Reece101

Another ebuc

Common does not equal objective. Us sharing an idea does not make it objective. It must be objective despite us outside of us irrespective of us. We are not a part of the equation at all. I'm not sure how else to put this. What you are talking about, common ideas, that is not objectivity it is agreement.

Do you mean is objective irrespective of our experiential awareness?

Quite possibly, our individual perception and memories have been shown to be unreliable and subject to bias. That is why peer reviewed science is so important. We may actually be incapable of objectivity but science is our best attempt.

There is no number people who have a belief, opinion or idea that will tip the scales from subjective to objective. The number of people who agree is entirely uconnected with objectivity.

What constitutes haphazardly is entirely subjective.

That an idea is common or that you and I have it in common does not make it objective. 

There is no number people who have a belief, opinion or idea that will tip the scales from subjective to objective. The number of people who agree is entirely uconnected with objectivity.

Any number of people are able to hold the same subjective opinions and standards.

Let me give you an example.

The sun is hot.

This may seem like an objective fact and indeed it is far hotter than you or I could survive, but as stars go the sun is very much average. Other stellar bodies make the sun seem down right cool.

The objective fact is that the heat output of the sun would kill us. The subjective opinion is that the sun is hot.

What is disagreed upon is when the killing of humans is justified. This is because it is subjective.

Well you have not clearly stated that in any of your posts.  Your approach is believe that biological life came from  an aggregate collection of minerals and where is the 'keystone of life' in that process.  I have the book "Touchstone of Life" by Lowenstien.

He comes to an obstacle in those pathways from mineral to living biologic/soul.  I cant recall it exactly but it takes energy to transmutate to the next level, but it also needs that energy to maintain its status quo. so it is some kind of loop that does not allow the leap from mineral to biologic/soul life.

Need? I dont know. What I do know is that it is only humans who assign a purpose to Universe, humans this or that and humans have access to an metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concept.

Earths location is chance of environmental conditions. How huans came to be on Earth is unknown.

If your only refering to Earth and humans. The cause and effects of the galactic events that led to Earth existence are complicated.

And again, we have no idea how humans came to be here.  Lots of speculation of possibilities.

Well duhh, yes all that exists --including earth and humans--- involve space and time.

You seem kinda of vague in whatever it is you think your trying to question.

They are the facts of what humans do, that all other animals do not do, or do but too a much greater of less degree.

Well yes, humans have access to and ego, whereas animals have such lesser degree of access to ego.

Your comment ..."Answer: Depends how far you want to go back."... presumes there is some time length that will explain why Universe or just humans exist.  I will repeat, in an eternally existent, occupied space Universe, time is irrelevant to how Universe came to exist.  Eternity is beyond time, ergo any time length value we want to reference is irrelevant to eternity.

I'm not sure or others grasp     what eternity means and that is partly because humans only witness terminality of their lives, terminality of other biologics lives, a beginning time to Earth, terminallity { decay } of particles { natural occuring decay } except of the proton whcih is assumed to have a natural decay rate, that we dont know of yet.

Then in same breath of people who cannot grasp eternity, that will start spouting off about and unlimited occupied space Universe ergo ignorant of systemic and structual integrity only being finite.

Eternity is to time, as,

Infinity is to occupied space.

Eternity and infinite are beyond { meta } their repective counter parts, of time and finite, occupied space

Humans purpose in being here is to harvest information, sort the information into orderly way, discover patterns and principles, apply those patterns and principles via technoliges that support ourselves the ecological enviroenment that sustains us, and the integrity of Universe.  

Most of the above is paraphrasing Bucky Fuller, that I have done consistently with integrity for some 20 years or more

False, since and eternally existent, Universe there is time length that references the existence of occupied space.

Humans have this ego based mental issue when it comes to comprehension of;

1} eternal occupied space existence vs terminal biological existence, and,

2} infinite Space  vs finite occupied Space

Warren. Only. I would give her the floor and sit in awe.

That is not sarcasm, she's genuinely the best thing in American politics I've seen in a long time.

1. Warren voted for Trump’s increase to the military budget 
2. Warren has taken money from military contractors
   
3. Warren Is wanting to take big money in the general election 
   
4. Warren has been iffy on medicare for all
   

The Church has always understood being made in the image of God to refer to our noetic faculties rather than our physical appearance.

In a pre-eternal sense, God spoke the word. The word existed before it left the mouth(this isn't to say that the pre-incarnate God has a literal mouth or tongue.), and after leaving the mouth, became flesh as it has been incarnate in the air as a word. Like all words, it is carried by the breath that proceeded from the "lungs of God" so to speak.

The Father is The One speaking.

The Son is The Word.

The Holy Spirit is the breath.

We use these illustrations as images, types, and shadows of the greater reality that we are witnessing to. It would be a mistake to see the hand of God as being literal hands like a man's hand rather than God's work in the world. That said, God did become man, and so we can speak of "God's hands". We can also say that the bishops and priests who administer the sacred mysteries as well as anyone who does the work of God is working with the hands of God. 

God created the universe from nothing. We say that God spoke everything into existence. The Word of God itself being co-Eternal with God as God. Time came about at the beginning.

