LuftWaffle

What do you base this belief on?

It depends. What if the free and comfortable society is evil? and the opposite is good? I can imagine a society that is very properous, where everybody lives in great comfort, where life expectancy is very high, where the population is growing fast, but this society is totally evil. Riddled with all kinds of immorality. Then one can imagine a society that struggles, living in constant threat, but they desire moral purity. See, the problem here is that you're assuming what you're trying to prove, I think. You've grounded morality in terms of what's good for people in terms of increasing pleasure and promoting survival. But what's pleasurable or aids survival is entirely subjective, and really doesn't say anything about what is right or wrong. As an additional point I'd like to ask why my preference matters? Suppose I'd prefer to live in a harsh society, full of suffering and malice, because it is my belief that the pleasant and prosperous society will make me soft. What then? Notice how subjective the notion that you're offering becomes? Thinking, reasoning, evaluating the data our senses give us, survival etc. To what end? Notice that I asked you what minds are ultimately for. Surely you can see that my comment wasn't so much about what you wanted Isaiah to think about as it was about thinking itself. In other words I wasn't talking about slavery, but about rationality. Yes, slavery in the sense of exploitation of those one deems as inferior, is wrong. If you say better standard, then it implies that you have some means of comparison, right? What standard do you use to compare which standard, biblical or not, is better... What better standard could you come up with than do unto others as you would have them do unto you? I'm curious, why do you believe that humans have intrinsic value?

I'm just trying to understand how you distinguish between human and primate from a moral perspective. This is a discussion about morality and dealing with the topic you've stated that we're advanced primates. I've put forth that saying that, really doesn't say anything about what humans ought to do, since primate behavior involves many things that would be unacceptible if humans did them. In otherwords, the notion that we're primates falls short of addressing human morality. How does one bridge that divide? But those reasons are purely subjective. Why should anybody care what's important to any particular individual? Why is that? Are you a materialist? In other words do you believe that all of reality can be explained in terms of particles and natural laws? If so, where does that leave "choice"? Sure, but that's a small price to pay for the greater pleasure my gang and I will have, plus our actions would improve the survival of the human race, since we're bigger and stronger than you. We're propagating our genes afterall. What do you mean by "good for you"? In what sense are you using the word "good" here? Good in terms of survival? continued...

In the context of morality, what in your opinion is "human"? Why not just respond to my point instead of veering off into Deuteronomy? I asked you how advanced primates ought to behave and why the examples that I gave would be wrong. Surely you can come up with atleast some reason why raping your girlfriend would be wrong, other than a red herring, right? I'm not sure I understand your point. What are human minds ultimately for, according to your view? Firstly, you didn't ask the question to me, you asked it to Isaiah 6:8, who has answered you. If you meant for the question to be answered by all participants in this thread, then asking it in response to another poster isn't a good way to go about it. Secondly, I'm not American and know little about American history or the North vs South business, so really, I have nothing to add to that. What I can say is that the Christian faith is clear that all human life has intrinsic value, because all human beings are made in the image of God. That's our standard, what's yours?

Ignoring the fact that much of what you said is pure speculation, I'd bet though, that you wouldn't like it very much if we came to your house and behaved like advanced primates. If you want us to stop throwing poop around and using your Playstation as a tool for cracking open milk cartons and yogurt tubs, would you appeal to human decency or would you appeal to advanced primate etiquette (whatever that may be)? Suppose we beat you up and have sex with your girlfriend? Would that be wrong because humans aren't supposed to do that, or would it be fine because primates are supposed to do that? Common survival goal and all that... What is acceptable behavior for an advanced primate? Secondly if your mind is solely focussed on the goal of survival, then how can we trust what you have to say? What's good for survival may not necessarily be true, so if truth is not the objective in this discussion or any mental exercise for that matter, then reason and argument becomes meaningless. So ultimately, when you ask us to "Think about that for a bit", are you asking us to evaluate the truth value of your post, or should we reflect on the happiness and survival value of what you said?

