Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Morality existed well before any religious texts or belief in a Judeo/Christian god.

If there is a God, morality existed before anything existed.

Then why he reveal himself to the people that inhabited the earth before people settled in the Middle East?

One of my "too"s I'd short an "o", apologies.

Anonymous wrote:One thing I notice is that people seem to ignore the "field work" evidence in favor of God and miracles (since testing in the lab in some areas, not only in religion, is hard). I guess people believe the witnesses are either liars somehow trying to make a buck or nut cases. So, Jesus' disciples are either nut cases or liars for saying the tomb was empty. They died martyrs deaths because they were nut cases (or to protect their lie).

You want me to believe something as absolute fact when it was written down a couple of hundred years after if happened? It's not proof of a miracle. It's a story that I choose not to believe is factual. People attribute miracles to rain gods, Hindu gods and others, does that prove their existence to? Do you believe statues drink milk, too?

Anonymous wrote:Morality existed well before any religious texts or belief in a Judeo/Christian god.

If there is a God, morality existed before anything existed.

Anonymous wrote:It appears this thread has shifted away from "Tell me why you don't believe," and now is aimed at "Let me tell you why not believing is wrong."

Really? I think the nonbelievers are here in force.

Though the true atheists ("God is impossible") are remarkably few. The shades of agnostics run from apathetic to frustrated.

Morality existed well before any religious texts or belief in a Judeo/Christian god.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:how stupid. 19 pages of this? clearly there is no proof of God, nor is there proof of no god.

either you have faith or you do not.

Oh, you have to be kidding. The subject of religion has occupied humanity for at least the last 3,000 years. If that's not a relevant topic of discussion, I don't know what is. Surely not IHTT or "Hiding my shopping sprees from DH".

OP again, good morning! This made me laugh, which is good, because my husband is about to go TAD, and I am very sad and anxious about that objective truth

These PPs actually raise excellent points. The first PP correctly observes that ultimately, believers cannot prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that God exists, as nonbelievers cannot prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that God does not exist. Both believers and nonbelievers have faith that their position is true beyond a reasonable doubt, though, and that is where every such conversation must end.

The second PP is also exactly right. There could be no more important conversation. There are consequences when we accept or reject the existence of an absolute moral standard, a standard apart from our opinions about it. A long time ago on this thread, I mentioned that there have been many societies premised on the assumption that there is no God, that the material world came into being spontaneously, from nothing, for no reason, with no design. Some are still around. Does anyone on DCUM want to live in one of those societies?

Or are you content to live in a society predicated on the Declaration that "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, among these life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?"

Do any of the scientists and mathematicians here know the distance of the sun from the earth? How do you know? Have you experimented and measured it personally? Or do you accept the calculation based on the work of another? Why do you accept their authority on the subject? How do you know that measurement is true?

Many PPs have asserted that they can come up with many good reasons why it is wrong to rip the hearts out of little babies. And one PP stated the Aztecs were just mistaken in the facts. With correct information, they would have been able to make the right choice.

The problem with these alternatives to an absolute moral authority is that they are still mere opinions. And PPs would say, "exactly! Morality is a matter of opinion!". And I would say, that position has terrible consequences.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Well Stephen Hawking rejects argument #1 - 3 and arguably #6. He says there is no need for God in the current understanding of the origin of the Universe.

The way I think about it is this: Suppose the only thing that exists, pre-universe, is the possibility of a universe. Let's say that there is a 1 in infinity minus one chance that there will be a universe. Fortunately, there are infinite opportunities for a universe to happen, so a universe happens. (This all takes place when there's no time either, but let's not try to bend our mind around that.) Let's say that unlike our universe, the universe that happens is one in which fundamental truths about our universe to not hold true. Instead of E = MC^2, for example let’s say in this universe E=MC^3. I have no idea what that would specifically mean, but I understand it that fundamentally messing with the laws of the universe would make it unstable, in which case it collapses on itself we’re back to the no universe state with nothing but the possibility of another universe. But again, we have infinite chances, so another universe inevitably happens. Maybe that’s our universe, or maybe it takes infinity minus one tries to get to our universe, but eventually you get a stable universe, and here we are.

So that gets rid of the design argument.

this is so stupid. E=mc^3 isn't even dimensionally correct. What idiocy! And the odds calculation reminds me of the high school teacher who said the odds that the LHC would create a black hole that devours the universe is 50/50. What an uninformed attempt at a calculation of odd!

What are you, a lawyer or something?

Not the PP, but...in a thread suffused with sophistry and sloppy logic, way to nit-pick there. My guess is that you're a theist, but probably have a science background, and are dismayed at the arguments your side's offered up, so you thought you'd take out your frustrations on PP.

Anyway, it was pretty damned obvious what the point was: a universe where the Planck constant was 7.5 might not be a viable one. No reason to get worked up over what was actually a valid point. I'm guessing you have no response to the actual point made, though, otherwise you'd have made it by now.

nope. not a theist. Just a science teacher who is horrified that somebody, trying to defend science or use science in an argument, would use something in his argument that you learn is stupid during the first day of class in any science course beyond the elementary level. I guess this person must have taken science at some point, or he wouldn't be so enamored of it. It is frustrating and an embarrassment to my profession that he learned so little. (I hope it is not a she!)

I am not sure who is who in this catfight, but I just want to say that in M Theory, there may be as many as 10^500 universes, each with it s own physical laws. Given that, the possibility of a different planck constant or an exponentially different relationship between matter and energy is not improbable. 10^500 could contain a lot of variation.

A different value of the planck constant is certainly possible and even probable. E=mc^3 can not happen in any universe. A pound will never be a meter. They measure different things. The units on both sides of an equation always have to be the same or the equation is just silly. (sorry, I just can not help myself... am I really more offensive than the grammar and spelling police that haunt DCUM?)

One thing I notice is that people seem to ignore the "field work" evidence in favor of God and miracles (since testing in the lab in some areas, not only in religion, is hard). I guess people believe the witnesses are either liars somehow trying to make a buck or nut cases. So, Jesus' disciples are either nut cases or liars for saying the tomb was empty. They died martyrs deaths because they were nut cases (or to protect their lie).