Should we work to get rid of Christianity?

Did Nazi Germany and the Aztecs somehow find a magic rationalization that their victims and other external societies agreed with? I don't think so, making those examples perfect foils for my point, not yours.
If they did, would that make it morally ok?
 
Regulating or curtailing activity are activities. Laws cannot exist without lawmaking.
Prove that this assertion applies to natural laws.
Also, of course one can have laws without law-making - not all laws are actively enforced.
Natural laws control the behavior of matter just like human laws control our behavior. No, as Einstein said, laws imply a lawmaker.
El Cid said:
Just like the first space travelers, it is rational to assume that what is true on the earth is also true in space until proven otherwise
But they didn't. That's why they went up in sealed metal boxes instead of leaving the windows open for fresh air.
No, you misunderstood. The first space travelers assumed the laws of physics and logic were valid in space just as they are on earth until proven otherwise, but it turned out they were right, so it is with considering the universe as a whole.
 
No, they both control behaviors.
Human laws can be broken while natural laws cannot, so they are not the same kind of thing.

How they were created is not relevant, the fact remains that eyes and ears have purposes and we know that purposes only come from a personal being.
Eyes and ears have etiological functions, not purposes, and such functions do not come from personal beings.

God is intrinsically ordered, so His mind didnt need order to be produced plus He is not an effect. The characteristic of self existence is not having a beginning.
If God can have order without being an effect, then so can the universe. You give no reason for thinking that having a beginning would preclude this.
 
Natural laws control the behavior of matter just like human laws control our behavior.
No, they don't.
Human laws exist to punish disobedience; natural "laws" cannot be disobeyed by matter and energy.
as Einstein said, laws imply a lawmaker.
Did Einstein prove it?
If not, nobody should care that he said it.
No, you misunderstood. The first space travelers assumed the laws of physics and logic were valid in space just as they are on earth until proven otherwise, but it turned out they were right, so it is with considering the universe as a whole.
It turned out that they were right - it was only shown to be a reasonable assumption after the fact.
 
Argument from dishonesty fallacy - "I can't think of a country with fewer laws than the US, so I will just say that there is one even though I dont really know of one."
Argument from factual knowledge. " Somalia has fewer laws than any other country. Iraq comes in a close second"
 
So far no definitive plan to get rid of Christianity.

Maybe if you start giving money away?

All this arguing doesn't seem to work, how about having potlucks every Wednesday, you might siphon off some baptists. Fish fry fridays may get you some Catholics.

Oh I know!

Some christians love talking vegetables, you could maybe start a cartoon with talking fruit, and I'm not talking about transgendered library time.
 
If they did, would that make it morally ok?
If genocide were an across the board culturally rational and inert action for everybody, even the victims - like providing and eating a bag of Doritoes, how would they know either way whether it was an immoral action or not? Immoral actions usually have negative and unwanted consequences either immediately felt, or felt over time, and/or focused to an individual or to an entire group. That's how we measure it.

God can't provide an objective example here either. He led the way engaging directly in genocide twice according to scriptures.
 
Last edited:
There is a reason they are labeled laws, it is because they act as laws and laws are real.
Yeah... that's what I said... but they are emergently real not transcendently real. What you call a law is merely a real experience or occurrence with a human label as a result of them being consistently emergent from our condition. No external God involved what-so-ever. Just us bumping into each other and navigating a common inner compass rooted in our material humanity, not some ethereal spiritual nature attached to some great purpose beyond our scope of understanding. That;s why we made the laws over time, including the 10 commandments - not some God.
How can morality come from amorality? That appears irrational on the face of it.
El Cid said:
Yes, purposes are a means to an ends. Eyes were created to see and ears were created for the purpose of hearing.
You are using the term purpose out of context from Christian meaning. You need to focus. A purpose in Christian terms denotes a grand reason for existence. Having eyes and ears are not that purpose from a Christian perspective. If that were true all we need is to possess eyes and ears to get to heaven. This is not the Christian belief or the embodiment of human purpose from a Christian perspective.
There are different types of purposes. There are long term overall purposes, which is what you appear to be referring to, Then there are purposes for day to day life and structures God gave living things in order to live in a primarily natural law universe and survive like eyes and ears and arms and legs and etc. The fact that things exist in the universe with purposes is evidence that the universe was created by a personal being because only persons can create purposes.
 
