re: Stephen Hawking Dead - Hawking Radiation Proves Existence of God

quote:

---

It is. God's word means nothing unless we accept it just like our laws mean nothing unless society accepts them

---

I think you're missing the point here. If God exists and He enforces His moral standard (through eternal punishment), it doesn't matter if we accept it because people will be punished all the same. We don't have to accept or acknowledge speeding laws, because if we break them, the government will punish is anyway. Our acceptance isn't a requirement if it is an objective and universally applied standard.

quote:

---

It isn't objective. It can't be objective. It's opinion, no matter what importance you believe it holds. 

---

Objectivity and subjectivity are relational concepts. It would be objective to humanity because it would apply equally to all humans because it comes from without us.

quote:

---

No it isn't.

---

sure it is (this is a fun game).

quote:

---

has God been proven real?

---

absence of proof is not proof of absence

quote:

---

There is an element of circularity to this because of the nature of God: God is the highest being in the universe and cannot to appeal to anything or anyone greater to Himself (such as a alien moral standard) because no thing or person exists that is higher or has greater authority than God. Therefore, whatever the highest power and authority decrees has to be the standard for whatever He exercises authority over.

That standard is good because it comes from God and God is good, not just because He commands it, but because His commands are good due to His commands being the result of His character, which is good. It's not just His opinion: it's the natural result of His existence.

---

There isn't an element of circularity. It's just circular and that's it.

God is good because God says he's good. God is the greatest authority because God says he's the greatest authority. God can say he's the greatest authority because he's the greatest authority. God is good because he says he's good and he's the greatest authority.

It's clever wording, but that's about it.

quote:

---

Perhaps you'd like to tell me what it teaches? I've studied it intently for the past couple of decades and I've come to the exact opposite conclusion. 

---

It teaches many things, and if you haven't come to those conclusions after the "past couple of decades" then you don't want to come to those conclusions. Coincidentally, I also don't want to spend the time to change your mind on that point.

quote:

---

It can be factual and truthful. An opinion is just a perspective from an individual and it can be true or false. I reject that if the Bible is true, that this is just an opinion.

---

You're entitled to do that. Even if the Bible is true, it's an opinion, and the importance that you assign to it won't change that.

quote:

---

It's not a bad point just because you don't like it.

---

Of course not. It's a bad point because it's a bad point. I know what you're trying to do, it just doesn't work. If anything, it supports my position.

quote:

---

I'm not sure how you can say this as a rational response. You're denying linguistic realities at this point and I'm not sure how else to continue arguing this as you're now going off into the realm of irrationality. 

In a sense, the laws in this land are "objective" in terms of our judicial system because laws are applied to all people. Saying such things are simply opinions would be asinine and false, and yet you are saying this against a proposed standard that would be objective in relation to all of humanity, not just the citizens of the U.S. 

---

How interesting that you can give no reply but to accuse me of being irrational, and then immediately claim that our laws are objective.

Opinions are subjective, and pretending that one opinion is divine does not change that.

quote:

---

Sure it is. There are dozens upon dozens of people, places, and events detailed in the Bible (both Old and New Testaments) that have been archaeologically confirmed or supported in one way or another. The Bible isn't some composition of fairy tales that exist outside of history. 

---

Yeah, that would be known history, supported by reality.

Dozens.

quote:

---

If God is God and is the first cause of all things, there cannot be anything greater to appeal to.

---

Sure, but it's still just an opinion and it's still circular. We're left to decide if he's telling us the truth, and if he's actually correct. Subjectivity.

quote:

---

Your priorities must be out of alignment. 

---

When this is your response, absolutely.

quote:

---

then it would be impossible for God to be capricious.

---

No it wouldn't. It would just mean that he's consistent with the writings of the Bible, which doesn't favor that conclusion.

quote:

---

If the Bible is true, it's beyond just an opinion

---

No it isn't. It's an opinion, and it will never matter how much importance believers place on it. Scare tactics don't work, either.

quote:

---

It provides guidelines with specific examples to show us what God expects. There are few if any examples where we can't apply the moral code of God to everyday ethics.

---

It provides what you want it to provide based on your individual understanding. Subjectivity, and nothing more.

quote:

---

What gaps?

