h1

Is Science and Religion Compatible?

July 7, 2008

As I’m sure you are aware, this is a commonly asked question these days. This has been a topic of debate for centuries and wont be taking a vacation any time soon.

First of all, this is a very non-specific question disguised as a specific question. One first needs to define “science” and “religion”. Science itself is not a ‘thing’ but a way of analyzing data, most commonly by way of the scientific method. Religion is nothing other than a set of principles firmly believed. But everyone has these, even atheists. Everyone has a view of the world, hence, a “worldview”. I believe what people generally are asking however is “what relationship is there between the observable and the non-observable?”

Yet, this is a very rediculous question to begin with. Why? The observable and the non-observable fit like a glove. First of all, if science is done for existential reasons such as to “better society” then what it means to “better society” is a subjective reason. Can we use science to show us why we ought to do science? Can we observe the reason we ought to do science within matter and energy made of atoms or test this reason in a labratory? No we can’t. Even though science is fun and interesting, is there any concrete reason why people are doing it?

One’s worldview needs to account for this. Otherwise, one is only arbitrarily doing sience for arbitrary reasons. The Christian seeks to do science because it’s fun and exciting but all the more because all discovery is a means of knowing God and glorifying Him more. The Naturalistic Atheist may do science because it’s fun and exciting but all the more in order to supress knowledge of his Creator and have supposedly intellectually satisfying reasons to deny God’s existence with biased naturalistic interpretations.

Or he may do science to “better society”. Yet again, this is a reason which itself is meta-physical, as it is a reason which can’t be physically observed. 1. This reason assumes what “better” is, while “better” is subjective from person to person. 2. To say society “ought” to be better is a meta-physical claim, as opposed to society not being better. Nothing in the physical realm shows us what OUGHT to be the case about anything, only what IS the case from what we can infer.

The Christian consistently knows what a better society is because we are created in the image of God, possess intrinsic value, thus desire to see this value in ourselves continue as long as it can, despite the inevitable fact that we will all die soon anyways. Naturalism can’t provide a sufficient bases to give reasons why we should desire these things. That is, considering that ultimate reality is that we are all matter in motion according to Naturalism.

Anyways, let’s move on…

The question of this thread is touted as a greater problem then it really is. It’s like saying just because 2 brothers get in an argument they’re now trying to murder each other. But here’s why the observable and testable (science) and the non-observable and non-testable (meta-physical) fit together like a glove. Science depends upon 3 things in order to be carried out: 1.the observable, 2. observers, and 3. observation.

The observable would be our entire Universe which is believed to have had a beginning by most scientists today. The Universe cannot account for itself so its origin is passed on to an unknown source. This does not threaten the idea of the meta-physical, but actually coincides with it. The Naturalist says the “Big Bang” caused the Universe. The Christian believes in the Big Bang as well. Jesus Christ spoke and “Bang”, the Unniverse came into existence.

Second, observers aren’t scientifically accounted for by the bare physical Universe. Evolution doesn’t deal with this subject. Evolution deals with life evolving after it is accepted that life exists and could come about somehow. But there are no Naturalistic answers that science has given us which can explain how complex and intelligent life could arrise.

Abiogenetics is the study which seeks to hypothosize how life could come about, yet nothing substantial has been given. Further, the whole idea of “life” is a meta-physical notion. The biological criterion for “life” is a very complex list and may in fact vary from scientist to scientist and from creature to creature. The Christian understands that God is life and because we are created in His likeness, we can recognize life-like creatures.

Lastly, observation is required to even do science. In other words, we must use the laws of logic in order to be able to observe the Universe and have knowledge of it. What do we mean by the laws of logic? Simply, it starts with the existence of meanings. How do you know about existence? You need the meaning of existence to exist. How do you know about the number 2 or an apple? You need the meaning of 2 to exist and the classification of apple to exist. However, meanings are immaterial. They are abstract. They do not exist in the physical world. They are meta-physical, thus supernatural.

Meanings only function in the mind. Since humans are created in God’s image, we share the ability to use the laws of logic as He eternally does. All abstract and absolute meanings that we use derive from God’s knowledge of Himself (as He knows everything and upholds everything) and correlates to our brains.

The terms “supernatural” and “meta-physical” mean the same thing. They refer to a realm beyond or not comprised of the physical realm. I could make this even more complicated by mentioning that no one really knows what the “physical”, “material” or what “matter” for that matter even is. We don’t know what the most basic components of the Universe are. Nor if the Universe has a stopping point to its smallness, or if perhaps it has “infinite smallness”.

Again, the question “Is science and religion compatible” is a very non-specific question disguised as a specific question. If what people mean to ask is “does the observable have anything in common with the non-observable”, then we have already looked at how the non-observable must be accepted if we are going accept the existence of the observable and seek to justify it, ourselves, and what we know of it.

Advertisements

57 comments

  1. Until now, I read most articles on your blog. I just want to find an answer: science or religion which I should believe?
    So far, for this article, I just want to talk about my personal ideas. Hope you give me some suggestions.
    1. Science is built on the basis of logic, and religion is built on the basis of faith. Because the science is base on logic, any logical paradox can not concomitant with science; however, the logic to religion is just a kind of language to explain the world, or the logic is only a tool for God used to explain the world.
    2. Since science is basis in logic, the scientific results in a certain range are instructive. Therefore, the study is limited in “part.” Unfortunately, a whole can not be scientifically measured; it had to use the known knowledge to “speculate” the unknown. Science is a process of development of understanding – negations – re-understanding – and re-negation. Fundamentally speaking, the “always right” theory is not scientific theories. I lack the knowledge about religion, but as far as I know, religion advocate “eternal,” “perfect.” Personally, when science can not explain the whole world, religion has become to a best excuse to explain the whole world.
    3. Science can not be used as a basis for judging religion; religion should not be guidance to science. The core of religion is faith. However, it does not mean religion equal to faith.
    Finally, in the science and religion issues, it is difficult to seek balance; I believe, religion and science are inseparable in reality.
    Between science and religion, until now, I prefer imperfect science. Religion sometimes is inconsistent, but science always promotes civilization.

    Question:
    Do you believe Adam and Eve is the common ancestor of human beings?
    Do you believe God create everything?


  2. A kid,

    It depends how you’re defining “religion” and “science”. The way I’m using them is the non-observable (or the metaphysical) versus the observable (the physical). My overall point is that to do science (or have an analysis of observable data) one presupposes, assumes, and proves that there is a meta-physical realm (a realm beyond the mere physical). Hence why we require the immaterial law of non-contradiction to distinguish between that which we identify (white is not also black), and we have immaterial classes or groupings of the material things we identify, such as a ‘car’ being painted ‘black’ or ‘white’.

    Because of this, all scientists assume the meta-physical, even Naturalists, they just may not like to admit it or may refuse to admit it. But not only do we assume the meta-physical realm in order to account for the physical, we can also infer the meta-physical realm FROM the physical. Hence, why there is DNA coding, a finely tuned Universe and solar system, and understand that the Universe (time, space, and matter) had to have had a beginning.

    To answer your questions: Yes I personally believe that Adam and Eve were the first two human beings. And yes I do believe God created everything. More specifically I believe that God is the Triune God of Christianity known as the Lord Jesus Christ. He is eternal, all-knowing, personal, loving, just, and does all things for His own glory.


  3. I understand what you mean; you focused on your field of metaphysics. Eventually you are explaining the “nature” of the world, namely “existence” and “nature” problem. Can you explain which one is the first the chicken or the egg? I believe that you solve this problem like this: yes is yes, no is no. therefore, in this world, either chicken or egg is first. However, this way of thinking will be in predicament.
    Scientific answer is: in this world, chicken is not such a chicken before; egg is not such a kind of egg before. But in a long process of biological evolution, it is a kind of evolving form. This explain make this question jump out of the either/or thinking circle, and reach a “unity of oppositeness,” then solved this question.
    In this sense, all scientists are “religious”, even Naturalists, they just may not like to admit it or may refuse to admit it.
    I do not agree, the British mathematician Clifford is a Catholic, later became an atheist. He said: “It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.”
    I do not know whether you agree that only Buddhism and Christianity can truly be regarded as religious. Well, can you accept the Buddhist theory?
    You believed God create everything. That’s means God create human being, you mean include white and black person? They are all human being. Then, if your answer is “Yes,” that means you admit theory of evolution was evidenced by Darwin’s is correct. White people can be turned into blacks; blacks can become white, which negates that God created human beings. If the answer “No”, that is means that Eve and Adam are not the common ancestor of human being, which negates the “Bible”.
    I just want to know how you will answer this question, because I am also seeking answer now. Thank you


  4. A kid,

    Some of the things you’re saying I’m not following. Sorry. I’ll try to answer the best I can.

    You said there is a scientific answer to the chicken and egg problem… I think that’s what you said. I would simply just repeat: to do science, you assume the meta-physical. That has been my point from the beginning. I’m not even necessarily attacking Evolution theory by saying this. But I am attacking Naturalism. Many Evolutionists are Naturalists, but some aren’t!

    You quoted this quote: “It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence.”

    The problem with this statement is that there is no evidence which even proves this statement! This guy is assuming this statement to be true because it assists his Empirical worldview. Namely, that we can’t know anything without direct observation. But has he directly observed this statement to be true? No, you can’t. It’s his Emperical bias which makes him say this, which is self-contradictory. Also, a lot of science doesn’t use direct observation. Hence why we have theories about what happened in the past. Lastly, he’s assuming we all agree on what is to be “insufficient evidence”. Does he have an exhaustive list for what is considered “insufficient evidence”? Or should we all call him up on the phone and ask him personally, and compare our findings with what he considers insufficient evidence?

    If I believe that God create first humans and all humans come from them, then that means Darwin’s theory of common ancestry proves Bible (if that was his theory). It’s all how you interpret the evidence.

    As far as accounting for black people and all other races for that matter, God didn’t just start with two people with pure ‘white’ genes, or with pure ‘black’ genes. He started with middle-brown parents, which would be able to produce all of the other possible combinations of races and colors in the world. This is a short answer.

    The Bible teaches all the different human races came from two humans. Darwinian Evolutionists believe they all came from nothing. Which requires more faith?


  5. “The Bible teaches all the different human races came from two humans. Darwinian Evolutionists believe they all came from nothing. Which requires more faith?”

    this is one of those things you need to be real careful about if you are trying to uphold the integrity proclaimed by christians. evolution does nothing more than explain what we see here on earth and says nothing about cosmology or where everything came from. so when you say that evolutionists believe we came from nothing, that is either a flat out lie or you are misinformed and speaking from ignorance. either way, it’s best to get your data in order before you speak.


  6. Cirri,
    Glad to know you here. First, I have to say I am just a kid. If you can not understand the sentence, I will try my best to explain to you. What I mean is that my ability to express myself. I think you definitely are not a Christian, so you can not understand why Cameron said “The Bible teaches all the different human races came from two humans. Darwinian Evolutionists believe they all came from nothing. Which requires more faith?” This is the debate between theory of evolution and creation theory, not an academic argument. I believe the Darwinian Evolutionists. Darwin originally believed that in the world all things were created by God, but after the five-year voyage, especially in the South American long-term scientific investigation, he changed his belief. Darwin’s evolution means that all life is derived from a single cell to multiple cells, as well as to various different biological lives.
    However, in this theory a lot of counterevidence is found now. 1. A species may transverse development, such as chicken can be divided into yellow chicken or black chicken, such as different species, but they are basically chicken, the chicken can not be shifted from another organism. There can’t be change in the vertical, such as the lower animals into high-level animals. (Human being can’t come from a kind of animal) 2. In China’s Liaoning province discovered a fossil of modern birds, it has been a complete evolution of fossil species. (It was not evolving) Until now, I want to say, perhaps, the theory of evolution is just a substitute of thinking vacancy. I have a question: Do you believe the power of God exists?


  7. Cirri, I didn’t say that’s what Darwinian Evolution teaches but that’s what Darwinian Evolutionists believe, because some do. There’s a big difference between those two statements.

    I understand Evolution theory caders more towards the orgin of species, not the origin of life. However, there are many theories set forth by Darwinian Evolutionists as to how the first living cells came about. Even with these ideas, it can still lead to the belief that life comes from nothing, considering life had a starting point. Even believing in an impersonal cause for the big bang can create implications which might lead to that conclusion.