There are different types of purposes. There are long term overall purposes, which is what you appear to be referring to, Then there are purposes for day to day life and structures God gave living things in order to live in a primarily natural law universe and survive like eyes and ears and arms and legs and etc. The fact that things exist in the universe with purposes is evidence that the universe was created by a personal being because only persons can create purposes.
You're begging the question by assuming these things have those kind of purposes rather than etiological functions.
 
"Evidence points to the idea that dreams can also be a synthesis of a person’s conscious and subconscious memories-a synthesis of real clues that make it easier to accurately anticipate the probability of certain outcomes."
No, NDEs are not dreams. Dreams occur when you are sleeping, many of these people that are experiencing NDEs are nearly brain dead. Sorry try again.
The main fault in you thinking is found right here in this sentence. The mind is merely a receptor and a projector of what it "recepted" with possible creative extrapolations based on other stored impulses that may or may not be accurate. Mind NEVER survives for any period of time separated from the brain.
There is evidence that it has in some cases.
When you daydream of being in your favorite place to the point where you see it, recollect the smells and the sounds, do you really separate from your body and go there? Even if you mentally project there and experience an event that you should not have experienced, did your eyes and ears show up to give you the cognition of the event you claim to have experienced in a way that only eyes and ears allow? If you now say that is evidence that the mind is separate from body because you can see and hear things where your body isn't, what is the purpose of body then if the mind can experience sight and sound and touch without it?
No, see above about these people being nearly brain dead. This is plainly not daydreaming. They obtained empirical knowledge that they could not have obtained without leaving the location of their body.
You're in a conundrum here of defining experiences with physical cognition (eyes/ears/nerves) yet saying they were never really necessary to impress a mind at all as a baseline for what those cognitions entail. And then you go further to state that the cognition of sight, sound, and touch go on without the instrumentation of either the eyes, ears, nose, nerves, or the brain - the very things that define the experiences. It's really an incredible brand of speculation as to what these sensations are rooted in.
Humans cannot survive long on earth without a body and brain. Only for short periods as I stated. Even in the afterlife living without a body for humans is only temporary. That is why when Christ returns He will create a new physical universe for us to live in with bodies, because we are incomplete without bodies. Our minds were designed to live in a body.
If you claim our sentient experience is rooted in a mind of some non-physical God, and the mind can experience anything it needs to based on that alone, you really need to ask yourself what all these eyes, ears, and noses are all about then. You can't now just say that they are necessary for our physical navigation as you claim God created the physical without them, and we experience remote cognition without them as well. What gives? You claim He didn't need them, and you also claim we don't need them.
No, our minds are not rooted in God's mind, our minds are separate from His. And see above about how humans need bodies and brains to be complete.
Not possible at all because you cannot influence matter with mind alone. As described above mind is a receptor of material stimulus. It does have the power of creative extrapolation, but only rooted in a baseline physical experience, an experience of matter to build from.
Actually the mind can influence matter, ever hear of the placebo effect? In addition, psychiatrists have discovered repetitious thoughts can actually modify and enlarge structures in the brain and lack of certain thoughts can shrink structures in the brain.
You truly cannot get something from nothing which is another reason you God as defined does not exist.
God is not nothing and logic requires Him as the cause of the physical universe not to be physical, ie a cause cannot be part of its effect.
Minds can operate functionally the same, on the same set of narrow facts, yet come up with different conclusions based on a wider experience of relevant data that varies between each mind. It's all about the qualia and quantity of input.
But they were experiencing the exact same data. Try again.
God cannot have a mind as He is defined.
All the evidence points to Him having one.
His studies have been eclipsed. Seizures as a rule do not last long enough to cause the neurological damage required to impact cognition. However they have found that prolonged seizures called Status Epilepticus indeed do effect brain neurology and therefor cognition thus proving that mind, cognition, and what you experience as sentience is tied directly to the physical function of the brain and is not attached to some higher ethereal power such as a mind of God. God is merely an anthropomorphic extrapolation of our dual nature, except with the mistake of not conceiving Him as having a dual nature. The God concept is just a definition mistake that has been perpetuated for centuries.
No, you missed his point. How come in all of medical experience no seizure has produced an abstract thought even though supposedly the brain and all its neurons are supposed to be the source of abstract thought when they are firing. It seems that that someone would experience that with enough firings that could at least happened once by accident dont you think? But it never has as far as is known.
 
Natural laws control the behavior of matter just like human laws control our behavior.
No, they don't.
Human laws exist to punish disobedience; natural "laws" cannot be disobeyed by matter and energy, as afar as we know.
as Einstein said, laws imply a lawmaker.
Did Einstein prove it?
If not, nobody should care that he said it.
No, you misunderstood. The first space travelers assumed the laws of physics and logic were valid in space just as they are on earth until proven otherwise, but it turned out they were right, so it is with considering the universe as a whole.
It turned out that they were right - it was only shown to be a reasonable assumption after the fact.
 
