I also think he does acknowledged in his argument that the God of 3 O's is outside reason - from memory could well be mistaken

So as the caravan of 4,000 give or take make their way toward the US, while we are planning to send 8 or 9 thousand troops to the boarder to prevent them from entering - once again I find this situation presents us as a country with a moral dilemma.

As I see the options - we can allow these people to enter the country as refugees seeking asylum and process their individual claims.

Or somehow - ultimately with force - prevent them from crossing the boarder.

I can not see how in anyway we as a nation can do the later and present ourselves in anyway as a moral force in the world any longer.

Crossing the boarder, and presenting yourself as a refugee seeking asylum is not an illegal act. Why would we try to prevent that ? We have laws and processes that address this - why would our President be unwilling to use them?

Some ants debate the existence of God. A theist ant can't expect to persuade an atheist ant by mere assertion and handwaving. The converse is also true, so perhaps we can just agree that God is a hypothetical possibility. — Relativist

Theists don't normally - or classically use the 3 O's in their proofs of God. These are beliefs theists hold by faith, and are outside reason. For example - the CA 's only conclusion is there was, at least at one time, an un-created creator, that is all. The entire basis of the OA is that God is outside our ability to imagine, and in the arguments from design, only one of the O's is implicit.

It is way more common for atheists to describe this theist belief that is held by faith, as a basis of an argument and then defeat one of the O's with reason. They establish a proposition that has never been offered as derived by reason - then say it is not reasonable. This is the basis of the the argument from evil and all the O paradoxes. And the theist response to both at the end of the day is the same - we have no idea at all with the limited tools we posses, any true definition of what God is.

and while the ant may have an ant definition of astrophysics, it may have nothing at all to do with astrophysics. However the ants can still enjoy arguing about it, and even asign one ant or another the title of smartest ant.

or perhaps we have no capacity to understand what God is at all. And all of our anthropomorphic rationalizations and theories are akin to an ant trying to understand astrophysics.

pascal's first proposition is objectively true, and is independent of assigning any probability, it is, either God is, or God is not, and we can't know as a matter of fact which is true. That is an objectively true proposition.

Your point is not an argument against this proposition, it is a rationalization for choosing one of the options.

trump has been a master of manufacturing a crisis, creating fear, and assigning blame for it, and unifying some mass of people against this made up enemy. He instinctively knows that every hero needs an arch villain.

It is simply amazing that he has been able to turn an ever dwindling crowd of desperate people fleeing abject poverty and violence into a strategic threat to he United States that requires military intervention is both a credit to both his and many of the Americans baser instincts

How an educated electorate has allowed a Trump to happen continues to be a mystery to me.

not 100% sure what you mean by "religion" in this - but interpreting it broadly - I think most "religions" would say they have already found the Creator.

I always thought the most powerful thing about Pascal's wager was as an argument against agnosticism.

His proposition that we are already embarked on the journey and we must play. The coin will stop spinning and we all must chose heads or tails, not playing is not an option.

At some point you just have to let go. — Jeremiah

I have no issue at all with anyone's choice to " let go " - Would just enjoy the same courtesy to those of us who hold on to something instead.

Science is an evidence based methodology, which often also includes making conclusions on a lack of evidence — Jeremiah

I think the only thing science would claim due to a lack of evidence, is there is a lack of evidence.

Quite literally just about everything you would consider scientific evidence for anything - was not evidence - until it was.

for example:
there was no evidence of cells - until there was
there was no evidence of black holes - until there was
etc etc etc
there was no evidence a wheel would work - until there was

Lack of evidence means only 2 things, i - there is no evidence, or we haven't found it yet.

So take it easy on me - my physics knowledge is limited, my astro physics is non - existent.

If I understand you correctly - you would call the big bang T 0, and your position is that there is an infinite time T minus - during which there existed something - as we would define something - matter, mass, energy - something measurable.

If I understand you correctly, then I have 2 questions - the first is just a step back question,

1. than where did that matter, energy come from ?

2. is there any significant difference between a theist explaining your time t minus as God, and you calling it yet to be explained science ?

Seems to me we are both using faith to explain an unknown - me with a faith in God, you with a faith in science

I am a theist - and sent the link where it came from -

sorry - hit the button before adding -

http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html


In this lecture, I would like to discuss whether time itself has a beginning, and whether it will have an end. All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago. This is probably the most remarkable discovery of modern cosmology.

