The Problems With Ethical Relativism (16 Viewers)

[Martin]

Ratio stems from the subject. It's human. It's our tool to see the world. It's like a language, a code. Anything that doesn't fit in that code, doesn't make sense and is not rational. "Culo" means something in Italian, but it doesn't in English.

Our code isn't designed to see God. So you can't use that code to say there is one.

Yeah, that is obvious. However that's not stopping people from making various obscuritist arguments like "you can't see god but you can see his effects in the natural world". Which noone can prove actually are the effects of god, for obvious reasons.

 

Buy on AliExpress.com

[Seven]

Yeah, that is obvious. However that's not stopping people from making various obscuritist arguments like "you can't see god but you can see his effects in the natural world". Which noone can prove actually are the effects of god, for obvious reasons.

I don't understand why this is so difficult for Juve Revolution. Even the friggin' Pope will tell him that there is no need for rational arguments. That's not what believing is about. If it was they would call it knowing. Not quite as sexy.

It's like using maths to read. Of course it won't work.

 

[Martin]

Do you think there can be said anything intelligible about the beginning of our universe?

Intelligible to me? Probably not. I suspect their conclusions are not particularly intelligible to many of the physicists either. As long as you make some statement about the world based on an equation, you obsessively keep checking your notes in fear that you've missed something. Until you can confirm by observation you'll always be in that uncomfortable position.

Last time I heard the official story is we haven't confirmed the big bang as such, ie. a singularity expands into a universe. We have confirmed it down to some small delta away from t=0 because it's hard to measure time in such a small interval or something like that. And interpolating from there we have the big bang.

But yeah, the same applies. I don't understand the big bang anymore than I understand a black hole.

 

[Dinsdale]

Intelligible to me? Probably not. I suspect their conclusions are not particularly intelligible to many of the physicists either. As long as you make some statement about the world based on an equation, you obsessively keep checking your notes in fear that you've missed something. Until you can confirm by observation you'll always be in that uncomfortable position.

Last time I heard the official story is we haven't confirmed the big bang as such, ie. a singularity expands into a universe. We have confirmed it down to some small delta away from t=0 because it's hard to measure time in such a small interval or something like that. And interpolating from there we have the big bang.

But yeah, the same applies. I don't understand the big bang anymore than I understand a black hole.

Yeah, we don't know what mechanism caused this big bang or if it's acausal. Of course the fundamental cause of everything should be acausal itself. Because we don't know what the fundamental cause is (yet?), there is still room left there for the existence of god. With god defined as a non-static ('personal'), acausal mechanism that caused the beginning of our universe or possible multiple universes. Can we ever know how this fundamental mechanism works? I don't know, but I wouldn't say no. Topics that are considered metaphysics today, might become physics one day.

Of course, if you use common sense you shouldn't accept any of the descriptions of god suggested by religion, because they don't make sense for many reasons. That's why I don't even bother discussing religion tbh.

 

[Martin]

Yeah, we don't know what mechanism caused this big bang or if it's acausal. Of course the fundamental cause of everything should be acausal itself. Because we don't know what the fundamental cause is (yet?), there is still room left there for the existence of god. With god defined as a non-static ('personal'), acausal mechanism that caused the beginning of our universe or possible multiple universes. Can we ever know how this fundamental mechanism works? I don't know, but I wouldn't say no. Topics that are considered metaphysics today, might become physics one day.

I find it hard to wrap my head around this stuff. Suppose there was no big bang and the universe was static, ie. the classic model I think it was called. Well then no explanation necessary, right? I still find that impossible to understand, both how anything can exists forever and how it can not! If it did not, what happened before? And if it did, I still can't understand it.

Of course with newer models the definitions are adjusted somewhat and time is defined to begin at the big bang, so before that there was no time. But how can you call that "before" then?

But that's the plight of us living in middle world, where everything is middle sized. We don't understand the microscopic nor the macroscopic.

Of course, if you use common sense you shouldn't accept any of the descriptions of god suggested by religion, because they don't make sense for many reasons. That's why I don't even bother discussing religion tbh.

That's a very annoying thing with most debates about god, because this god is unspecified and people have different ideas in mind. They're debating fiercely about something without an agreed common definition first.

 

[Raz]

But with god, where does it stop? I mean if or when we discover what is big bang, maybe other dimensions with their universes. There will still be people who will say regardless of the findings, that the god can not be denied, and he is above everything that is discovered.

For eg. If we would discover big bang cause, and we we would know 100% that it wasn't gods work. There will still be people who will say you can't know anything, and probably god caused the first cause which caused our universe.

In my opinion there is no stop from this, whatever our discoveries will be, some will stay that god exists above them.