  8. for both of you,

    first of all, “darwinian evolutionists” is a ridiculous label. you don’t call any scientist an “einsteinian relativist”.

    cameron,

    this label is used to tag people with the negative image that you and other young earth creationists believe is associated with darwin. it’s like an anathema catch phrase for you.

    evolutionary theory does not just “cater” to origin of the species. all it does is explain the diversity of life. you’re mistaken if you think that any meaningful number of mainstream scientists connect evolution to origin of animate cells in any way. if you want to talk origins you need to look to abiogenesis, which is the theory that involves animate cells coming from inanimate cells. evolution is not a cosmological theory that has anything to do with the big bang and even most proponents of the big bang do not believe that our something came from nothing. that is just not a mainstream thought and using that type of language to color the debate in this way is bogus. i’m not trying to be a jerk. i just think it’s important to use the proper terminology in the proper context if you’re honestly looking for a discussion with integrity.

    for a kid,

    another good reason not to throw out labels like”darwinian evolutioist” is because a lot has been learned since darwin. if part of the theory no longer fits with darwins model it makes even less sense to use blanket labels this way. for one thing, the single cell hypothesis has been scrutinized and is no longer regarded as the best explanation. also, the idea of “lower animals” not being able to become “higher animals” is a red herring. it’s just not accurate. we are eukarya now and we came from eukarya. we as well as all other eukarya from the simplest eukaryotic cells share common traits and every one of our cells is initially nucleic.
    if you really want to get an good overview of this stuff from a proffesional check out this video

    it’s one from an excellent series that deals with the foundational falsehoods of creationism. it’s great too because it does a good job explaining the differences between evolutionary theory when darwin started it and what it is now with all of the new genetic evidence.


  9. a kid,

    i’m very familiar with the biblical creation story so i do understand why he believes that we came from two created humans.

    you said, “This is the debate between theory of evolution and creation theory, not an academic
    argument.”

    it is an academic debate and in these debates it is very important, for more than one reason, to use the proper terminology and context for any point being made. i understand that most people, including myself don’t have a complete grasp on all these concepts and terms but in that case i realize that i show more integrity by not making claims regarding topics i don’t understand rather than confusing the issue by using language that doesn’t apply. the only reason i come down hard is because it’s so important for all of us to be sure of what we’re saying when we make claims. i would ex[ect the same treatment.

    i’m not sure how old you are but i greatly respect the fact that you’re a kid and take an interest in this stuff. i hope you continue to want to learn.

    as for your last question, i’m very agnostic about things i don’t know so since i feel it’s impossible to know if a god exists, i guess that means i don’t believe in the power of god. i like the idea of spinoza’s god but even that kind of god wouldn’t require a belief. i have seen no evidence of the power of any god. everything we see has a viable, naturalistic explanation so that’s where i tend to lean.

    how about you?


  10. Cirri,
    First of all, I would like to thank you; the video that you recommended to me was very good. So far, I think there is on correct and uniform answer on the origin of life issue. Even if there is a answer, it maybe just a answer that we used to persuade ourselves.
    Second, what you said it right, I have to admit this is an academic debate.
    Third, I found it is very difficult to lie, because a lie needs a lot of lies to self-justification, also feel bad and tired. Frankly, I am not a child, but I do not speak English, so it’s difficult to me to express myself. I hope you can accept this lie. From now on, I will be frankly.
    Fourth, I hope you do not mind if I write down my guess: If you are American, so now you should be more than 30 years old, and you like philosophy, and may even still studying. I just really appreciate your opinion. How many I guess is right? Or you don’t need to answer me.:)
    Fifth, for the issue of God, I have the same opinion as you do. I am learning and understanding now.


  11. a kid(anna),

    your welcome! i’m glad you liked the video and your gratitude has made me realize that i need to show the man who made it my gratitude. i agree that the origin of life still has much mystery around it and we may never know exactly what happened.

    please don’t feel bad about saying you were a kid. i’m glad you told me but i’m not offended. i meet lots of people online that don’t speak english so i now understand the language barrier problem that we’re having and will pay close attention to understand you. to someone like me it’s inspiring because i can only type and speak in one language.

    i don’t mind at all if you guess:)i am from the u.s.
    i’ll be 30 next year. i’m not in college now and haven’t finished yet but i hope to go back soon. i do love philosophy and study it a lot on my own.

    how old are you? are you in college?


  12. cirri,
    Thank you for using the word “gratitude” and understanding Chinese Etiquette. I do feel rebirth form despair. In fact, I am a Chinese girl; I come here to pursue my master’s degree (MBA). But, in fact, I am not professional, and English is poor… 


  13. anna,

    what are you studying? your english is much better than my chinese…


  14. cameron,

    you said;

    “The problem with this statement is that there is no evidence which even proves this statement! This guy is assuming this statement to be true because it assists his Empirical worldview. Namely, that we can’t know anything without direct observation. But has he directly observed this statement to be true? No, you can’t. It’s his Emperical bias which makes him say this, which is self-contradictory. Also, a lot of science doesn’t use direct observation. Hence why we have theories about what happened in the past. Lastly, he’s assuming we all agree on what is to be “insufficient evidence”. Does he have an exhaustive list for what is considered “insufficient evidence”? Or should we all call him up on the phone and ask him personally, and compare our findings with what he considers insufficient evidence?”

    get ready, i slightly agree with you here. there are some big problems with your take on this though. it’s kind of a word game or idea game. very tricky because we can’t observe truth in the way that you’re requiring of this statement. in the world of semantic trickery the statement in question doesn’t stand up because, for one thing whoever said it is passing a moral judgment on a persons right to believe what they want for whatever reason they want. it also doesn’t stand up because there is no way to scientifically verify that statement. after that point, you lose me. in a sense, it’s impossible to avoid the fact that we can’t know anything without direct observation. i would even go as far as to say that even with direct observation our knowledge is not absolute. but this is splitting hairs and mere semantic, idealistic wordplay and doesn’t carry real, pragmatic value. for example, take things in the past that we have theories about but we didn’t observe, so how can we know that they happened? well, you could ask the same question of anything that happens in real time. hit a 300 yard drive and you are no longer observing the ball but when you get to the green it’s there. now we can follow your logic and say, “how do we know that’s your ball?” we could speculate on a number of things that could call into question what transpired in that past time when the ball was unobservable. the problem with this is that while your point is taken, that science does use indirect observation, your idea that there is no uniform method by which to asses the practicality of this observation, or “sufficient/insufficient” evidence, is wrong. it’s called the scientific method. i’m not against questioning at all but it seems that you take it to a point beyond reasonable practicality just to suite your world view.


  15. cirri,
    i am studying MBA(finance).i will continue to study through this debate.do you have blog? do you mind give me the link. thank you~


  16. ah, finance. very important considering our current economic situation. i’ve thought about getting a degree in economics. it’s very interesting stuff.

    i don’t have a blog but i’m always posting blogs from my myspace page. it is;

    myspace.com/jaredflint

    do you have one?


  17. Cirri, I think your panties are in a bundle. When I say Darwinian Evolution I mean that short hand for Naturalistic Evolution, or the explanation that life, which entails specificity, complexity, and functionality, arises from an unintentional and unguided process.

    And yes, Evolution Theory does cader to answer the origin of the species, not the origin of life. I’ve heard multiple Evolutionists say this. Some Evolution advocates are like the Catholic Church when you think you all agree but you don’t.

    And as far as the origin of life goes, Naturalism holds the office of high priest in most school curriculum and museums (which are state funded) as to what is a likely possibility (hence the Miller/Urey experiment being explained in many text books and museums) – which most secular scientists even reject.


  18. cirri it’s kind of a word game or idea game. very tricky because we can’t observe truth in the way that you’re requiring of this statement.

    I’m not the one making the statement that “the only way we can know something is by observing it.” If you think I’m using trickery then talk to the person making this inconsistent statement, not me!

    Lastly, you said you’re agnostic and that it’s “impossible to know if god exits”. How do you KNOW it’s impossible! Did you observe this??? If so where? Was is under a rock? Was in growing on a tree?

    I’ll be more consistent for you. What you really mean is “there may be a god/s or God, but I don’t know right now.”

    But Romans 1 says you do know. Actually everyone knows, we just are hostile to Him and supress the truth in unrighteousness until He changes our minds and hearts. If He didn’t exist, you wouldn’t even be able to say “I don’t know”.


  19. cirri,cameron:
    I am enjoying this debate. However, I am not a bored “spectators.” I like what DR.greg l’s view about the debate of faith—-“1. Not merely over particular, isolate point to agreement. (Miracles) 2. Factual argumentation may become necessary, but it is never sufficient. By more basic, all pervasive, value-oriented, categorizing, possibility-determining, probability-rating, supra-experiential, religiously-motivated are presuppositions. It is at this presupposition level that the crucial work in defending the faith must thus be done.” Drastic debate almost never has result, but I think it has certain significance. The significance of the debate is not about the arguers, but for the person who concerned. The person who concerned can learn from the debate, even some point is still doubt, but it has become to a new level of suspicion. So, thank you guys. :)


  20. cirri, you said regarding this guys video

    for one thing, the single cell hypothesis has been scrutinized and is no longer regarded as the best explanation. also, the idea of “lower animals” not being able to become “higher animals” is a red herring. it’s just not accurate. we are eukarya now and we came from eukarya. we as well as all other eukarya from the simplest eukaryotic cells share common traits and every one of our cells is initially nucleic.

    I’m confused. What does this all mean in simpler terms to you, and how should this significantly help me believe in Evolutionary theory? Does this all prove macro-evolution, if so how?

    Here is a good Christian scientist (Hugh Ross) for both you cirri and anna. Just thought I’d throw it out there for fun listening.

    http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/audio/newevidence.htm


  21. cameron, my panties do tend to get bundled when i come across language and labels being misused. i think it’s important to portray things correctly in a debate setting. i understand the agenda of creationists and the sarcasm that comes into play when referring to darwin and proponents of evolution but while i am a fan of sarcasm, i feel that in a debate setting it’s important to make clear exactly what you mean in some way other than or along with using sarcasm so there is consistent clarity between all concerned.

    “not just” was the key words to pull from my post.

    urey miller hasn’t been rejected and in fact, last year more successful research was done on remaining vials left over from their experiments. it’s not meant to be a broad, unifying explanation, just a step in the right direction.


  22. in simple terms, this goes to show that the common misconception that all life didn’t emerge from one bacterial cell, thus evolution is wrong, is a cry from ignorance. no we didn’t come from bacteria but that’s not the point. as verified as something can be from a scientific standpoint, yes, we did come from eukaryotes. everything lines up perfectly in chronological order as evolutionary theory would predict.

    thanks for the link. i’ll check it out.


  23. so far, i have a couple of big problems with the information on the link.

    1. it says that our universe is expanding and decelerating. expanding, yes but not decelerating. it’s expanding at a faster rate every year, so fast in fact, that eventually it will reach a point when we will be too far away from any galaxy to see the light emitted from them.

    2. the claim that “we know the universe began so that is airtight proof that the bible and the jesus story is true.” even we did “know” this, it wouldn’t be airtight proof of biblical truth and the fact that it’s being proposed as such is sends up a big warning flag regarding the logic used by the author and the agenda which this logic falls in line with.

    not only that but the idea is that the universe as we know it had an initial phase of formation and began in that sense but everything in the universe came from an infinitely dense, hot point which already existed prior to the big bang.

    i’ve heard this line before and the idea is that the bible is unique in presenting this claim if a beginning or time before time. these are very naturally intuitive concepts and can’t be used as evidence, especially regarding concepts such as the origin of everything, about which we know so little.


  24. cirri, what Creation view are you referring to, old or young? You are not defining your terms either which is the reason your panties were in a bundle when I did this. Notice, I ask you to clarify, and not get my panties in a bundle?

    You see here we go. You mention Miller/Urey being a step in the “right direction”. 1. You’re assuming it’s the “right” direction. 2. You just made sure that I didn’t say that Evolution answers the origin of life, and now you are proving my point that it is taught on by Evolutionists! 3. It’s all how you interpret the evidence, or lack of it. Miller/Urey doesn’t produce even close to the right amount of amino acids that would be required for a protein. Further, Miller/Urey is a good experiment for Creationism, hence why 2 intelligence people are trying to bring about some of the building blocks required for life.

    And I would disagree with you. Hugh Ross says that the universe must decelerate as it expands, which is called dark energy. Otherwise bad stuff would happen. And all those are inferences that the Bible is true. Science itself can only operate on inference. To me, it’s just as strong as an argument as many others. Lastly, I believe Scripture proves science, not that science proves Scripture! We all must have a starting point. My starting point is the Triune God of Scripture. If my starting point were science, then I would only be assuming the Triune God of Scripture anyways. He is the precondition for science to even be a possibility.


  25. you gave me the link so i was assuming that you would know whether the info there was referring to old or young earth creationism. that’s no lack of clarity on my part. have you read the link you gave me? i didn’t refer to any other information in my post. i’ve asked you to be careful with your language multiple times because you misrepresent views, even when you’re called out on it, like claiming that deism is a subgroup of theism.

    hmm, what would be the wrong direction here? they preformed an experiment and gathered valuable data from it. but yeah, that could totally be the “wrong direction”. just like the first clay tubes that were used to record sound were totally the wrong direction. what were they thinking? they could have just skipped straight to mp3 recorders.

    i’m well aware that hugh ross might as well be god to the progressive creationist movement but that doesn’t change the fact that our universe has been shown to be expanding at a greater cumulative rate since we have been able to measure such things. such a great rate that it’s predicted that it will so far surpass the power of gravity that at some point the universe will be akin to a finely dispersed particular “powder”.

    so by saying that scripture proves science you are admitting that you start with the presumption that this book is correct and through that filter base all of your scientific understanding? that’s what i would call the opposite of science, if that is the case.


