btw Dave Ellis

I've had arguments waiting for you to answer on my boards for several days or a whole week now.

Should we outlaw brownshirtism?

This guy Russ who got so worked up on DC is reacting t the statement I mad in the past about making atheism illegal. Of course, he totally ignores the context, he ignores the fact that I said "this is not applicable to all atheists, just tot he segment I call "hate group atheism." Of course the atheists have never acknowledged that I have always made that distinction. I have distinguished between other atheists and hate group atheists since the first day I ever began to speak of hategroup atheism. I made that distinction no the first time I posted on atheist watch, on the old version of atheist watch.

I said it over and over again almost every single post for the first 40 or so posts but they never acknowledged it. They through fits, they set up a hawl, they accussed me of being evil, they all mannar of evil against me over and over, but never once did acknowledge that I distinguished between one kind and another. Eventually I just quite saying it becasue they couldn't see it. they were just blind to the words. every single time they would go "you think all atheists are Nazis." I would say "only those in the hate group segment" but then they would just say "You think they all are."

Now they think if I say Nazis should be illegal then I'm a Nazi. I said hounding and persecuting people for their religious faith should be illegal (and really it actually is). Atheists are oblivious to the fact that religious people are persecuted minorities. Atheist so selfish and busy feeling sorry for themselves (most of them) that they just never think of religious people are persecuted they only think them as persecutors and they themselves as victims That's really quite stupid because American atheists at any rate are totally free to believe anything they want.

They are pissed at me because I want to close down their little game of belittling Christians. They do get so much out of feeling superior to Christians it would really hurt them to lose their hobby. It is illegal to slander people. It is illegal to ruin someone's reputation. Atheists have lied about me, they have organized a conspiracy and I can prove it. they did it on the secular web I can prove it was an organized conspiracy. The very day someone converted becasue of my arguments that was the day they banned me for life. Prior to that I had apologized for getting upset and not been insulting people for several says. Then after the banning they laid and made up things to attribute to me which I had not said (they said that I admitted that I"m stupid and I didn't go to graduate school and that I know I"m no good at debate--these are obviously things I would never say). But since I was banned I could not get back on and deny it.

Prior to that time they had watched my board closely. Every time I sneezed they would upt up a thread. But they said nothing at all about my denials of those statements. I can prove that they curse the net looking for people to harass and belittle. When I first put up my boards they wold go on there and start their crap "there's no proof for our God." I would say "we don't do that here." Now they don't even brother to go on. Also another time I went on a board and before I even got into a spat the board leaders say "You are that Metacrock, we have been warned not allow you to come on here becasue will be so insulting." Of course I'm suer Hermit will say "O you are so insulting" but he never did admit that I am insulted becaseu of how I'm treated.

do you think people in real life find me that way? no they do not. they lik me. I'm considered a nice inoffense littel guy> in ever insult anyone. as I a child I was the favotire of old ladies. I have been that sort of insulting person. everyone likes me althoguh none of them ever think of me as dynmatic jsut bland and inoffenseive. ITs' only on the net becuase its here I amb fight back against the bullies.

I can show you many many other people who have very similar experinces. most of htem just figure O well it's the internet and move on. I a'm the only stupid enough to think I can do something to stop the wave of hate and oppression tath these little anti-Christ persecutors are starting.

the really are a band of bullying apes running around trying to force their views on the world any one who gets in their way they stomp on. What's their method of disproving it? they start slandering more.

When I demanded that Hermit show me what I said in that comment section that set off Russ. He admits it's based upon past things I said. This is a clear principle that atheists work buy. If you ever screw them you can never be forgiven. You will be guitly all your life becasue yous aid something at some point in the past. So he goes from "you were insulting him" no it's proven I wasn't read the thread, to "hell it's justified to hold a grudge from the past.

The kind of world an atheist would have, violent, rude, ran by bullies, were one must grab for anything one can get at any cost. In other words, a world like the one we live in. That's why the Bible talks about "the world." Because they are the world. They are the world lost sinful boys who are wiling bully anyone who gets in their way and they can't see any other kind of world because they are so cynical and it makes them feel good to bully people anyway.

I guess I am coming to the conclusion that I was wrong. It begins to look like it wasn't' just a segment but the whole shmear of atheism that is the hate group.

Hate groups do not stop at libel

my freind Kristen makes a nice little appeal backing me up on DC.

I read through the discussion on this thread, and here's what I saw:

Everything was going along fairly amicably, discussing the issues-- and then "Russ" decided to pull up some stuff JL Hinman had written in the past(out of context) and started personally attacking him for it. This was acknowledged by the next person who posted, saying:

"Joe, it looks like Russ just crucified your butt along with your Christianity."

Joe (who is dyslexic) began to get upset at being "crucified", which seemed to make the attacks escalate. The more he reacted, the more he was blamed for reacting, until now the conversation has descended into a feeding frenzy about Joe, including attacks on him for his spelling, which does get worse when he gets upset. That's hardly his fault. Those of you who know him as "Metacrock" surely know he's dyslexic. I sincerely hope it wasn't any of those who knew about his condition, who then started making comments like "he must be drunk." But those of you who knew he was dyslexic could have taken the high road (no matter what your opinion of his views) and spoken up for him-- which no one did.

Instead, everyone seems to be pretty much all blaming him-- when it's quite clear it's Russ who started the attacks.

So why was it necessary to do this? Before you knew he was "Metacrock," you all seemed to be able to stick to the issues.

Surely these discussions don't have to be about personality? So Joe has a temper, and tends to start cussing and stuff when things get personal. So what?

then McCall resots to Libel:

2:37 PM, April 05, 2009
Blogger Harry McCall said...