This means that the state of the universe, after the Big Bang, will not depend on anything that may have happened before, because the deterministic laws that govern the universe will break down in the Big Bang. The universe will evolve from the Big Bang, completely independently of what it was like before. Even the amount of matter in the universe, can be different to what it was before the Big Bang, as the Law of Conservation of Matter, will break down at the Big Bang.

Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them.

Although the laws of science seemed to predict the universe had a beginning, they also seemed to predict that they could not determine how the universe would have begun.

this from Hawkings the beginning of time, have we moved past this ?

Since out of nothing, nothing comes, it's more rational to consider the universe as having always existed. — LD Saunders

that may or may be true, but you would be leaving science's best understanding of the origin of the universe. I may be behind the times, but i believe that the best understanding is that it is finite, and had a beginning.

Blessed are the peacemakers - thanks - think TWI and myself are all good

No problem - thanks the reply

sometimes I wonder about folks, I just specifically told you, that I was making that comment about my post, not yours. I understand you thought I was talking about you, which, is why I took the 2 seconds to let you know I wasn't. Why for goodness sake why would I lie about that, and why in goodness sake would you think I would?

Amazed

was saying my post was theology not philosophy.

again not philosophy, but theology. The concept of the "hidden God" is to have one's belief based on faith, which they would argue adds greater meaning.

If God somehow appeared, stopped the world spinning on its axis, spilt the Atlantic in 2, made Trump incapable of telling a lie, then announced that love Me and each other and have eternal life thing full of a happiness you can't imagine. One would have to be an idiot not to. But would it have any meaning?

enjoy the rest of your evening. Again, if you would care to make a supported argument that my theism is irrational, would be happy to engage.

opinions are not very interesting, I prefer arguments based on propositions

thank you for sharing another opinion.

thank you for your opinion.

not a proponent of full contact philosophy. Not an evangelist. Have no desire to prove anything.

One can by faith alone choose to believe what one wants. So long as that belief is not in conflict with fact or reason. Theism is not in conflict with fact or reason.

Would however be interested in engaging any supported argument that ends in a proposition that says

Therefore theism is not a reasonable position

think this in someway is what mr ossipoff is saying

“Perhaps even atheism versus theism is an example of this principle that an apparent either/or can really be a both/and. For I suspect that the God you insist does not exist is probably a God I also insist does not exist; and perhaps the God I maintain does exist is a God you have never denied.”
― Peter Kreeft

But the question is, is "God as creator" itself an untruth? Stephen Hawking is a renowned physicist, he knows a lot about the physical world. If he says that it is highly improbable that the physical world was created by God, one might be inclined to believe this. Then what does this say about the catholic theologians who are speaking to God as creator? Is it the case that they are mistaken, and when they thought they were speaking to God they were really speaking to something else, or are they acting deceptively? Or could a renown physicist mistake the physical world? — Metaphysician Undercover

Not sure truth is the right concept.

One can believe something is true and act accordingly thorough either fact, reason or faith.

No one can state as a matter of fact that God is, or that God is not
It is both reasonable to believe God is or God is not
One can, on faith alone believe that God is or God is not.

Stephen Hawkings, or a theologians expertise should color there view of the above - but neither changes anything. We all know exactly what they know - that this whole existence that we are aware of either ends with God or a big black whole. We all get to decide for ourselves.

Take this passage for example. Let's assume that Genesis is not true. You say that we are still supposed to accept (on faith), that the Bible is true. This implies two distinct meanings of "true". We know that it is not rue, yet we may still accept on faith, that it is true. What could this second sense of "true" mean, in relation to the sense of "true" (literally true) by which we reject Genesis as not true? Is this "true" in the sense of honest? This is the only way I see to avoid the conclusion of deception. If the people who wrote the material truly believed it, at the time, as the truth, then they were being honest and true, despite the fact that we see it now as untrue. That doesn't seem to be likely in some instances, so deception seems probable. — Metaphysician Undercover

A Catholic theologian would say the purpose of genesis is to speak to God as creator, and in that purpose it in inerrant. The purpose was not a scientific explanation of how creation happened, or historical in its timing. So they may say the differences between today's understanding of the science of creation and an account of creation written 2000 years in no way effect the purpose of presenting God as creator.

