that is known with near certainty. Space had a beginning, that is known with near certainty. Matter had a beginning, that is known with near certainty. These require a sufficiently compelling explanation that cannot include time, space or matter.

No. Time, space, matter and energy are part of the physical universe. They are not independent from each other. Time alone does not exist, so it would be nonsense to posit that at t[sub]0[/sub] the universe did not exist, but at t[sub]1[/sub] it somehow popped into existence. The properties of the singularity are simply unknown, and we can try to discover them as much as we can. That is all. There is no way to back to “before” the singularity, just like we cannot go to the “north” when we are at the North Pole. It is a brute fact, and only some philosophers would assert that some explanation is necessary, and then they have the audacity to declare that “an unknowable, timeless, immaterial being waved his virtual magic wand and started this whole shebang”. The honest answer is simply a “we do not know”. Introducing “magic” as an “explanation” is simply hand waving.

Otherwise we have to accept your claim that no explanation is possible for the universe even though everything within it explains something of the working of all of other parts.

Not true. The brute, unexplained and unexplainable facts are all around us. You choose to close your eyes, and pretend that they are not there, but that is your problem.

Why would we accept that everything within the universe bears explanation but not the universe as a whole, merely because you are content to end the need for explanation at a physical rather than logical terminus?

And we don’t.

The problem isn’t that it could end there or that it has been determined to end there after exhausting every possible reason for why it shouldn’t but that you simply make an arbitrary determination that it will end it there. Not the epitome of intellectual openness, for sure.

Nonsense. The process of explanation cannot go to infinity. You posit that the final explanation is some “immaterial, timeless, yet active” being, who requires no explanation - and as such you deny your own premise of the PSR being necessary.

Furthermore, you chose not to respond to my remarks about your incorrect assumption concerning “epistemic certainty”. And you cannot even give one little evidence for God’s existence, even though he is supposed to interact with the physical universe all the time. Forget certainty. Get one example of a correlation. And if you cannot, have the intellectual integrity to declare it, openly.

 

[Hee_Zen]

If you know something is sinful and do it anyway, it is still sinful up to your knowledge of how sinful it was.

Since I reject the concept of “sin”, it follows logically that I cannot “know” if an act is “sinful” or not. As I said, I only know that some people, whose opinion I do not trust “assert” that act “X” is sinful.

 

[CHRISTINE77]

Since I reject the concept of “sin”, it follows logically that I cannot “know” if an act is “sinful” or not. As I said, I only know that some people, whose opinion I do not trust “assert” that act “X” is sinful.

So you don’t regard rape, murder, dishonesty, lying, as being sinful behaviors? You think they are okay for people to do? Wow that is really strange…