This from a newly found gospel codex just translated form the Greek:

“The disciples came to Jesus and were greatly perplexed as to the comments of one Joe Hinman.

And Jesus answered and said unto them; “Truly, I tell you! I have not seen such debauchery written by an man in all of Israel! Woe unto you Joe Hinman!

that is what hate group atheists will resort to when they are proven to be wrong. They have no limits on what they will do or how far they will go with their thug tactics. They will keep it up hoping the Christian wills ay "O it's just a blog it's not wroth it" and go away then the have shut up the truth by bullying it. They are little bullys who can't think.

There laws against libel. there are laws against hate speech.why don't we expand and enforce them. Can you not see the bankruptcy of the crusade to destroy Christianity?

Antoher example of hategroup atheism.

On DC I was discussing a post Loftus made. I was making some good points they were listening. Then they realized who I am. The whole discussion ground to a halt and they turned to character assignation. suddenly the ideas don't matter, when they think they have something on you that's what they really care about. They are nothing more than hate mongers and character assassins. They prefer adhom to real thinking any day. The people on DC that is.

All statements made that they quote they are taking out of context because they don't acknowledge that I'm talking about all atheists but about the segment of them that are into the hate movement.

L. Hinman, Joe, JL, Metacrock,
You ask,

why should I have to prove anything to you? I beileve it is verified in me every day, why should I care what you believe? I don't need your permission to hold my views.

why don't you guys go pick on people who like Marvel comics or something? I mean really. this stuff is important to those who like and understand it, why don't you find a different hobby?



Let me briefly address some of these questions.

You asked,

"why should I have to prove anything to you?"

You need to prove these things because you have also said concerning those who disagree with you,

"I think they have an organized tactic of bieng hateful to religious people. I think they are nothing but Nazis and we should not try to argue with them, we should try ot have them banned by law."

When you make it your objective to use statute to eradicate those who disagree with you, you must prove yourself to everyone who has a stake in it - that is, everyone.

Clearly, your religion, your theology, and your education all lack the power to give you what you know secular law can provide. More than that, Joe, it's a trivial observation taken from your own writings, like the one above "we should try ot have them banned by law," that your religion's moral teachings of loving one's enemies and turning one's cheek, carry no weight with you.

When you think nobody's looking, you really seem to let your true feelings come out. Like this, for instance,

I think they have some kind of organized tacktic to use ridicule. I think we should be spreading teh word for Christians not to feel intimidated by atheist rudness.

there's this asshole in Austin who has a community access show and a website.

Your religion, your theology, your education counts for nothing, Metacrock.

Yes, Joe L. Hinman, for these and many others you should have to prove things to a great many of us.

You asked,

I beileve it is verified in me every day, why should I care what you believe?


Metacrock, you clearly do care what others believe, or you would be content to ignore their comments. Realize this: are many good reasons for you to care what others believe.

You should care what I believe because, if we agree, I, we, may be wrong, which could have nasty consequences for any affected by what I, we believe. If we agree about, say, religion, but we have both chosen the wrong one, you/we should be concerned.

You should care what I believe because, if we disagree, unless we want to add more violence and distrust to the human condition, we must come to a peaceful compromise. In part we can't use your approach of "banned by law." Sadly, though, Joe, that can never happen. Your religion can never leave others to their own emotional and spiritual paths.

Concerning our religious disputes, J. L., I would be happy to leave you alone, but you, because of your religion, will never leave anyone alone. If your religion was a personal private religion, I could grant you immunity from my attacks. But, of course, your religion is nothing like that, being instead highly invasive. You want everyone to be exactly like you, through the enforcement power of the state, if need be. But, know this, other's freedom will not be yours without a fight.

In your version of Christianity, you would insist that I think of myself, my own beloved children, in fact, all of humanity, as afflicted with the disease of sin, so paid clergy can dispense mystical cures invented by theologians. You would insist that I accept your sins and cures as real, while I ignore the sins and cures proposed by other Christianities and other religions. Please understand, Hinman, that I can't comply, even if statute dictates.

My children are not miracles. They learn; they make mistakes; they grow; they are my favorite part of humanity; they are my favorite part of life. They, like all of us are part of the current state of biodiversity on this planet. I am happy they are descendants of our common ancestor with the other apes. I am happy that they, like us all, are verifiably related to the rest of the life on this planet. And, I am ecstatic that they are not the creation of that morally horrific Biblical troll you call God, and, by association, Joe, I'm glad they're nothing like you.

You said,

why don't you guys go pick on people who like Marvel comics or something?

Simple. Loving Marvel comics doesn't make people demand that we all believe the bizarre, the mystical, the magical, the super. Religion does exactly that and it almost never exists unless it does. Marvel comics readers aren't stupid enough to think that the fables they read are real. Marvel comics readers can distinguish reality and fantasy. The religious can't.

People who love Marvel comics don't demand that when I look at a newborn that I see an inherently flawed, sinful, theologically disease-ridden person whose affliction has been passed down from the beginning of time. Adam and Eve never existed, Joe. There was no original sin. Sin was not handed down. None of us is sinful. Sin is a marketing tool for clergy.

By separating that newborn from your theological bullshit, I can see her in a world of bright possibilities, including the possibility of living in a comprehensible world without the ancient useless mental and psychological obstacle of religion. Anyone who thinks that that beautiful child needs to be subject to the gruesome fantasies of theologians and clerics is a complete idiot.

You ended,

I mean really. this stuff is important to those who like and understand it, why don't you find a different hobby?