Viole, Although the Chesterton and Berlinski quotes cover a wide scope of topics, I posted them because of what they have to say applies to the topic of morality. The point specifically is do highlight the inadequacy of materialism to really deal with morality as well as other issues. Materialism isn't capable of penetrating beyond the trivial and superficial, attempting to do so usually results in underming itself. My intention wasn't to introduce a new topic for discussion, namely whether or not death is necessary or what should be said to a dying person. If you feel that the topic of morality has been fully covered and would like to move on then, I guess you're welcome, but I won't be available to participate. I will however leave a short answer, which hopefully, you'll give some thought to and not just reject out of hand. My answer involves an anecdote, so be warned Sometimes my wife would ask me, "Why is the milk on the kitchen counter?". What she really wants to know is if there's a purpose for the milk not being in the refrigerator where it belongs. Did I forget it on the counter, or am busy using the milk? Sometimes, just to be funny, I reply, "Gravity, mostly...It's on the counter because of gravity..." Usually she's not impressed by this answer. The point is this: I have given her a perfect reasonable scientific explanation for why the milk is on the counter. The problem is scientific explanations have nothing to say about final causes. The final cause here is a will or a purpose, and that's what she really wanted to know. This inability of materialism to get to the final cause is demonstrated by Dawkin's response to the question of purpose and meaning in a debate (in Argentina I believe). Having no answer, Dawkins' only retort was that "Why" questions are silly questions. I believe it was Carl Sagan, whose reponse to why we are here was something to the effect of, "We are here because some complex molecules happened to self-replicate, and because some fish were fortunate enough to grow legs, and because one ape-like common ancestor happened to start walking upright. etc. etc" Notice how Sagan's answer is similar to my milk bottle remark. Though it may be scientifically acceptible, it's as Berlinski shows remarkably shallow. Telling a dying man that life is short because otherwise evolution can't happen, is equally shallow. In fact, it doesn't even touch the real question. Now, you could say, science has no answers because there are no answers, but this merely begs the question and as C.S Lewis pointed out, the human desire to transcend seems to imply its reality. "My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet. Of course, I could have given up my idea of justice by saying that it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too–for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist–in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless–I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality–namely my idea of justice–was full of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning" - C.S. Lewis Another problem with saying that science can't explain these things because there are no explanations, is the inconsistency inherent in that approach on one hand a deferring to future scientific discovery on the other. One approach says, "What science cannot explain doesn't exist" the other says, "What science cannot explain will be explained in future". It seems then that the materialist has the convenience of using science to explain through deferral to future discovery, any notion that the materialist wants to retain or make non-existant any notion that the materialist wishes to reject. I'm going away for a few days, so I won't be posting soon, but perhaps OES or PGA will continue this discussion with you. Cheers

Cool, I'll be sure to check it out.

I'd like to make another point, that I think has become so painfully obvious in this discussion that it would be a shame not to point it out. Isn't is remarkable that whenever a secular humanist or atheist really thinks about their words, when they make an effort not to borrow from opposing worldviews and when they consciously try to avoid contradicting themselves, their statements become hollow and meaningless. Stunted and awkward sentences riddled with disclaimers in brackets, that are all but impotent. Fundamental concepts that are part and parcel of what makes us human such as love, glory, beauty, meaning, good and evil, spirit need to be suffixed with "Whatever that means" or "as I subjectively perceive it". Even a simple apology becomes an awkward statement of "I am feeling a sorry-like emotional response that you had an offended-like emotional response to my words" These little disclaimers are necessary in order to prevent contradictions and to retain some semblance of logical coherence. Without them the materialist becomes a fool, but with them, the materialist effectively becomes silent. Saying nothing of value at all.

Your points are well taken. I have yet to see an atheist/secular human argument concerning morality that employed anything other than subjective opinion as if it 'should be' considered valid in an objective sense. The question is why is that subjective opinion valid in an objective sense? It is just one of a myriad of subjective opinions. The secular humanist tries to make it objective by appealing to science, that has its own quagmire of opinions on events in time that are not provable by repeatable or observable methods. Rather the scientist first starts out with his/her bias intact and then starts interpreting the information from that bias. When you start digging into what undermines these opinions the answers usually state that science has not found out why such and such is valid yet, but the answer is right around the corner. They are trying to valid something as proven before it has actually been proven in many cases of evolutionary or origins science, and these proofs lead back to one time events/occurrences in time that cannot be duplicated or repeated. Hi PGA, What you say is very true indeed. Scientific boasting, I think has mislead a lot of people into thinking that science has all the answers, and if we just wait a little while, science will reveal all these answers to us. This, I think is quite naive, and I agree with mathematician and philospher of science David Berlinski when he writes: "These [speaking of scientific ideas] splendid artifacts of the human imagination have made the world more mysterious that it ever was. We know better then we did what we do not know and have not grasped. We do not know how the universe began. We do not know why it is there. Charles Darwin talked speculatively of life emerging from a "warm little pond." The pond is gone. We have little idea how life emerged, and cannot with assurance say that it did. We cannot reconcile our understanding of the human mind with any trivial theory about the manner in which the brain functions. Beyond the trivial, we have no other theories. We can say nothing of interest about the human soul. We do not know what impels us to right conduct or where the form of the good is found. On these and many other points as well, the great scientific theories have lapsed. The more sophisticated the theories, the more inadequate they are. This is a reason to cherish them. They have enlarged and not diminished our sense of the sublime. No scientific theory touches on the mysteries that the religious tradition addresses. A man asking why his days are short and full of suffering is not disposed to turn to algebraic quantum field theory for the answer. The answers that prominent scientific figures have offered are remarkable in their shallowness... While science has nothing of value to say on the great and aching questions of life, death, love and meaning, what the religious traditions of mankind have said forms a coherent body of thought." I think Berlinski is on to something. Afterall one need to only look at Dawkins' bus campaign which states, "There's probably no god, so stop worrying and enjoy your life". Those who declared themselves to be rational, free thinkers have pooled their resources and their funds, and their enlightened message, the best wisdom that they can impart to all of humankind is: "Don't worry. Be happy"? I also agree with you that science today, especially origins science has become goal oriented, driven by philosophical biases instead of discovery. God bless.