  26. You said Creationists have an agenda. That statement has nothing to do with the link.

    It’s funny how what I’m “misrepresenting” you are representing with Miller/Urey as well.

    And it depends on what form of Deism. There are many kinds as you know. Whenever the “god/s” becomes personal, this is a sub-group of Theism (which there are also many forms of).

    Well, the Miller-Urey experiment was the wrong direction! Again, there’s not even the right sequence of amino acids needed for a protein. And not even the close to the right amount of amino acids. I know that a brick is the “right direction” to build a house, but in another sense, it’s not.

    I’m not that educated in science, but I like learning more. Christianity holds the market on science though.

    It’s not that I start with Scripture to do science. Everyone does. They just don’t admit it. Rom 1 says that people who don’t know God supress His truth in unrighteousness. Without the Triune God of Scripture, you have no foundation for knowledge.


  27. haha, it’s a good thing that repeating unfalsifiable, unsupported claims does not make them true. it’s pretty easy to bow out of debate with statements like, “what i’m saying is true and that’s the bottom line”. the funny thing is that you attach science and logic to this scenario but really can’t use those tools to verify, so you’re just speaking words that lend your view credence until you actually have to back it up. hugh ross is a good example. a christian friend of mine sent me his book, “why the universe is the way it is”. imagine him and and equally credentialed agnostic or atheist astrophysicist. you could create a graph detailing the knowledge parallels between them and it would be equal. the only change would come when the conclusion is reached. so which one is right? of course, the one that fits with your world view but not because you were able to verify it. hell, you or i could barely understand most of it but because you have an agenda and a presumed duty you will pick the one whose conclusion best suits your view.

    remember, you repeatedly claiming that “christianity holds the market on science” or “no one can do science with the foundation of a triune god” is basically what amounts to a B.S. opinion that cannot be verified. good try though, you’ve got moxy kid.


  28. I do have an agenda, and so far I have proven it to be right. My agenda is easy. The Triune God of Scripture is the precondition for you to even account for the scientific process. If I start with science to prove this, then I am still assuming His existence. You’re starting with science, thus are standing on my stage. Your worldview can’t even account for why we have “agendas”, or “falsifiable data” in the first place. Explain to me where laws of logic come from in your worldview so that we can account for these things? We’ll see who’s really full of B.S.


  29. proven!?!?!? how many times does it need to be pounded into your head that you have never proven a single thing in your life? you are a parrot and an annoying one at that who needs to learn some new catch phrases. you make statements and expect them to stand alone as valid with no ability to back them up. when this is pointed out to you, you repeat the same statements and yet add no further data to add validity. you assume a god exists and then attribute the made up rules of this god to everything and everyone without presenting one single shred of evidence that the god or the rules actually exist or apply.

    where do the laws of logic come from? they come from us, duh! without beings like us there’s no need or instance to ponder over logic and those labels become obsolete in the light of brute facts. can you pose a scenario where logic would be needed without beings such as us?


  30. Because of your insufficient answers, you are supporting my worldview all the more. My starting point for science, proofs, and the laws of logic are the Triune God of Scripture. For the laws of logic, your starting point is us. This can’t be because we are finite. The laws of logic must always have been. We have not always been. This ties into your question to me. Logic must first be the case, so that it may then be applied to us.


  31. you aren’t explaining anything at all. you’re just talking. logic helps us relate to the world. without us, the universe would just be what it is and logic wouldn’t exist. logic is a mental construct. without the mind there is no idea called logic. we only call them laws as they apply to us. saying that an apple can’t not be an apple isn’t some awe inspiring proof of a divine first cause. it’s humans working out the brute realities of the universe. in other words, it’s mental gymnastics. you saying that a triune god of scripture is necessary to perform mental gymnastics is an idea that may or may not be true but is no better an explanation than naturalist explanations or any other of the myriad ideas concerning metaphysics. by the way, a triune god does not get out of euthyphro’s dilemma. you may hope it does but it just doesn’t.


  32. Only the Triune God of Scripture answers euthyphro’s dilemma. To even assume there is a dilemma is to assume morality, and to assume morality is to assume the only pre-condition for a real morality, namely, the Triune God of Scripture who lives. Morality is not outside of God, or something He determines, it is defined by who He eternally is and what He eternally does. This is changing subjects though.

    I understand logic help us relate to the wold around us. Thanks for that pointless reminder. The laws of logic are prescriptive. Nothing in Naturalism is prescriptive though. It first requires a mind to say something should be the case. The laws of logic tell us how we ought to think, not just how we do think. This requires an eternal fixed standard. Where is your eternal fixed standard? You just say that the Triune God of Scripture isn’t needed, yet you have provided nothing to account for the laws of logic. I’m still waiting, and you’re still losing.


  33. euthyphro’s dilemma is not answered by a triune god. basically what you’re saying is that as long as your god is a committee, euthyphro’s dilemma is answered, which is ridiculous. for one thing, appealing to a trinity merely adds characters onto a horn, it doesn’t remove a horn. for another, if your god is a committee, then it’s either a pantheon or schizophrenic. seriously, the loops you must jump through to rationalize your faith are bewildering. also, saying that the dilemma “assumes” morality and then attaching that assumption to the supposed need for a divine explanation is arbitrary at best and not an explanation, as you claim. the dilemma is not an admittance of divinity but an excellent example of the power of a naturally programmed mind to reject illogical notions. keep in mind, “assuming” naturalism is merely an appeal to universally transferable, repeatedly verifiable evidence, not as with super-naturalism, an appeal to belief and it’s reinforcing opinions.

    we’ve gone over this before in a slightly different context, namely the absence of any evidence for anything non-natural. it goes something like this;

    1. we seem to be material
    2. we seem to have volition
    3. volition seems to be reliant on material
    4. we can stop there because going any further requires speculation

    what you’re positing is an eternal fixed standard that applies to a being(us) with, as far as we know, a very limited shelf life. again, bring this up when you have some evidence for something non-natural.

    on the other hand, everything that we call morality is easily explained by naturalism, without appeals to divinity. before i start with a list, how about you pick your best example of an aspect of morality that would require an appeal to divinity for explanation.

    still not losing but i have a feeling you will be waiting a long time as no explanation will fit nicely into your worldview.


  34. 1. You’re changing topics still with euthyphro’s dilemma. If you want to discuss morality then I’m happy to I guess. My responses will be much longer however if we are going to discuss logic and morality.

    2. You say a Triune being creates more problems, yet you fail to say exatly how and why.

    3. You misrepresent the orthodox teaching of the Trinity by alluding to polytheism and schizophrenia.

    You say I’m jumping through hoops. These are only YOUR hoops so far. Not what I’ve presented or am willing to present.

    Naturalism would hold that the most basic component to the Universe is matter and energy. Matter and energy can’t create itself, and can’t have always existed. Further, it can’t form a moral standard of what ought to be the case. Lastly, in light of the laws of logic, it can’t form immaterial classes and determine that these classes ought not contradict.

    A real moral standard must be eternal, personal, and omnipresent to say the least. Laws of logic are not made up of matter, but must be eternally fixed, otherwise cease to be trusted and logical. The material world is not a possible starting point for these immaterial realities (which again must also be eternal and matter is not eternal).

    You are my evidence for something non-natural. You’re using the laws of logic. They are prescriptive of how we must think in order to be rational. Nature doesn not prescribe things. Only something personal and eternal can. Since your starting point is Naturalism, I challenge you to give me evidence of how prescriptive laws can be finite and abstract in a Universe only made of matter and energy.

    My starting point is the Triune God of Scripture, therefore I can account for abstract realities. Your starting point is matter and energy.

    Murder or hating someone in your heart is absolutely moraly wrong. Explain to me how this could be a real moral evil given that we are just matter in motion (atoms banging around) given your worldview.

    And lastly, euthyphro’s dilemma is an internally inconsistant problem. Since this “dilemma” assumes morality to be a reality, then according to what worldview ought morality be taken seriously before we conclude there is a dilemma? A real morality with real right and real wrongs must be accounted for first before we say there is a problem with where it originates. This is called question begging.

    This is where you’re in trouble. You have nothing so far to account for a real morality. Yet you want to be able to say there is a dilemma with saying that God can account for it. Well account for what? Tell me where a real morality comes from first, then I’ll let you say that God can’t account for it. Until that is done, then we’re just saying that “…” has a dilemma. And once you fail to demonstrate this, like everyone else, then I’ll show you again why only the Triune God can account for a real morality.

    I’ll wait for you to reply, then I’ll come back and kindly show you why you’re still losing and are evidence that you hate God even though He is the only proof of proof.


  35. the problem that remains when adding the trinity to the dilemma is that you now have either three beings or one being with multiple personalities(not schizophrenia, oops:) this really blows my mind because with the triune godhead explanation i am supposed to assume that because there is a committee of three then that automatically implies justice and the inability for corruption to exist within the committee? that is a ridiculous assumption and a fallacy. it just adds two extra beings onto the same horn and doesn’t fix the initial problems.

    and i am well aware of the doctrine of the trinity. i don’t misrepresent it. it’s a baffling doctrine that struggles with itself to make sense. it doesn’t need to be misrepresented. it misrepresents itself. but i wouldn’t expect less from a skiled rhetorician such as tertullian.

    there are opposing views as to whether or not energy has always existed in some form. guessing about what might have been before the big bang is just that, guessing. so your argument fails immediately, being founded on an assumption. it would be different if you were presenting a theory but you’re speaking as if it were a fact.

    i’ve already given you explanations for how these laws can be finite. remove humans from the equation and there are no laws of logic that remain. we created the laws to help us understand the universe. without us, the universe just is. there are no questions. conjuring something like non-contradiction as an evidence of a first cause is nothing more than theoretical and no more explanatory than everything that exists being a brute fact. every thought function that we perform can be easily explained by looking at the human mind.

    this is not a black and white world and that should be obvious by looking at the nuance of your example, murder, or hatred. this shows us us that there is no universal moral standard. does any other animal live by our standards? do all of us live by the same standard? we create a standard. it initiates with us and that is clearly evident by the fact that these standards shift and evolve over time as we evolve. if there was an eternally set moral standard there would never have been a need for societal evolution. furthermore, your example of hating someone in your heart is to me a perfect example of the immorality of religion, according to human standards. it’s theocratic dictatorship that can convict you of thought crime. it’s straight out orwell’s 1984. human emotion is largely uncontrollable and attempting to put a muzzle on it by connecting shame to a feeling does nothing to solve any problem associated with that feeling and often goes a long way to compound and irritate the problem.

    euthyphro’s dilemma does not assume a morality as presented by you. it uses the logic of a morality constructed by humans t show the logical fallacy of of appealing to a higher power for moral authority. mankind has successfully created a moral structure that the vast majority of people agree with and are willing to adhere to. this is not question begging. the question begging comes when you assume a divine moral authority that granted us the mental faculties to make a distinction between right and wrong but is itself beyond an application of the same standard it gave.

    i’m not in trouble. i’ve accounted for a real, tangible moral standard but like i said, it doesn’t fit within your world view so you won’t see it. it’s a lot easier than you think, though. before us, there was no morality. we created morality as evidenced by a continually shifting standard throughout human history. when we’re gone, there will be no more morality. the universe is impartial. it’s that simple.


  36. Where in Scripture does it say that God is evil or sinful? God is not, therefore is the standard of what is right. He is 3 in 1 therefore is able to be loving and recieve love at the same time. Therefore, love can exist because there eternally exists multiple persons who are in relationship.

    You say the Trinity can’t account for justice, but give no alternative.

    How does the doctrine of the Trinity misrepresent itself?

    With matter and energy I am saying that this Universe had a beginning. It is not infinite. Therefore, if something is going to be prescriptive, such as morality and the laws of logic, it must be accounted for by someone who is outside of this finite Universe.

    You’re explanation of finite laws of logic is internally inconsistant. You say “we humans invented them”. Really? Did we use the laws of logic to invent them? Again, you are just question begging. The laws of logic must first exist, before they are applied to us. You still have not proivded a sufficient epistamalogical starting point.

    With the laws of logic, such as the law of non-contradiction, I am not necessarily saying that this proves God to be a first cause, but moreso a necessary precondition. And you can’t absolutely prove that everything exists. You might be in the Matrix.

    Thoughts are not functions in the descriptive sense, but functions in the prescriptive sense. This requires a transcendent a-priori. Nothing in matter can tell non-matter how it ought to behave, and only that way.