You say words, Joe. You do not understand it. "this stuff," as you call it, might be important to you, but it is not comprehensible in any way that corresponds to the world people live in. That it mutates so fast - just among Christianities the rate is a thousand new denominations a year now - tells us that just about anyone, just about anywhere can sprout their own religion.

Just think, Hinman, you could be the next L. Ron Hubbard, Mary Baker Eddy, Joseph Smith, Jim Jones or Fred Phelps. I'm sure you will be just as endeared as each of them. Real money, power, authority, and political influence can be yours. Doesn't Hinmanism, the one, the only, the TRUE religion sound good to you?

1:59 PM, April 03, 2009
Blogger Harry McCall said...

Joe, it looks like Russ just crucified your butt along with your Christianity. (I don’t think your books on Karl Barth and Emil Brunner will help you now. Bultmann may be more in line for you here, however.)

For someone who accepts a religion that stresses a dichotomy between Light (God) and Satan (Darkness), you really need do update your blog picture; or is there something your are trying to tell us?

See he think this slander and biased hate monger bull shit that's nothing than character assassination is just fine. good propaganda. it's jsut the right show thing we need to really someone in his place.


can't you see what they are? They are not thinkers.

Arizona Atheist tries Blogging

Remember AA who with whom I discussed some issues here a few weeks ago? Now he has a blog to disprove God arguments. I hope this time he's learned to actually answer the arguments. Last time I went through ten of my arguments and how each one was not a God of the gaps argument. He did not answer a single issue I raised, but now he's over at DC claiming victory!

He lays out his major strategy which is what I said it would be back when we had our discussion. At that time I said he would come back and dennouce loigc. I've seen this so many times. Atheists can't answer the logical arguments so they decide logic itself is no good for God stuff.


he says:

The truth is, though, that I see nothing special about these arguments. Each of these arguments are fatally flawed when you think about them for just a few minutes (or when you look at the contradictory evidence). When someone comes to me and starts using a lot of philosophical arguments I often dismiss them by claiming they're using "philosophical bullshit" because, while I like philosophy, it can oftentimes be abused and just because something sounds logical doesn't mean it represents reality. Take, for example, the experiment in which a feather is dropped along with a bowling ball (taking wind resistance out of the equation). Logic would dictate that the ball would hit the ground first, but in reality they would both hit the ground at the same time. This is an example of something that seems like a logical conclusion: a heavier object will fall faster, but if you eliminate the affect air has on the objects, they will fall at the same rate and hit the ground at the same time.

then he adds:

"It is because of this that I strongly argue that logic by itself, while extremely helpful and right much of the time, can sometimes get you into trouble."

Yea logic will get you in trouble especially when you don't know anything about it. I identified the anti-intellectualism in his thinking before. We see it above. But now it comes right out in the open:

"With that in mind, let's begin smashing the logical disaster that is theology."

yea let's just do that!

His first example has nothing to with logical arguments for God. Essentially he just argues that the Euthyphro dilemma shows how horrible it would be if such a being as God existed, which is not what the dilemma says, and then he goes off on the OT ragging about how he disagrees with its morality. This is has nothing to dow ti the existence of God as a philosophical tpric, or about logic. The God of the OT is not illogical in his smiting of enemies and so forth, he's just sever. Its' not a matter of logic and he can't give us a logical reason why his moral values are any better than those of the Bible.


The Euthyphro dilemma has to do with the idea that the Greek Gods were not more powerful than the fates. Thus Socrates asks is a thing good becasue the gods desire it, or are the gods becasue they desire good things. The real issue is the question is God the standard of moral goodness, and thus God's whims could change the nature of the good at any time, or does God follow a standard higher than himself, in which case there is something higher than God.

The problem is this comes up in a polytheistic culture where they did not have any God who was like the God of Christian theology. The Greek Gods were contingent, they were produced by prior conditions and none of them created the world. So this issue is not applicable to God of the Bible becasue that God is synominous in his essence with the nature of love. Thus the moral standard is the character or God so there is no dilemma. they are one and the same.

But even if there were a dilemma this would have nothing with disproving god's existence.


Finally he ends his rant by arguing that morality is seperate from God. He then uses the examle of people who do crazy things claiming God told them to:

A related point are people who claim to do helpful and harmful things because god supposedly told them to. Because there are people who have supposedly been told to commit both good and bad acts, this doesn't do anything to fix the contradictory messages that god seems to send (assuming he is real). There are people who feel compelled by god to help the poor, but there are also people who commit horrible atrocities, such as Dena Schlosser who chopped off her eleven month old girl's arms because god told her to.

Now, an apologist will likely say that Schlosser was clearly insane and god would never command someone to do such a thing. But if they dismiss this woman's testimony so quickly, why do they accept a christian's so easily, as long as they're doing something good? The simple answer? Bias.

Morality has nothing to do with god and, therefore, it cannot be used as any kind of "evidence" of god.

Clearly he doesn't understand the basis of meta ethical thinking. He probably has never heard of grounding axioms. But why isn't it a valid answer to say the person was insane and we know God would never tel them such a thing? If we have convincing safeguards why don't they change the argument? If God has nothing to do with morality then on what basis can he judge such actions to be immoral?






Then we get into some real fun with the cosmological argument:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Of course this is the Kalam arguemnt, its' not the only version and it's not the version I like to argue. I prefer Clark's version.

AA makes some very distorted claims. I think he demonstrates that he has very little understanding of any of the issues he talks about.

There are a few major flaws with this. First, theologians assume that nothing can be eternal; that it's impossible for the universe to just be, to just exist. Second, because of their claims that the universe cannot be eternal they then make a wild claim full of hypocrisy and nonsense and state that their god is eternal and does not need a cause.