Three ad hominem attacks. Attacking the skeptic does not really address the issues about objective morality. Red herring. You are trying to divert attention from the issue by talking about revolution nonsense. Either that comes out from your phantasy or you have an example of politicial/phylopher that acts like that. Either way, that does not address the objectivity of morality. Another red herring. What has this to do with objective morality? I also find it slightly insulting, if I were a Russian pessimist. Another retorical diversion. Another one with a bit of ad hominem. Can you be a bit more specific and explain what that means and how it fits with the current discussion? Ad hominem. I never said I rebel against anything, but even if I did that would not be relevant to disprove my claims, so, red herring, too. Dear Chesterton, your message is littered with logical fallacies. I can only use OESD words here, since I could not make it any better than he did: "Here's the thing, Chesterton... you can't reject the rules of logic and still be rational. I hope you don't mind if I ask, but have you actually put in any kind of systematic study of the rules of logic in order to understand and identify fallacious reasoning?" So you went and did it anyway... This is demonstrably false. We never said that you can't attack the message, in fact we even highlighted the salient point of the quote to help you 'find' the message, instead of just slicing up the quote and writing irrelevant oneliners against each sentence, which as anticipated would detract from the salient point (which you failed to address yet again) and would be a dishonest tactical move. This sillyness is getting a bit too much, so I will be watching the thread to see if you'll actually respond to the points that PGA and I have made. Remember PGA made some good points, which you completely ignored in favour of trying out your thought experiment. The thought experiment has been demonstrated to be a non-starter as it assumes precisely what you're trying to disprove. You have also made some other moral judgements such as stating that objective morality is anthropocentric, but you have not explained why anthropocentrism or racism or chauvenism is undesireable apart from your own subjective feelings. You have yet to explain why your feelings are more important than anybody else's. Thus far, as PGA has stated, you have not made sense of morality apart from appealing to future discoveries and "other options", neither of which ironically pass your own criteria of testability and observability. When I stated that Christianity can explain morality, your retort was that just because something can explain something doesn't make it right, but yet you haven't provided an explanation of your own. So while shooting down Christian arguments your own worldview isn't capable of carrying even it's own weight without borrowing from Christianity. I have mentioned that for atheism to be taken seriously it cannot just rely on rejecting ideas, while not offering anything of it's own. You have also attempted to redefine the meaning of "objectivity" which has been pointed out to you. Given the discussion thus far, I can only assume that if you had a good argument you would have used it by now, so what remains can only be knee-jerk responses and face-saving. It's been an interesting discussion. cheers LW

OES commented on your poor logic while making lofty claims about intellect. The problem with fallacies isn't that they invoke an 'emotional response', but because they're illogical and invalid, belying your claims that you're rational and logical. You still don't get it, do you? Chesterton's statement isn't a point by point argument, so answering to every point would be unnecessary, unless you're hoping to split the quote down into individual points in the hopes that that will detract from the core of the message. Which, if you choose to do that, will be a dishonest tactical move. I'm not saying that is your intention, though. Chesterton's point is very simple. Since sceptics tend to denounce moral absolutes (in order to avoid its implications), their morality becomes arbitrary, depending upon the hat that they've decided to wear at a particular moment in time. This leads to them undermining their own mines. It relates to this topic for the simple reason, that while in this discussion, right and wrong(ethically speaking) are mere chemical responses in your view, yet in a discussion on theology, you denounce God's judgement as wrong or unfair. You have stated that believing in objective morality commits anthropocentrism, but you have thus far not explained why anthropocentrism is a problem, and frankly I'm not surprised, because apart from stating that you don't like it, there's no imperative to avoid such an action. Your preferences simply do not carry any more weight than anybody else's if one is to accept your position. So by doubting moral absolutes you have lost the right to appeal to any moral imperative. In short, you doubt the doctrine by which you denounce.

Interesting to see the quote struck a nerve. Meaauw, eh? LOL, You're so transparent Well, at least I do not need the intellectual power of poets to support my ideas. Lol. Classic! Attacking the messenger while ignoring the message. Certainly a venerable naturlist tactic, but hardly impressive. I'll post again once your posts have some substance. ta ta

Interesting to see the quote struck a nerve. Meaauw, eh? LOL, You're so transparent

...I wonder what this has to do with the current discussion Yeah, who knows... I mean the topic is about morality and Chesterton makes some accurate statements about inconsistencies in sceptics'....moral claims.... You're right, totally off-topic. My bad. Lets stick to rainbows, geocentricity and aliens then, yes?

“But the new rebel is a skeptic, and will not entirely trust anything. He has no loyalty; therefore he can never be really a revolutionist. And the fact that he doubts everything really gets in his way when he wants to denounce anything. For all denunciation implies a moral doctrine of some kind; and the modern revolutionist doubts not only the institution he denounces, but the doctrine by which he denounces it. . . . As a politician, he will cry out that war is a waste of life, and then, as a philosopher, that all life is waste of time. A Russian pessimist will denounce a policeman for killing a peasant, and then prove by the highest philosophical principles that the peasant ought to have killed himself. . . . The man of this school goes first to a political meeting, where he complains that savages are treated as if they were beasts; then he takes his hat and umbrella and goes on to a scientific meeting, where he proves that they practically are beasts. In short, the modern revolutionist, being an infinite skeptic, is always engaged in undermining his own mines. In his book on politics he attacks men for trampling on morality; in his book on ethics he attacks morality for trampling on men. Therefore the modern man in revolt has become practically useless for all purposes of revolt. By rebelling against everything he has lost his right to rebel against anything.” ― G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy

