How did the universe come into existence?

[Radrook]

Wasn't it once proposed that the universe has always existed?

 

[Eudaimonist]

You should consider that God exists and that it is He that has given us the path to take that will give us the most happiness in this world and the most eternal happiness.

In the next world, you will kick yourself for not paying more attention.

Life is crazy if a simple matter of settling on the wrong belief would create such problems for the future. It opens up an infinite series of "possibilities". If there is a God, but God prefers atheists to theists, then not being an atheist could have dire consequences for an eternity.

Our eternity could be similar to driving a Ferrari throughout eternity vs driving a broken-down volkswagan van. I for one, would like to drive the Ferrari. Much more exciting. Much more to look forward to.

Of course, which is why I would support life extension technologies if that means so much to you. If scientists could find ways to prolong human life, then you'll have that Ferrari instead of the Volkswagen that natural selection gave you.

Think about it.

Exactly.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wasn't it once proposed that the universe has always existed?

Yes, though that runs into problems when one starts to analyze it. And the Big Bang theory is only about our universe as we know it. There may be more to the universe than we can observe. Whether or not there was a 'before the Big Bang' is still being debated by physicists.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I think what I am saying is 'you should'. You should consider that God exists and that it is He that has given us the path to take that will give us the most happiness in this world and the most eternal happiness.

In the next world, you will kick yourself for not paying more attention.

Just to put it in prospective. Our eternity could be similar to driving a Ferrari throughout eternity vs driving a broken-down volkswagan van. I for one, would like to drive the Ferrari. Much more exciting. Much more to look forward to.

Think about it.

Why should you seriously consider anything that has no tangible evidence to support it?

Telling a fanciful story and then describing the reward you get for believing it if it's true doesn't make the story any more true or believable. Evidence is all that matters.

 

[mark kennedy]

I am aware of only 2 possible answers to this question.

1) A random chance happening.
2) A Superior Being that had the knowledge to create.

The question is: Is there any other possible ways the universe could have come into existence besides the 2 ways that I have given above?

Thank you for your response.

The Hindus believe we exist only as a dream of Brahmin, does that count?

 

[quatona]

I think what I am saying is 'you should'. You should consider that God exists and that it is He that has given us the path to take that will give us the most happiness in this world and the most eternal happiness.

I think most of us have considered the possibility of biblegod existing.

In the next world, you will kick yourself for not paying more attention.

I see no good reason to believe that, and I see no good reason to assume that you have some secret knowledge about these things that I can rely on.

Just to put it in prospective. Our eternity could be similar to driving a Ferrari throughout eternity vs driving a broken-down volkswagan van. I for one, would like to drive the Ferrari. Much more exciting. Much more to look forward to.

I understand that you prefer your concept of heaven over your concept of hell.
Now, the problem is not my preferences, the problem is that you seem empty-handed when it comes to supporting your concepts.

Think about it.

There was little intellectual nutrition value in your post. Rather, it was an appeal to emotion and make-belief. It´s a little dangerous to go down that path, and in the next step encourage me to think about it.

 

[Peter1000]

ToddNotTodd says:

What you think is immaterial. The only thing that matters is the facts.

The only facts we know is the earth warmed a degree or so from approx. 1995-2007 ( I could be off on those dates). Then from around 2007 until today it has leveled out, up a little, down a little.

So tell me what % of that degree increase in temperature was caused by man, and what % was caused by nature??? That would be the interesting fact.

Warming and rising water is another fact. What % of that is caused by man, and what % is caused by nature?

Interesting, but the ice acreage in the North Pole has increased since 2008. You would have thought with all the doom and gloom advertising that it would be much, much less that in 2008. Not so, there is more ice there now.
So what % of the ice increase is caused by man, and what % of ice increase is caused by nature?

Conspiracy theory nonsense.

Try to find out who would be the owners of the cap and trade brokerage company? You will find Al Gore's name all over it. I hear Obama gets a piece too. But maybe not since he was not able to pass the cap and trade legislation that would have set up the whole scam with the appearance of being legal.

Ok, that's all I really needed to hear.