I don't think any theologian assumes that nothing can be eternal. Most theologians don't know anything about this stuff. Most liberals don't bother with arguments for God. He doesn't even know the difference in a theologian and a philosopher. Philosophers who deal with modal logic assume that contingent things can't be eternal. By definition they can't be. But more importantly it is physicists show show that the universe is not eternal. The Big Bang theory demonstrates that the universe has a beginning. Thus it can't be eternal.

AA clearly does not understand what constitutes a valid philosophical point and what is merely blubbering with his own personal hatred. He's a good prime example of the hate group element in atheism:

Second, because of their claims that the universe cannot be eternal they then make a wild claim full of hypocrisy and nonsense and state that their god is eternal and does not need a cause.

(1) this is purely an exercise in begging the question. Why would the claim that God is eternal be hypocrisy or nonsense? The idea of God being eternal is proved a prori. its' a matter of logical necessity. But let's assume there could be a reason why ti's hypo racy. No attempt is even made to link this to a logical idea. It's nothing but an emotive statement. He apparently thinks that logic just amounts to making emotive statements.

AA clearly is not convergent in cosmology, nor does he understand the basic implications of the Big Bang. He declares as the third flaw in the CA

Third, they also assume that events that took place in the past could not go on indefinitely. But again, they contradict themselves and claim their god is infinite and has always existed, though they can never articulate "where" their god was or" what" he was doing the eternity before he just happened to create this universe.

At this point I'm spitting milk through my nose. These are some of the most infantile objections that anyone whose read even a few pages should be able to see through. Even a rudimentary knowledge will demonstrate to one with the well documented fact that most physicists hold to a beginning of the universe. Evidence is even stronger that the universe will not go on forever.

Universe continuing to expand

Evidence from three recent studies reveals that the final fate of the universe will be to drift apart and cease all useful functions capable of supporting life due to missing mass, which can't produce gravitational pull to bring it all back together and start again, and heat death in which case energy is useless for work. Several major studies show this to be the case.

[New Scientist Magazine, archive 11, April 98, archive; originally Oct. 96] you should be able to click here, but here's the url just in case) [http://www.newscientist.com/ns/980411/features1.html

"ON THE night of 5 March last year, the huge telescope of the Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory in Chile intercepted a message from deepest space. Transmitted a billion years before the Earth was born, its contents have proved to be of truly cosmic significance. The message was barely readable after its journey halfway across the Universe, and an international team of experts laboured for months to decode it. In January, Saul Perlmutter of the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory in California and his colleagues revealed to the world what they believe to be its gist: "The Universe will never end." A month later, a team led by Brian Schmidt of the Mount Stromlo and Siding Spring Observatories near Canberra in Australia published the decoded contents of more of these cosmic missives, which arrive as bursts of light from supernova explosions in far-flung galaxies. The message was the same. Now Chris Kochanek and his colleagues at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Massachusetts, are about to publish more evidence, this time from light that has been bent and sculpted by the gravity of unseen galaxies."



* Omega force = Continued expansion forever (no Big Cruch)

"These three sets of cosmic missives all suggest that instead of collapsing in on itself in a big crunch, our Universe will go on expanding forever. And that's not all. They also hint that the expanding Universe is in the grip of a mysterious force that is fighting against gravity--a force that pervades the entire cosmos and springs literally from nothing."(Ibid.)



[mysterious force = "omega" ie the equasion of gravitational force vs. mass needed to close the universe; omega must = 1 to close]

* Missing Mass.

[New Scinentist article April 1999] "If it [the universe] contains enough matter, gravity will eventually slow its expansion, stop it, and reverse it--producing a cataclysmic big crunch billions of years hence. But if there is too little matter--or if there is an extra source of "oomph" at work in the cosmos--then the Universe will expand forever.... Cosmologists call the ratio of the actual density of matter in our Universe to this critical density 'Omega.' And whole armies of astronomers have spent decades trying to work out if Omega is less than, more than or equal to 1.,... "Studies of the gravitational effects of clusters of galaxies have revealed that there must be at least 10 times as much mass tied up in invisible "dark matter" in the Universe as there is in the familiar form of luminous stars and gas. Yet even when all this dark matter is thrown into the equation, it still doesn't make the theorists happy. Despite searching every cosmic nook and cranny, astronomers have never found anything like the amount needed to make Omega equal to 1."

"So the take-home message looks the same as that now emerging from the supernova and quasar surveys: the Universe is going to expand forever, and it may yet prove to be flat. Certainly the idea of the big crunch seems to have gone for good, but the exact values of Lambda and Omega, and the fate of the cosmologists' theories, are still up for grabs. These values may finally be nailed early in the next century, with the launch of NASA's Microwave Anisotropy Probe (MAP) and the European Space Agency's PLANCK missions. These will use the heat left over from the big bang to try yet another way of measuring Omega and Lambda, which may lay the question to rest for good ("Genesis to Exodus", New Scientist," 19 October 1996, p 30).




Flat Universe means no contraction

Andre Linde, Scientific American, Sept 1997

"A second trouble spot is the flatness of space. General relativity suggests that space may be very curved, with a typical radius on the order of the Planck length, or 10^-33 centimeter. We see however, that our universe is just about flat on a scale of 10^28 centimeters, the radius of the observable part of the universe. This result of our observation differs from theoretical expectations by more than 60 orders of magnitude." [Messuer is a leading physicist and one of the first to invent the inflationary universe theory]



ABC News.com: Scientists: Universe is Flat another link Physics. ucsb.edu

Wayne Hu of the Institute for Advanced Studies, School of Natural Sciences in New Jersey said "temperature maps of the CMB form a snapshot image of the Universe when it was extremely young." "The...result supports a flat universe, which means that the total mass and energy density of the universe is equal to the so-called critical density," Wu wrote. "A perfectly flat universe will remain at the critical density and keep on expanding forever, because there is not enough matter to make it recollapse in a 'big crunch.'"


c) End of Universe reveals begining--universe would have already ceased.