First you say that you consider something wrong because it invoke an emotional response in you, and then it seems you extend that to something that's important within the scope of humanity. How do you get from important to Viole to important to humanity. Why should anybody care what emotions you have? If somebody killed somebody dear to you, would you want justice, or would you claim that nothing objectively bad has happened, you're just having a chemical reaction to the event. Why is your chemical reaction more valid than the chemical pleasure that the killer experiences when murdering? This is nothing but word play. You're redefining "objective" to mean something new so that you can claim to be objective when whimsical subjectivity makes you look silly. Then you have lost the right to make moral judgements on anything. You personal preferences simply do not matter, in the same way that my mobile phone doesn't have the right to comment on how I treat the microwave oven. Actually you are begging the question. You're simply stating that loving chocolate is a non-absolute just like murder, thereby assuming what you're trying to say, but the fact remains, your thought experiment loses its force unless it starts off with an evil deed. Why don't you do yourself a favour, go and ask people how they see a guy who lives a good life and then eats a packet of peanuts. Then is found to have a tumour. Do it and see if your thought experiment is as forceful as it is with an evil deed? Then come back and explain to us why your thought experiment fails unless you presuppose that murder is evil? Why is one aggregate of chemicals interacting with another aggregate of chemicals and evil thing and another one isn't? Prove it. Simply stating that there isn't an immaterial wrongness and that it's all chemical serves nothing except to reiterate your own beliefs. As a counter point all I need to do to point to a wrong act, such as genocide and unless people have a vested interest in denying morality, they'll declare such an act as wrong. In fact you have proven many times that you're quick to make moral judgements that you expect other to adhere to, thereby contradicting the position that you've taken now. Do you believe it's wrong for Westboro Baptist Church to picket the funerals of gay people? Or do you just not prefer it, in the same way you prefer a BigMac over a CheeseRoyale? I'm not prepared to run down rabbit trails regarding rainbows and other misrepresentations. Simply stating that naturlism cannot be swept under the carpet doesn't make it so. Placing your faith on "other alternatives" is nothing more than wishful thinking. The glory days when atheists could simply sit back and shoot down ideas without carrying any intellectual burden of their own are long gone, Viole. You have to account for reality just as much as we do, and thus far, apart from imagining other possibilities and alien moralities and hoping that science will bail you out in future you have provided no answers whatsoever. You have given no explanation for how a non-physical thing like morality can arise from physical matter, neither have you explained why such things should even be regarded important. By your own moral judgements you have proven that the minute you are offended in some way, you take your naturalist hat off, and put on your moral hat, appealing to right and wrong. Except that I didn't merely state that a bachelor is unmarried. I concluded that such and such has no wife based on him being a bachelor. That is not a tautology. Because a bachelor necessarily has no wife it is sound logic to conclude if someone is a bachelor they have no wife. Rephrasing my point into a tautology and then claiming that it's a tautology isn't very admirable. And in doing so, you've dodged the point that I made which was, "It's not question begging to posit a moral law giver because such is necessary if moral absolutes exist". You know this, which is why against all practical sense, you're denying moral absolutes, and instead opt to ground morality in subjectivity. I see where you are going. I also love chocolate and I cannot exclude a-priori that a brain tumor would make me hate chocolate. That does not mean that love-of-chocolate disappears as a concept, at least as long as the last chocolate lover is alive. And when the last chocolate-lover dies, what sense does it make to say that chocolate-love is an absolute value? Well, then everything, including chocolate-hate is an universal value.If a tumor can individually affect love-of-chocolate and sense-of-right-and-wrong, I fail to see a qualitative difference between the two concerning their psychological or algorithmic origin. Since nobody ever proposed a love-of-chocolate argument for the existence of God, I assume that we give a bias to morally relevant perceptions, but this could also be due a human adaptation that improves our chances to survive and propagate our genes, and is functional and useful only within this context. I have no idea what you're trying to say here. In terms of morality, saying that physical influences affect morality doesn't follow that physical things cause morality. In order to refute that you need to explain why you believe that logic works differently in this case. In the meantime I'd like you to explain to me "What's wrong with anthropocentrism? OR chauvinism OR racism, for that matter?" I'm sorry that I have to be this strict, but you have a habit of dodging questions relying on pseudo-logical objections, red herrings and rambling down rabbit trails, so I'm forced to emphasize points that you have missed.