 

[Dinsdale]

My point was that your definition still does not explain anything. Yes, could could be a being that moves through 4 dimensions. God could be a creature living in the black hole. God could be invisible old man sitting on top of your shoulder only when none can see him and is undetectable. What does that explain? What you said is not a definition of physically interpretable god. Anything that reacts with the real world leaves a trace. It is an ad hock concoction that uses discoveries/definitions/tools of science to fit bring imaginary being into "possible" existence. You start with a "god". That is not a starting hypothesis that is about to be tested.

Not that I believe in it, but it explains:
-How it's possible that an entity could have created our universe, because if it is higher dimensional it wouldn't be a part of our universe. The old man you mentioned couldn't have created our universe because he would be part of it himself.
-How it could observe us without us being able to observe it
-How it could interfere with our universe without us realizing it

It wasn't meant to be supertight model, but it gives an intuitive physical interpretation of many godlike properties imo. I didn't want to provide evidence for anything, I just thought it was something interesting to think about.

Yes, I used the starting hypothesis "god exists", but only in an attempt to evaluate the plausibility of that hypothesis and properties most people would call divine. What's wrong with that?

if it exist, it is natural. I repeat we have no other frame of reference but natural world.

Yes, but that frame of reference isn't fixed, is it?

science infers things from observable evidence. Science (and as you mentioned, i think, already) especially physics & maths deal with some abstract notions that are often very hard to understand (especially to this feeble brain of mine ). The point is that all those are tool that explain the world around us. They are used for make predictions based on current knowledge and prior experiments. IF it works it is kept until better explanation is discovered.

Saying god moves through 4 dimensions is not falsifiable and provides are with no explanation. We still don't have one positive characteristic of these creature. It is not even a hypothesis. It is, as i said, an ad hock definition that would fit the god in the gaps of knowledge section.

I know and I agree, I'm just trying to view things from an open minded perspective. At a certain level, we're all 'guilty' of ad hoc assumptions.

 

[Dinsdale]

I find it hard to wrap my head around this stuff. Suppose there was no big bang and the universe was static, ie. the classic model I think it was called. Well then no explanation necessary, right? I still find that impossible to understand, both how anything can exists forever and how it can not! If it did not, what happened before? And if it did, I still can't understand it.

Of course with newer models the definitions are adjusted somewhat and time is defined to begin at the big bang, so before that there was no time. But how can you call that "before" then?

But that's the plight of us living in middle world, where everything is middle sized. We don't understand the microscopic nor the macroscopic.

Well actually we're pretty damn close to describing how everything works at the most fundamental microscopic level. And if we get there, the same description should also still apply at the macroscopic level. The only thing we haven't figured out yet is how it all began. It's a question that makes most people's stomach turn when they think about it deeply, but that's why it's so challenging. And we should never assume our mind is limited and stop trying to look for answers for any question. Just look at how far the attitude of looking for answers to all questions has brought us already.

That's a very annoying thing with most debates about god, because this god is unspecified and people have different ideas in mind. They're debating fiercely about something without an agreed common definition first.

Well if you're debating with religious people, isn't the convention to define god by the set of dogmas used in their religion to describe god? I don't know a lot about religion, but don't those sets of dogmas always imply some contradictions? Frankly, that's why I have never cared about a religious interpretation of god.

But with god, where does it stop? I mean if or when we discover what is big bang, maybe other dimensions with their universes. There will still be people who will say regardless of the findings, that the god can not be denied, and he is above everything that is discovered.

For eg. If we would discover big bang cause, and we we would know 100% that it wasn't gods work. There will still be people who will say you can't know anything, and probably god caused the first cause which caused our universe.

In my opinion there is no stop from this, whatever our discoveries will be, some will stay that god exists above them.

True, you can't argue someone's beliefs.

 

[Martin]

Well actually we're pretty damn close to describing how everything works at the most fundamental microscopic level. And if we get there, the same description should also still apply at the macroscopic level. The only thing we haven't figured out yet is how it all began. It's a question that makes most people's stomach turn when they think about it deeply, but that's why it's so challenging. And we should never assume our mind is limited and stop trying to look for answers for any question. Just look at how far the attitude of looking for answers to all questions has brought us already.

We have explanations, but do we understand them, that's the question. I remember a physics class when the guy was teaching us about electron spin. I didn't understand any of it. And it's like that with a lot of things. You think to yourself that you would get it if you could see it, but you're not going to. I mean take the atom model. Most of it empty space, the whole thing kept in check with appropriate forces. Do I really understand that? No, I can't picture it, it's really hard for me to reconcile with the physical world I live in. Sure, I can draw a picture, but so what? I don't have a microscope I could use to gradually go from an atom to a piece of metal, say.

Well if you're debating with religious people, isn't the convention to define god by the set of dogmas used in their religion to describe god? I don't know a lot about religion, but don't those sets of dogmas always imply some contradictions? Frankly, that's why I have never cared about a religious interpretation of god.