    Other animals don’t live by our standards because only humans are created in the image of God, thus accountable to their actions, thoughts, and intentions. Whether or not we all live by the same standard has no bearing on whether or not there is a real moral standard. The fact that we don’t agree on what is right and wrong, is evidence of the gospel. Romans 1 says we supress the truth of God in unrighteousness. Again, this has nothing to do with how we are to account for a real moral standard with real rights and real wrongs.

    You don’t even try to account for this stardard but rather claim the very opposite. All is permissable in your worldview because morality isn’t where there is a real right and real wrong, but just a way of preference. I may prefer killing people and you may prefer vanilla. There is not standard that we are really accountable to, we just make up rules and arbitrarily hold people accountable to these random rules. Yet, you don’t live your life according to this worldview. You live it according to mine, where there are said to be real rights and real moral wrongs.

    Euthyphro’s dilemma does not assume morality? Then the argument doens’t explain a damn thing. It’s saying we don’t know how God can account for “…..”?

    You think you’ve accounted for morality, but you havne’t accounted for a real morality where there are real rights and real wrongs. That is what I mean by morality. You are using the word morality and only mean “a way of doing things”. If you say there is no morality when we are gone, then there is no real standard which we ought to be accountable to. Thus again, all is permissable. That is the logical conclusion to what you’ve presented.


  37. it doesn’t need to say anywhere that god is evil. why would it? if it’s supposed to be inspired by him, why would he talk bad about himself? but, if you’re right and i have been given reason and a moral standard by the god that you choose to believe in then i can easily use that standard to see that this god does not live up to it.

    your trinity explanation makes no sense. you don’t need three people or facets to both give and receive love. it misrepresents itself by straining to be cohesive and explanatory while in all actuality it’s a convoluted attempt to appeal to peoples natural need for more than one explanation. just like in ancient egypt, what many thought to be pantheistic was really monotheistic but with many personifications of the one, the religion was more personal.

    with matter and energy, all you can say without being disingenuous about that which you can’t possibly know is that the universe as we know it appears to have had a beginning. that’s it.

    prescriptive thought does not require an infinite cause. how can you even begin to display this as valid? remove humans from the equation and there is no longer prescriptive thought.

    my explanation is not internally inconsistent. they are only laws because we call them laws and attach our perceptions to what we call laws. again, remove us from the equation and there are no laws. these semantic hoops have been created by us to make sense out of what we sense. there has been a long process of receiving various signals and developing behavior based on how we process those signals. this esily explains all moral systems. we not only feel pain when we get kicked in the nuts but we feel it when we see another man get kicked in the nuts. this shared experience allowed us to develop empathy which in turn has become a very important societal building block. of course, there is much more detail involved but there’s just not enough space to go into it all here.

    of course i can’t absolutely prove that anything exists! it’s about time you caught up. so you admit that you’re speculating about a god?

    you said,

    “Thoughts are not functions in the descriptive sense, but functions in the prescriptive sense. This requires a transcendent a-priori. Nothing in matter can tell non-matter how it ought to behave, and only that way.”

    show me something that is definitively non-matter/energy. i’ve been asking for this all along and you have failed. i’ve presented a solid case based on observation, experience and good, old fashioned, man made logic, that all that we can account for, at the very least, consistently appears to be nothing more than matter. the only case that you’ve made is that you believe thoughts are metaphysical. so, your above statement rests on a case you haven’t even started, let alone closed.

    you can’t even come close to showing a “real” moral standard. haha, what does that even mean. that is such an arbitrary argument. “my standard is “real” and yours is,….not?” the fact that we don’t agree on what is right and wrong is evidence that there is no clear cut, internally consistent moral standard. the standard has shifted within your own religion!!!! the standard has shifted within chapters of the very same book you adhere to!!!! i do account for the standard in a way that makes us responsible, not some abstract notion of a deity that anyone can claim as a basis for there own version. in real life, we are ultimately responsible.

    you said, “Euthyphro’s dilemma does not assume morality? Then the argument doens’t explain a damn thing.”

    and there you go misrepresenting what i said. you know, it’s right there out in the open for anyone to look back at. try reading the entire paragraph and posting a response based on what i actually said. not your version of it.

    all is permissible. explain to me how it’s not. and with that i think you’ve answered your own question. i’m thankful that so far, a majority of people in the world adhere to the general moral standard that man has devised to protect ourselves.


  38. You originally implied that because I start with a Trinity that this precludes any injustice with God. But rather, there is no injustice within God because He eternally defines what is good, right, and true. Without this being eternally defined first, we cannot know what then is bad, wrong, and false. The standard must be eternal, otherwise it is subject to change. If it is subject to change then it’s not a real standard.

    So what is your standard in defining what is really good, right, and true?

    If God eternally gives and receives love, then love is able to 1. exist and 2. is morally good. You say the Trinity isn’t needed, but I’m still waiting and waiting and waiting to know why? Stop giving your opinions and give some rational reasons for once!

    the universe as we know it appears to have had a beginning. that’s it.

    It must have had a beginning because 1. Scripture says it did, and 2. it exists within time. Time needs a starting point.

    prescriptive thought does not require an infinite cause. how can you even begin to display this as valid? remove humans from the equation and there is no longer prescriptive thought.

    Logic can’t be displayed! That’s the whole freaking point. But what is the precondition for logic to be the case? It can’t be mindless matter and energy, because the laws of logic are immaterial realities of what must be the case. Immaterial classes must exist and they must not contradict. These two things must be in tact for eternity, otherwise they are subject to change, thus can’t be taken seriously.

    show me something that is definitively non-matter/energy. i’ve been asking for this all along and you have failed.

    I freaking told you already!!! The laws of logic which you continue to use but can’t account for with your worldview!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    If you don’t start offering anything on this then I’m going to just start deleting your pointless posts.

    i’ve presented a solid case based on observation, experience and good, old fashioned, man made logic, that all that we can account for, at the very least, consistently appears to be nothing more than matter.

    You’re full of it. Since your starting point is matter and energy, I’ve asked you to show me how matter and energy account for immaterial realities, such as the laws of logic. You haven’t said a damn thing about it.

    And logic can’t be man made. If classifications are finite then they are invented, thus can change, thus we have no reason to take any of them seriously. This epistemological starting point crumbles.

    you can’t even come close to showing a “real” moral standard.

    I never said “I’ll show you one”, I said I can account for it within my worldview. All you can account for with your worldview is “all is permissable”. Yet, for some reason, you probably don’t actually live that way. And again, I keep repeating myself, the fact that people don’t agree on what is morally right is accounted for by Romans 1. I don’t have a problem with that.

    i do account for the standard in a way that makes us responsible

    What is your standard then? And why should it be taken seriously? You say these things, and again and again offer nothing! This is getting really freaking old man.

    If Euthyphro’s dilemma is asking where a real morality, where there are real rights and real wrongs, originates, then it is an internally inconsistent dilemma. That’s what I was saying. You first need an eternal standard which defines all that is right, good, and true for there to be a real morality. If the dilemma isn’t asking about where this type of morality comes from, but rather where preferences in behavior come from, then it ceases to be asking anything significant.

    all is permissible. explain to me how it’s not.

    This is the first time you’ve been consistent with your worldview. I’m glad you rationally admit that all is permissable. Yet you are practically inconsistent because you probably don’t live your life that way.

    a majority of people in the world adhere to the general moral standard that man has devised to protect ourselves.

    What if the majority of people decide someday that the general moral standard is morally wrong? Or what if they decide that majority opinions doesn’t determine what is right? And what standard is consulted to say that the majority determines what is right? And what standard was consulted for that standard, and so on. Or, what if the majority of people change their mind someday and say that self protection is no longer good? Again, you aren’t talking about a real morality where there are real rights and real wrongs. You are only positing preferences for arbitrary reasons, provided by arbitrary standards.

    You sill lose. Sorry.


  39. “You originally implied that because I start with a Trinity that this precludes any injustice with God. But rather, there is no injustice within God because He eternally defines what is good, right, and true. Without this being eternally defined first, we cannot know what then is bad, wrong, and false. The standard must be eternal, otherwise it is subject to change. If it is subject to change then it’s not a real standard.”

    There is no point for me to argue euthyphro’s dilemma with someone who has no clue what it is or how it is applicable to the trinity. Let me make this super simple for you. As far as we know, there is no eternal standard. We make all standards up, not arbitrarily as you need to say but based on our needs and our desires. This has been made evident by you as you completely dodge the fact that standards have shifted within the book that forms the very basis of your belief system. You need and desire the outcome of this debate to fit your worldview so you have no problem shifting your standard to dismiss these obvious points.

    “So what is your standard in defining what is really good, right, and true?”

    There is no absolute standard. We have a standard in place, created by humans, that has gradually shifted throughout time. It’s simple. People, generally speaking, don’t want to feel physical pain, so, since we are naturally empathetic creatures, we have shifted our standards accordingly to fit this mass desire. This is really not as complex as you’re making it.

    “If God eternally gives and receives love, then love is able to 1. exist and 2. is morally good. You say the Trinity isn’t needed, but I’m still waiting and waiting and waiting to know why? Stop giving your opinions and give some rational reasons for once!”

    I have given rational reasons. I said that the trinity doesn’t solve the problem of euthyphro’s dilemma. All it does is turn a monarchist dictatorship into an oligarchy. That’s not a solution, that’s just additional problems.

    the universe as we know it appears to have had a beginning. that’s it.

    “It must have had a beginning because 1. Scripture says it did, and 2. it exists within time. Time needs a starting point.”

    Ok. I don’t need to tell you that’s a logical fallacy. The fact that you even said that in what’s supposed to be a rational debate speaks volumes about your agenda. Also, we are barely even beginning to understand time. If you think you are smart enough to end all questions regarding time, well then, be my guest and publish a paper, get a nobel prize. What you don’t realize is that our perceptions of the universe are limited even more than we can comprehend and yet you are ready, willing and eager to make definitive statements regarding topics that even the brightest scientific minds will only theorize about.

    prescriptive thought does not require an infinite cause. how can you even begin to display this as valid? remove humans from the equation and there is no longer prescriptive thought.

    “Logic can’t be displayed! That’s the whole freaking point. But what is the precondition for logic to be the case? It can’t be mindless matter and energy, because the laws of logic are immaterial realities of what must be the case. Immaterial classes must exist and they must not contradict. These two things must be in tact for eternity, otherwise they are subject to change, thus can’t be taken seriously.”

    You keep answering your question but remain unaware that you’re doing so. You’re using perception to substantiate supposed absolute laws which apply to our perceptions. It’s typical humano-centricism that everything must typically apply to how we perceive it. If you or I had the vaguest notion of what goes on at the quantum level then we would really get a good idea of how little our perceptions actually matter. Again, I’m not saying you’re wrong, I’m just saying that you have an opinion that is not substantiated by any evidence or repeatable criteria. And I’m suggesting that it might not be wise to attempt to define absolutes using the same process of perception that you are attempting to define.

    show me something that is definitively non-matter/energy. i’ve been asking for this all along and you have failed.

    “I freaking told you already!!! The laws of logic which you continue to use but can’t account for with your worldview!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    If you don’t start offering anything on this then I’m going to just start deleting your pointless posts.”

    I have accounted for them!!!!!!!!!!! See, we can both use lots of exclamation points. We created them to define our universe in terms that we can understand. If you want to ignore my point, that’s fine. Go ahead and delete away. You say that there needs to be an eternal precondition for us to form the basis of our logic around and I say that is arbitrary and not indicative of the evidence. The only argument you have for that is scripture saying that we are sinful. I point out that the standards humans have created have shifted throughout time, even within this scripture. Now you say I’m not offering anything?

    i’ve presented a solid case based on observation, experience and good, old fashioned, man made logic, that all that we can account for, at the very least, consistently appears to be nothing more than matter.

    “You’re full of it. Since your starting point is matter and energy, I’ve asked you to show me how matter and energy account for immaterial realities, such as the laws of logic. You haven’t said a damn thing about it.”

    But I have. Nothing makes laws but humans. You’re saying that because we can perceive the universe in a way that allows us to develop what we call laws, in order to describe and use these universal functions for our benefit that must surely imply an infinite source to account for these preconditions on which these laws that we create are based or else they aren’t real laws. I say that the universe functions in some ways that are beyond our reasoning that we are barely beginning to understand and that we have enormously limited perceptive abilities even when it comes to the few things we do understand. it’s not wise to claim you have answers to questions that we don’t even know how to completely frame. My answer is that there is no indication, anywhere, htat the universe is anything less or more than impartial. There is no standard. There is only how things are at any given moment. But you just ignore my points and in doing so affirm that what you call a “real” standard is nowhere to be found.

    “And logic can’t be man made. If classifications are finite then they are invented, thus can change, thus we have no reason to take any of them seriously. This epistemological starting point crumbles.”

    Epistemology crumbles when we do. What do you mean by classifications?

    you can’t even come close to showing a “real” moral standard.

