Creation and Causality

[Moral Orel]

We have no choice but to either be circular and define true as "not false" and false as "not true", or we can leave true as a primitively undefined notion and take false to be "not true." There only other option is an infinite regress of terms.

Not really. "True" and "false" carry a dimension of accuracy or similarity. We would have to go all the way down to the definition of "be" to get a circular definition. Something either "is" or "is not". And since we define "is" and "not" to be operators on language the way we do, we absolutely can make objectively true statements and objectively false statements because we defined all the things that went into the statements.

I don't care that there isn't some absolute cosmic "Truth", that isn't how "true" works. "True" is an adjective used to describe a statement as accurate. Or we could say that a statement is "the truth" if it is accurate. But "true" and "false" aren't used for anything other than statements, and when someone does insist on using them on something else (like an intelligent being), then we aren't talking about the same thing anymore.

So you could say that there is no "truth" without us defining it. And you could even say that we only accept that the word "truth" has meaning intersubjectively... but so what? It has meaning once anyone gives it meaning, and it has value once anyone has a way to use it.

Let's say that pointing and grunting to define things like this is valid. Further, let's say that it works. Either I'm not confused by a green apple, or you're afforded as many points and grunts as you want. Let's suppose further that you can even establish definitions of abstract notions, such as the notion of truth. Doing this defeats one of my nihilistic claims: that definitions are meaningless. But that doesn't actually do away with nihilism.

I grant you that language is well defined... where do you go from there? Mathematics and logic is literally nothing but assumptions (axioms), definitions, and the conclusions that follow. But the conclusions are conditional and dependent on the axioms. Nothing can actually be shown as true from assumptions and definitions.

Münchhausen trilemma - Wikipedia

Tell me why I should care that mathematics and formal logic don't translate directly from language. If I define "true" how in the world do you figure I can't show something to be "true" from definitions?

 

[apogee]

I wasn't asking any questions in the block you quoted, and I wasn't being condescending. I don't know what you're talking about.

??...relevance?

Furthermore, you started off by derailing this thread with irrelevant nonsense and even now when you're trying to be on topic you are unable because you haven't bothered to read the OP, despite claiming to have done so three times.

??!

I seriously doubt you're going to read the OP at this point, let alone actually contribute to the thread, so if you want to leave because your feelings are being hurt then feel free.

Hi! hows it going?

Again, in the OP I've shown that both sides ultimately profess the original Proposition X. You then twist Proposition X into a non-Christian proposition and claim to have changed nothing.

X = “The universe is a finitely large hypersphere of the smallest possible size that is consistent with the observation that the universe is strictly larger than the observable universe. Further, the bulk space, which is the space wherein the multiverse resides, does not exist. All that is, was, or ever will be is just our universe. So it is being said that something has come from nothing for no reason and with no cause.”

The bolded text is clearly incompatible with Christianity.

And that explains what?

To a me, it identifies Christ as the means of Creation, rather than as a part of it. To you it explains nothing.

Exactly. It explains nothing, so for someone to draw an explanation out of it one would have to make their own inferences.

Who taught you to read?

Inference: Reading and Writing Ideas as Well as Words

OK, so you concede the point of the thread then?

No.

The Dunning-Kruger effect is hard at work again.

Psychological projection - Wikipedia

Awesome. Now let's get back to looking at which side has a better explanation for the Big Bang.

You have no explanations....for anything...least of all...the 'Big Bang'

note: This would be an appropriate point for you to wheel out your friends, Dunning and Kruger, on the basis that I have issued a statement that you really dislike but are fundamentally unable to deny...or you could just ignore this paragraph, or attempt some other act of distraction.

Do you make stuff up about God often then?

No not often, I was really just rephrasing your words in a way that seemed to be more compatible with my understanding, and 'Space' sounded a bit empty. Although having said that, I certainly don't think the idea of attributing 'substance' to God, is in any way heretical, if the 'substance' in question is simply God himself.

Feel free to expound on what it means for God to act on himself

John 1:1

and feel free to define causality for me.

Why would I want to do that? Post #53 did a pretty good job, which you subsequently ignored.