Oh, you mean Trump does not agree with your wacked out facts about global warming, so he's the crazy one. Just hearing his name and your gone means to me that you really don't have a handle on your facts as much as you think you do. If there were actually a man made problem with global warming, Trump is the only person on the planet that would actually do something about it. Cap and trade from Al and Obama would have accomplished nothing but make them ultra rich. Lots of words and lots of legal posturing and lots of fake facts, but no action, no decrease in carbon emissions, no decrease in global warming. Good luck with your global warming conspiracy theory.

 

[Peter1000]

So option one is read the Bible and pray a bunch with the express purpose of assuring yourself that it is true. Option two is to consider which is a more comforting option and then CHOOSE whether to believe or not based on what the belief offers you. How isn't your post just advocating self-delusion?

Self delusion exits both ways.

What I am saying is really very simple. Hedge your bet.

If there is no God, then you have no reason to worry. Eat, drink, and be merry for tommorrow we die and there is nothing else. (BTW is this attitude making your life here on earth the happiest it could be?)

But if there is a God, then your eat, drink, and be merry attitude will land you in a misfortunate place for eternity, because there is something else.

I believe my life on earth is better when I follow what God says to do. I believe over billions of years my God knows what makes a person the happiest they can be in their earth life. Hence He tell us how to be happy.
-For instance, if you murder a person and get put into prison or are executed after 30 years in prison, was that the happiest you could have been?
-If you commit adultry because you really love a married woman, and in the process you wreak havoc with your family and her family, leaving both in ruins, is that the happiest you could be.
-If you drink and gamble and cruise free, that may be wonderful for a while, but then you drink and drive and you smash into a wall at 60 miles an hour and you have to amputate your legs. Is that the happiest you could be.

I could go on and on and on about the misery in this life causedby not doing what God asks us to do.

My life is better and a happy life. For one reason I avoid the very deadly traps of living free and wild because I don't believe there is a God and I'm going to do whatever I wish.

My eternal life will be better also, so it is a win/win position for me.

Your position is at best a win/lose position, but it also may be a lose/lose position.

 

[Peter1000]

quatona says:

I see no good reason to believe that, and I see no good reason to assume that you have some secret knowledge about these things that I can rely on.

You don't rely on me.

You rely on your good common sense. If you maintain your belief that there is not a God, and there is, then all kinds of eternal consequences exist for you. You will not be a happy camper for all of eternity.

So do you want a happier life here on earth and a happier life in the eternities or not. Common sense says I'm for a happier life, so I must get over the idea that God does not exist. It is not that difficult, in stead of reading and studying those that do not believe in God, read a study those that do. Read the scriptures and pray and get into biblical evidences that do exist and start to doubt your doubts rather than doubt your faith.

I understand that you prefer your concept of heaven over your concept of hell.
Now, the problem is not my preferences, the problem is that you seem empty-handed when it comes to supporting your concepts.

Of course I would rather go through eternity in heaven than in hell, so I do what I believe is necessary to go to heaven and stay away from hell.
In doing that, I find that my life on earth is happier, and I have confidence that my eternal life will be happy also.

What evidences do you expect me to present to support my heaven and hell concepts. Do you want me to set up a meeting with God or an angel, so you can have a discussion and argue your preferences.

I read and study books that support the existence of God and books that support show us evidences that support the bible. All answers are not available though. You also have to have a certain amount of faith, which is not seeing what is existing. You have to work as though everything depends on you, and pray as if everything depends on God. Only when you experience a life with God as its center will you be able to appreciate what I enjoy, and you too will believe that God exists. Your life will change for the better and your eternal life will be moving in a different direction towards heaven instead of hell. You will love it.

There was little intellectual nutrition value in your post. Rather, it was an appeal to emotion and make-belief. It´s a little dangerous to go down that path, and in the next step encourage me to think about it.

No, it was an appeal to common sense management of your life on earth.
If God exists, your path will lead to an undesireable eternal life, why risk that.
If God does not exist, then continue on whatever path you wish, because there is no risk, we were an accident, and it is all over when we die.
Common sense tells you reduce risks and increase happiness here and for all eternity.

The intellectual nutritional value will be in the good books that you start reading and the study of the scriptures and the study of evidences, and your living a God-centered life. So I will not ask you to think about it this time, I will ask you to do something about it.

I will wait until you respond to this post, but if you wish, I will give you a list of books to start reading.[/QUOTE]

 

[Peter1000]

What does the Nobel Peace Price have to do with science or scientific consensus? It's a political award, it has nothing at all to do with science.

