This constantly calling anyone who does not believe in one of the major man-made religious tenets an "atheist" is disturbing, it is also incorrect. I am not a Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, etc. I am also not an atheist. Why is this issue discussed as if these are the only two options? To be frank, this is insulting.
This constantly calling anyone who does not believe in one of the major man-made religious tenets an "atheist" is disturbing, it is also incorrect. I am not a Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, etc. I am also not an atheist. Why is this issue discussed as if these are the only two options? To be frank, this is insulting.
Although you did not say that, it seems to me that the very concept of a “first cause” necessarily implies certain conceptual attributes. You do posit a first cause of the universe that was powerful and knowledgeable enough to transform being from non being. What can you offer, other than the previously mentioned properties, that would be capable of performing this?curiousone said:
Without getting too bogged down in terminology, we do agree in an immaterial (the first cause has to have an immaterial property, since matter could not have literally existed before it came into existence) first cause of the universe that gave physical properties to non physical properties.curiousone said:
I wonder, however, what is your position on energy? I hope you don’t take the law of the conservation of energy to mean that energy exists eternally. On the standard big bang model, all matter, time, and energy came into existence at the big bang. Moreover, the BGV theorem provides strong certainty that any universe at a state of cosmic expansion must have had an absolute beginning; before which, there was literally nothing.
I agree with you here as well, but I find it awkward that you think the first cause was involved in the creation of a universe fine tuned for intelligent life, yet later on in your post you say this :curiousone said:
You provide no reasons for this assertion, and I see no good reason to take it as true. It’s one thing to say we don’t know X, but to say that we can’t know X requires that you know something absolute about the nature of X; and that is ultimately self-refuting.curiousone said:
Then you have no warrant to be offended by it. In order for something to be evil, disgusting, and abhorrent, it needs to be that regardless of whether any particular person believes it to be that way. In the absence of that objectivity, all you have to offer is all moral values being based on an individual’s subjective opinion.curiousone said:
What I can offer is that, (as we both concede) we live in a universe that has been finely tuned for intelligent life by the first cause, it follows logically from this that there must be an ideal way in which to behave in any given situation. Something cannot be designed without having an ideal way in which the thing should operate.
This ideal is easier to discern in some situations (whether to care for a child or murder a child), but harder in others (abortion, capital punishment, euthanasia, etc).
And what is moral? The result of “my moral sense of right and wrong” is not sufficient, because it provides no way of knowing whether your moral senses are any better than that of the murdering psychopath. Morality ungrounded in some sort of objectivity is no morality.curiousone said:
I agree with this statement. I certainty hope that you don’t believe all people who identify with a religious worldview are “religionists”. That would be incorrect.curiousone said:
If you want a better understanding of this, you might want to consider reading up on the role of gender in ancient Hebrew writings.curious one said:
So the first cause went from “something so different we can’t understand it” to here, where you’re saying what it definitely isn’t. All I ask is for some consistency in your position.curiousone said:
Agreed -- especially with your assertion that morality is (to a large extent) innate.curiousone said:
No, I won't be going to the bash.
As I have said, we don't know, and I do not think that we can know. I did not say that the First Cause transformed being from non being, you said that. I said that the First Cause transformed the immaterial into the material. That is different from transforming non being into being.
Yes, the First Cause is immaterial, I do not know if it has a material existence or not. I suspect not but have no way of knowing.
I find it interesting that you ask for my opinion and before I can answer you tell me what my answer must look like. So, I will let you to continue to answer for me, I find this pretty insulting.
I never said that the universe was fine tuned for intelligent life. Please stop saying that I said things which I did not say. I do not know what this universe is fine tuned for. There are a very large number of large, complex entities that we do not understand. It appears to me that you assume that humanity is the only form of intelligent life. I do not make this assumption. Are stars alive? Are stars intelligent? Are there entities that do not need oxygen that live in deep space? Are trees intelligent? I don't know and you don't know either. You can guess but you cannot claim that you know.
Perhaps I am not as smart as you. We do not know what the First Cause is. Can we know what it is? I don't think so. I am not trying to make the assertions that you claim I am making. I am pretty certain that you know this and you are just impressing us with your formula writing ability. I am just trying to discuss something that is very difficult to discuss. So, instead of making assumptions and disagreeing with what you claim that I meant when you don't understand what I meant, and showing us how brilliant you are with your formulas, perhaps you could just ask what I meant?
This is preposterous. According to this premise then no behavior can be bad. Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, the Crusaders, Mohammed, Genghis Khan, the leaders of the Hebrews who murdered EVERY person of over a dozen tribes, and many others cannot be said to have been evil or to have committed evil acts. I totally reject this nonsense.
I find it interesting how you twist what I say and restate it in a form that means something that I do not mean and did not say. I never said that the universe has been finely tuned for intelligent life. We are here, the universe is a big place possessing a large number of complex physical entities, many of which we do not understand. I do not know if the universe has been fine tuned for us. You are assuming that this ideal way to operate is for the benefit of humans. I don't know that, nor do I assume that. Who says that humans are the only intelligence? How do you know that stars are not intelligent? I think that there is too much about the universe that we do not know to make such assumptions.
According to you. Yet, when I express my abhorrence at the genocidal maniacs (the Hebrew nation) in the Old Testament, you claim that I have no basis for being offended. I don't know what you are trying to prove.
I spent some time living with aboriginals who could not lie and when presented with a lie became, not upset, so disconcerted that they could not communicate for several hours. They could not harm another person. They could not steal. They had no words for these concepts in their language. After watching how they responded to lying, I came to believe that their behavior was not shaped by an external "moral code" but was inbred somehow. As if, they were born with it and they were not exposed to civilization, so that the inbred behavior was not then corrupted.
This is a guess, I am sure you will now prove me to be an idiot with your fancy talk. I think that humans are all born with an inbred sense of what is right and what is wrong, but that "civilization" beats it out of us and replaces it with a made up sense of 'right' and 'wrong'. I don't really now how to explain this properly, and if I had never seen these loving people, I would have never guessed that this was possible.
But you want to ground it in an objectivity that cannot be proven. "God". I reject this completely. So, you want me to believe that murdering all inhabitants of a complete nation for no reason other than "God said to do it" is moral but my repulsion at such action is not moral? You are insane.
I wasn't referring to the First Cause, I was referring to the Bible based religionists referring to their "God" as omnipotent. I never said that the First Cause is omnipotent, and I do not believe that it is.
I believe in the Bible, I believe that it is propaganda.
What I have wrestled with ever since this experience is this idea. Do human beings possess an innate sense of right and wrong at birth, and if this innate sense of right and wrong was not altered would they feel like these peaceful aboriginals feel about a great many things? Or, is this innate sense of wrong altered when an artificial conscience is imposed by western society (or communist society, or eastern society, or whatever other human society the child lives in).
Really, when he turned around a lot of what I said to things that I did not say? I thought it was pretty despicable.