Thanks I don't recall us arguing that morality extends to all beings. It seems you don't understand the meaning of a moral absolute. Moral absolutes mean that given a certain set of circumstances, there is a right and a wrong thing to do, regardless of subjective opinion or preference. Moral absolutes do not mean that certain actions are always wrong. Imagings do not make for good responses to the points raised thus far, but I'm curious though: If morality only applies to homo sapiens, why do you believe that it's wrong for God to have brought about the Noahic flood? Surely if God isn't a human being then by virtue of your own argument your moral views need not apply to God? The guy in the thought experiment was human, so speculating about non-human feeling really doesn't seem germane to the point. What's wrong with anthropocentrism? OR chauvinism OR racism, for that matter? What about my point that your argument only works with evil deeds in premise 1? You haven't really answered that, unless I missed it. If the thought experiment only works with evil deeds, then the argument defeats itself since it relies on the deed being seen as evil before the hidden twist is introduced. Invoking God in the moral argument isn't question begging because God(or atleast some moral law giver) is necessary for objective moral values to exist. Would you call it question begging if I argued that since person X is a bachelor he doesn't have a wife? So the emotional response that you'd feel when for instance somebody brutally kills somebody dear to you is nothing more than the same chemical sort of chemical response that eating pizza creates in your mind? Would you tell the judge that when the killer is apprehended or will you cry for justice instead? See, clever materistic excuses such as these are limited to lofty conversations on internet forums. I have yet to see somebody actually living out such ideas. Your views are thrown out the window the minute somebody cuts in front of you in the freeway. Which says something about the two opposing worldviews in this discussion. Christianity has an explanation for morality and it's practically livable. Atheism doesn't have an explanation apart from deferring to future scientific discovery (faith in other words) and it isn't practically livable either. That doesn't follow. You're saying X affects Y therefore X is the cause of Y. That's like saying, applying a magnet to your computers harddrive affects the data stored on it, therefore it's possible that the emails, pictures, spreadsheets, music and other information on your harddrive has as its final cause, a magnet. Would you like to respond to what PGA asked you, how does something non-physical such as morality come from something physical?

The thought experiment is interesting and seems to rely on a morally difficult question, somewhat akin to what one sees on TV shows such as The Practice and the Law and Order series. What I don't really see is how a morally difficult question serves to disprove the existence of moral absolutes. In fact it would only seem logical that the difficulty of certain moral questions underscores the importance of getting to the RIGHT moral solution. If there wasn't an absolute right and wrong, then morally difficult questions become easy. One could simply flip a coin or make a ruling based on the weather since there are no right or wrong solutions anyway. So while I think PGA has offered excellent responses in favour of moral absolutes I find the thought experiment rather anemic, and as such look forward to seeing Viole provide answers to PGA's points. I find the fact that he feels remorse rather interesting. If he didn't do anything apalling then why would he feel apalled? If he didn't feel apalled then the thought experiment loses its force. The other thing with thought experiments such as these is that they generally take on the form 1. Something evil happens. 2. Some hidden information is provided that lessens the evilness of the ocurrence. 3. Therefore morality isn't objective. It seems to me that these arguments must first recognise that 1 is evil. This thought experiment would be useless if it read as follows: A guy who leads a good life, suddenly gets bored and....eats some peanuts. Later medical examinations show that he had a tumour affecting his apathy centres...etc. etc. OR A guy who leads a good life, suddenly gets bored and...waves to a passerby that he encounters in the street.... It seems the thought experiment only works if the guy does something evil, but since the thought experiment is an attempt to disprove the existence of objectively evil things, the thought experiment seems to defeat itself. It must use an evil act in its first premise which it cannot recognise. This seems to be the case with most of these morally "gray" scenarios. Just my 2 cents.

I suppose it is possible, although I'm wary of the idea, for the simple reason that there no indication in scripture that God did use unformed matter that had been available prior to the beginning of Genesis. Ex-nihilo is virtually impossible to prove, since one can't prove a nothing. Proving a nothing proves nothing. Even if scripture said that God created the universe out of nothing, an objector might still question what is meant by nothing. Nothing could refer to chaos, a singularity, some sort of proto-matter or anything really. However I do think that when scripture is silent on something it's silent for a reason. I also think that if one cannot find an answer in scripture and logic has reached its limits, then looking at what geniune Christians throughout the ages believed, isn't a bad approach. So for that reason I think ex-nihilo is probably right even though your theory isn't unscriptural or logically incoherent. So, in short, while I don't see anything wrong with it, I also don't see a reason to believe it. If that makes sense? I, believe that God is omnipresent, and so by definition, is everywhere. I know there are some who believe that hell is hell because God isn't there, but I don't believe such a view is entirely scriptural. The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name. (Rev 14:10-11) This verse seems to suggest that the torments of hell are in presence of God. If hell and outer darkness are different then I think the same would apply to outer darkness. I believe hell/outer darkness, isn't the geographical absence of God, but the perceived absence of God. In other words, when God withdraws from the lost, He doesn't withdraw physically. So while I understand what you mean, by God being able to bring chaos into order, I think God is able to do that anyway through Christ. But one must also consider God's justice. Sometimes God destroys and wreaks chaos, as a judgement. I believe this is the case for lucifer and his fallen. May I ask, are you a universalist?

Thanks Candice. Much appreciated.