    “I never said “I’ll show you one”, I said I can account for it within my worldview. All you can account for with your worldview is “all is permissable”. Yet, for some reason, you probably don’t actually live that way. And again, I keep repeating myself, the fact that people don’t agree on what is morally right is accounted for by Romans 1. I don’t have a problem with that.”

    What is the point of accounting for something that doesn’t exist? We have a world where by all logical standards it can be said that yes, anything is permissible, that there is no eternal, moral standard, that we can see it shift throughout history and you offer a bible verse and pipe dreams of a supposed utopia to counter observable evidence?

    i do account for the standard in a way that makes us responsible

    “What is your standard then? And why should it be taken seriously? You say these things, and again and again offer nothing! This is getting really freaking old man.”

    I account for it by admitting that there is not a fixed one, that mine is likely very different than yours. We create a standard based on our needs and desires and it shifts over time. Sometimes people are at the whim of those with standards they don’t agree with. That’s just life.

    “If Euthyphro’s dilemma is asking where a real morality, where there are real rights and real wrongs, originates, then it is an internally inconsistent dilemma. That’s what I was saying. You first need an eternal standard which defines all that is right, good, and true for there to be a real morality. If the dilemma isn’t asking about where this type of morality comes from, but rather where preferences in behavior come from, then it ceases to be asking anything significant.”

    It’s asking, if there is a guy in the sky that makes the rules, then why should he be trusted any more than a Hitler should be trusted? If he has no one to be accountable to then he is an unchecked power and ceases to have justice as a part of his personality. It only loses significance if you are a cynical bastard that believes in original sin and thinks that humanity is damned from the start. Otherwise, it’s a very logical question and fits in nicely with the only type of moral standard that likely exists, our own.

    all is permissible. explain to me how it’s not.

    “This is the first time you’ve been consistent with your worldview. I’m glad you rationally admit that all is permissable. Yet you are practically inconsistent because you probably don’t live your life that way.”

    I’ve been very consistent with this. The universe is impartial. We make up the rules that govern our own conduct. We are free to do as we please and we are free to face the consequences. End of story.

    a majority of people in the world adhere to the general moral standard that man has devised to protect ourselves.

    “What if the majority of people decide someday that the general moral standard is morally wrong?”

    Then the standard will shift accordingly.

    “Or what if they decide that majority opinions doesn’t determine what is right?”

    They don’t. They just determine how society functions.

    And what standard is consulted to say that the majority determines what is right?

    They don’t determine what is right.

    “And what standard was consulted for that standard, and so on. Or, what if the majority of people change their mind someday and say that self protection is no longer good? Again, you aren’t talking about a real morality where there are real rights and real wrongs. You are only positing preferences for arbitrary reasons, provided by arbitrary standards.”

    aside from the use of arbitrary, you answered your own question again. Thanks.


  40. As far as we know, there is no eternal standard.

    You can’t detect a moral standard with the 5 senses. Atoms banging around can’t determine that something ought to be the case. A real morality with real rights and real wrongs is an a-priori. It must be assumed to be the case, apart from our direct observation. Atoms can’t tell other atoms how they should move around, as opposed to other ways, and have them be really accountable if they move around in ways they shouldn’t.

    I don’t know why you’re even brining this up. You already conceded to there being a real morality with real rights and real wrongs. Thus, your use of the term “morality” is shorthand for “ways of doing things”. This is not what philosophers have referred to for centuries as morality when trying to account for there being real rights and real wrongs that we are really accountable to. You have concluded that all is permissable. I’m fine to leave it at that. Your worldview results in anybody being free to do whatever they want.

    This has been made evident by you as you completely dodge the fact that standards have shifted within the book that forms the very basis of your belief system.

    Again, you fail to give an example for the 1,000th time.

    You need and desire the outcome of this debate to fit your worldview so you have no problem shifting your standard to dismiss these obvious points.

    Your questioning my intentions which you can’t directly observe with your 5 senses. Again, you’re inconsistent with your own empirical system. And apart from my worldview, we can’t have a conversation. You still have no rational epistemological starting point.

    People, generally speaking, don’t want to feel physical pain, so, since we are naturally empathetic creatures, we have shifted our standards accordingly to fit this mass desire. This is really not as complex as you’re making it.

    I’ll make your argument better. It’s when we inflict unnecessary pain that is wrong. And you are consulting this standard because you believe it to be the majority position, which you also haven’t directly observed. But this still doesn’t determine whether something is really right or really wrong. Remember, all is still permissable.

    Ok. I don’t need to tell you that’s a logical fallacy.

    You still haven’t provided a rational bases for the laws of logic. Thus you are still borrowing from my worldview to say there is such thing as a logical fallacy.

    What you don’t realize is that our perceptions of the universe are limited even more than we can comprehend and yet you are ready, willing and eager to make definitive statements regarding topics that even the brightest scientific minds will only theorize about.

    The majority of scientists today say that time, space, matter, and energy (within our closed system of the universe) had a beginning. If we are in a past, present, and future continuum, then this must have a beginning. Otherwise do you really want to conclude that the universe is infinite? Wouldn’t that mean that we would require and infinite amount of time to pass first before we arrived, which would be impossible. What is your position? Do you have an alternative? I’m simply curious.

    We created them to define our universe in terms that we can understand.

    You can’t invent something which must first exist before you can even know what it means to “invent”. You need them to know what you’ve invented, or to know what you want to invent.

    You say that there needs to be an eternal precondition for us to form the basis of our logic around and I say that is arbitrary and not indicative of the evidence.

    You say that there needs to be an eternal precondition for us to form the basis of our logic around and I say that is arbitrary and not indicative of the evidence.

    You must be asking for physical evidence. 1. Not all of science consults direct physical evidence, shame on you, you should know that, 2. you can’t have physical evidence of immaterial classifications, and the law of non-contradiction. These are required abstract realities. They are not material substances. Lastly, you say you believe my position is “not indicative of the evidence”. What evidence??!! You have not shown how mindless matter can invent abstract laws!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    And you are completely wrong because abstract laws which must be the case, cannot be invented. You can’t invent abstract classifications and you can’t invent the law of non-contradiction. Tell me how this can be invented. You need these to first exist, before you can even set out to invent something or even identify that you’ve invented something!!!!!!!

    Going back to morality:

    Here you totally contradict yourself rationally.

    i do account for the standard in a way that makes us responsible
    then you say,
    I account for it by admitting that there is not a fixed one, that mine is likely very different than yours. We create a standard based on our needs and desires and it shifts over time.

    So no one is absolutely right, because you have no reason to say someone is more right then another person, thus making that person actually wrong. If no one is more right, thus no one is actually wrong with anything they do, then no one has any real bases to hold someone accountable. Accountable is really just shorthand for “preferring” (while such preferences are just as authoritative as opposing preferences-thus cease to be anything).

    It’s asking, if there is a guy in the sky that makes the rules, then why should he be trusted any more than a Hitler should be trusted?

    In my worldview I am advocating for real rights and real wrongs, you are advocating for “preferences” and “all is permissable”. So you are inconsistently bringing up Hitler. In your worldview Hitler can’t be condemned because all is permissable. In mine, he really can be condemned because there is said to be a real morality where things are really right and wrong. So if Euthyphro’s dilemma is going to refer to a real morality, then it has a dilemma itself. If is going to refer to morality the way you do, and all is permissible, then why is it asking anything because all is permissable anyways.

    If he has no one to be accountable to then he is an unchecked power and ceases to have justice as a part of his personality.

    Exactly! And if God consulted a standard by which He determined what was really morally good and evil, then this standard itself would be God. I just cut to the chase though and refer to God.

    Then the standard will shift accordingly.

    Then you are arbitrarily saying that inflicting pain is wrong, because the standard can change. It’s not absolutely wrong, we just pretend that it is for now. And pretending, is not real. It’s just pretending.

    They don’t. They just determine how society functions.

    OK, so what if the majority eventually determines that the majority doesn’t determine how society functions? You wont listen to God, who’s laws are good, but you’ll arbitrarily bow down to society? Wow. Silly atheist.

    They don’t determine what is right.

    You missed the point. What standard does the majority consult to determine that the majority should determine how societies function? And what standard did they use for that standard, etc?

    aside from the use of arbitrary, you answered your own question again.

    OK, so your standard of how societies should function is about as practical as asking the color pink.


  41. i want to shorten this up and i think it can be summed up by repeating,

    “What is the point of accounting for something that doesn’t exist? We have a world where by all logical standards it can be said that yes, anything is permissible, that there is no eternal, moral standard, that we can see it shift throughout history and you offer a bible verse and pipe dreams of a supposed utopia to counter observable evidence?”

    now, i say “doesn’t exist” with the qualification that it may but you are the one who said that you can’t show me one but can only account for one. this is meaningless. i can come up with any scenario and account for it in some arbitrary way. the way of accounting for every single action that we could consider moral is easily backed up by our current understanding of the evolution of social behavior. you say that there is no direct observation that teh vast majority of people in the world desire to live a pain free life. you are being absolutely ignorant or just plain argumentative. that’s one of the easiest things to observe. once again, the universe is impartial. we make up the standards that we use to govern ourselves, this is evidenced by the fact that those standards shift over time. all is permissable. you can do anything that you desire and you can also pay the consequences according to the practiced standard. it’s that easy. if you can display another option that fits in better with how things actually work in this world, not some utopia that makes you feel good to think about, then i’m all ears.


  42. Observable evidence is that only humans have a moral compass, not animals. This lines up with a Scriptural worldview, not an atoms banging around worldview where everything is permissable.

    I’m not interested in showing you that you must account for a real morality, because you don’t believe in one, thus can do whatever you want and justify it, no different than Hitler or kids in school shootings. That is what your worldview consistently leads too.

    you can do anything that you desire and you can also pay the consequences according to the practiced standard.

    Hitler and most kids who do school shootings don’t pay any consequences. They stop their matter in motion by putting a bullet made of atoms through their head made of atoms. None of it really matters. Everything was just atoms banging around anyways.

    And saying that if the majority of people want pain free lives somehow constitutes a moral standard that we should listen to, then there’s still no reason we should listen to it. Remember, all is permissable in your worldview. Just because you observe someone not wanting pain doesn’t mean you should listen to them. And pain is nothing but neurons fooling atoms. It’s really just atoms banging around in the end, there’s no precious image of God there.

    I am, however, interested in showing you that you must account for the laws of logic, and that this is not meaningless. You need to account for this so that you can have a worldview that comports with itself. Alls you’ve said so far is that we invented the laws of logic.

    1. Explain how you invent the abstract (that is prescriptive). I can’t believe that you pulled Euthyphro’s freaking dilemma on me and can’t realize this problem with your own argument?!

    2. To invent the laws of logic would require one to test them to see if they functioned logically. Yet, one needs the laws of logic first to even be able to do that! We might have invented the law of contradiction and we would have required the law of non-contradiction to know that it wouldn’t work!

    How about you try to invent some other laws of logic and see if those work OK. Try it right now. Oops. You can’t.

    You see, the laws can’t change. That’s why their prescriptive. If they were invented they would be subject to change. Thus, they can’t be invented.

    You still need to account for the laws of logic so that you can have a rational bases within your own worldview for being able to do science and observe things in the first place.

    Silly atheist.


  43. “Observable evidence is that only humans have a moral compass, not animals. This lines up with a Scriptural worldview, not an atoms banging around worldview where everything is permissable.”

    try reading ecclesiastes 3. you are so arrogant it is actually pathetic.

    “I’m not interested in showing you that you must account for a real morality, because you don’t believe in one, thus can do whatever you want and justify it, no different than Hitler or kids in school shootings. That is what your worldview consistently leads too.”

    exactly. well done. you’ve answered your question yet again but i feel you still fail to see it. my world view, as you so aptly stated, leads exactly to the same world that i live in. not some utopia that makes me feel good to think about. you continue to verify my world view by references examples like hitler and kids in school shootings. this backs my view up and i thank you, though feel reluctant to do so in the light of your obliviousness.

    “Hitler and most kids who do school shootings don’t pay any consequences. They stop their matter in motion by putting a bullet made of atoms through their head made of atoms. None of it really matters. Everything was just atoms banging around anyways.”

    you have got to be kidding me. for one thing, we can go all the way down to these atoms that you love to refer to. we can go even further than that, which would be great because you seem to be stuck in this ancient, platonic mode of thought that atoms are the basis of material, which is stupid. but hey, it allows you to completely ignore quantum physics and all of its implications. but back to the point. we can go down to down to these basic particles and we lose newtonian physics, which is what your world view is based on. while it serves us directly in that it helps us describe the world in terms that we can perceptually grasp it becomes archaic in the sense that it does not at all describe how the universe actually works. we have so much to learn in this field it’s baffling but, of course, who needs it when you can just stick to newtonian physics and presume that what you perceive, which is then reinforced by the presumption of your opinions, renders an accurate model of every universal possibility.