And I covered that in the OP too:

"Now, I did say above that I am not ruling out the possibility of something coming from nothing. Which is to say that I am not ruling out the possibility of things coming into existence by some means other than causality. So it then follows that God could have also used some means independent of causality to create the universe. The problem here, though, is that we have no way of explaining what that entails, and there are absolutely no grounds to say that God is necessary for the process. If the Big Bang was not caused, why is God needed? Even given unlimited power, it is impossible to describe how God could create something without invoking causality just like it is impossible to describe how God and his unlimited power could create a square circle."

This is smoke and mirrors...firstly you disingenuously abolish the necessity of causality (so that you can smuggle in your idea of the universe just popping into existence), you then render God irrelevant because you suppose that whatever process causes the universe to 'pop into existence' doesn't require God, (by virtue of it being a process, rather than God Himself).

And then finally you liken your inability to describe how God could create something without invoking (a mundane) causality, to your inability to describe an off-the-shelf, self-contradictory idea 'square circle'. In an attempt to discredit the idea, that God could ever possibly act like a God.

Placeholders are only meaningless when you use the same placeholder to represent different things, as you've done.

placeholders are only really meaningless when there is no meaning being held in place.

whereas placeholders are only really place holders (as opposed to the actually thing they are holding in place) when they can be reused to hold more than one different thing. It would only be a problem if I switched contents part way through, which i certainly didn't.

I named them events N and M. I don't know how to make it any more clear than that. Also it would make no difference if they were propositions.

I have no idea what events you are talking about.. it is simply that

Obviously. They're all different statements. That has nothing to do with my statements about probability.

I didn't ask about your statements on probability, I couldn't care less.

I think we can just be done. Go ahead and have the last word. I'm past the point of caring. You are pretending to know things that you don't understand, and you are telling me that you've read the OP multiple times which is clearly false. I have better things to do. It's basically impossible for you to contribute to this conversation unless someone else takes over your account and types for you.

There is nothing here to contribute to. Your skeptics position states nothing other than what is immediately apparent or conceivable, but it does so to the exclusion of all else. It is nothing more than a cosmological psychosis.

And yes, anything other than it, is by definition greater than or equal to it.

As to your accusations, well it seems to me that you are a little too quick to pass judgment, for this to be a healthy trait.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Not really. "True" and "false" carry a dimension of accuracy or similarity. We would have to go all the way down to the definition of "be" to get a circular definition. Something either "is" or "is not". And since we define "is" and "not" to be operators on language the way we do, we absolutely can make objectively true statements and objectively false statements because we defined all the things that went into the statements.

I don't care that there isn't some absolute cosmic "Truth", that isn't how "true" works. "True" is an adjective used to describe a statement as accurate. Or we could say that a statement is "the truth" if it is accurate. But "true" and "false" aren't used for anything other than statements, and when someone does insist on using them on something else (like an intelligent being), then we aren't talking about the same thing anymore.

So you could say that there is no "truth" without us defining it. And you could even say that we only accept that the word "truth" has meaning intersubjectively... but so what? It has meaning once anyone gives it meaning, and it has value once anyone has a way to use it.


Tell me why I should care that mathematics and formal logic don't translate directly from language. If I define "true" how in the world do you figure I can't show something to be "true" from definitions?

Other than the first paragraph we're basically on the same page. What's obvious to you here takes certain apologists decades to learn.

 

[Moral Orel]

Other than the first paragraph we're basically on the same page. What's obvious to you here takes certain apologists decades to learn.

Okay. I still don't reject "truth" because I defined it. But I remember we were both having a conversation with someone a while ago about "God is good" and I noted that "if God is good, then we need a new word for 'good'" for much the same reason. Also, I'm starting to think that objective morality might be a thing. Sam Harris came close, except he starts with intersubjective values (well-being and suffering), so it's sort of illusory objective morality.

Check this out: pleasure is, by it's very nature, desirable. If it is desirable by it's very nature, then it has intrinsic value. And if it is intrinsically valuable, then we can make decisions that are objectively more likely to result in creating larger amounts of pleasure than others. I don't know what word to work in there instead of "amounts", I'm still working on my woo.

