An infinite series of finite causes.

[shunyadragon]

Shuny, you can not be trusted. You have a religious agenda, your faith requires matter and energy to be co-eternal with your god, you just try and dress your faith up in science.

Resorting to personal attacks is your modus seer when you cannot respond intelligently Pretty much most on Tweb realize that.

[seer]

Resorting to personal attacks is your modus seer when you cannot respond intelligently Pretty much most on Tweb realize that.

And you spread falsehoods: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...rlier-universe Why should anyone take you seriously?

[element771]

Actually, your use of the word "currently" is where YOUR argument falls apart. Religion deals in absolutes but scientific knowledge grows and evolves; the scientific hypothesis that seems to support a theological point now may not always support it.

Science also deals in absolutes...they are called laws.

And my argument doesn't fall apart, we then have to argue the science.

As you say, scientists currently say this universe has a beginning, but this does not take into account the proposed multiverse theory. Hence, the danger for theists using current scientific views to support a theological point is that the science may no longer support that point at a later stage.

When this occurs, the theist must then resist scientific advances (as many do regarding the possible multiverse) or acknowledge that science no longer supports their theological claim, which many seem reluctant to do.

Why do you care if the science might not support that point in the future?

Its their argument that is undercut.

Also, the multiverse is built on three layers of speculation. I understand that it is in the conversation but it does not yet pose a serious alternative to the above. But we can have that conversation which will then determine how convincing the argument is.

However, this has in no way proven that the science is being missused in any way.

[element771]

I missed this, and Tassman is correct. The above bold is a false statement.Science does not consider the universe to have a beginning in the theological sense, nor in any definitive physical sense. In science there are numerous possibilities including: cyclic models for our universe, multiverse hypothesis, and Black Hole hypothesis Even without these possibilities science currently considers the hypothesis that our universe began as a singularity, and the singularity to form from preexisting matter/energy. Absolute beginnings that would be a theological beginning of our universe nor our physical existence are not a remote consideration in science. It is often the case I hear apologists argue that science does not know nor cannot falsify hypothesis beyond the beginning of our universe therefore. . . is a fallacious arguing from ignorance.

Where did you publish your last peer reviewed paper?

[shunyadragon]

Where did you publish your last peer reviewed paper?

Ad hominem attacks are not a substitute for coherent meaningful responses.

I missed this, and Tassman is correct. The above bold is a false statement.Science does not consider the universe to have a beginning in the theological sense, nor in any definitive physical sense. In science there are numerous possibilities including: cyclic models for our universe, multiverse hypothesis, and Black Hole hypothesis Even without these possibilities science currently considers the hypothesis that our universe began as a singularity, and the singularity to form from preexisting matter/energy. Absolute beginnings that would be a theological beginning of our universe nor our physical existence are not a remote consideration in science. It is often the case I hear apologists argue that science does not know nor cannot falsify hypothesis beyond the beginning of our universe therefore. . . is a fallacious arguing from ignorance.

[JonathanL]

Ad hominem attacks are not a substitute for coherent meaningful responses.

He's not engaging in an ad hominem, he's asking you to back up your statement that you do science for a living. There's nothing "ad hominem" about that.

[element771]

Ad hominem attacks are not a substitute for coherent meaningful responses.

Where did you publish your last peer reviewed article?

Chrawnus is correct...it isn't an ad hominem, I am trying to verify your claims.

[shunyadragon]

He's not engaging in an ad hominem, he's asking you to back up your statement that you do science for a living. There's nothing "ad hominem" about that.

Yes it is Attacking and questioning my qualifications as a scientist instead of responding to the issues and questions where he has at least made one false science statement is a classic Ad hominem.

My qualifications are not in question unless there can dbe documented that I made false statements concerning science.

[element771]

Yes it is Attacking and questioning my qualifications as a scientist instead of responding to the issues and questions where hea has at least made one false science statement is a classic Ad hominem.

My qualifications are not in question unless there can dbe documented that I made false statements concerning science.

You said you are a scientist or your job is science.

I am asking you to back that up.

[shunyadragon]

Where did you publish your last peer reviewed article?

Chrawnus is correct...it isn't an ad hominem, I am trying to verify your claims.

My claims and questions have only to do with straight forward science, actually at the freshman college level and do not reflect my qualifications. You have made a fafse statement concerning science at the basic level based on a religious agenda, which amounts to the unethical misuse of science, and you fail to respond to the challenge and question


Yes it is Attacking and questioning my qualifications as a scientist instead of responding to the issues and questions where you have at least made one false science statement is a classic Ad hominem.

[element771]

My claims and questions have only to do with straight forward science, actually at the freshman college level and do not reflect my qualifications. You have made a fafse statement concerning science at the basic level based on a religious agenda, which amounts to the unethical misuse of science, and you fail to respond to the challenge and question


Yes it is Attacking and questioning my qualifications as a scientist instead of responding to the issues and questions where you have at least made one false science statement is a classic Ad hominem.