Energy of the universe is being expended, as it burns up,it becomes useless for work. The fate of the universe will be eventual death in ciy darkness as all of its suns burn out and their energy disipates][New Scientist, April 1999, oct. 96

"But even if the Universe lives forever, its inhabitants will not be so lucky. A mere thousand billion years from now, all the stars will have used up their fuel and fizzled out. There will still be occasional flashes in the perpetual night: the death throes of stars so large that they have collapsed in on themselves to form black holes. Even these will eventually evaporate in a blast of radiation. For the next 10122 years, this Hawking radiation will be the only show in town. By then even the most massive black holes will evaporate, leaving the Universe with nothing to do for an unimaginable 10 to the power of 1026 years. Quantum theory then predicts that atoms of iron--the most stable of all elements--will undergo "tunnelling" and disappear into tiny black holes, which will themselves end in a final fizz of Hawking radiation. In the beginning there may have been light, but in the end, it seems, there will be nothing but darkness. ".[New Scientist April 1999]



Given infintie time and possibility all potentialities would have already come to fruition, the chain would have already been broken before our universe came into being. This just illustrates the impossibility of an infinte series of events. (being a series of events it would be "in time" so it's really redundant to say "an infinite series of events in time.") In other words, if this universe drifts apart because it lacks mass to produce omega, than the last universe would have too because energy and matter would be the same amount, just formulated differenlty (energy cannot be created or destroyed). The absurdity of the notion of an infinite series of big bang/cruches is driven home; how could there be an "infinite" series if one of the links in the chain can't make it? It can't "already be infifinte" and then stop because infinite means no begining and no end.

Note: If the Skeptic does not agree to this principle, that given infinite time every possibility comes to fruition than he can neither argue infinite chances nor multiple universes against the Antrhopic argument.

d) Universe contains finite stock of order, connot be eternal (because it would have burned out by now)

*Scientific conesnsus:

Paul Davies, in his article, "Space-time Singularities and Cosmology," says,"If we extrapolate this prediction to its extreme,we reach a point when all distances in the universe have shrunk to zero. An initial cosmological singularity therefore forms a past temporal extremity to the universe. We cannot continue physical reasoning, or even the concept of space-time, through such an extremity. For this reason, most cosmologists think of the initial singularity as the beginning of the universe. On this view, the Big Bang represents the creation event; the creation not only of all the MATTER and ENERGY in the universe, but also of space-time itself."[ P. C. W.Davies, "Space-time Singularities in Cosmology," in The Study of Time III, ed. J. T. Fraser (Berlin: Springer Verlag, 1978), pp. 78-79.]




* Laws of Physics break down at singularity

The laws of physics break down at the singularity. 1st Thermo. would apply after the Big Bang, then the fixed amount of energy that is "put in" to the universe (as Davies puts it) would be finite (in quantity) and subject to 1st and 2nd Thermo.


* 1 LTD applies to matter also. Thirdly, the 1st Law of Thermo. applies to matter ALSO. If you argue that energy is eternal, you've got to argue that matter is eternal, which goes against all the empirical evidence we have for the Big Bang.

* 2 LTD Energy burn to heat death

Fourthly, if you opt for 1st Thermo. before the Big Bang, try being consistent and applying 2nd Thermo. as well. If the energy (AND matter) of the universe is eternal, it would have reached MAXIMUM heat death an INFINITE amount of time ago.

Theoretical physicist Paul Davies, in his book God and the New Physics, states:

"If the universe has a finite stock of order, and is changing irreversibly towards disorder - ultimately to thermodynamic equilibrium - two very deep inferences follow immediately. The first is that the universe will eventually die, wallowing, as it were, in its own entropy. This is known among physicists as the 'heat death' of the universe. The second is that the universe cannot have existed forever, otherwise it would have reached its equilibrium end state an infinite time ago. Conclusion: the universe did not always exist."



If you deny that the universe has a finite stock of order, you are essentially denying the 1st law of thermodynmics, as it requires a fixed finite amount of matter and energy. (check your Encyc. Britannica)

In your wider universe, does the 1st law of Thermodynamics apply WITHOUT the second? What reversed the entropy of this eternally existent universe? As we saw above, a universe containing eternal matter and energy would have reached maximum entropy an INFINITE amount of time ago. What organizing principle intervened 11-15 billion years ago and organized all that energy and matter that was no longer available for work? What or who (or Who) woundthe universe up?

Fifthly, we observe that the universe is expanding uniformly in all directions. Had the universe existed for an infinite period of time, the density of matter would have become zero. (Koons) How do you explain the observable expansion of the universe? We measure the recession velocity of distant galaxies by using Cepheid variables, type Ia supernovas, and now Red Clumps as standard candles. And the microwave background radiation and redshift (doppler effect that skews the red portion of thespectrum of starlight in proportion to the distance of the star) confirm this expansion also. Futhermore, within the very field equations of General Relativity, is embedded the fact of the expansion and decceleration of the universe. There are now 19 proofs of General Relativity in 12 isolated areas of Physics,making it the most exhaustively proven principle. Are you saying that General Relativity does not apply to our universe as a whole?!! It is accurate to better than a trillionth of a percent precision. Where is your scientific evidence for A) seperate portions of the universe which General Relativity does not describe B) seperate universes? If its not falsifiable, and there's no evidence for it, then its just not a threat to the standardBB model as it is not scientific.