On the topic of the thread though, this reminds me of the Evil God Challenge. I posted it on here a while back and no one could get past defining "good" as "whatever God likes". But the great thing about it was that whatever argument you could make for God wanting us to love each other, you can just replace "love" with "hate" and make an argument for God wanting us to hate each other. Your thread reminds me of that. "You say God doesn't require a cause? Okay, neither does the universe...". In a nutshell anyways.

That's the thing about God of the Gaps. If you believe God can do it, then you should also believe that it's entirely possible without God. Since of course, He can design some system that does it all for Him without any intervention on His part.

And if you believe God can make square circles, then anything goes!

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Okay. I still don't reject "truth" because I defined it.

The issue we're having is that I'm discussing the notion of truth in an axiomatic system (where truth is meaningless as I've shown) whereas you are discussing the notion of truth in the real world (where truth is that which corresponds to reality).

So we are unintentionally equivocating here.

But I remember we were both having a conversation with someone a while ago about "God is good" and I noted that "if God is good, then we need a new word for 'good'" for much the same reason.

Yeah, some Catholic guy trying to avoid both horns of the Euthyphro dilemma with typical apologetic gymnastics.

Also, I'm starting to think that objective morality might be a thing.

A contradiction in terms.

Sam Harris came close, except he starts with intersubjective values (well-being and suffering), so it's sort of illusory objective morality.

Check this out: pleasure is, by it's very nature, desirable.

Pleasure is desirable to us, the subjects. Without any subject to do the desiring, pleasure cannot be desirable.

If it is desirable by it's very nature, then it has intrinsic value.

False from above.

A ball is intrinsically spherical because no subject is required to make a ball spherical.

Conversely, a gold watch is subjectively valuable because it will have no value unless there are subjects which value it.

And if it is intrinsically valuable, then we can make decisions that are objectively more likely to result in creating larger amounts of pleasure than others. I don't know what word to work in there instead of "amounts", I'm still working on my woo.

It's not difficult to shut an apologist up when it comes to "objective" morality. Just ask them if they're a psychopath. They'll say no, indicating that they have empathy. And that means that they would tend to act in a way that reduces suffering regardless of what some deity said, as doing so is acting in accordance with their own nature. If they say that they won't know that it is wrong to kill a baby unless God tells them, then they're admitting that they're a psychopath.

This is how debates are supposed to work: two opponents have different conclusions, but they start at common ground. Not being a psychopath is supposed to be common ground. If it isn't, then the religion they're pushing is crazy... by definition.

On the topic of the thread though, this reminds me of the Evil God Challenge. I posted it on here a while back and no one could get past defining "good" as "whatever God likes". But the great thing about it was that whatever argument you could make for God wanting us to love each other, you can just replace "love" with "hate" and make an argument for God wanting us to hate each other. Your thread reminds me of that. "You say God doesn't require a cause? Okay, neither does the universe...". In a nutshell anyways.

Sort of a rehash of the Euthyphro dilemma again. 2000 years and the best they can do is redefine God as good.

That's the thing about God of the Gaps. If you believe God can do it, then you should also believe that it's entirely possible without God. Since of course, He can design some system that does it all for Him without any intervention on His part.

And if you believe God can make square circles, then anything goes!

Kind of a tangent but I find it funny that you capitalize God's pronoun while a Christian on this thread has referred to God as "it."

 

[Moral Orel]

The issue we're having is that I'm discussing the notion of truth in an axiomatic system (where truth is meaningless as I've shown) whereas you are discussing the notion of truth in the real world (where truth is that which corresponds to reality).

So we are unintentionally equivocating here.

Well then I'm a nihilist too, when it comes to mathematics and formal logic. But I won't be when it comes to reality, lol. Your broke it down between the two and told me to pick my poison, I picked language (and won ) and I said I don't care if it doesn't exist in math.

Yeah, some Catholic guy trying to avoid both horns of the Euthyphro dilemma with typical apologetic gymnastics.

WLC says the same thing. He even has a nifty little flash video about it.

Pleasure is desirable to us, the subjects. Without any subject to do the desiring, pleasure cannot be desirable.