As for addressing a scientific community, he was president of the united states at the time. It's his job to talk not only to scientists, but industry leaders, businessmen, religious leaders, social activists and and other number of groups. Again, the fact he won the peace prize is irrelevant to anything to do with science.

I was only using that Noel Peace scam to give you the time frame for the global warming scientific data scandal at Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia (UEA). Nothing else.

Yeah, and guess how those mistakes and fraudulent proclamations were discovered? By other scientists showing evidence that the fraudulent and mistaken proclamations were fraudulent or mistaken.

The scientists who put out nonsense data were cut down and discredited by other scientists, that's peer review in action. Exactly how I'm saying that it works, and what you're claiming doesn't happen. Your own argument is torn to shreds by this post. If all the scientists were in on some conspiracy, then the fraudulent data would have never been exposed as fraudulent.

Well, the article I read was that hackers hacked into their data base and found out that they were manipulating data for a report, I think for the Helsinki scientific meeting with Obama. It was a major scandal that still has hurt scientists of global warming fame.

So as far as I can see, hackers, not peer reviewers. I don't know what has happened to the stupid scientists. I'm sure they have been awarded the Nobel Data Award for their contribution to defend global warming.

Talking about scientists and scandals. Have you ever read about a scientist by the name of Michael Mann?? He is the worlds foremost scientist on global warming and was the first to show that the climate has dangerously risen at the end of the 20th century, with a study of 1,000 year old climate data.

He hammers President Trump almost weekly for his distrust of scientifc data surrounding gobal warming.

Well, as it turns out, other scientists have questioned Mann's data and application of it towards scaring people about global warming and doing it very publicly. So Mann did something really stupid. He sued them in a Washington DC court.

The first thing the defendents did was file for discovery. They asked for all the data and the method that Mann used to come up with his data graph that has been used the world over to show the dangers of global warming. Mann was stunned and has not given up his data and says he will not for these people who are slandering him. Read about it at:
Court Battle: Michael Mann Losing, Gives Tim Ball ‘Concessions’ | Principia Scientific International

It's a hoot.

 

[Peter1000]

Life is crazy if a simple matter of settling on the wrong belief would create such problems for the future. It opens up an infinite series of "possibilities". If there is a God, but God prefers atheists to theists, then not being an atheist could have dire consequences for an eternity.

Believe me over the 2000+ years of Christianity, there will br atheists that will be treated more kindly than some theists by God. When you confess God and then do extreme things that expose you as a God hater, then one that professes no God will be on firmer ground in the eternities. Would hate to be a theist that really uses God's name for gain and power and absolute power regardless of what happens to people around him/her.

However, the true theist will fair much better than the atheist. Remember an atheist tries to convince people that there is no God. So will not be on God's list of friends. So a God fearing theist who is trying his/her best to live as God has asked will be in a much better position in the eternities than one who professes no God, and so suggests that we don't worry, and live high, eat, drink, and be merry for tommorrow we die.

I will try to be on the good performing theist side, I think that will be safer than being on the atheist side and hoping God loves atheists.

Of course, which is why I would support life extension technologies if that means so much to you. If scientists could find ways to prolong human life, then you'll have that Ferrari instead of the Volkswagen that natural selection gave you.

I have not problem with life extension, as long as my health and body wears well. And you are right, if I knew I had 100 more years to live, I would probably be driving my Ferrari by the time I die. But if you can extend life even a few decades, you will still eventually meet your Maker on the other side, and He will put you in your Ferrari or in your nifty Volkswagen van.

You still have a choice, for your sake, I hope you choose wisely.

 

[Peter1000]

The Hindus believe we exist only as a dream of Brahmin, does that count?

Sorry, it is the same as we have never existed, which was eliminated a while ago. So thanks mark for the contribution.

 

[quatona]

quatona says:

You don't rely on me.

Indeed I don´t.

You rely on your good common sense.

Sometimes I do - depending on the subject.

If you maintain your belief that there is not a God, and there is, then all kinds of eternal consequences exist for you. You will not be a happy camper for all of eternity.

I don´t believe you.

So do you want a happier life here on earth and a happier life in the eternities or not. Common sense says I'm for a happier life, so I must get over the idea that God does not exist.