O we should note the argument that we can't say where God was or what he was doing. Nothing could be more puerile. This guy has truly marked himself as a know nothing. Of course this is all because he doesn't read the material. He reads atheist websites and doesn't think about what he reads. BTW for those who are in the dark here, there is no "where God was." that is to think of God as a big man in an even bigger room. That sort of conventional thinking sees God as localized and the timeless void "before the big bang--yes AA says those words (anyone who knows anything about this stuff knows that we don't speak of "before the big bang" because there is no before before time) the think of that void as a big room that God is standing in. This is nothing more than the lack of brain power to push themselves to consider radical images. They don't have the imagination to ponder what infinite would mean. God is everywhere (that's what omni present means). So it's pointless to say "where is God." That's like saying "which end is up" in outer space. AS to what God is doing this is also to imagine God as a big man who has to doing things, because he's ansy and can't sit still. God is the ground of bieng, what he's doing is being.

A related point is the fact that if the currently most widely accepted model of the big bang is one in which time didn't exist before the big bang,

(you see, there he says "before time").

how could god exist in a "time" before time even existed?

obviously since there is no "before" before, we don't have a problem. Because then there is no point in trying to image a time before time. What we can do is make it special. that's why the theoretical physicists do. that's the whole point of a concept of space/time. that's space/time is. they make the time dimension spacial and speak of 'beyond even horizon." This is how Hawking speaks in a Brief History of Time. So beyond event horizon there is no big timeless void with God in it, there is only God. God is what there is beyond event horizon. There may be a mutli verse in which case there are other space/times and God fills those and goes beyond them.

It's a contradiction.

It's over your head.

Fourth, with the Kalam Cosmological Argument claiming god has no beginning, thus needs no cause, they have no proof of this, and it's unknown if the universe even had a cause to begin with. The big bang we know of may have been just one out of countless "bangs" that have occurred throughout time, following Paul Steinhardt and Neil Turok's theory.

Of course he's missing the point the fact of a need for first cause which is eternal is the proof that God is that. Because that's what God is. that thing, that must be there we call God. How we get the idea of God because there must be something on that order and that's what we call it. The proof is the contingency of the universe, that it begins, it will end, it can't be etearnl, but isnce it can't come form nothing there must be some eteranl form of being.

that is a proof of God's existence and so AA is missing the whole boat. This site I must give it one star, total ignorance!

it's not worth further critique.

What's Love got to do With it?

We have been discussing ethics. My standard attack on atheist versions of ethics is that they can't ground their axioms. Well I amend that to say that the grounding they use is not as strong as belief in God is as a grounding. Its not that they have no grounding at all, but of necessity and logic atheist are basically forced to either result to a relative and discordable grounding, or to ground axioms in something that can't produce an ought. Grounding nature is pretty solid in that it's empriical but it can't produce an "ought" becasue it's inherently ground in the world of what "is." There's no bridge to get form "is" to "ought." Since ethics is about "ought," it's not very good grounding.

The dialogue partners with whom I have been confabulating, Hermit and Dave Ellis, are exceptional. Both have grounded their axioms in love. I find that unusual for atheists because most times when I have this discussion with atheists they avoid "the subjective." In my opinion Dave and Hermit have both failed to produce a strong ground. Neither of them can really show me why their views or the values they espouse should trump any other values. They ground their ethics in the values of love, but they really can't say why we should value that any more so than someone who grounds them in hate or in violence. Both are grounding in relative personal feelings, avoiding trying to make love into some kind of universal principle which all must follow. Dave tries but i think comes dangerously close to argue God when he does so. I am sure he is balking at that but think about it.

His only recourse to the question why should your personal feelings out weight anyone else's is just a form incredulity: "well don't think love does trump everything?" I mean, come on man, who doesn't love love right? I agree but that doesn't make it so. On the other hand if there is a creator of the universe whose character is synonymous with love then love as the meaning of the universe is "written" into the fabric of reality and so is "correct" a prirori. Atheists seem to feel that there is no need to be correct in this way. Just asserting the power of the feelings is enough. yet in other matters they eschew the "subjective."

Now the thing is, in spite of all this I feel that Dave and Hermit are really close to what I believe in certain regards. I strongly believe that love is the basis of everything and that it is synonymous with God's character. All of God's basic motivations are driven by love, and love is the background of the moral universe. That means all the motivating principles that drive the grounding of axioms are based upon love. If one does not love one is acting ethically only in a legalistic sense and in "good faith." I think that does matter. The battle ground of ethics is in the heart.

I understand Dave and Hermit's views, and there's a possibility that I underrated the depth of their commitment. With some atheists I think talk of love could be cheap because it is taken by some to mean "i love doing X therefore X can't be wrong." Whereas the way I understand love to ground axioms is not a license but as motivation for duty. In other words, If I really act in love I will do X for so and so because that is the will to the good of the other. I sense that love is a grounding for Dave and Hermit in a deeper way than just licensing their desires. I say this based upon the political commitments I know about and other things they say. I understand their view of love grounding axioms. But I still I think without a larger connection to love as the foundation of all things (ie from God) then they are just grounding axioms in personal tastes and they can't really arbitrate between other personal tastes that compete with their own. No consequences to doing wrong in such a senerio. They can't even say "that's wrong." The most they can say is "that's not loving." But the other can always say "I don't value love" and all they can say is "you are missing stuff." I think ethics has a lot more force when one can say "you are acting unethically."