Hmmm.... It's a little different though since pleasure doesn't even exist at all without us, right? Or some subject that can "detect" it. It isn't like an opinion about a thing that exists. Where it exists, albeit only "inside" subjects, it is by its very nature desirable. It's like thinking. I know that it is an objective fact that I think, but thinking only exists within subjects capable of thinking. I know that it is an objective fact that I experience pleasure, and I know that the desire for pleasure is inescapable. Perhaps I can choose one source of pleasure over another, but I am always seeking pleasure. People who have a difficult time experiencing pleasure, have a hard time doing anything. For those people, pleasure effectively doesn't exist.

False from above.

A ball is intrinsically spherical because no subject is required to make a ball spherical.

Conversely, a gold watch is subjectively valuable because it will have no value unless there are subjects which value it.

A ball, if it exists, is intrinsically spherical. What if it doesn't exist? Then hypothetically it would be spherical, but it isn't intrinsically spherical.

Just like pleasure. If it exists, it is intrinsically desirable.

A gold watch is subjectively valuable because some subjects could, at least in theory, decide it's not valuable. Pleasure cannot, even in theory, be undesirable. It just has to exist first.


I'm going to keep building this theory to combat objective morality through theism with objective morality through naturalism. Poke as many holes in it as you can, it only makes the theory more powerful, muahahahaha!

It's not difficult to shut an apologist up when it comes to "objective" morality. Just ask them if they're a psychopath. They'll say no, indicating that they have empathy. And that means that they would tend to act in a way that reduces suffering regardless of what some deity said, as doing so is acting in accordance with their own nature. If they say that they won't know that it is wrong to kill a baby unless God tells them, then they're admitting that they're a psychopath.

This is how debates are supposed to work: two opponents have different conclusions, but they start at common ground. Not being a psychopath is supposed to be common ground. If it isn't, then the religion they're pushing is crazy... by definition.

If objective morality works through theism, then there is only one objective moral, and that is: "Obey God". If God's sovereignty means He can do anything and it's still "good", including telling you to do anything, then anything goes except disobedience. It turns out that there is one objective moral, and everything else is moral relativity based on what God wants from people at the time.

Kind of a tangent but I find it funny that you capitalize God's pronoun while a Christian on this thread has referred to God as "it."

Really? Someone called God "it"? I missed it. I do it a little out of respect, but it does make things more clear about who my pronouns are referring. That's the main reason. Trouble is people don't notice most of the time. I had a conversation about Satan's conversation with God in Job, and a Christian thought I was attributing God's actions to Satan's because he didn't notice my capitalizations.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Well then I'm a nihilist too, when it comes to mathematics and formal logic. But I won't be when it comes to reality, lol.

So then we already agree.

Assumptions and definitions can't tell you anything about reality. But observations can.

Your broke it down between the two and told me to pick my poison, I picked language (and won ) and I said I don't care if it doesn't exist in math.

No, that's not what happened. I was never talking about nihilism with respect to physical reality. At least not until I spotted the disconnect that had formed between us.

When I told you to pick your poison, I was referring to the fact that spoken language is circularly defined (every term is defined by referring to other terms), whereas the formal language (mathematics and logic) is defined by referring to primitively undefined symbols.

The Münchhausen trilemma discusses a similar problem with regards to propositions:

• The circular argument, in which theory and proof support each other
• The regressive argument, in which each proof requires a further proof, ad infinitum
• The axiomatic argument, which rests on accepted precepts

Extending this to language would look like this:

• The spoken language, in which terms are defined by other terms
• The regressive language, in which terms are defined by other terms ad infinitum
• The formal language, in which terms are defined by undefined terms

The second option is never used, obviously.

The position of nihilism, as I employ the term, is as follows:

Mathematics can be accepted tentatively, but is ultimately recognized as a vacuous system of assumptions and definitions. It is nothing but a plea for the reader to accept the axioms so that the conclusions may follow; the reader is under no obligation to make any concession.

Observation of reality, however, should not be considered optional. We are obligated to accept observations as they are.