That´s not common sense - that´s an appeal to wishful thinking.

Of course I would rather go through eternity in heaven than in hell, so I do what I believe is necessary to go to heaven and stay away from hell.
In doing that, I find that my life on earth is happier, and I have confidence that my eternal life will be happy also.

That´s your perfect prerogative.

What evidences do you expect me to present to support my heaven and hell concepts.

I don´t think you have any evidences to support them.

I read and study books that support the existence of God and books that support show us evidences that support the bible. All answers are not available though. You also have to have a certain amount of faith, which is not seeing what is existing. You have to work as though everything depends on you, and pray as if everything depends on God. Only when you experience a life with God as its center will you be able to appreciate what I enjoy, and you too will believe that God exists. Your life will change for the better and your eternal life will be moving in a different direction towards heaven instead of hell. You will love it.

I´m starting to get the impression that you are preaching to me.

No, it was an appeal to common sense management of your life on earth.

It seems to me that many people appeal to "common sense" when they are otherwise empty-handed.

If God exists, your path will lead to an undesireable eternal life, why risk that.
If God does not exist, then continue on whatever path you wish, because there is no risk, we were an accident, and it is all over when we die.

Pascal´s Wager? Cute.

The intellectual nutritional value will be in the good books that you start reading and the study of the scriptures and the study of evidences, and your living a God-centered life.

And after reading those intellectually nutritious books I will start spreading intellectual vacuity just like you do?

So I will not ask you to think about it this time, I will ask you to do something about it.

So you concede that thinking about it isn´t such a good idea?

I will wait until you respond to this post, but if you wish, I will give you a list of books to start reading.

Don´t take it personally, but from what I´ve read here you aren´t the kind of person whose book recommendations I would rely on. But thanks for the offer.

 

[Eudaimonist]

What I am saying is really very simple. Hedge your bet.

If there is no God, then you have no reason to worry.

Even if there is a God, I might not have reason to worry. If there is a God that detests Christians, you might have reason to worry. Infinite imaginary possibilities leads to infinite potential worries for anyone.

Eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die and there is nothing else. (BTW is this attitude making your life here on earth the happiest it could be?)

That isn't my attitude. I'm not a hedonist.

But if there is a God, then your eat, drink, and be merry attitude will land you in a misfortunate place for eternity, because there is something else.

It could offer me eternal life, if God loves hedonists. Or it might meet with indifference, if God doesn't care what I do with my life.

I believe my life on earth is better when I follow what God says to do.

Yes, I know that's what you believe. I care only about good arguments and evidence to back up beliefs, so that it's not just a matter of who believes what.

I believe over billions of years my God knows what makes a person the happiest they can be in their earth life. Hence He tell us how to be happy.

Great, I might even agree with some of your values, but I don't believe that Christians possess the Key to Happiness, and even if you had an exemplary morality, that wouldn't establish the existence of your God.

My life is better and a happy life.

I am happy that you are happy. Are you happy that I am happy?

For one reason I avoid the very deadly traps of living free and wild because I don't believe there is a God and I'm going to do whatever I wish.

It's a good thing that I don't believe in living a "free and wild" life. I believe in natural cause and effect. One should have a care for how one acts if one intends beneficial outcomes. Acting in a "free and wild" way could be disastrous.

My eternal life will be better also, so it is a win/win position for me.

It would be a losing position if I would sacrifice my integrity just to act in a certain way out of fear of divine retribution.

Your position is at best a win/lose position, but it also may be a lose/lose position.

No, it's a winning position. I live with integrity in this life (win) and let death attend to itself, knowing that I didn't lose the value of the only life I have if death is non-existence (win). If I "lose" in death because I failed to guess the correct answer out of a potentially unlimited number of possible answers for how to get into the best afterlife, at least I have my integrity (win).


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

Believe me over the 2000+ years of Christianity, there will br atheists that will be treated more kindly than some theists by God.

I don't believe you.

However, the true theist will fair much better than the atheist.

This is all according to your personal beliefs. I'm not sure why I should agree with you, instead of, let's say, a Universalist.

Remember an atheist tries to convince people that there is no God.

Not necessarily. I wouldn't know how to convince anyone that there is no God. What makes me an atheist is that I don't believe in the existence of a God. While I might debate Apologetics, I have no expectation that I will deconvert anyone, and no one has ever told me that they deconverted because of anything I have said.