Wolves, beaver, squirrels, elephants, zebras, water buffalo, gazelles, orangutan, polar bears, dolphins, cheetahs, penguins, kangaroos, orcas, lions, hyenas, Bison, tuna, geese, meerkats, musk oxen,.......
Almost all the predators you reference kill and eat their own species and their young. So does that mean it is ok for us to do that?
No, it is certainly, as well as obviously, objectively rational because the particular emotional states that effect morality are affects of objectively real and perennial conditions shared by all humanity.
Yes, but the emotions regarding the specialness or even the non-specialness of humans are subjective. Some humans dont think other humans are special. So how do you determine whose emotions are correct? Obviously Jeffery Dahmer thought that the men he wanted to kill and eat were not special. Or maybe he did think they were special so that is why he killed and ate them. Since it is all based on emotion, how do you determine what is the right emotion?
God on the other hand offers absolutely no objective morality as he acts with the right of a sovereign without regard to human realities and cannot be counted on for anything objective as He acts with pre-justified impunity for everything He does. God cannot offer an example of right action for humans as a result as we cannot act as He does, with spiritual immunity for ANYTHING He wishes to d
Yes, Christian morality is based on God's objectively existing moral character. He knows our human realities and what is best for us better than we do since He created us and we are made in His image. If you invented a new car, you would know what is best for the car, right?
...or else....
For true Christians there is no "or else."
 
When did matter last violate a law of nature? Can photons get speeding tickets?
It doesnt have a free will so it cant.
Most physicists don't agree that there was any 'prior to the BB'.
Well at Time = 0, there were no laws of logic in this universe because it didnt exist.
Unsupported that everything with a beginning is an effect or must be caused.
Fraid so, it is supported by all of human experience.
 
Something that is self existent, doesnt have a beginning or never changes.
Then the laws of logic are not eternal if-and-only-if the universe had a beginning.
They are eternal as they are part of the nature of God. But they did not exist at T=0 within this universe because this universe did not exist.
El Cid said:
Well how did they become incorporated into the universe? Prior to the BB, did they exist? Or did they come into existence at the BB?
A 'coming into existence' or 'becoming incorporated' presupposes some prior moment. If there was no 'prior to the BB' then these phrases do not apply. Laws of logic are the grounding of explanation and are not susceptible to any further explanation.
There was a Time = 0, when this universe did not exist and therefore the laws of logic did not exist in this universe.
El Cid said:
It is a rational assumption since science has shown that everything that has a beginning and/or changes is ontologically contingent.
That assumption just is the PSR, so it cannot be used to justify it.
I am not trying to justify anything, I am just stating a fact that it is a rational assumption.
El Cid said:
For Aristotle the LSC is a law of logic as a corollary of the LNC.
You are just repeating a claim for which you have given precisely zero support. Aristotle never said anything about causality forming any law of logic. Again, all you've given me on this is a quote from a secondary source defining 'sufficient cause'.
No, I gave you the name of the primary source.
El Cid said:
Causation within time is not a wholly new and unobserved form of causation. It happens every day.
We weren't talking about merely 'causation within time'. We were talking about causation across multiple dimensions of time.
No, the causation only occurred in one dimension of time, just not ours.
El Cid said:
No, See my cockroach example.
See my responses.
I did and nothing you said refuted my point.
El Cid said:
A woman had an out of body experience and saw a shoe on the roof of the hospital she had surgery in. And her description matched it perfectly when someone went up on the roof and found it. No one at the hospital nor her knew that that shoe was up there.
Anecdote. Wheres the evidence? How was this verified?
Well respected doctors and nurses observed it. Read the book I provided the name of.
El Cid said:
The firing patterns of neurons and synapses are not the mind. They are just effects produced by the mind.
Why can't they be the mind? You seem to be just assuming a dualistic position without arguing for it.
I am not saying it cannot be the mind, I am only saying my interpretation is just as likely as yours.
 
It doesnt have a free will so it cant.
But humans have free will and can't violate the laws of nature either.

Well at Time = 0, there were no laws of logic in this universe because it didnt exist.
Unsupported that there was ever any such Time=0 when the universe didn't exist.

Fraid so, it is supported by all of human experience.
No, it's not. We've been over this. We have zero experience of either universe beginnings or of causation without prior time (in the same temporal dimension).
 
Back
Top