God is pre-eternal, that is, the beginning and end of time itself is known to God, who is outside of time, yet in it, but not subject to it.

For one, your quote is an incorrect reference. It has to identify which letter, first or second. 

So, without God, your faith or belief rests on the subjective, limited, relative opinions and views of like-minded limited, subjective, relative men. The question is which one(s)?

I believe only one position is correct and that position is a God-oriented perspective. Granting this universe is created the Creator would be the source and ultimate knowledge in how He created it and every detail of it. 

The question is which is the more reasonable belief and does the evidence really point to a solely naturalistic view? To decide you have to unpack the two beliefs, get to their core presuppositions and find how they are able to make sense of ultimate beliefs. 

Naturalism can't make sense of ultimate beliefs. Thus, if you want to hold it you are welcome to it, but you will consistently be inconsistent in what you say and what you do. You will be living a contradiction. 

I have no objection to both positions being taught. What I object to is when science is hijacked so that only one paradigm is investigated and looked at, when the orientation only looks at the data from a solely naturalistic viewpoint, when the evidence for the other side is totally ignored and when anyone holding such a position is ridiculed out of the scientific endeavour.

I don't believe it does. But besides that, I would like to point out that it is scientifically impossible to prove the existence of other universes, as they have no causal connection to our own universe. If there is a causal connection, I am not sure it could be called a seperate universe

Contingent and temporal reality. 

Thanks for the concession, but my hope is that it engaged your thinking and that you thought about it in a more thorough way.

So, I want you to tell me, from a universe that has no intention behind it (i.e., not created by an omniscient Mind), why uniformity of nature should continue to happen as it has done in the past and present into the future?

Because any time you have a contradiction regarding the same issue then one position (logically), at least, cannot be true. 

In the law of identity, a dog is a dog (A=A; Dog = Dog). "Dog" does not mean cat. When someone says, "a god said A happened" and another person said a different god said B happened regarding the same thing there is something terribly wrong in the thinking of at least one of those positions.

[1] The OT and NT are the plumblines, yet it also concerns trust, relationship, and interaction with God. Any position regarding presuppositional starting points or the basis of a worldview (or system of thought) requires faith. As I said before, is that blind faith, reasonable faith, or an unreasonable faith?

[2] That is a debate within Christian thinking. One thing, Romans 10:17 and other passages seem to convey that faith comes through hearing the message. On the other hand, who has ear's to hear the message, eyes to see, and a heart to understand. Why do we not all believe? It is obvious that many of us do not want to believe. We want to invent our own explanations. 

The inhouse debate questions whether God saves and therefore it depends on Him alone (monergism/Calvinism) or do you save yourself through your acts of "righteousness" in conjunction with God's revelation (synergism/Arminianism)? 

Did Jesus die to save specific people or just make salvation possible? 

Whatever you believe, if you have wronged God you are answerable to Him and who hasn't if they are past the age of accountability. That would exclude innocent little children?

Yes, its origins. As such, how do you get uniformity of nature (sustainability - things continuing in the same manner as in the past) so that the sciences - i.e., physics, chemistry - are possible (for science we must have the ability to predict based on the consistency and repeatability of nature)?

Again, you personify physics. Physics, as such, does not have the ability to pick bones with me. Physicists may have a bone to pick, but physics is a label applied to describe the properties of matter and energy. 

There are many observations that give us reason to believe the universe had a beginning, such as its expansion, the running out of usable energy, etc. The question is how will you ever know with certainty unless God has revealed. Thus, I believe He is necessary for making sense of how we began (our origins) and how things happened. And, to my mind, there is no sense of the "why" without God. Why would the universe begin? No reason. Why does it exist? No reason. Why does it hold together? No reason. Why do laws exist? No reason. Things just are. But we continually find reasons and meanings for things. That suggests to me a purpose and meaning BEHIND the universe. It suggests intelligence and purpose behind it. And the Bible gives us some of the reasons, and they make sense.   

There are two reasonable starting points, IMO. 

1. God/gods did it. Gods make little sense. God does. 

2. The universe is a product of blind, indifferent, random, chance happenstance. No sense to be found in such a position since there is no purpose, intelligence, or intent to it. Things just happen.

From these two positions come the myriad of opinions and views that share one or the other starting point.

There is a third position lots of people push for, but again, it is not reasonable

So, do you want me to give evidence against or argue your questions and points as to their truth value or not?

You misunderstand my point. Regardless of how long we have been on the planet, if there is no Mind behind the universe you are living inconsistently with what is behind your worldview - mindless chance happenstance, thus no meaning or purpose. Not only are you looking for meaning and finding it in a meaningless, random, chance happenstance universe, but you are making up mean ----- for what? Before you were born the universe devoid of God had no meaning and after you die it will still have none. What is the point of meaning when ultimately it is all meaningless?

You borrow from the Christian worldview that has meaning and that believes there is meaning in the universe because God has created us humans for a purpose. Not only that, our Christian worldview is consistent with what we believe. Yours, devoid of God is not. Furthermore, when you break it down to its very roots, to its presuppositional foundations that everything else rests upon, it can't make sense of itself logically because the inconsistency is at the heart of the belief.