It's encouraging getting such a great compliment, and at the same time it's rather unfortunate to disappoint so shortly afterward: I have no good answers to your questions because I haven't given them much thought I'm afraid and the Bible doesn't explain much in this regard, but I'll be more than happy to walk down this road with you and see what we can learn. The best thing we can do is try and connect the dots and see if a picture forms. Looking at the 'dots'. 1. Third heaven. From my MacArthur study bible, the first heaven is our atmosphere, the second heaven is interstellar space, and third heaven is the abode of God. Whether the abode of God is within our 3 spacial dimensions but just really far away, or whether it's in a seperate dimension (which would make it close to us, yet infinitely unreachable) I simply do not know. 2. Paradise It seems that the third heaven is interchangeable with the word paradise. This is the same word that Jesus used when addressing one of the men crucified beside Him. I think paradise references Eden, although it may only be in the sense that it is a pleasant and perfect place, and not necessarily that the third heaven is Eden, (either far away or in another dimension). But then again, the Bible describes that God placed an angel to guard Eden after casting Adam and Eve out. So I guess it's possible that the abode of God is precisely that very Eden from which Adam and Eve were cast. If the third heaven is Eden, then we know that the third heaven came into existence during creation. If it's only a likeness of God's abode, then this doesn't help us in terms of where God's abode was before creation. 3. Formless and void By looking at the way the words are used throughout the bible, both terms seem to denote emptiness, or nothingness. Not chaos as such. It's possible that Genesis 1:1,2 is describing God initially defining the parameters of our reality. I think of God, setting up a placeholder for our world, a blank canvas. Then matter followed. I see this as the waters of the deep. Could it be that God used H2O as the basic element (here I mean unit, not chemical element) from which He crafted all other all matter? Could it be some gas such as hydrogen condensed into liquid form? I really don't know. Then God created light, concluding the first day. I would sum up the first day then as: 1. Setting up the framework for the universe. 2. Forming the earth from a basic material element. 3. Creating light. 4. Outer darkness This is an even more difficult question. It seems atleast according to some passages and some demons are bound up in the abyss, which is desribed using the same term as "waters of the deep". Again whether this is the actual waters of the deep, or merely a likeness, in terms of a cold dark blurry spiritual limbo, I don't know. 5. Ex-nihilo vs Ek-Theos I don't really have a problem with the term Ex-nihilo. I see it as a stipulative definition denoting that God didn't use any existing material to create the universe and I think that's how it's understood by most. Perhaps the term isn't perfect, just like 'black coffee' actually being dark brown, but I think people understand its meaning. That's all I got for you I'm afraid. Let me read between the lines a little and see if I can address some concerns that you may have. 1. Does uncertainty in what is meant by "waters of the deep", "third heaven" etc. show that these should be taken as non literal? I'd say no. If a forensic accountant can't make sense of a financial document, it doesn't make the document figurative. Likewise, just because some aspects of the creation account may perplex us, that in itself doesn't justify reinterpreting it non-literally. 2. If it's possible to derive spiritual meaning from Genesis, does that make it non-literal? Again, here I'd say no. There is spiritual meaning in the account of Joseph, being sold out by his brothers preparing a place for his family. Joseph is a type of Christ in that sense. Given that, there's no reason to doubt Joseph's historicity or that the events recorded really occurred. A piece of literature can be both historically true and carry symbolic meaning. These aren't mutually exclusive. I'm really sorry that I couldn't offer you better answers.

Hi ByFaithAlone, Thanks In my initial question I placed (noun) in brackets, because I anticipated this line of reasoning. The word creation can be used in two senses. According to google it means: 1. The action or process of bringing something into existence: "job creation". 2. A thing made or invented, esp. something showing artistic talent. We both agree that definition 1 is incorrect and that Jesus isn't speaking of the process of creation, because during that process, man was made on the sixth day (independent of whether these are 24 hour days or not). Clearly then, Jesus is using creation in the second sense; The thing made. Evolution has a problem here, because the process of creation is an ongoing thing. Creation started with the Big Bang and evolution continues to this day. So from an evolutionary point of view, there is no way to make sense of Jesus' statement other than inserting words in His mouth. Saying that Jesus is talking specifically about the creation of mankind, is simply not in the text. Your worldview forces you to add something to Jesus' statement which isn't there. Conversely the YEC view matches perfectly with Jesus' statement given the second sense of the word "creation". Creation, as in the created thing, was completed +- 6000 years ago and since then, man was around as male and female. Now, you can certainly read things into the text, and if you can live with that, then it's up to you, but given a plain reading of Genesis, the connection with the sabbath week, and a plain exegetical reading of Jesus' statement in Mark, the most reasonable view is the literal one. Cool No, if God is culpable for belief in evolution, because He is omnipotent, then He is also culpable for Islam, higher textual criticism, atheism, etc. etc. If man, in rebellion to God, seeks to explain things through natural means, this is not God's doing. Is God responsible for Richard Dawkins not believing in Him? Surely God foreknew that Dawkins would write "The God Delusion". Why did God make it appear to Dawkins as though He didn't exist? Here's an even better example. 1. If God is omniscient then God foreknew that many Christians throughout the ages would take Genesis literally. 2. God is omniscient. .: God foreknew that many Christians throughout the ages would take Genesis literally. Do you see the problem? You're adding the word "deliberately used to hide the truth" which begs the question. I do not believe that God is hiding the truth, but instead that mankind in their arrogance is hiding from the truth. But the the point is, when appearances do not match reality, it does not necessarily imply deceit. Think of a mirage. A mirage looks like water, but it isn't, it's just layers of warm air reflecting light and shimmering like water. Here is a case of an appearance not matching reality. So who is deceiving who in this case? Is God, who created the laws of physics, playing games with poor, thirsty desert wanderers, creating things that appear like water, but aren't? The burden of proof is on you to show that every single instance of perception not matching reality involves deceit, because that is precisely what the deceitful God argument assumes in premise 1b. You have not proven that. I am not saying that God deliberately created objects with less radioactive material then they are supposed to have, but suppose He did, where did God say, "In order to calculate the age of things, you can use radioactive decay". People decided to use radio-active decay to determines ages, which comes with the assumption that radio-active decay is capable of giving us the age of the earth. Did God ever command this? No. Suppose I decide to date the earth using, colours? Redder things are older, bluer things are younger. Suppose using this dating system I come up with an age of the earth of a trillion years. Is God deceiving me into making the earth appear 1 trillion years old, or am I using a method that has severe limitations? The parable of the candle, illustrated this well. Manual never told Lucy to conduct some silly experiment to calculate the time he was gone. Likewise God never instructed mankind to date the earth using radio-active dating. Humility is a virtue, friend. The word "day" when used in conjuction with a cardinal or ordinal number greater than one, always means a literal 24 day. So if I say, "the day of the horse and cart are long gone". This clearly refers to an era. But whenever there's a number connected to the word day, this always refers to a literal day. So if I say, "2 days ago" or "James was voted out on the 6th day of Survivor Seychelles" the word 'day' means a literal 24 hour day. The creation account connects these cardinal as well as ordinal numbers to the word day. Not only that, but the reference of evening and morning should compel those who have no external bias coming to the text. To pick and choose words' definitions using a concordance independent of- or instead of using context, is called "unwarranted expansion of a semantic field" also called the fallacy of lexicography. To recap: You have not proven premise 1b, upon which premise 1 relies. You have not dealt with premise 2 at all. The universe does not appear to have any age. It has the appearance of vastness, the appearance of motion, but it does not appear to be any age. The age of the universe is interpreted using certain assumptions. Likewise the earth does not appear to be any age. It has the appearance of roundness, but not an obvious appearance of age. Again the age is interpreted using certain assumptions. To speak of appearances of age in these things is the same as speaking of the appearance of age in the colour yellow, or how old the number 7 looks. You cannot tell the age of a universe directly by looking at it, so premise two is false. Premise should actually read, "According to our assumptions, calculations and interpretations, the universe seems to be old." For the conclusion that God would be deceitful and the universe being old to follow, all premises must be true.