    “And saying that if the majority of people want pain free lives somehow constitutes a moral standard that we should listen to, then there’s still no reason we should listen to it. Remember, all is permissable in your worldview. Just because you observe someone not wanting pain doesn’t mean you should listen to them. And pain is nothing but neurons fooling atoms. It’s really just atoms banging around in the end, there’s no precious image of God there.”

    you are being an arbitrary schmuck and ignoring just about everything i say. the very first guy who got kicked in the balls while his caveman buddies were watching not only felt immense pain but guess what. his buddies had, as a result of their physiology, an empathetic nervous reaction that allowed them to share that pain. this is hard wired in most people and if you want to dispute it then you are an idiot. no matter how much you love saying “it’s just atoms banging around in the end” that doesn’t change the fact that getting kicked in the balls hurts and when we see someone else get kicked in the balls, most of us will cringe in the throws of a shared, empathetic reaction. this forms the basis for a good many moral standards. there’s no need to invoke the presumption that a “precious image of god” is needed. there’s more at work here than “should”. there’s desire and need. if you are so adamant in sticking to the pathetic argument that “pain doesn’t matter if it’s all just atoms banging around” then you’re helpless.

    “I am, however, interested in showing you that you must account for the laws of logic, and that this is not meaningless. You need to account for this so that you can have a worldview that comports with itself. Alls you’ve said so far is that we invented the laws of logic.

    1. Explain how you invent the abstract (that is prescriptive). I can’t believe that you pulled Euthyphro’s freaking dilemma on me and can’t realize this problem with your own argument?!”

    i’m not amazed at your disbelief at all. you miss so much that it stops being surprising. simply put, both of our positions make use of the subjective, or in other words our own thought process, our own determination of what we perceive. now here’s the difference, while you are so quick to point out that empiricism can’t be proven i am just as eager to show you how ridiculous a position that is. the fact remains that it works, day in and day out and until it stops working i will have a solid basis of objective data to support my subjective proposition. you, at the very best have a subjective way to account for your subjective proposition. by appealing to a god you appeal to subjectivity by it’s very nature, which is where you so horribly miss the modern, practical application of euthyphro’s dilemma. anything based on the WILL of a being is not objective, it’s subjective and consequently must defer to objective data to reinforce it. a sociopath is a good example. by your standard a sociopath is morally reprehensible because he broke gods law. by my standards, his ACTIONS and their results are morally reprehensible but HE is not because i can defer to objective data that shows me that he suffers from highly damaged brain tissue in his social control center. in the light of objective empirical data, your black and white concept of the world crumbles. now on to the logic.

    “2. To invent the laws of logic would require one to test them to see if they functioned logically. Yet, one needs the laws of logic first to even be able to do that! We might have invented the law of contradiction and we would have required the law of non-contradiction to know that it wouldn’t work!”

    i think you are confused as to what’s required for logic to exist. all that’s required is a physical world that functions in a somewhat predictable matter and then a reasonable intelligent mind. logic is a mental construct, reliant on material. to say it exists eternally is question begging. of course natural phenomena existed before logic but our methods of logical deduction are based on how we operate within the confines of this natural, material world and the level in which we perceive it. yes, this is a subjective interpretation but again, one that has objective data to reinforce it. you can talk all you want about platonism(or in your case the theistic source) without ever getting anywhere close to an answer. here’s an example. we can look at the pythagorean theorem and say that the method of expressing it in human terms was invented but the actual, natural relationship that those terms express must have always existed as a precondition to discovering those terms, right? well, sure that may make sense in your head and in the world we directly percieve but what happens when you realize that this theorem doesn’t work under all paradigms. it works euclidean geometry, sure but that’s about it. even within euclidean geometry you only get an approximation because there is no such thing as an absolutely perfect measurement so in that sense, logically, the pythagorean theorem fails. but hey, when logic fails, practicality comes in to save the day in the sense that any architect will tell you that the theorem has never failed them. so this is the danger you confront when attempting to attribute dogmatic absolutes to the way that we perceive. you can come up with any number of apparently logical absolutes that mean absolutely nothing in the real world. so, no, i don’t need to account for the laws of logic any more than i already have, by testing them against the only method that consistently works in the real world, observational empiricism.

    once again, you silly presumptuous theist, you have a comprehension or attention problem. i’m not an atheist. i’m agnostic and even slightly deist on some days. i just find it very necessary to combat dogmatic, incredibly arrogant presuppositions coming from theists who are too pious to admit their addiction to their own preconceived notions.


  44. You’re a silly Naturalist, sorry. Except for your better days (deist days).

    And I’m using atoms banging around as short hand for “….”. Insert whatever you want. It’s the mindless basic components of the universe in motion.
    That’s what you’re left to work with. And what you bring up is another reason that Naturalism is rediculous. It’s saying all there is is the physical when no one knows for sure what the “physical” even is. So I will say atoms banging around for our purposes.

    Your standard for morality is that people feel bad for pain. Well it could be that another caveman felt hatred for the bruised caveman. The empathetic caveman has no bases to be more right then the hate filled caveman. All is neuron firings in cavemen made of atoms. They are just biproducts of their biological make up. Alls you have to consult is how matter behaves and have no bases to say how matter “ought” to behave. All is permissable, remember? These are your own words. So I’ll hold you to it.

    I fully believe that empericism works. That’s not my contention. You really are responding like you did evolve. But empericism can’t account for itself. You first need the laws of logic in order to be emperical. So let’s get back to those.

    You say the physical is all that’s required for the laws of logic. 1. you don’t even know what the basic components of the physical are (which you even stated). So what are you even saying?

    2. The physical doesn’t even determine natural laws. It only helps us identify what they are though. And you still have not answered my question. What in physical matter decides what fixed and abstract classifications are???

    The laws of logic entail immaterial classicications (meanings), such as ‘tree’, ‘color’, ‘red’, ‘2’, etc. They also entail the law of non-contradiction so that these classifications can’t be the same thing simultaneously. You math examples don’t apply here. You first have to use the laws of logic and identify what numbers are, what math is, what addition is, what subtraction is, so that you can do the math in the first place.

    You say you have objective data for the laws of logic. Great. So do I. You are my objective data. We both didn’t invent our own laws and decide to have this talk. We are both using universal meanings because we are both created in God’s image.

    You first must assume the laws of logic before you can “test things”, “observe things”, and “reason”. You don’t start with reason and then stumble upon the laws of logic. You first need the laws of logic to be in place to even reason!

    I’m still waiting. Silly Naturalist


  45. “And I’m using atoms banging around as short hand for “….”. Insert whatever you want. It’s the mindless basic components of the universe in motion.
    That’s what you’re left to work with. And what you bring up is another reason that Naturalism is rediculous. It’s saying all there is is the physical when no one knows for sure what the “physical” even is. So I will say atoms banging around for our purposes.”

    that’s what we’re both left to work with! and of course no one knows for sure! you’re starting to sound like you’re on the right track!

    “Your standard for morality is that people feel bad for pain. Well it could be that another caveman felt hatred for the bruised caveman. The empathetic caveman has no bases to be more right then the hate filled caveman. All is neuron firings in cavemen made of atoms. They are just biproducts of their biological make up. Alls you have to consult is how matter behaves and have no bases to say how matter “ought” to behave. All is permissable, remember? These are your own words. So I’ll hold you to it.”

    just because all is literally permissible doesn’t mean that we don’t have the ability to form standards to prevent those things which are not conducive to a healthy group. but you’re sort of right. we don’t have a situation where there’s “no” basis to say how matter ought to behave. it is subjective, obviously, but we do have objective empiricism to help us set a standard that is sufficient for the health of the group. and please don’t play the games by purposefully obfuscating the answer by saying, “who’s to say healthy is what ought to be”. that’s just stupid and of no practical value. besides, it’s the same answer.

    “I fully believe that empericism works. That’s not my contention. You really are responding like you did evolve. But empericism can’t account for itself. You first need the laws of logic in order to be emperical. So let’s get back to those.

    You say the physical is all that’s required for the laws of logic. 1. you don’t even know what the basic components of the physical are (which you even stated). So what are you even saying?”

    i’m saying what i’ve been saying all along, very consistently. that as far as we know, all is reliant on material and thusly, logic is reliant on material despite someone having a perception that because we can’t see logic, it must be immaterial. are you really saying that if there were no mind that logic would still exist? material would just be. that’s all. brute fact.

    “2. The physical doesn’t even determine natural laws. It only helps us identify what they are though. And you still have not answered my question. What in physical matter decides what fixed and abstract classifications are???”

    oh it doesn’t? well then, describe for a situation where natural laws apply where there is no physical. oops, you can’t. sound familiar?

    “The laws of logic entail immaterial classicications (meanings), such as ‘tree’, ‘color’, ‘red’, ‘2′, etc. They also entail the law of non-contradiction so that these classifications can’t be the same thing simultaneously. You math examples don’t apply here. You first have to use the laws of logic and identify what numbers are, what math is, what addition is, what subtraction is, so that you can do the math in the first place.”

    this is a fallacy of composition. you’re saying that because as far as we know, matter does not contain logic then no material system can contain logic. but that’s a fallacious inference of the properties of the parts to the whole. you’re idea of “atoms just banging around” doesn’t work because we know that these “atoms” do combine to develop varying levels of consciousness in various creatures. it’s referred to as emergentism or units, having a specific nature, assembling in accordance with that nature to form higher systems with new potentialities.

    “You say you have objective data for the laws of logic. Great. So do I. You are my objective data. We both didn’t invent our own laws and decide to have this talk. We are both using universal meanings because we are both created in God’s image.”

    i’m sorry, that’s just not objective data. without the mind, there is no meaning. so, in that sense, we did invent meaning. we didn’t invent math. we didn’t invent the conditions necessary to perceive that a tree can’t not be a tree but without a mind to perceive, then where the hell is logic? no where. we are on the same page until you introduce god and if you can’t admit that that’s a subjective, arbitrary inference then you are just giving more credence to the idea that you truly are just carrying out a soft wired program.

    “You first must assume the laws of logic before you can “test things”, “observe things”, and “reason”. You don’t start with reason and then stumble upon the laws of logic. You first need the laws of logic to be in place to even reason!”

    yes we do start with forms of reason. you are arbitrarily confirming them as laws as if the word “law” had any meaning outside of a mental process. you’re starting with your conclusion and working backwards to find the positions and premises. this is not logical by any meaning of the word that the only minds we observe have given it.

    i’ll tell you one thing, this new found grasping for logic to reinforce a theistic belief system sure hasn’t brought any new found humility to the christian scene.


  46. You concede to not knowing what the basic components of “matter” is either, yet you previously got on my case for using the shorthand phrase “atoms banging around” because it was too Newtonian for you. Then you now agree by concluding “that’s (atoms) what we’re left to work with”. Wow. I must be taking crazy pills.

    just because all is literally permissible doesn’t mean that we don’t have the ability to form standards to prevent those things which are not conducive to a healthy group.

    1. No one said you can’t pretend to have a standard or make up rules to go by. You certainly may. But you have no reason to say what you make up is supposed to be more right then anyone who disagrees.

    2. Someone may believe that unhealthy groups are conducive. You have no bases to disagree and thus, be more right. Everything is a free for all. That is not a real morality, just matter in motion making up things for pretend.

    that as far as we know, all is reliant on material and thusly, logic is reliant on material despite someone having a perception that because we can’t see logic, it must be immaterial. are you really saying that if there were no mind that logic would still exist? material would just be. that’s all. brute fact.

    No, there would still be Christ. If there were just matter, there would just be matter. But you want to say immaterial classifications and the law of non-contradiction comes from matter. What scientist discovered this under their microscope? This is what you’ve concluded and want to believe. Please just say you believe this and leave it at that. Then everyone will be happy and I wont have to keep repeating myself.

    oh it doesn’t? well then, describe for a situation where natural laws apply where there is no physical. oops, you can’t. sound familiar?

    No it’s not familiar because natural laws aren’t prescriptive, they’re descriptive. When you drop a rock, the law of gravity doesn’t consult the rock first. The law is already in place. The rock only helps us know that it’s there. That’s all I was saying. So it is all the more with laws that are prescriptive. The laws of nature may change and rocks may behave differently when they’re dropped, but the laws of logic can only function one way, namely, the way they do! Otherwise there would be no thinking! Yet, you want to be able to say we invented something which can’t change so that you can justify yourself and ignore Christ’s plain existence. That’s why Psa 14:1 says “the fool says in his heart there is not God.”

    this is a fallacy of composition. you’re saying that because as far as we know, matter does not contain logic then no material system can contain logic.

    Now you’re appealing to ignorance. And it’s a very bad appeal to ignorance. Do a thought experiment and explain to me what kind of “material system” can possibly provide immaterial classifications and the law of non-contradiction? I’ll be waiting.

    we know that these “atoms” do combine to develop varying levels of consciousness in various creatures. it’s referred to as emergentism or units, having a specific nature, assembling in accordance with that nature to form higher systems with new potentialities.