While it is true that the problem of undefined, primitive notions that haunts mathematics does not vanish when it comes to our understanding of physical reality, science gets special treatment. When I ask "why?" enough times to the mathematician and he ultimately says that the empty set "just is," I can reject his claim if I wish; but when I ask "why" enough times to the physicist and he ultimately says that energy "just is," I am obligated to accepted it because energy really does exist. Energy really "just is."

WLC says the same thing. He even has a nifty little flash video about it.

Even if all possible parallel universes exist, there is no universe in which I am watching that video.

Hmmm.... It's a little different though since pleasure doesn't even exist at all without us, right? Or some subject that can "detect" it. It isn't like an opinion about a thing that exists. Where it exists, albeit only "inside" subjects, it is by its very nature desirable. It's like thinking. I know that it is an objective fact that I think, but thinking only exists within subjects capable of thinking. I know that it is an objective fact that I experience pleasure, and I know that the desire for pleasure is inescapable. Perhaps I can choose one source of pleasure over another, but I am always seeking pleasure. People who have a difficult time experiencing pleasure, have a hard time doing anything. For those people, pleasure effectively doesn't exist.

Nothing you've said here changes anything. "Subjective" means "requiring a subject" while "objective" means the opposite. I'm sorry, but pleasure, desire, value, and similar notions require a subject.

A ball, if it exists, is intrinsically spherical. What if it doesn't exist? Then hypothetically it would be spherical, but it isn't intrinsically spherical.

If a ball doesn't exist, there's no "it" for you to be talking about.

"Then hypothetically it would be spherical, but it isn't intrinsically spherical."

What is the it that you're referring to here? Does it even make sense to refer to something that you're declaring nonexistent?

Let's consider an equation that has no solution, x=x+1.

Does it make sense to describe the solution and ask whether it's odd or even, or rational or irrational?

Just like pleasure. If it exists, it is intrinsically desirable.

OK... but it's still subjective, so where does the objective morality come from?

A gold watch is subjectively valuable because some subjects could, at least in theory, decide it's not valuable. Pleasure cannot, even in theory, be undesirable. It just has to exist first.

And to exist it requires a subject, meaning that it is subjective by definition.

I'm going to keep building this theory to combat objective morality through theism with objective morality through naturalism. Poke as many holes in it as you can, it only makes the theory more powerful, muahahahaha!

I don't think it's an honest approach to build towards a predetermined conclusion. That's what Christians do and that's why they're always getting twisted up like pretzels. Start with what is known and go from there with no destination in mind.

If objective morality works through theism, then there is only one objective moral, and that is: "Obey God".

Already nonsensical. God is a subject and is necessary for the system of morality, so the system of morality cannot be independent of a subject.

If God's sovereignty means He can do anything and it's still "good", including telling you to do anything, then anything goes except disobedience. It turns out that there is one objective moral, and everything else is moral relativity based on what God wants from people at the time.

Perhaps tell me what you think objective and subjective mean in this context. Because this is looking like a lot of nonsense to me.

Really? Someone called God "it"? I missed it.

The very first post after the OP.

I do it a little out of respect, but it does make things more clear about who my pronouns are referring. That's the main reason. Trouble is people don't notice most of the time. I had a conversation about Satan's conversation with God in Job, and a Christian thought I was attributing God's actions to Satan's because he didn't notice my capitalizations.

Lol.

 

[Moral Orel]

Assumptions and definitions can't tell you anything about reality. But observations can.

Sure. But I observe a thing in reality, I pick a random arrangement of utterances my mouth can create, and a random string of scribbles, and define those utterances and scribbles as the thing in reality.

When I told you to pick your poison, I was referring to the fact that spoken language is circularly defined (every term is defined by referring to other terms)

Which I demonstrated is not true with my apple. If you're right, how in the world does anyone learn to talk? You start with simple terms that you can point to, and build from there. Once you learn to talk, it's easiest to learn new terms by using terms you already know rather than pointing at everything forever, but that doesn't mean that words are ultimately defined by nothing but words.

Nothing you've said here changes anything. "Subjective" means "requiring a subject" while "objective" means the opposite. I'm sorry, but pleasure, desire, value, and similar notions require a subject.

So then there are no objective facts about human psychology because anything to be said about it requires a subject? I disagree. Some things are an opinion (subjective) and some things are facts (objective). There are facts about subjects.