That seems like a reasonable presumption, but how do you know what it is they believe? Just because they belong to some concrete religion doesn't mean they systematically believe all the dogmas. People do not survey all possible religions before picking the one they agree with, they just get enrolled in the same one as their family.

And JuveRev keeps saying he doesn't believe in the Christian story, he's made some tweaks of his own.

 

[Dinsdale]

We have explanations, but do we understand them, that's the question. I remember a physics class when the guy was teaching us about electron spin. I didn't understand any of it. And it's like that with a lot of things. You think to yourself that you would get it if you could see it, but you're not going to. I mean take the atom model. Most of it empty space, the whole thing kept in check with appropriate forces. Do I really understand that? No, I can't picture it, it's really hard for me to reconcile with the physical world I live in. Sure, I can draw a picture, but so what? I don't have a microscope I could use to gradually go from an atom to a piece of metal, say.

Yeah, not everyone has the same ability to understand an abstract theory, because sometimes it requires you to forget about the way you perceive reality in everyday life. We can't see stuff like forces and energy, but that's of little importance anyway.

(btw, we can see individual atoms with a microscope already.)

That seems like a reasonable presumption, but how do you know what it is they believe? Just because they belong to some concrete religion doesn't mean they systematically believe all the dogmas. People do not survey all possible religions before picking the one they agree with, they just get enrolled in the same one as their family.

And JuveRev keeps saying he doesn't believe in the Christian story, he's made some tweaks of his own.

Well, if they don't accept all the dogmas, they aren't defending their religion are they? Then they're agreeing that something is wrong with that religion.

 

[Martin]

Well, if they don't accept all the dogmas, they aren't defending their religion are they? Then they're agreeing that something is wrong with that religion.

Yeah, but that's not what they say. Everything is "god" and everything is "religion". There is no rigor in the ontology, they are words whose meaning is more emotional than concrete.

 

[rounder]

And JuveRev keeps saying he doesn't believe in the Christian story, he's made some tweaks of his own.

That's not true, I said I don't take Genesis literally, I believe it was meant to portray moral lessons and such. There are actually a number of things that suggest this.

The God I am arguing for is a metaphysical God, a supernatural power, a being that exists outside the realms of our universe, independent of space and time. I think I have made this point many times before. I am not arguing for the existence of the Abrahimic God, it is impossible to do so rationally. To believe in the Abrahimic God, it merely requires faith in the Bible.

It is only reasonable to argue for a desitic God at this point.

The origin of the universe.

A few quick points.
The Big Bang theory suggests that there was a beggining or a starting point in time some 14 billion years ago. Thus, there was a point where t=0 s, the Bing Bang wasthe initial cause of the universe.

What Craig suggests from a metaphysical point of view is that since everything that comes to existence must have a cause, it is logical to conclude that the Big Bang must have also had a cause. And since the Big Bang was the starting point in time and space themselves, a natural force could not have caused the Big Bang. Thus, we reach the conclusion that the Big Bang was caused by a supernatural force, God.

The premise of the argument is correct and the conclusion is logical. To prove this argument is false, you would have to prove his initial premise to falable. Untill you do so, his argument does stand.

I suspect you will ask "Well, if the universe had a cause, then God must have had a cause". I have recently opened a thread explaining the irrationality of that statement.

Seven, I have already mentioned a few pages back that God cannot be proven by science. I am not even suggesting that. I am merely stating that recent discoveries in modern science have provided overwhelming evidence for intelligent design, such as the teleological argument, and the cosmological argument. Thus, from this data, we may reasonably conclude that a supernatural creator is very much plausible.

Someone said the cosmological argument is a dead beat argument, if so, then please do show me.

 

[Seven]

No.

There has been overwhelming evidence against intelligent design.

There can also be no such thing as a teleological argument. That would make no sense whatsoever. It would mean you knew where you were going, before you even made your observations.

 

[rounder]

Such as?

Why not?

 

[Seven]

Such as?

Why not?

Human knees are a prime example of bad engineering.

You can't prove there's a purpose in life by saying there's a purpose.

 

[rounder]

Human knees are a prime example of bad engineering.

You can't prove there's a purpose in life by saying there's a purpose.

My bad, I did not mean that intelligent design in the sense, I meant it in the cosmological sense where all of the preconditions of the universe had to be perfect for life to possible. I thought you listened to Craig's arguments.

 

[Seven]

My bad, I did not mean that intelligent design in the sense, I meant it in the cosmological sense where all of the preconditions of the universe had to be perfect for life to possible. I thought you listened to Craig's arguments.

The preconditions were ALWAYS going to be perfect. You know the chances of them being perfect? 100%.

 

[Raz]

The preconditions were ALWAYS going to be perfect. You know the chances of them being perfect? 100%.

I think it was Bes who tried to explain this to him, with no luck though.

 

[Seven]

It is such an easy and such a logical idea though.

 

[Raz]

I agree, it certainly isn't one of the hardest to understand.