---

The gaps that are not filled in for us, which is essentially all of them.

quote:

---

There has been consensus throughout time but understanding requires study. Just as anyone can look at the 2nd amendment and say it doesn't protect the right of individuals, so too do people read the Bible and impose their own faulty reasoning into the text rather than attempting to understand what should otherwise be clear. 

---

Your examples are very poor, and lead right to subjectivity. We have no objective morality, and every time you bring this up, you support that conclusion.

quote:

---

Correct. Likewise, if every single person thought something was right (like killing Jews or babies), it doesn't matter because God judges sin regardless of our thoughts on the matter. 

You see this rigidity as a bad thing but I see it as a standard that doesn't falter even if the moral compass of humanity continues to stop functioning and more and more evil behavior becomes acceptable and even promoted in the world. 

---

Wrong. I see that rigidity as made-up. It's quite obviously a bad idea thing, and that really shouldn't have to be explained. "Evil" has no meaning. It's also a made-up concept. What you're really saying is that things that conflict with your stories are things you don't like. Evil is just something you say to make it sound like an objectively wrong thing.

quote:

---

We should ignore that in favor of God's truth because it is a reality that we will all have to face someday, not because it is in a book. It is in a book so we can know what to expect. 

---

It's opinion, and I'll never have to face it. Nothing will ever make that true. Saying things like "we all have to face it someday" holds no meaning. That's nothing more than a primitive scare tactic, and it works on fewer people every day.

quote:

---

It is reality and it will be unfortunate for anyone who ignores it and rejects the offer of salvation from God through Jesus Christ. I urge you to repent. 

---

It isn't. Christianity isn't first or unique in these claims.

I urge you to live your own life for you, and enjoy it more. Not because God said to do it, but because you want to enjoy it.

quote:

---

There are still slaves in the world and people are killed for all sorts of reasons in cultures across the globe. 

---

Many, or most of those cultures have widespread religious belief, yet it persists. It's like people are tribal and violent, regardless of which god they chose.

quote:

---

You act as though moral relativism is responsible for the lack of the examples you provided in our own culture but I would argue that it is Biblical morality that gave us what we enjoy today in our nation and it is the rejection of it that is increasing immorality that we are seeing more regularly. Moral relativism can give and it can take away, quickly and easily in society. All it takes is one idea to be enforced over another and no one can say that idea is wrong or immoral because it can't be. By definition, in moral relativism what is moral is what is enforced. The reformers (like MLK) are the immoral ones. 

---

You keep talking about moral relativism like you understand it. You clearly don't. Whatever your preacher told you is wrong. Our society is what it is today because we're allowed to hold opposing ideas, not because we chose the right god, which didn't happen anyway. We continue to reject the superstition of the Bible, and we've grown and become better, more intelligent, and more reasonable. I don't find that to be coincidence.

quote:

---

What adaptation? The examples you provided? The distinction between the Old and New Testaments were a matter of roles, not a change of fundamental purpose. The signs passed away once the destination was attained. 

---

It was a matter of convenience. People needed a good story, and they got it. We don't need it anymore.

quote:

---

It provides what you want it to provide based on your individual understanding. Subjectivity, and nothing more.

---

Subjectivity is the human's interpretation. Objectivity is God's morality being enforced regardless of how human's interpret it.

quote:

---

The gaps that are not filled in for us, which is essentially all of them.

---

Please be more vague and imprecise

quote:

---

Your examples are very poor, and lead right to subjectivity. We have no objective morality, and every time you bring this up, you support that conclusion.

---

Your worldview forces you to misconstrue what I'm saying.

My point is that those who create the law with a particular meaning and application in mind are being misunderstood even though that original intent can be clearly understood. Instead of going to the law or the text to understand the intent, people are forcing their own beliefs onto the text to make it mean whatever they want it to mean. Surly you understand the concept of exegesis versus eisegesis. That's what I'm getting at.

quote:

---

Wrong. I see that rigidity as made-up. It's quite obviously a bad idea thing, and that really shouldn't have to be explained. "Evil" has no meaning. It's also a made-up concept. What you're really saying is that things that conflict with your stories are things you don't like. Evil is just something you say to make it sound like an objectively wrong thing.