    Oh yeah, do they form the immaterial classifications I’ve been asking you to account for, and also the law of non-contradiction? What scientist found these immaterial realities within what material under their microscope? You can’t have the type of consciousness me and you are using in this discussion without these immaterial realities being assumed. Where is the idea of “prime number” in matter? Is it growing on a tree or under a rock? And if your wordview were true, if we destroyed all the matter that “contains” logic, then nothing could even potentially become logical again, thus the idea of “prime number” could never ever exist again.

    without the mind, there is no meaning. so, in that sense, we did invent meaning. we didn’t invent math.

    You’re contradicting yourself here. You have to have the meaning of numbers and the meaning of addition and subtraction to first do math. Meanings are implied upon the mind, but that does not mean they were created in the mind. For meanings to be universal, hence for even math to be universal, it must be fixed. The laws of nature don’t have to be fixed, but the laws of logic do. If we invented the laws of logic then I could also say we didn’t invent the laws of logic and get to be right in both cases. Because you can invent the law of contradiction and ignore the law of non-contradiction. You can also say “bird please bowl frame is on the cable pen” and have that be your argument against me. Wow, your worldview is fun!

    yes we do start with forms of reason. you are arbitrarily confirming them as laws as if the word “law” had any meaning outside of a mental process.

    I can account for these forms, you can’t. No, by law I mean specifically immaterial classifications and the law of non-contradiction. This is more then brain gas. It’s a starting point which says the mind must be governed by immaterial rules, otherwise it can’t think whatsoever. These immaterial rules magically come from material to you. Since you believe this, I’ll let you just conclude this and we can end the conversation. Even though it makes you look like an idiot.

    i’ll tell you one thing, this new found grasping for logic to reinforce a theistic belief system sure hasn’t brought any new found humility to the christian scene.

    So far it’s reinforcing that your worldview is ridiculous. I think you’re squirming in your inconsistency and you don’t like the feeling of it so you have to make sure you bring up these types of statements.

    At least do yourself and me a favor. Stick to your better Deistic days and then check out this website my friend.

    http://proofthatgodexists.org/


  47. “1. No one said you can’t pretend to have a standard or make up rules to go by. You certainly may. But you have no reason to say what you make up is supposed to be more right then anyone who disagrees.

    2. Someone may believe that unhealthy groups are conducive. You have no bases to disagree and thus, be more right. Everything is a free for all. That is not a real morality, just matter in motion making up things for pretend.”

    this is stupid. we have every basis to be more right. it’s called objectivity. you are not being objective or appealing to objectivity. i, at the very least can admit that i start from a subjective perceptual basis. you do as well. our job then is to get to the objective. you appeal to the will of a supposed supernatural being. this automatically removes all objectivity from your argument as you are appealing to the ultimate, unchecked, subjective force. i appeal to empirical observation which makes your stupid, arrogant, argumentative approach clearly evident for what it is, a sham. the only thing in our existence that we can sincerely say even approaches being objective, is empirical observation. and once again, this solid practicality comes in to rescue us from the mind games and illusions of agenda driven theists who are yearning for their special utopia that obviously does not exist. the entire history of human kind is evidence against your faulty logic.

    “No, there would still be Christ. If there were just matter, there would just be matter. But you want to say immaterial classifications and the law of non-contradiction comes from matter. What scientist discovered this under their microscope? This is what you’ve concluded and want to believe. Please just say you believe this and leave it at that. Then everyone will be happy and I wont have to keep repeating myself.”

    so you reject my point with an assumption. i’ll just return the favor and assume that you had nothing logical to say to refute it and that you had to resort to evangelism. you can’t even define what “immaterial” is. this is so ridiculous. you can’t even define the terms that your position rests on.

    “No it’s not familiar because natural laws aren’t prescriptive, they’re descriptive. When you drop a rock, the law of gravity doesn’t consult the rock first. The law is already in place. The rock only helps us know that it’s there. That’s all I was saying. So it is all the more with laws that are prescriptive. The laws of nature may change and rocks may behave differently when they’re dropped, but the laws of logic can only function one way, namely, the way they do! Otherwise there would be no thinking! Yet, you want to be able to say we invented something which can’t change so that you can justify yourself and ignore Christ’s plain existence. That’s why Psa 14:1 says “the fool says in his heart there is not God.”

    it’s not a law apart from the mind. it’s a state of being. without a mind there is no law. this is not as hard as you’re making it. more evengelizing? using the old testament no less. we should start a new topic where i show you all the ways in which the old testament completely destroys the concept of the religion founded by the rehtorician and liar, paul.

    “Now you’re appealing to ignorance. And it’s a very bad appeal to ignorance. Do a thought experiment and explain to me what kind of “material system” can possibly provide immaterial classifications and the law of non-contradiction? I’ll be waiting.”

    no. i’m simply showing your argument for what it is. a logical fallacy. and if you had kept that entire quote intact then it would have been evident that i supported my refutation with a credible theory, emergentism. but as usual, you had to pick it apart to remove the force of relational value. nice work. try addressing the entire quote, in it’s entire context.

    “Oh yeah, do they form the immaterial classifications I’ve been asking you to account for, and also the law of non-contradiction? What scientist found these immaterial realities within what material under their microscope? You can’t have the type of consciousness me and you are using in this discussion without these immaterial realities being assumed. Where is the idea of “prime number” in matter? Is it growing on a tree or under a rock? And if your wordview were true, if we destroyed all the matter that “contains” logic, then nothing could even potentially become logical again, thus the idea of “prime number” could never ever exist again.”

    yeah, if our universe didn’t exist, then it wouldn’t exist. exactly. once again, define immaterial. can you? the fact material exists and behaves in a certtain way is the only precondition necessary for one to assume logic. how is this so difficult for you? without a mind, it’s not a law. it’s a state of being.

    “You’re contradicting yourself here. You have to have the meaning of numbers and the meaning of addition and subtraction to first do math. Meanings are implied upon the mind, but that does not mean they were created in the mind. For meanings to be universal, hence for even math to be universal, it must be fixed. The laws of nature don’t have to be fixed, but the laws of logic do. If we invented the laws of logic then I could also say we didn’t invent the laws of logic and get to be right in both cases. Because you can invent the law of contradiction and ignore the law of non-contradiction. You can also say “bird please bowl frame is on the cable pen” and have that be your argument against me. Wow, your worldview is fun!”

    it’s a statre of being! without a mind to perceive it it has no meaning! the only precondition necessary to assume our ability to categorize our relationship to the universe is that the universe exists. can you define immaterial yet?

    “I can account for these forms, you can’t. No, by law I mean specifically immaterial classifications and the law of non-contradiction. This is more then brain gas. It’s a starting point which says the mind must be governed by immaterial rules, otherwise it can’t think whatsoever. These immaterial rules magically come from material to you. Since you believe this, I’ll let you just conclude this and we can end the conversation. Even though it makes you look like an idiot.”

    i can’t stop you from micharacterizing my position, as you have every step along the way but i can, at least defend my position with terms that have practical meaning that can be defined primarily, secondarily and relationally. you can’t. in case you were wondering, it’s a test. define immaterial. do it. tell me exactly what it is. if you can’t then you are failing to meet even the most basic requirements for logical discourse. and believe me, i’ve read all the tripe that you could possibly throw at me and every last bit of it starts with the conclusion and works backwards to find supporting positions and premises which, needless to say, is utter B.S. cloaked in the language of objectivity. and just because i can appreciate the god of spinoza doesn’t mean you aren’t being a totally ignorant shmuck with your pious condescension. i hope the idea of your god is proud.


  48. You say I’m starting with a conclusion and working backwards. What you mean by this is that I have a presupposition. The thing is that everyone starts with a presupposition. Your’s is the material, which you admit to not being able to define. I start with Christ. Your starting point needs to account for immaterial realities. By immaterial I mean that which we can’t observe with our 5 senses. Philosophers usually refer to this concept as that which is “abstract”. This is a simple definition and works just fine for our purposes. Just how “atoms banging around” works fine for our Naturalistic purposes.

    this is stupid. we have every basis to be more right. it’s called objectivity.

    Now you’re contradicting yourself again. You hold to everything being permissable. Why don’t you just stick with this instead of saying it and then backing down as if my worldview were true and trying to hold to absolutes? Sure you can objectively see that there is such a thing as pain in this world. But you have no objective standard to say that it should be taken seriously. This is where your subjectivity shoots you in the foot. Any person can believe that causing pain is bad. But others can equally say causing pain is good. You have no standard to say who’s more right, unless you think you’re god. You’re only left with your subjective, make believe, pretend, opinions which don’t matter in the end. Just be consistent and say “I agree”. Remember, all is permissable.

    Back to the laws of logic

    yeah, if our universe didn’t exist, then it wouldn’t exist. exactly. once again, define immaterial. can you? the fact material exists and behaves in a certtain way is the only precondition necessary for one to assume logic. how is this so difficult for you? without a mind, it’s not a law. it’s a state of being.

    Remember, just because matter behaves a certain way doesn’t mean it determines natural laws. The natural laws are only inferred from the physical, not derived from it. All the more with the laws of logic because they are fixed. I agree with you “without a mind, it’s not a law”. This is why I start with the presupposition of Christ instead of finite mindless matter. The meanings you are using are fixed. Otherwise we would have not bases to agree on them and have this discussion.

    And saying “without a mind, it’s not a law” is like suggesting if every person died then every book ever written no longer has any meaning. I believe the books still have meaning because the meanings used were only able to be used in the first place because they were fixed meanings. With what your suggesting, this wouldn’t be possible. All this really comes down to the law of excluded middle (the 3rd law of logic). Look it up. Meanings must be fixed to be taken seriously. Something being fixed cannot, by definition, be invented. This point is where I find myself repeating myself over and over.

    And “emergentism” is a theory. It doesn’t explain and cannot explain for example how the idea of prime number exists within mindless matter. Most of these proponents are monists. Monism results in there being no free will, no spirit, and no mind. Logic is brain gas (but we know it’s not), and morality is shorthand for “everything is permissable” (but we know it’s not).

    You’ve still offered nothing for the laws of logic. Just theories by monists who all disagree on many things and are still scratching their heads.

    And you say Paul is a liar, yet have no substantial presupposition to offer which can seriously say that lying is wrong. Remember, all is permissable. You should just stop replying. It’s obvious that you have no substantial presupposition for the laws of logic and morality. You are just proving Psa 14:1 to me all the more every time you reply.


  49. first of all, i know exactly what i mean as i personally select specific words to use. so you’re arrogant condescension is a highly redundant waste of your own time.

    you haven’t defined immaterial. you’ve said what you think it’s not but you haven’t said exactly what it is. with your explanation, any and all possibilities that the word implies are applicable. what you need is;

    1. primary attributes
    2. secondary attributes
    3. relational attributes

    and while you’re attempting to do this, do the same for the term “god”.

    “And saying “without a mind, it’s not a law” is like suggesting if every person died then every book ever written no longer has any meaning. I believe the books still have meaning because the meanings used were only able to be used in the first place because they were fixed meanings. With what your suggesting, this wouldn’t be possible. All this really comes down to the law of excluded middle (the 3rd law of logic). Look it up. Meanings must be fixed to be taken seriously. Something being fixed cannot, by definition, be invented. This point is where I find myself repeating myself over and over.”

    you’re missing the point. without a mind there is no meaning. if all that ever was, was mindless matter then there would never be meaning, there would only be objects. and how about if you are ever able to define that term “god” or “supernatural” then you go ahead and try to reconcile them both with the three legs of logic without just using the legs in a sentence as if you know how they apply. i’ll be waiting. this is going to be fun.

    in case you haven’t noticed, theories are all that any science offers. this allows us to form an understanding of the world around us without applying a dogmatic doctrine so that when new information is found, our understanding can adapt to it.

    i have been completely consistent with my position, as you have been in twisting my position, continually, to lend support to yours. i’ve thoroughly explained and you continue to pick single sentences from my quotes and argue against them out of context.

    i’m going to try this again in the interest of saving a christian from his disingenuous actions. respond to this in it’s entirety.

    i’ve been consistent in admitting that any standard humans devise is subjective. from there we need to get to the objective. the closest thing we have to that is empirical observation. this tells us that the majority of our “moral” laws are “right” to the majority of us. this is all that matters because we are the only ones to whom the standards apply. this is as close to objective as you can get and your argument with it is tantamount to saying, “well, what if the sun doesn’t rise tomorrow. there’s no objective proof that it will.” of course there isn’t because it hasn’t happened yet. but we have a solid basis of past evidence to draw from that enables us to be reasonably sure that it will rise. this is the same for our sets of standards. we have a solid basis of past evidence that enables us to be reasonably sure that these standards do work and are right for us at this time. your only complaint here is that it’s not a “real” right. well, that is because you assume that there “should” be an eternal fixed standard that all will be accountable for in the end. but how do you get from “is” to “should”? you don’t. you start with “should” and you assume things like “supernatural” without being able to define them at the same time. i don’t do any of this. i start only with what i can observe and make no assumptions about what may or may not be beyond the realm of observation. i’m not making the positive claim here. you are. so it’s your job to provide evidence for it but you can’t even define the terms that you use to describe it. really, try it. i’ll even give you an example.

    the tree is green and tall.