You claimed to have a job in science.

It was your first claim.

I am dealing with them one at a time.

[seer]

You claimed to have a job in science.

It was your first claim.

I am dealing with them one at a time.

I think he has a Associates degree in dirt science or something.

[shunyadragon]

You claimed to have a job in science.

It was your first claim.

I am dealing with them one at a time.

Not the subject of the thread. I have presented my qualifications previously over the history of Tweb G R Morton knows me personally as a geologist and soil scientist.

You are NOT dealing with the subject of the thread. You refuse to respond because despite any scientific background you may claim you are unable to back up your cliams and false statement concerning basic science.

Still waiting . . .

Answer the question.

. . . it is unethical to misuse science to support a theological/philosophical argument that is not grounded in objective verifiable evidence either from a theist or atheist perspective despite the fact that scientific findings are neutral to either belief.

Still waiting for examples of 'scientific findings' that may be used to support theological/philosophical question.

Also your false statement concerning the beginning of the universe and science.

Sure but that is where Tass' argument falls apart.

Theological point: Universe had a beginning.

Scientific point: Currently science says the universe has a beginning.

To say that someone cannot use this data to support this theological point is ridiculous.

I missed this, and Tassman is correct. The above bold is a false statement.Science does not consider the universe to have a beginning in the theological sense, nor in any definitive physical sense. In science there are numerous possibilities including: cyclic models for our universe, multiverse hypothesis, and Black Hole hypothesis Even without these possibilities science currently considers the hypothesis that our universe began as a singularity, and the singularity to form from preexisting matter/energy. Absolute beginnings that would be a theological beginning of our universe nor our physical existence are not a remote consideration in science. It is often the case I hear apologists argue that science does not know nor cannot falsify hypothesis beyond the beginning of our universe therefore. . . is a fallacious arguing from ignorance.

I am calling you out on basic foundation science at the freshman level of college.

[carpedm9587]

Again Carp, the fact that you see moral disagreement "all around us" neither proves subjectivism nor disproves universal moral truths.

I don't believe I said it did. If you think so, please link to the post where I did that.

And what you see as indoctrination I see as a God given moral intuition bent towards the absolute (Romans 2).

You are welcome to your interpretation. As I said, your interpretation and mine do not agree, and I don't believe you can make a case for it NOT being indoctrination.

Well you have not shown that universal moral norms are illogical, or violate any rule of logic, so what makes sense to you or not, is not really relevant - is it? Just your opinion.

They don't violate any rules of logic. Unicorns don't violate any rules of logic either. They don't exist either. Anyone can claim "X exists" Seer. Normally, if someone says "X exists," if they want others to believe that is true, they need to show it is. Otherwise, it's just another in a long line of unsubstantiated claims. The Lochness Monster. Bigfoot. Champ. I'm not going to waste my time trying to disprove these things exists. First, it's not possible. Second, it's a waste of time. Bigfoot believers will pretty much always believe in bigfoot. Moral absolutists/objectivists will always believe in moral absolutes/objectives - until they don't.

Meanwhile you cannot escape the relative/subjective moral chain:

1) You subjectively believe there is a god and subjectively value this god.
2) You subjectively decide to align your moral code to this god's moral code.
3) Lacking any direct revelation, you extract this moral code from the bible, which you subjectively interpret

If/when you cease to be Christian, and cease to value this god, your moral code will shift accordingly. If/when your selected community subjectively determines that their "interpretation" of "god's will" is wrong (perhaps homosexuality will be next - many other communities have already made this shift), your moral code will subjectively adjust to the new interpretation.

You cannot escape subjective/relative moralizing. And each time you'll attribute your former "errored interpretation" to "sin," and assure everyone that you still follow an absolute/objective moral code. This dance has been engaged in for millenia. It will likely not stop in our lifetimes.

[Tassman]

This part of what you wrote is what I meant earlier about people tending to want to turn to an external source, and I think this is exactly backwards because it gives "society" primacy. Moralizing is an individual activity. The collective moral norms of the members of a society is what is expressed as "the moral code" of the society. Seldom does the "social moral norm" align perfectly to any particular member, but the measure of "right/wrong" is not whether we align with the social norm. We measure right/wrong internally.

I’m not implying anything other than that, but it is the "collective norms" (i.e. society) that have primacy.

The social norm applies peer pressure, as do many other sources, on our internal moral code - but it does not dictate it. If it did, the person with a new moral insight would be "wrong" and "immoral" until they convinced the bull of the society to change. They might be wrong/immoral to much of society, but they would not perceive themselves as wrong/immoral as they set out om their quest to convince.

Certainly, this is how over the millennia we’ve moved from the crude ‘us v/s them’ values of a tribal society to one wherein we (at least in the developed world), espouse the universal values embodied by the declaration of human rights..