---

You seem to actually buy into moral relativism based on how fervently you are defending it. I hope you don't because everyone can see that if such a worldview were lived out consistently, there would be even more pain and suffering in this world.

The rigidity isn't "made up". It flows from the very character of God, which is holy and unchanging.

"Evil" does have meaning. It's that which goes against the character of God as represented through sinful actions of humans. The human conscience understands the concept of evil and it has been a known commodity for as long as humanity has existed.

quote:

---

It's opinion, and I'll never have to face it. Nothing will ever make that true. Saying things like "we all have to face it someday" holds no meaning. That's nothing more than a primitive scare tactic, and it works on fewer people every day.

---

It's the truth whether you accept it or not and it should be scary. Knowing how sinful humanity is, we should be afraid to go face to face with a perfectly holy and righteous God that will judge us and it is very meaningful to those who understand the gravity of the situation.

quote:

---

It isn't. Christianity isn't first or unique in these claims.

---

It is, and Christianity doesn't have to be the first religion to claim salvation for sin. If the Bible is true about history (I believe it is), then the promise of salvation occurred from the very beginning of human sin, before any organized religion as we know it today.

quote:

---

I urge you to live your own life for you, and enjoy it more. Not because God said to do it, but because you want to enjoy it.

---

Hedonism is selfish and leads to destruction of others for the sake of personal pleasure and perceived happiness. It's a good thing most people don't actually live this way consistently.

quote:

---

Many, or most of those cultures have widespread religious belief, yet it persists. It's like people are tribal and violent, regardless of which god they chose.

---

Yeah, that almost sounds like the Biblical concept of total depravity and a fallen human nature. Actually it does sound like that.

quote:

---

You keep talking about moral relativism like you understand it. You clearly don't. Whatever your preacher told you is wrong.

---

Yes, I do. I've studied this stuff for a long, long time. Moral relativism teaches that morality originates in each individual, each culture, or each society and does not exist in an objective sense, perceived wholly or applied universally to all peoples, nations, or cultures. I'm trying to beyond the mere definition and get into application based on logical reasoning.

I don't know what exactly my preacher has said on this topic specifically because he hasn't mentioned it much. Contrary to what you might think, I don't run to a preacher to get all of my talking points or understanding of a topic. God has blessed me with a functioning brain and the ability to understand principles and concepts as well as apply them to the to real world.

quote:

---

Our society is what it is today because we're allowed to hold opposing ideas, not because we chose the right god, which didn't happen anyway. We continue to reject the superstition of the Bible, and we've grown and become better, more intelligent, and more reasonable. I don't find that to be coincidence

---

It seems you are the one who doesn't understand moral relativism. When you say we've "grown" and "become better", you have to have something to compare our current state to and assign values of good and bad to each state in order to compare them. You're using comparative language which doesn't seem to make much sense in a system of moral relativism.

I can just as easily say that we have lessened, are becoming worse, less intelligent, and less reasonable as a society. We have more information at our fingertips than everyone else in the history of the world combined yet we know very little. People are ignorant and morally bankrupt, seeking selfishness above all else, like your admonition to do what makes me happy. No, I wouldn't agree that we are progressing. I would say we are regressing and I believe that is the result of a rejection of God's law and moral order.

quote:

---

It was a matter of convenience. People needed a good story, and they got it. We don't need it anymore.

---

Wrong. There were "good stories" all over the place. They didn't need a new one if that was the intent.

quote:

---

Subjectivity is the human's interpretation. Objectivity is God's morality being enforced regardless of how human's interpret it.

---

That isn't objectivity. It's subjectivity with a different source.

quote:

---

Please be more vague and imprecise

---

You want me to go over all of the gaps that the Bible doesn't fill in? I'm not going to do that.

quote:

---

Your worldview forces you to misconstrue what I'm saying.

---

No it doesn't. My worldview forces me to accept reality because there is no other option.

quote:

---

original intent can be clearly understood

---

Right, so long as it's what you deem as the correct understanding. Subjectivity, and nothing more.

quote:

---

You seem to actually buy into moral relativism based on how fervently you are defending it.