    1. primary attribute – an object that is capable of possessing the secondary characteristic of having color and the relational characteristic of being tall.

    2. secondary attribute – the color of the object, in this case, green.

    3. relational attribute – the height of the object in relation to other objects.

    remember, we’re using rational discourse here so using other terms(like supernatural) that have no objective meaning won’t do.

    yes, i think paul was a liar. he even said as much. and if i was the type of person who started with a presupposition and then worked backwards to support it then my opinions on right and wrong shouldn’t be trusted in the least.


  50. Yes I did define “immaterial” just not exhaustively. You haven’t defined “material” exhaustively either. So what?

    Your primary, secondary, and relational attributes don’t work. Nice try. This more of an Aristotelian approach to account for the laws of logic. The problem with this is that it assumes the laws of logic in order to try and account for them. You must use the laws of logic to know what “tall” is, what “color” is, and do so with all other objects so that you’re actually comparing tall green items to the right objects (trees). I’m still waiting.

    you’re missing the point. without a mind there is no meaning. if all that ever was, was mindless matter then there would never be meaning, there would only be objects

    Here you’re contradicting yourself again. Minds haven’t always existed (here on earth), so there is no reason to believe they exist now, if we are going to be consistent with your own statement. But your statment would make sense if we say there was a mind operating forever. This would be Christ. So you are only backing up my worldview, not yours.

    and how about if you are ever able to define that term “god” or “supernatural” then you go ahead and try to reconcile them both with the three legs of logic without just using the legs in a sentence as if you know how they apply. i’ll be waiting. this is going to be fun.

    I can’t exhaustively define them, but I can define them. Your challenge assumes your worldview is the case. You’re only begging the question agianst my worldview. I don’t start with the observable in my worldview I start with the non-observable. Since the laws of logic are non-observable and are first required to know anything, I start with what can account for them. And be my guest and try to think in another way other then the laws of logic. Lol. There is no other way. They are self evident.

    in case you haven’t noticed, theories are all that any science offers. this allows us to form an understanding of the world around us without applying a dogmatic doctrine so that when new information is found, our understanding can adapt to it.

    Science even involves thought experiemtns when things aren’t testable or repeatable. And there’s no physical evidence for the laws of logic, yet they must be assumed to even do science.

    this tells us that the majority of our “moral” laws are “right” to the majority of us. this is all that matters because we are the only ones to whom the standards apply. this is as close to objective as you can get and your argument with it is tantamount to saying, “well, what if the sun doesn’t rise tomorrow.

    I’m interestd in pointing out the part to you that is inconsistant. Forgive me. You keep going back and forth from “empathy and pain” to “majority opinion”. Which is it? you keep trying to invent a standard. You get on me for saying we “ought” to do something. Yet, with your majority opinion standard, you are advocating we ought to follow it because it’s the majority opinion. The majority is only pretending to be more right, but we both know it isn’t. Thus, there’s no reason to consider listening to it. Everything is permissable, remember?

    My worldview comports with why the world has guilt and why the majority of secular laws still coincide with God’s moral law. Your worldview of atoms banging around can’t consistently account for this behavior.

    remember, we’re using rational discourse here so using other terms(like supernatural) that have no objective meaning won’t do.

    So you get to say “natural” but I can’t say “supernatural”? If you really conclude that then I’m going to delete your posts because there is no reason why you should arbitarily get to impose your double standards on here. If you want to BS with someone else, then go to another forum.

    yes, i think paul was a liar.

    In your worldview liars aren’t bad. Some people pretend it’s bad and some pretend it’s good. All is permissable. Remember?

    if i was the type of person who started with a presupposition and then worked backwards to support it then my opinions on right and wrong shouldn’t be trusted in the least.

    Your opinions of right and wrong be trusted? Again, all is permissable, therefore it’s pointless to have an opinion on right and wrong be (really) trusted. And you work backwards from the physical, which you can’t exhaustively define either, and can’t account for fixed abstract realities, which you are still using to respond to me.


  51. i’ve defined material in so many ways that involve transferable information and empirical observation that the fact that you can even compare the disparity between your non-definition of immaterial and my definition of material makes it completely obvious that you have no clue what’s happening.

    if you use a logical fallacy in order to conclude that the same logic you are mutilating assumes this conclusion then you don’t have the capability to continue this debate. you need a primary attribute from which point you can attach referents, otherwise you are murdering the very same logic you so arrogantly claim to have the market cornered in.

    furthermore, unless you can stop dodging the point that you have no objective morality to appeal to and unless you can stop dissecting the entire context of my point in a feeble attempt to make it match your own perception of it, then really, what’s the point? his is disingenuous to say the least.i know full well the entire context of my moral argument and it’s implications. the fact that you are capable and willing to quote mine to suit your own purposes is just more evidence that all is permissable, even from one who claims to have objective morality all figured out. go ahead and delete my posts. it’ll just be one more piece of evidence on the pile.


  52. Just because you can observe the physical doesn’t mean you know what it is. You’ve already admitted that you don’t know what it ultimately is. I grant you that you can observe things. But there are things you can’t observe, like the laws of logic which are you still using to reply to me. You seem to think that the “objective” and the “observable” are synonymous. Again, you need the laws of logic to first be objective, and you haven’t observed these.

    you need a primary attribute from which point you can attach referents

    And you need to use the laws of logic to first know what an “attribute” is, and also to identify any given attribute. You are still assuming the laws of logic in order to account for them. You still haven’t offered anything.

    And yes, so far my worldview does have the corner on the laws of logic. This is not arrogant. I say so confidently because you have offered no alternative so far.

    unless you can stop dodging the point that you have no objective morality to appeal to

    I think you should first think about what must be the case for a real morality to exist (which you don’t believe exists-and that’s fine). If you come up with anything other than the Trinity, then you can share that with me.

    And I said I would delete your posts if you keep imposing double standards. Not because I’m threatened by your arguments.


  53. objectivity

    noun
    judgment based on observable phenomena and uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices

    again, your argument here is no different than saying, “just because the sun rose every day for as long as i’ve lived doesn’t mean it won’t rise tomorrow”. the mistake you’re making is conflating things like logic, which can’t be seen but is wholly reliant on material, with a different form of “immaterial”. there’s a difference between classifying ideas like this as outsside of matter, independent of it and not consisting of it.

    it’s really amazing how you can continually qoute mine and leave the rest of the context of my points behind. it’s understandable, though because it then becomes observable that you aren’t able to address my entire point.

    you haven’t even remotely shown that your position is valid. if you can come up with a primary ontology, ie.

    1. A systematic account of Existence.
    2. An explicit formal specification of how to represent the objects, concepts and other entities that are assumed to exist in some area of interest and the relationships that hold among them.

    for the terms you are using then you can attempt to provide evidence for what you’re claiming. you don’t just get to say something is logically true because you think it is, without defining the terms that you are espousing to be true. that’s where you must start.

    there is no “real” morality outside of the one that we impose. why do you assume that there is a final judgement. oh wait, you start at the end and work backwards to form positions and premises to then support the conclusion that uou’ve already reached. you’re betraying the logic that you think is on you’re side.

    i haven’t imposed a double standard. i’ve asked you to fall in line follow the logical methods that you’re currently murdering.


  54. judgment based on observable phenomena and uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices

    Exactly. This is why the laws of logic are an a priori. Furthermore they are a transcendent a priori.

    your argument here is no different than saying, “just because the sun rose every day for as long as i’ve lived doesn’t mean it won’t rise tomorrow”.

    No they’re not the same. You’re conflating the problem of induction with the laws of logic. They aren’t the same. Like I’ve said a million times, induction, or natural laws, aren’t prescriptive, but only descriptive. However, the laws of logic are prescriptive. Again, try to think rationally by not using the laws of logic. You can’t. Yet if matter were to start behaving differently we would adjust our natural laws accordingly.

    And just because the laws of logic may reveal themselves in the material (us), doesn’t mean they are derived from mindless material. This is an unwarranted leap and is also nonsensical. What in the “material” gives us absolute abstract laws?

    you haven’t even remotely shown that your position is valid.

    Again, think of something other than the Trinity which can account for abstract absolutes. If you can think of anything then please let me know.

    that’s where you must start.

    I would need the laws of logic to start there. Again, do these abstract absolute laws come from the Trinity or mindless matter in motion? Take your pick or think of another alternative.

    there is no “real” morality outside of the one that we impose. why do you assume that there is a final judgement. oh wait, you start at the end and work backwards to form positions and premises to then support the conclusion that uou’ve already reached. you’re betraying the logic that you think is on you’re side.

    Many moralities are imposed by many people. So what? Everything is permissable. Why are you rehashing your view of morality? I already know what it is.

    If you were really interested in knowing why I believe in a final judgment I would kindly tell you. And I’ve already explained how we both have starting points. Mine is the Trinity and yours is mindless matter in motion. Our discussion is far past due being circular. We are going to just agree to disagree.

    I’ll let you reply one more time and then we’ll kindly end this discussion. OK? Thanks for your thoughts. 🙂


  55. you said,

    “You seem to think that the “objective” and the “observable” are synonymous.”

    then i pointed out the relation between objectivity and observation by posting this definition;

    objectivity
    noun
    judgment based on observable phenomena and uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices

    then you , amusingly said,

    “Exactly. This is why the laws of logic are an a priori. Furthermore they are a transcendent a priori.”

    this is amusing to me because the a priori view of logic you’re referring to is arrived at by intuition or intrinsically while it’s a posteriori that requires observation.

    “Again, think of something other than the Trinity which can account for abstract absolutes. If you can think of anything then please let me know.”

    i’ve repeatedly accounted for logic as well as anyone can. it’s a necessary fact of how the universe works. we call it logic and interpret our perception of this relational process as a law. if we were not here it would not be a law. it would simply be how the universe operates necessarily. just because i’ve accounted for it in a way that doesn’t fit into your world view doesn’t mean i haven’t accounted for it. and it’s quite amusing to me that in failing, but nonetheless attempting to use this universal necessity, you are actually assuming my worldview:)

    “No they’re not the same. You’re conflating the problem of induction with the laws of logic. They aren’t the same. Like I’ve said a million times, induction, or natural laws, aren’t prescriptive, but only descriptive. However, the laws of logic are prescriptive. Again, try to think rationally by not using the laws of logic. You can’t. Yet if matter were to start behaving differently we would adjust our natural laws accordingly.”

    no. i’m not conflating anything. i’m pointing out that for you to compare your lack of any primary definition of immaterial to my admittance that we still have much to learn about material is absolutely ridiculous. i can list primary, secondary and relational attributes for material and all that you can do is tell me what immaterial is not. this is where you massacre logic before you’ve even begun your case. define the terms specifically and cohesively or you have failed.

    “And just because the laws of logic may reveal themselves in the material (us), doesn’t mean they are derived from mindless material. This is an unwarranted leap and is also nonsensical. What in the “material” gives us absolute abstract laws?”

    necessary fact. you are confusing “not made of material” with “operates outside of material”. this is an unwarranted leap and is also nonsensical. you’re borrowing from my world view by trying to use how the universe works as evidence that it only works because a pantheon that got sponsored by an empire hundreds of years ago says it can. i’m going no further than transferable information and can actually define the terms necessary to my position.

    “Many moralities are imposed by many people. So what? Everything is permissable. Why are you rehashing your view of morality? I already know what it is.”

    because you said this;

    “I think you should first think about what must be the case for a real morality to exist (which you don’t believe exists-and that’s fine). If you come up with anything other than the Trinity, then you can share that with me.”

    so i’ve challenged your ability to present a “real” morality and you’ve dodged that challenge by deferring back to me. i”l try again. in looking for an objective morality you assume my world view as defined by the word, “objective”. objectivity, it ends up, is not what you’re seeking, though. it turns that while you can use language reserved for my world view, you must ultimately and unquestionably fall back into the the emotive will of the ultimate, unchecked subjective force that you believe in and the subjective conception of the utopia you hope that this belief provides. as any close scrutiny will show, this is not objectivity by any stretch of the imagination, no matter how you dress it up in the language of materialism.

    i do hope you at least attempt to form a cohesive ontology for your basic terminology. it hasn’t been done yet but maybe you could be the first. and if it’s any consolation, i couldn’t possibly expend the useless energy necessary to disbelieve something which cannot be defined. thanks for your time cameron. it’s been real.


  56. I see science and religion as two sides of the same coin like I believe that most other people do.


    • I’d say they’re both the substance that makes up the coin.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: