R0bert,

Do you seriously believe that a sensible debate can be had with this man?

When asked to define "born witness" he responds with "My detractors on this page may protest at the ancient language of theology and they refuse to look through that to the thing it indicates."

Hardly scientific. When faced with simple but essential questions about his "science of theology" he is forced to revert to the subjective, or faith, or the bible, or evil and darkness.

And then just look at the drivel that has followed.

Sells' attempt to conflate theology with science is an intellectual crime against humanity.

tao, I've never done well at understanding what Sell's is on about when it comes to his religious beliefs. That may be that my own background was very much in the evangelical (borderline fundy) strain or it may be that Sell's has some issues - I don't assume that my failure to understand implies that the other party is talking nonsense.

Sell's does seem willing to adjust his understanding of his faith to fit in with observed reality - easier to work with than those who assume that reality is wrong if it does not fit with their beliefs even if I understand the latter.

I really would not like to see a situation where individuals suffer at work for expressing unconventional views not impacting on their work. If Sell's was editing test results at work to reflect his understanding of Gods nature then his employer would have reason to be involved but not for discussing theology. That way lies the tyrany of the middle ages.

R0bert

Philo, you often need to fight inertia and if I ground my self-esteem in living consciously, responsibly, and with integrity, then I relish facing the challenges of life in a state of confidence. Before you can answer a question such as how ought one act you first have this question of why does one need to know? Why does an issue of ethics arise in the first place? Well to be free is not merely to cast off one's inertia, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedom of others so that our presence automatically liberates others.

In my previous post I presented an ouch or two that raised ethical issues in response to Peter's article. All one can say about the systematic belief in morality derived from the commands of supernatural beings, with assumed supernatural realms, with associated rituals, with sacred objects and places is that it practices the vile art of self-deception. Just seems most teddy infected types do not live out in their actions whatever playpen faith they profess with their lips, words and projections because all we see is a self-indulgence, resentment, manipulation, and a general lack of honest communication.

Peter's articles are a mish mash of confusing contradictions but the poor fellow says it is a science. Scientists survive professionally by determining cause and effect and they must be determinists or else they cease to be scientists. If one believes, like Peter with his belief in supernatural beings, that a certain effect had no material cause, then would one NOT be motivated to look for a cause? Wouldn't one then cease being a scientist in that area of investigation?

Tao and Kerian. You both need to take a pill and have a good lie down. You are sounding quite bitter.

Question: All material things are moved by something that precedes it. Nothing pops out of nowhere. What "moved" the big bang as the beginning of our universal existence?

And whilst on things Arisotle here is a neat insight for those who want to separate the sacred science from all other sciences as human endeavour -

http://www.abu.nb.ca/Courses/GrPhil/PhilRel/Aristotle.htm
* * * *
The Unmoved Mover in Metaphysics

3.1. Metaphysics 6.1

Aristotle asserts that if there is a type of substance that is unchangeable, then first philosophy would deal with this primarily, since the unchangeable substance would be prior to changeable substance, presumably because the former would be the cause of latter.

Theoretical science is more to be desired than practical science, and the theoretical science the most desired is the science occupying the highest genus (dealing with the highest type of substance), that which has the unchangeable as its subject matter, what Aristotle calls first philosophy (hê prôtê philosophia) or theology (theologikê), as opposed to physics, which has the changeable for its subject matter, and mathematics.

He writes, "The first science deals with things that both exist separately and are immovable" (hê de prôtê kai peri chôrista kai akinêta) (Metaphysics 6.1; 1026a 15).

Thus, the first science has for its subject matter not only that which is substance and for that reason exists "separately" or independently, as all substances do, but also that type of substance that is unchangeable and therefore has no matter, for whatever has matter has potentiality and is therefore changeable.

* * * *

And of course Aquinas built on Aristotle whose works were handed down via the Muslim scholars. Aquinas's work built the foundation for human knowledge, understanding and will to find expression as we know it now; notwithstanding the deficiencies of the Enlightenment project.

Boxgum, I have no need to take a pill and have a good lie down. What are you a pill pusher? LOL

Speaking of pushers .......

Aristotle said many things including "That there never was a time when there was not motion, and never will be a time when there will not be motion". (252b 6-8) In other words an infinite regression of pushers or really what I have been saying for some time ..... an infinite material universe that has always existed and always will exist. It is my thoughts on this that society at the time wanted to be the pusher and later Aristotle is thought to have then adopted this idea that an infinite regress is impossible.

In Islamic philosophy we have Imam al-Ghazali born in 1058. Whilst several Muslim philosophers had the opinion that the universe was finite in space but infinite in time he argued that infinite time was related to infinite space. i.e. an infinite regression. I've always found this belief quite remarkable because it assumes an infinite universe rather than one created.

As a thirteen-year old some fifty years ago when I first heard of the big bang "theory" I can remember saying to the teacher that it didn't make any scientific sense. Like how can you have a bang in a vacuum if indeed a vacuum could exist? It is quite absurd but we now see the the Big Bang is an official religion. Like all official religions, it requests funding to spread its message. The modern person saw this as good because we can retain a sense of pride in this new cosmology.

The same mindset that gave us this Big Bang stooopidity now gives us teddy (god) wars but all the dumbos out there love it don't they?

Philo,

Thank you for your reply. Appreciated.