I don't think it's an honest approach to build towards a predetermined conclusion. That's what Christians do and that's why they're always getting twisted up like pretzels. Start with what is known and go from there with no destination in mind.

Originally, I saw morality as being based on subjective values, but there are attitudes and actions that are objectively more likely to promote those values. So, yeah, morality is ultimately subjective. But I tried to figure out why I value what I value, and it's all pleasure. But why is pleasure desirable? It just is, as far as I can tell.

Perhaps tell me what you think objective and subjective mean in this context. Because this is looking like a lot of nonsense to me.

You like to try and shut things down at the start. I like to try and show the problems with following assumptions to their conclusions. I'm not going to defend the idea that obeying God is objectively good, I'm pointing out that if it is, then you've got problems. You can't call any thing objectively wrong if God might command anyone to do it. So if there are objective morals through theism, there's just one, and everything else is relativism. Easiest way to spot a theistic moral relativist is to start in on the atrocities of the OT. If they use the word "anachronistic", they're a theistic moral relativist, hahaha!

 

[redleghunter]

The eternal existence of physical material would render God's existence moot.

Why?

Given eternity in a Godless reality, all possible outcomes must occur.

A leap of faith on your part as the above has not been established as true.

If an outcome does not occur in an eternity, then it's not a possible outcome.

Eternity is outside of time and the material.

Our universe is obviously a possible outcome, so it must occur and God is not necessary.

All you have done here is eliminate the Person of YHWH and deify our universe giving it it's own purpose. There are quite a few pagan religions which did this throughout history.

Thus God's existence is moot.

Doesn't follow as your presupposition is based on how God cannot have created the universe.

 

[redleghunter]

The Kalam Cosmological Argument has been refuted in dozens of different ways. But what is this about beating nihilism?

Do you have peer reviewed papers showing this?

 

[redleghunter]

Christianity plays a very unique roll in shutting off the learning process.

How so?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Sure. But I observe a thing in reality, I pick a random arrangement of utterances my mouth can create, and a random string of scribbles, and define those utterances and scribbles as the thing in reality.

Those utterances and scribbles are not the thing in reality. They represent the thing in reality.

Which I demonstrated is not true with my apple. If you're right, how in the world does anyone learn to talk?

Let's not confuse pure logic with human reasoning.

If we all used pure logic and no human reasoning, we wouldn't ever infer that the sun will rise tomorrow based on the fact that it has always risen every morning in the past.

Our human reasoning can grasp that the grunt "apple" represents an actual apple.

You start with simple terms that you can point to, and build from there. Once you learn to talk, it's easiest to learn new terms by using terms you already know rather than pointing at everything forever, but that doesn't mean that words are ultimately defined by nothing but words.

Words are defined by nothing but words. Again, any given apple is not and can never be the definition of an apple. Any given apple is an example of an apple. Our human brain can understand this and make inferences, like what we do with the sunrise.

So then there are no objective facts about human psychology because anything to be said about it requires a subject? I disagree.

I disagree also. I don't know where you're getting that. Could you expound upon what you think my position is to show why I would be concluding that?

Some things are an opinion (subjective) and some things are facts (objective). There are facts about subjects.

Therefore...?

Originally, I saw morality as being based on subjective values, but there are attitudes and actions that are objectively more likely to promote those values. So, yeah, morality is ultimately subjective. But I tried to figure out why I value what I value, and it's all pleasure. But why is pleasure desirable? It just is, as far as I can tell.

Sure. It just is. But it's still dependent upon a subject. A subject has to be doing the desiring for an object to be desirable.

You like to try and shut things down at the start. I like to try and show the problems with following assumptions to their conclusions.

If someone wants to base an argument upon an idea that is an open question, I'm fine with that. But if your argument is based on nonsensical terms and definitions, then I'm sorry but I have to pump the brakes before you leave the station.

I'm not going to defend the idea that obeying God is objectively good, I'm pointing out that if it is, then you've got problems.

But "objectively good" is already nonsensical. Giving me a hypothetical based on nonsense doesn't give me anything to work with.