Hi other one, Actually all you would need to have evenings and morning is a rotating planet and a light source (which existed on day one already). This light source doesn't necessarily have to be the sun. In fact, the Bible seems to suggest that the sun is only a temporary light source and that in God's coming kingdom He Himself will supply its light. Rev 21:23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof. So lack of a sun for the first three days really isn't a convincing justification to treat the text as figurative.

Hi ByFaithAlone, That Jesus is referring to the beginning of mankind's creation is something that's not actually in the text. According to the text, Jesus is referring to the "beginning of the creation". Jesus does not qualify it as the beginning of mankind's creation and there is no indication from the text that such is the case. It's therefore not really a valid exegetical view. With regard to your question, forgive the copy and paste, but this parable puts the issue far better than I ever could: The Parable of the Candle by Garth Wiebe Chris and Lucy entered a building looking for Manuel. In a room they found a note and a lighted candle. Chris looked at the note and read it aloud: ‘Hi! It’s 2:30, and I’m leaving to run some errands. I’ll be back in a couple of hours. BTW, the electricity is out, so I lit a candle for you. — Manuel.’ Then Lucy said, ‘I know how we can find out how long it’s been since he left! Look, the candle has been burning since he lit it and has a significant amount of wax that’s melted and dripped down. If we figure out what the rate is which the wax is melting and measure the amount of wax that has thus far dripped, we can work backwards to find out how long it has been since he left.’ Chris said, ‘Why waste your time? The note says he left at 2:30.’ Lucy said, ‘Don’t believe everything you read.’ Chris replied, ‘Look, I’ve known Manuel for a long time, and this is his handwriting. Don’t be ridiculous.’ Lucy replied, ‘Ah yes, but what does he mean by “2:30”? A note like that is subject to interpretation. Suppose he was talking about another time zone or something.’ And so a short philosophical argument ensued about the note. However, Lucy prevailed and insisted on performing the measurement and calculations. A few minutes later, Lucy announced: ‘Well, I’ve got bad news for us. Based on the amount of wax that has melted and the rate at which the wax is melting, I can confidently tell you that it has been at least one whole day since this guy left. He was probably talking about 2:30 yesterday. And since he said that he’d be back “in a couple of hours”, we can assume that something happened to him and he’s not coming back at all. So much for your “note”.’ Just then, Manuel walked in. Lucy said, ‘Are you this guy “Manuel”? What took you so long?’ Manuel replied, ‘What are you talking about? I left you guys a note saying I’d be back in a couple of hours. It hasn’t even been that long.’ Lucy said, ‘Never mind the note. I measured the amount of wax that has dripped off your candle, and the rate which the wax was melting. I know you’ve been gone since yesterday.’ Manuel replied, ‘First of all, that candle isn’t burning anywhere near as brightly as when I first lit it. Second of all, I didn’t light a new candle, but a used one. And thirdly, I used another candle to light this candle and in the process the wax from that candle spilled all over this one.’ Lucy said, ‘So you set up that candle to deceive us, to make it look like you left the room over a day ago, when in fact it’s been less than a couple of hours.’ Manuel replied, ‘Look, I left you a note telling you when I left. I never intended for you to conduct some silly experiment measuring wax dripping off of a candle to figure out when I left. I put the candle there so you guys would have some light.’ http://www.answersin...g/docs/1247.asp I have also written the following about the deceitful God argument in another post, which may help, if parables aren't your thing. [From an earlier post...] The argument against a young earth view from a deceitful God is a fairly common one among theistic evolutionists (including progressive creationists etc.) I have given this argument considerable thought and I don't believe it's very convincing. The argument goes as follows: 1. If the universe is young but appears old, then God deceived us 2. The universe appears old 3. Therefore God deceived us or the universe is old 4. God will not deceive 5. Therefore the universe is old. I think the argument is problematic because the premises leading to the final conclusion aren't necessarily true and contain some hidden assumptions. Premise 1. The premise doesn't take into account intent. It assumes that whenever appearances do not match our knowledge, then God is intentionally deceitful. So there's actually a hidden assumption following premise 1 which must state, "Whenever appearances are incorrect, then God deceives us". I'll call this premise (1b). When Jesus fed 5000 people with a few loaves of bread and fish, the appearance of abundance of food was there from the point of view of the multitude of the people. Not only that but the