So will not be on God's list of friends.

Again, these are just your personal beliefs. If there is a God, he might prefer atheists who use the brain that He gave them.

So a God fearing theist who is trying his/her best to live as God has asked will be in a much better position in the eternities than one who professes no God, and so suggests that we don't worry, and live high, eat, drink, and be merry for tommorrow we die.

Not. A. Hedonist.

I will try to be on the good performing theist side, I think that will be safer than being on the atheist side and hoping God loves atheists.

If you wish to live in fear and seek safety, go right ahead.

You still have a choice, for your sake, I hope you choose wisely.

Yes, I already have. I sided with integrity.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Peter1000]

Eudaimonist says:

Even if there is a God, I might not have reason to worry. If there is a God that detests Christians, you might have reason to worry. Infinite imaginary possibilities leads to infinite potential worries for anyone.

Your view of Christians could be colored by how some Christians act these days. Mormon Christians do not believe the same as mainline Christians, many of whom thoughout the history of Christianity are considered saints, but will feel the wrath of God when the light is shown on their true actions.

But if there is a God, there are not infinite possiblilities. God is pretty straight-forward and you know where you stand. Non-believers will find themselves on the wrong side, even with great integrity or not. But you may find yourself in better circumstances than a Christian who is all light on the outside but has no integrity on the inside.

That isn't my attitude. I'm not a hedonist.

I'm glad to know that. Keep up the good work.

It could offer me eternal life, if God loves hedonists. Or it might meet with indifference, if God doesn't care what I do with my life.

Not sure where you got your ideas from. God does not love hedonists. God is not indifferent with what you do with your life. He does love you, though, even with all your blemishes.

Great, I might even agree with some of your values, but I don't believe that Christians possess the Key to Happiness, and even if you had an exemplary morality, that wouldn't establish the existence of your God.

Christians don't, but Mormon Christians do. The Key to Happiness is knowing God and knowing His principles for being happy here on earth and in the eternitites. Then when you apply those principles and you can access God and His vast influences, your life will be different. Good different. Does that mean you will not have set backs or fall into a pit, no, but what that means is you will be able to avoid difficulties more readily and recover quicker so that your life continues to flow evenly and smoothly with the confidence that after death you will find a continuation of your earth life.

So if you what to extend your earthlife, then find out about the true God of the universe and how it can benefit you here and on the other side in exactly the same way, hence earthlife extention. Good idea.

I am happy that you are happy. Are you happy that I am happy?

I am happy that you are happy. I know that with slight modifications you can be happier than you thought was possible.

It's a good thing that I don't believe in living a "free and wild" life. I believe in natural cause and effect. One should have a care for how one acts if one intends beneficial outcomes. Acting in a "free and wild" way could be disastrous.

I like the aggressive confindence you talk about, I like that you are not leading a life 'free and wild' and that you have integrity. That is why I say a slight modification and you will move to a higher degree of happiness for ever.

It would be a losing position if I would sacrifice my integrity just to act in a certain way out of fear of divine retribution.

Acting in fear of retribution is the lowest level of knowing God. If you have the ability to move to the highest level it is because of love, not fear. You love God because of the many wonderful experiences that have happened to you through His great love towards you. It in some ways is the perfect partnership.

So don't lose your integrity, use it to know and come to love God, then your position will be win/win.

No, it's a winning position. I live with integrity in this life (win) and let death attend to itself, knowing that I didn't lose the value of the only life I have if death is non-existence (win). If I "lose" in death because I failed to guess the correct answer out of a potentially unlimited number of possible answers for how to get into the best afterlife, at least I have my integrity (win).

This proves you are a complicated person. My life is much simpler, but fuller.
I win in this life because I love God and He loves me. I win in the next life because I love God and He loves me. I am happy because I too have integrity and I have a God to access when I need help, and He is willing to help because He knows I love Him.

The Key to happiness is 'access' to a limitless God.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, if something exists outside of human minds and exists irrespective of human feelings, desires, and opinions then it exists objectively. God's valuing of humanity exists outside the mind of humanity and irrespective of any human belief or opinion, therefore it exists objectively.

de: Human doesn't enter into it. For example, if an alien had certain opinions would that then become objective reality just because a human didn't think of those things?