You can't call any thing objectively wrong if God might command anyone to do it. So if there are objective morals through theism, there's just one, and everything else is relativism. Easiest way to spot a theistic moral relativist is to start in on the atrocities of the OT. If they use the word "anachronistic", they're a theistic moral relativist, hahaha!

Right, and if they're not relativists then they think that torturing and killing babies is the correct thing to do at least in some contexts. Which would make them a psychopath if they really believed it.

 

[Project Panda]

How so?

Tell's you it's the truth of everything & nothing else can be added. So you don't need to learn anything else, then you starve your mind of learning and become mentally unwell.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Why?

The rest of what you quoted goes on to explain.

A leap of faith on your part as the above has not been established as true.

You're quoting the "if" part of an "if...then". I'm saying IF. There's no faith here. Do you know what IF means?

Eternity is outside of time and the material.

Eternity is all of time.

All you have done here is eliminate the Person of YHWH and deify our universe giving it it's own purpose. There are quite a few pagan religions which did this throughout history.

Huh?

Doesn't follow as your presupposition is based on how God cannot have created the universe.

False. You don't seem to understand what's been said. Not even a little.

Do you have peer reviewed papers showing this?

LOL, what a meaningless question. God is not an academic topic.

 

[Moral Orel]

Therefore...?

Let me throw this out, and you tell me whether it's an opinion (subjective) or fact (objective):
Pleasure is intrinsically desirable to humans.

I'm beginning to think you're more arguing about the label of "objective morality" than whether what I'm saying is factual or not.

But "objectively good" is already nonsensical. Giving me a hypothetical based on nonsense doesn't give me anything to work with.

I don't think it's "nonsense". I think it's nonsense to say a person is "goodness itself" or something like that. But it makes sense to say, "this is the factually correct action to take".

 

[redleghunter]

Tell's you it's the truth of everything & nothing else can be added. So you don't need to learn anything else, then you starve your mind of learning and become mentally unwell.

There's quite a lot to learn. One must do so.

 

[redleghunter]

Do you know what IF means?

Of course. However, your 'ifs' are solidified as more than 'what ifs' in your other posts.

Eternity is all of time.

Depends. Eternity is before, during and after "In the beginning."

Koine Greek:
"Without beginning and end, that which always has been and always will be."

G166-aionios

Hebrew:
long duration, antiquity, futurity, for ever, ever, everlasting, evermore, perpetual, old, ancient, world

1. 
   ancient time, long time (of past)
   
   
2. (of future)
   
   1. for ever, always
      
      
   2. continuous existence, perpetual
      
      
   3. everlasting, indefinite or unending future, eternity
      

H5769-owlam

False. You don't seem to understand what's been said. Not even a little.

I've seen enough frankly. Your main thrust is we don't need an eternal deity to have an eternal existence.

LOL, what a meaningless question.

Not so, as you will see my second point below, you are on the Christian Apologetics forum. I asked for peer reviewed papers as you are making some bold theological and/or metaphysical assertions with no evidence provided.

God is not an academic topic.

A couple of points.

First, there is an entire field of study called Theology and it's cousin Philosophy. You may want to ignore such, however, which leads us to the second point...

Second, you posted your OP in the Christian Apologetics forum. Therefore, you must address even the things or subjects you usually refuse to consider.

 

[Project Panda]

There's quite a lot to learn. One must do so.

Within the boundary's of what the good book says you can learn. The bible filters everything that you absorb, so you're not really learning anything at all. One day your going to be an old religious nut who has nothing interesting to say.

 

[redleghunter]

Within the boundary's of what the good book says you can learn. The bible filters everything that you absorb, so you're not really learning anything at all. One day your going to be an old religious nut who has nothing interesting to say.

Where does it state as Christians we do not study other disciplines? In fact there are a plethora of Christians who are scholars in other areas of discipline outside of theology.

 

[Project Panda]

Where does it state as Christians we do not study other disciplines? In fact there are a plethora of Christians who are scholars in other areas of discipline outside of theology.

1 Corinthians 4:6
6Now, brothers and sisters, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, "Do not go beyond what is written." Then you will not be puffed up in being a follower of one of us over against the other.