---

I'm not defending it. I don't need to do that. It's reality. I'm calling out your apparently intentional misunderstanding of what it is.

quote:

---

I hope you don't because everyone can see that if such a worldview were lived out consistently, there would be even more pain and suffering in this world.

---

Moral relativism is what we have. Assigning religion as your guide does not change that.

quote:

---

The rigidity isn't "made up". It flows from the very character of God, which is holy and unchanging.

---

Yes it is. It's a story, and nothing more.

quote:

---

It's that which goes against the character of God as represented through sinful actions of humans.

---

Like I said, it has no meaning.

quote:

---

It's the truth whether you accept it or not and it should be scary. Knowing how sinful humanity is, we should be afraid to go face to face with a perfectly holy and righteous God that will judge us and it is very meaningful to those who understand the gravity of the situation.

---

It's make-believe. A story you tell children to get them to behave, but perpetuated by otherwise intelligent adults.

quote:

---

Hedonism is selfish and leads to destruction of others for the sake of personal pleasure and perceived happiness. It's a good thing most people don't actually live this way consistently.

---

No it isn't. That's what your Bible teach you. That isn't reality. Most people do live that way, whether they or you ever admit it.

quote:

---

Yeah, that almost sounds like the Biblical concept of total depravity and a fallen human nature. Actually it does sound like that.

---

That isn't a new or unique concept to the Bible.

quote:

---

Yes, I do. I've studied this stuff for a long, long time. Moral relativism teaches that morality originates in each individual, each culture, or each society and does not exist in an objective sense, perceived wholly or applied universally to all peoples, nations, or cultures. I'm trying to beyond the mere definition and get into application based on logical reasoning.

I don't know what exactly my preacher has said on this topic specifically because he hasn't mentioned it much. Contrary to what you might think, I don't run to a preacher to get all of my talking points or understanding of a topic. God has blessed me with a functioning brain and the ability to understand principles and concepts as well as apply them to the to real world.

---

Nope. You have shown how little of it you understand in the posts you've made here. Your posts are filled with talking points straight from the mouths of Christian apologists. You're trying to redefine what moral relativism is to fit your own narrative. It's not original or clever, and I won't allow it.

quote:

---

It seems you are the one who doesn't understand moral relativism. When you say we've "grown" and "become better", you have to have something to compare our current state to and assign values of good and bad to each state in order to compare them. You're using comparative language which doesn't seem to make much sense in a system of moral relativism.

I can just as easily say that we have lessened, are becoming worse, less intelligent, and less reasonable as a society. We have more information at our fingertips than everyone else in the history of the world combined yet we know very little. People are ignorant and morally bankrupt, seeking selfishness above all else, like your admonition to do what makes me happy. No, I wouldn't agree that we are progressing. I would say we are regressing and I believe that is the result of a rejection of God's law and moral order.

---

In my view, I can have an opinion that changes. I don't rely on a book to tell me what is right or good. That's why I can say things are better and that we've grown. The only thing you can actually say is that things have changed and they align with your book less every day.

quote:

---

Wrong. There were "good stories" all over the place. They didn't need a new one if that was the intent.

---

Sure, but not the "right" story.

quote:

---

1. The word "first" (protos, in the Greek) could be legitimately translated as "before", which would change “This was the first census that took place while Quirinius was governor of Syria)” to "This was the census taken before Quirinius was governor of Syria.”

---

1.) There's no historical record of a Roman census that took place in Judea prior to its loss of independence in 6 AD.
2.) The Roman Empire was massive, they knew they couldn't rule everywhere with an iron fist. They allowed independent nations to keep their traditions, religions, customs, etc. in exchange for money. Pay the Romans, don't cause trouble, and they'll leave you alone. Why does this matter? The Jews traditionally hated censuses. Look back when Satan tempted King David into performing a peace time census. When Judea was added into the Roman Syrian providence and Quirinius performed a peace time census the Jews rioted - according to the Jewish historian Josephus.

So there's no record of this census happening, even though Rome kept really really good records, and there is actually reason to believe Rome wouldn't have done a census in Judea because of how much it'd piss off the locals. Rome couldn't risk riots in every independent nation paying them money. Let them worship and live how they want to, just keep the money coming in and don't cause trouble.

quote:

---

2. Quirinius actually had two different governorships and Luke was mentioning the first, which the historical record (outside of the Bible) is silent about.