I think they are close to understanding the idea of God's grace. I agree that love covers a multitude of sins. In other words, what is right is motivated by duty and obligation and duty and obligations are defined by the loving regard, the will to the good of the other. A legalistic view is not an ethical one. Imposing a lot of rules for the sake of keeping the rules defeats the purpose. The true end of ethical thinking is the decision making process to act in accord with the basic motivations of love. But this only has the force of ethical power when it can be linked to the basic meaning of the universe not just one's own personal predilections.

Discussion with Dave Ellis

in response to my discussion with Hermit about morality Dave Ellis, another loyal friend opponent joins in the discussion:

DE:

Experiencing love is not like a preference for chocolate over vanilla ice cream.

If you can experience love deeply with no psychological trauma or distortion of objectivity marring one's judgment I do not believe you can fail to value it.

Meta: But without any sort of metaphysical hierarchy in which to ground that value it is nothing more than sentiment. You can't make it be more important than it is if there is no transcendent place for it to register in the meaning of the universe. If it's just as and that's all there is then its just the way we feel and that's worth nothing more than my own little personal feelings.

It's so odd how atheists smirk and deride and belittle the subjective when it's used in a God argument. then their ethical foundation is based upon the subjective.

You simply cannot have it both ways. Atheists usually belittle the idea of "objective" morality. So that means the alternative has to be "subjective." so which is it?






DE:

Your claim that its just a "matter of taste" is simply a denial of the intrinsic value of love.

Meta: No it's being honest about the consequences of a universe with no transcendence. I am perfectly happy to carry the banner for the cause of the value of love, but only because I think love proves the reality of God in some strange mystical way.



DE:

You seem to think nothing has any value, even love, if that value isn't derived from a transcendent source.

Meta: Not that it doesn't have any value, but it's value is realities, limited and discordable. Come on you know people. One day it's hooray for love and that's why I'm moral, the next day it's "O well there's no sin so I can sleep with a married woman it wont really hurt anything." I mean come on, these things are easy to discord when the time comes and it's more convenient to do so.

you know people do this. How many people talked big about democracy then when the 9/11 happened they were willing to give up freedom for security? Or they supported torture for protection from terrorism, because suddenly all those find words about democracy and decency and all that didn't sound so fine when theyw ere afraid of being blown up.



DE:

I contend that the value of love derives solely from its own intrinsic qualities.

Meta: But how can it have any intrensic qualities if it's just a side effect of chemicals in our heads? It's nothing more than an accident that got out of hand. Unless of course it has some source beyond that.

Me (before)

Love is subjective, another time atheists would saying "that's subjective" meaning it's worthless.

DE:

Here is my central point on meta-ethics. The place where most people go dead wrong on the issue from the very start:

SUBJECTIVE DOES NOT MEAN ARBITRARY NOR WORTHLESS.

Meta: I'm glad to hear that, you are a rare individual. I really do think you are. But how do you base anything on that unless you are willing to see love soemthing beyond just biological organisms in a cold empty universe that has no meaning?



DE:

Subjective simply means experiential as opposed to somethings existence independent of experience.

Meta: Yes and no. It derives from the subject/object dichotomy. So the subject is the individual the object is something everyone can observe. Subjective is more just experience, it's also closed to the view of others, it's one person's view point that can't be shared with another (except in so far as it is inter-subjective, meaning they don't share it but have similar subjectivity). Those are tied in of course.




DE: Naturally, morality is all about the experiential. Where there are no experiences there can be no morality. Rocks and trees don't suffer, they don't hope, they don't love and they don't face moral dilemmas.

Meta: Obviously morality is practiced by subjects, But it's not about experiences. ti's about grounding axioms. That's what makes ethics work. Grounding axioms is what it's all about. you can't ground them in subjectivity.

You are not just listening. You think I'm telling you some Christian stuff this is standard ethical theory that you would get in any college class.



DE:

Its only when subjectivity (combined with sentience) enters the world that morality becomes a possibility.

Meta: of course but that doesn't mean that subjectivity is a grounding for axioms. That's like saying your care wont work without gasoline so therefore you can put gas in your radiator.

I don't know. I'm usually short when I try reaching for a good analogy.



DE:To illustrate what I mean by subjective not being equivalent to arbitrary let's look at the example of physical agony. We'd all agree that the experience is, in and of itself, a bad thing (though, of course, possibly a sometimes necessary thing in some circumstances). No one in their right mind values it in and of itself.

Meta: no now wait a minute. you have hold of the wrong end of the stick here. My argument was never that it's arbitrary. Its' that it doesn't' count for anything if there is no transcendence. Unless there is a higher meaning how can it have higher meaning? The only meaning it has is the meaning you want it to have. but because it is subjective you can't use it to sort between competing feelings. If You feel love dictates that you help people, I say I don't feel that way, what are you going to say to get me to believe that I should care what little personal feelings you have?



DE:

And why is agony to be devalued? If we look for some "objective" reason we go wrong from the very start. Its devaluation is due precisely to the subjective content of the experience itself.

Meta: what if you encounter members of a warrior culture and they don't value agony they see it as something to be ignored, a weakness? How do you sort out the value of it from their person feeling that it should be ignored?


Meta (before):

I'm not saying atheists don't love I'm saying most of the time they don't value the subjective until they need to like now.

DE:

Subjectivity as such is highly relevant (central in fact) to ethical questions (since such questions are in large part about what the subjective experience of life would be like for people as a whole who followed one set of values as opposed to another).