First, Only God and humans exist that care about morality. There is no evidence for aliens. Second, God's morality is not an opinion. An opinion is not based on reality or facts as seen in the definition:
o·pin·ion
NOUN
opinions (plural noun)

1. a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge

God's moral law is based on the fact of his moral character.

de: Things that are objective exist in reality, independent of a mind, or the opinions and views of the being in question.

God's moral character exists in reality independent of a mind or the opinions and views of the being in question.

↑

ed: How do you know this? Not all humans agree with this. What about unborn humans? What about humans in a coma? That is just your subjective opinion based on your brain chemistry brought about by evolution. Stalin believed that the aristocracy and devout Christians deserved to die and be eliminated from society, his belief came from the same sources as yours, how do you know your brain chemistry is right and his is wrong?

de: Because Stalin's views were objectively harmful to millions of people. Taking a healthy person and killing them is by any reasonable definition harmful to that person.

Likewise, taking a sick person and making them healthy again is objectively helpful to that person, by any reasonable definition.

Yes, but what objective reason is there for not harming millions of people? It is just based on your sentimentality for your own species. But that is speciesism because no species deserves any more protection than any other species if atheistic evolution is true.

de: Morality must be taken on a case by case basis however, as some situations may involve grey areas or other weird conditions, however in general most people have a pretty similar view on right and wrong regardless of their religious views.

This is true, because we are all created in the image of the same moral Creator. This would be unlikely if we are just an accident of nature.

↑

ed: I am not taking credit, I am just stating historical facts.


Many Biblical Christians argued against slavery 200 years ago. Most of the leaders of women's suffrage were Christians also. Many Christians argued against segregation 50 years ago.

de: Many Christians also support same sex marriage, gay rights, and trans rights and have worked to further those causes.

But the cases I am referring to were fought for by orthodox Christians. Those who support the things you mention are not orthodox historic Christians and do not have a rational or biblical basis for supporting those things. They are only supporting those because of their feelings.

de: However you can't reasonably argue that the overwhelming force trying to keep those people oppressed are Christians acting on religious grounds. If you look into the history of civil rights, from slavery, to segregation to women's rights and more, you'll see a similar story.

However, now, decades in the future when those things are considered settled issues, Christians try to take all the credit. Just as they will for gay and trans rights a few decades down the road.

I doubt it, all the liberal denominations that accept those things are losing members, orthodox churches are generally growing around the world.

de: Here's a great video of a christian pastor proving this very point a few years ago when the gay rights issue was still at the forefront:

It's the exact same thing we're hearing now, almost word for word.

This preacher shows his ignorance and confusion. Homosexual behavior is a behavior, racial discrimination is based on skin color. Skin color and behavior are entirely different things. Just as modern laws restrict and discourage smoking for health reasons, so it should be for homosexuality as science has shown that it is not good for you physically or mentally.

 

[Eudaimonist]

But if there is a God, there are not infinite possiblilities.

I think that you've misunderstood me. When I refer to "God", I'm not necessarily endorsing the standard Christian concept of God. I mean any "supreme being". It doesn't have to be an official Christian concept of one. It might not be any God that you would recognize, other than being supremely powerful.

At the moment, not only do I not believe in the existence of a God, I have no reason to think that if there were a God, that this God would conform to an essentially Christian view.

I am happy that you are happy.

Thank you.

Acting in fear of retribution is the lowest level of knowing God. If you have the ability to move to the highest level it is because of love, not fear.

Pascal's Wager seems to appeal to fear more than love, but okay. I do think that many Christians love what they believe to be God.

You love God because of the many wonderful experiences that have happened to you through His great love towards you.

What sort of experiences are you referring to?

So don't lose your integrity, use it to know and come to love God, then your position will be win/win.

I only intend to know and love reality. So far, I have no good reason to think that reality involves a God. That, for me, is win/win. I don't lose for failing to believe something unreal. That is, instead, another win. And even if I am mistaken, I still have my integrity, which is another win.

This proves you are a complicated person. My life is much simpler, but fuller.

That is only your belief. You don't know me, and have no direct means to make such an evaluation. I'm not sure why I should take this statement seriously. It sounds too much like "the party line".


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

God's moral law is based on the fact of his moral character.