---

I don't see what this does. Judea was added into the Roman Syrian providence, which at the time Quirinius was governor of. A different governorship elsewhere wouldn't allow Quirinius to be tied into a Judea census.

Moreover, it can't be argued that the 2nd governorship was also over Syria since Rome didn't let governors do repeats for fear of getting too much power over an area. Once their term was up, they moved them to a different area. There were no double terms served over the same providence.

quote:

---

Luke, on the other hand, was meticulous with his facts about names of people, places, events, and even titles.

---

So meticulous that he didn't mention the three wise men nor Herod trying to kill Jesus as a child like Matthew did?

Read the two accounts, outside of Jesus being born Bethlehem there's no overlap. Only one account mentioned the census, only one account mentioned Herod trying to kill Jesus, only one account mentioned the three wise men, only one account mentioned shepherds, only one account mentioned the town being full and them having to use a barn, etc.

Come on man, these were embellished. Neither author was in contact with the other, which is why we're seeing what we're seeing.

quote:

---

1.) There's no historical record of a Roman census that took place in Judea prior to its loss of independence in 6 AD.

---

Like I said, only a small fraction of their records are preserved for us today. You seem to be operating under the assumption that we have access today to everything that was written and recorded back then. We don't.

quote:

---

2.) The Roman Empire was massive, they knew they couldn't rule everywhere with an iron fist. They allowed independent nations to keep their traditions, religions, customs, etc. in exchange for money. Pay the Romans, don't cause trouble, and they'll leave you alone. Why does this matter? The Jews traditionally hated censuses. Look back when Satan tempted King David into performing a peace time census. When Judea was added into the Roman Syrian providence and Quirinius performed a peace time census the Jews rioted - according to the Jewish historian Josephus.

So there's no record of this census happening, even though Rome kept really really good records, and there is actually reason to believe Rome wouldn't have done a census in Judea because of how much it'd piss off the locals. Rome couldn't risk riots in every independent nation paying them money. Let them worship and live how they want to, just keep the money coming in and don't cause trouble.

---

Josephus wasn't too kind to Rome in terms of how they ruled over the Jews. Yes, they allowed some concessions for the sake of a semblance of peace but procurators like Pontius Pilate, for example, were pretty cruel to the people. Gessius Florus plundered the temple and massacred the people for taunting him afterwards. Titus eventually destroyed the city and there were terrible horrors that took place during that time including mothers eating their own dead children so they wouldn't starve to death.

And like I said, whether they were meticulous with their record keeping or not, if the records didn't survive, we wouldn't know what they actually recorded.

quote:

---

I don't see what this does. Judea was added into the Roman Syrian providence, which at the time Quirinius was governor of. A different governorship elsewhere wouldn't allow Quirinius to be tied into a Judea census.

Moreover, it can't be argued that the 2nd governorship was also over Syria since Rome didn't let governors do repeats for fear of getting too much power over an area. Once their term was up, they moved them to a different area. There were no double terms served over the same providence.

---

The first governership wasn't "official" but delegated. This paper argues the possibility, but it's quite lengthy: LINK

quote:

---

So meticulous that he didn't mention the three wise men nor Herod trying to kill Jesus as a child like Matthew did?

Read the two accounts, outside of Jesus being born Bethlehem there's no overlap. Only one account mentioned the census, only one account mentioned Herod trying to kill Jesus, only one account mentioned the three wise men, only one account mentioned shepherds, only one account mentioned the town being full and them having to use a barn, etc.

Come on man, these were embellished. Neither author was in contact with the other, which is why we're seeing what we're seeing.

---

All four of the gospels were written for different audiences with different purposes. Matthew wants to paint Jesus as the new Moses and the Jewish Lord, so he tells about the flight to Egypt. Luke writes to the Greek gentiles and paints Jesus as the King of Gentiles as well as Jews. Luke is a historian but doesn't detail all aspects of Jesus' life (none of the Gospel writers do) because the purpose is to tell what is necessary about Jesus' life so the respective audiences understand who He was.