Meta: No it' s not. name one major ethicist who believes this? you don't find that in any major ethical idea. G.E. Moore with emotivism said that morality si emotive but he didn't try to say that that was a grounding, he used it to discorded the value of morality. He was an atheist and as such he felt that morality was an outmoded concept. that's the closest you come in real ethical theory.

do you not understand that there are major conversations that have been highly developed about ethical theory? I( mean you seem to be blazing a trail of your own. Shouldn't you care what the major thinkers have said?

You have not come to terms with duty and obligation nor have you told me how ethical axioms are grounded.


DE:

It is not pertinent to many other questions. Not all questions are about our subjective experience. Many are about how things are independent of that experience.

Meta: how do you choose between competing values if your grounding is relative and subjective?

Me (before):

If love is just a chemical reaction due to a side effect of the neural transmitters how does that ground moral axioms? just subjective.

DE:

Again, subjective does not mean arbitrary. Unlike you I do not dismiss subjectivity in moral questions. Subjectivity is at the heart of the issue.

Meta: saying it's not arbitrary does not expalin how it's grounded.

(1) what grounds it?

(2) how do you sort between competing values

(3) if there is no higher meaning in life why would this meaning anything?




DE:

Some subjective experiences (like love) are intrinsically positive in nature (though of course they can be distorted toward harmful objects and twisted in various ways, one of the things that makes meta-ethics complicated is the intricate ways subjective experience and objective fact are intertwined in questions of morality).

Meta: without prior grounding how do you determine a standard by which we could say the departure therefrom is "twisted?" That would seem to suggest a prior standard.



Meta (before)

If love is the character of God it grounds them becasue God created the universe so love is written in as the basic meaning of our being.

DE:

All I have to do is experience love to see it as the basic value for any sane and psychologically sound human being.

Meta: This is recusive. How do you determine what is "sane and psychological?" without a prior standard? You can appeal to love because that's the thing is question. So how do you say we can see that love is sane and psychologically sound? That's the thing you are judging not the grounding of itself. So you have to have a prior standard by which you judge love in order to say that it is so.

how do you translate "psychologically sound" into ethical? why should we think those are the same thing?



DE:

Lets imagine there is no god. Can you honestly say you would see no valid reason to think it better to be a loving person than a sociopath? Part of a community of loving individuals rather than a community of sociopaths?

Meta: Of course I would, but that doesn't make it moral. You are not answering the basic questions about grounding. All you are doing is telling me what you like. It's just the yeah boo theory. You have no basis for grounding other than "I think think is good." what is good, It's what I like. what if someone doesn't like it, what if I say "no?" How to do you handle that?

hypothetically let's say I answer that by saying "no, I don't care about love you are nuts. I take what I want and the only moral grounding is 'don't get caught.'" what can you tell me to make that bad other than "that's not what I would do?"

why should I care what you would do?

see you have to answer that to answer the thing about grounding.


DE:

The answer is obvious. All you have to do to recognize it is to get over this strange, unfounded idea you seem to have that subjectivity equates to arbitrariness.

Meta:arbitrary is your gig, that was not my statement. i never said that. you are the one with that problem. My argument is your axioms are not grounded. The subjective by its nature as relative cannot ground anything. to ground something we have to objective standards.

that's apt to create a misunderstanding and lead to the conclusion that I'm one of these people who runs around talking about "objective morality." That's not really the issue either. But the point is, yes we are subjective creatures and objectivity is largely a pretense. But we have to have moral grounding that has some teeth. We can't just apparel to feeling niceness and subjective things that can't translate inot standards that everyone can know up front are putting the "ought" into the equasion.

you can't get an ought out of subjectivity.



March 27, 2009 7:01 AM
Delete
Blogger David B. Ellis said...


morality is about duty and obligation not just good vibes and candy ass sentiment.



DE:

What is duty but a codification of the behaviors natural to a person motivated by love?

Meta: no. why would you think that? that's the Hume's fork fallacy. you are trying to derive an ought from an is. Nature says "you are this way." But it can' tsay "You should be this way." It does not have it in itself to say "ought." just saying "this is" is not the same as saying we ought...

March 27, 2009 7:08 AM
Delete
Blogger David B. Ellis said...


it's about doing what you should do.

And are not the things we should do the ones that come naturally to the person motivated by love?

Meta: you are making groundless assertions. you have no ability to slip ought in there. how can you go from 'is' to 'ought?' Hume says it's a fallacy.






DE:

Call it candy-ass sentiment if you like but its the sort of sentiment that makes people willing to risk life and limb. There's nothing candy ass about it.

Meta; no it's not. it's great stuff. but it's great stuff not because it makes me feel nice and it's what I like but because it's written into the nature of reality, the ultimate goal of being, it's the basis upon which being is.

many theologians have recognized a basic connection between being and love. Both are united in God. God is the ground of being and the basis and source of love.







March 27, 2009 7:11 AM
Delete
Blogger David B. Ellis said...


I don't feel that I have the right to force others to like them just because I do. So that's not morality. But don't commit adultery, that can be forced upon everyone, because it's a moral motion.


that which is moral = that which we can legitimately force others to do?

I can see a lot of problems with such an idea.

DE:

I thought you put great stock in free will. In people's opportunity to CHOOSE to do right or wrong rather than their being forced to do right.

Meta: Free will is not canceled by the need to be moral. In fact beign moral would be impossible if it was not a free choice. Moral decision making reqjuires taht one choose freeling to be good. that's the basis of life, that's why God created us in the first place, so we could be free moral agents and willingly choose the good.

but we have to undrsatnd the nature moral agency and then choose it forourselves.

March 27, 2009 9:47 AM