food carried with it the appearance of time. There was no grinding of grain, kneeding of dough, baking and cooling, yet the food appeared to have been prepared in that way. Our knowledge is that 5000 people were fed with a tiny amount of food, but the appearance was of an abundance of food. You might say that miracles are excluded from the argument, but then one has to ask why? If miracles are a deliberate defiance of the laws of nature to reveal the power of God, then how do we know God's intention with creation wasn't to show His power either? In fact, the Bible clearly states that the "Heavens declare His glory". I think excluding miracles from the argument from deceit is a case of special pleading. God's intent with the miracles, as with creation as a whole is the same. Creation ex-nihilo itself is a miracle. Premise 2. You may accuse me of having lesser intelligence here, but I really don't think the earth appears old. The age of the earth isn't directly observable, but is instead based on calculations which assume certain things. Take the startlight travel time problem, for instance: Big bang cosmology has it's own starlight travel time problems, that are dealt with by assuming deviation from the norms, which seems to be problematic only when YECs do that. Likewise according to most scientists the initial expansion of the universe happened faster than the speed of light, which according to standard physics is impossible. In terms of other dating methods such radio-active decay, dendrochronology etc. there are also assumptions in place. Now if we're using fallible methods to calculate the age of the universe, it cannot be God's fault if we arrive at the wrong answer. We simply didn't take all the relevant factors into account. So in short, the 'appearance of age' in itself is basically an invalid statement, since the universe's age isn't directly observable. It the same as talking about how old "yellow" looks. Secondly the calculations of age, which have nothing to do with appearance are based on various assumptions. Arguments based on "appearance of age" are thus, quite meaningless. Premise 3. This premise is a false dilemma because of premise 1/1b) It could be that the universe is young and appears old, but that God isn't deceiving us, simply because He never intended for us to calculate the age of the universe in the manner that we do, and then reinterpret His word accordingly. When an atheist denies the existence of God because it doesn't appear to him as though there is a God, likewise the blame cannot be placed on God. Premise 4. I agree with this statement, but would like to state that if the universe is old, then God claiming that He made the universe in six days would be deceitful anyway, based on the reasoning behind the argument. Taking God's word as meaning figurative days, commits hermeneutic fallacies. I won't get into this in detail now, but the plain reading of the Bible suggests that creation took six days. Conclusion 5. Is only true if all the premises 1/1b, 2, 3 and 4 are true, and I don't see any strong case for any of them being true with the exception of 4. Premise 4, incidentally is based on a literal reading of scripture

Yes, but the fourth day account, as I pointed out, is a description of intended purpose, more than the process of creation. The text doesn't say that God created a single plant/seed or a handful of plants and waited for them to populate the earth; I think that's something that you're reading into the text. It seems to me instead that God filled the earth with plants, and declared that they continually reproduce. Strictly speaking this doesn't require any at all. In fact the statement that the earth bring forth plants. Again let me stress that the statement that the earth bring forth plants, does not seem to be a statement about the creation process or populating of the earth, but is a declaration that plants should reproduce. In other words, not just "let there be plants" but rather "let there be plants, and let the earth continually bring forth more". It's kind of the same as a design specification, and not so much a description of process. Can I ask you something: According to mainstream science mankind arrived at the very end of billions of years of the universe's formation. You have the Big Bang, then heavier elements forming, then the Nebular hypothesis saying that planets formed. This all cooled down, got snowed over, melted etc. Then abiogenesis, the precambrian explosion, stuff crawling out of the sea, reptiles, birds, mammals and eventually right at the very end: Man. I understand that if the height of the Eiffel tower represents the time that the universe has been around, then the thickness of the skin of paint on the pinnacle of the tower represents the time man has been around. How does one square that with Jesus statement: But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; (Mar 10:6-7) According to Jesus mankind has been around since the beginning of creation. Was He mistaken? Jesus statement squares perfectly with the YEC view. Creation being roughly 6000-12000 years ago, and mankind being around since the beginning of creation (noun). God bless