Why should God evaluate his moral character as "good"? Is it "good" simply because that just happens to be what his moral character is, and he simply defines it as "good"? Or is it good because there are facts and a standard that lead to the conclusion that it is "good"?

God's moral character exists in reality independent of a mind or the opinions and views of the being in question.

So does my moral character. So does anyone's. There has to be something more to it than that.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
If they argue in favor of special sexual rights for gays then they will be violating orthodox Christian teaching and therefore are unlikely to actually be Christians.

de: What gay people choose to do in their bedroom is no business of these Christians who wish to legislate against them, therefore they should keep their noses out of other people's sexual lives.

I am not saying that there should be bedroom police, I am just saying that like the government does with smoking, it should discourage such behavior because science has shown that engaging in homosexual behavior is not good for you mentally or physically. And of course, the government and society should not recognize gay "marriage" because there is no such thing and it does not fulfill society's main purpose of marriage which is to produce and raise children.

↑

ed: Transgenderism is something different from homosexuality. Science has not quite determined what it is. Most of the evidence points to it being a serious mental illness similar to anorexia since the person cannot seem to recognize reality. When they look in the mirror they see the opposite sex of what they are, just like when an anorexic looks in the mirror and sees a fat version of themselves when they are actually deathly thin. But there is a chance it could be a result of the fall of humanity and a sin distorted world where someone may actually be a female spirit or soul trapped in a male body or vice versa. So how they should be treated is still in flux.

de: Science is pretty clear on what transgenderism is, and it's nothing like you're describing. I suggest you start getting your science info from scientific texts and not from what your pastor has to say.

The anorexic theory DOES come from scientific texts written by award winning psychiatrists Dr. Paul R. McHugh and Dr. Lawrence S. Mayer. Read their report in Fall 2016 issue of The New Atlantis.
↑

ed: We do know that over 80% of children that believe that they are the opposite sex change that believe by the time they become adults. So using surgery and hormonal treatments on children is probably wrong.

de: I would also generally disagree with someone doing that as well until the person in question is an adult.

Well I am glad you agree on this issue.

↑

ed: No, they are contradictory. Secular humanists can classify some humans as not worth saving from death Such as the very old and very young and very disabled. They don't have an objective standard by which they can be judged and be encouraged to work toward a superior standard because they don't have an objective one.

de: The objective standard is human wellbeing. If you refuse to save someone from death who can be made healthy and does not wish to die, you have objectively harmed that person. If you save a person in that situation, you have helped them. That is not open to opinion, that is testable and verifiable. If they were going to die, and they are now not going to die, that is an objective improvement in their health.

It's not rocket science.

We are all going to die, so if you save them even if they temporarily may feel they want to die, that is also a good thing. What is your definition of human wellbeing? That is a subjective term if there is no God. Stalin thought what he was doing was for ultimate human well being how can you prove he was wrong?

↑

edevaluation of human life and reduction of first amendment rights to name two things. Indoctrinating of children in public schools to reject America's Christian principles.

de: Secular humanists don't devalue human life, nor have they reduced your first amendment rights. Try again.

Allowing mothers to kill their children in the womb devalues human life greatly. Since Roe vs Wade, child abuse has increased exponentially because parents realize that they could have gotten rid of them earlier. Secular humanist judges and officials are forcing Christians to endorse messages that go against their religious beliefs thereby violating the free exercise clause of the first amendment.

↑

ed: They are more than just God's views on morality, they the moral standard incorporated into the universe and exist outside of human minds, thereby making them objective.

de: That makes no sense at all. How do you have a moral standard "incorporated into the universe", what does that even mean, and where did it come from?

It can be seen in how even natural laws "punish" you when you violate His moral laws. Such as when you are promiscuous you will probably get an STD. They come from His moral character.

de: Did god invent this standard, or did the standard exist independently of god?

No, He didn't invent the standard, it is part of who He is, ie His moral character.

↑

ed: Gods morality is based on God's objectively existing moral character. His character exists in reality outside of humanity's mind and beliefs and feelings, therefore it exists objectively.

de: See above

Nothing above refutes that His moral law is not an opinion because it is based on the fact of His objectively existing moral character. Just as the laws of physics objectively exist because even though they are non-physical they exist outside of human minds irrespective of what you believe about the laws of physics.