↪Bitter Crank
I apprehend some inconsistency in your reply. How is it that theologians interpret the Bible as "not literally true", yet they also believe it? If you know something is not literally true, you would never believe it. You might recognize some other purpose to the writing, other than to speak the literal truth, and instead of believing it, you "believe in it", but what would be that other purpose? To deceive? — Metaphysician Undercover

Can't speak for all, but a Catholic theologian would say the Bible is inerrant in its purpose which is the salvation of souls. The purpose is not to be historically or scientifically accurate.

as a card carrying theist, I agree with just about all of that. And to go a step further, many theologians would emphasize it is the decision by faith that makes it meaningful.

If God came down, introduced Himself, Stopped the world from spinning on its axis for a few hours, made unicorns appear in Piccadilly, and stopped Trump from lying. Then said, the love each other thing and promised eternal life, everyone would believe, but would it be as meaningful?

Your judgment that there's a paradox depends on treating fetuses as individual human lives and treating global warming as factual. — Relativist

my paradox has absolutely nothing at all to do with the position of either issue - the paradox remains on both sides of the issues.

The paradox is absent only for those who are pro life and pro climate change, and for those who are pro choice and anti climate change.

not my point - my point is one individual - can value science very highly in the case of global warming and not very much at all in the case of abortion, and visa versa. This same individual can highly value future human lives in the case of global warming and not in abortion, and visa versa.

So can this person actually say they value science over metaphysics, or vise versa, or say in any real way how much they value future human lives.

Many people hold positions on these 2 issues, and value science in one, and discount it in another - and value future lives in one, and discount them in other - that is paradoxical if you believe ones values should be constant by definition. I hold very few people hold their values constant -

I see no paradox either. Abortion hinges upon a metaphysical principle: what constitutes an individual human life; no amount of empirical analysis can provide a definitive answer. On the other hand, climate change is entirely an epistemic issues associated with propositions such as — Relativist

again - kind of making my point - to some what constitutes individual human life is not metaphysical at all - it is completely biological.

and to some, what to do about climate change is non - scientific but political social. -

and both issues involve putting some value on future lives -

My point was and is, to some - thinking you would fit in this category -

Value the human lives at risk from global warming more than the future lives at risk from abortion
value science highly in for global warming, and dismiss the science in abortion
value metaphysics in abortion and discount it in global warming

again not making a moral argument either for or against either issue - just highlighting how easily we all can change the criteria we value in one issue to the next - IMO dependent on the answer we want to defend.

The answer often comes first, and we fit the justification in. And our values are malleable .

MMT , and all other economic theories are academic explanations of what is going on. They are not a political platform or some blueprint to economic bliss. You can't implement it- you can use it only to explain what is happening.

In the case of this topic -

Someone says - " the deficit is awful, it will bankrupt our children - it is an awful economic catastrophe - the butchers bill is coming.

When in reality - employment is good, interest rates are low, inflation is low, capital is plentiful - why is that ?? and i am not talking about this week - this is decades long ( with a blip or 2 )

MMT is an attempt to answer that question.

Why should the government concern itself with production? I'm not saying it shouldn't. I'm asking for the basis of the comment that it should — frank

it has no obligation to do so - it is a political decision - And again MMT is not a framework that is being implemented - it is an explanation of what is happening.

because it can

also - in almost all economic models full employment is a goal. The reason is labor is a factor of production, all factors of production should be used efficiently to maximize wealth ( not money - wealth) - un-employment is a waste of a factor of production - limiting productivity and wealth.

- just what MMT says - the proponents basis is that government spending creates an increase need for good and services, increased need for good and services should create a need for more employment, and higher wages. More employment and higher wages lead to increases in private consumption of goods and services, and then government can reduce spending to the degree private spending increased.

there is a link above that does a good job of explaining it -

but the basics - According to MMT

governments spend money into existence, and tax it out of existence - but it has to be spent first - before it can be taxed. This balance is the control on inflation.

interest rates are controlled by the movements in the government bond market. Banks reduce reserves by buying bonds, the overnight rate is adjusted to incentive or dis incentive these sales

and the purpose of government spending should be to obtain full employment.
the deficit is neither good nor bad independent of employment. Government spending should decrease in time of full employment and increase in time of higher un-employment.

there is no such thing as an excessive credit or deficit - they don't need to be solved

the only debt issues with MMT , and all fiat economy is they rest on the confidence in the governments ability to meet its obligations. There is no economic reason, this could happen, but there are political ones - like artificial debt ceilings that are 100% political - they are about votes not money.