You seem to imagine that this sort of question is more difficult for materialists than it is for anyone else. It’s not. Materialists have all sorts of different views on moral theory. But at least they attempt to tackle the problem.

How do NON-MATERIALISTS know that they are right and that Polanski’s defenders are wrong? Attributing objective morality to a supernatural being amounts to identifying some supervisory authority – it tells us nothing about morality, about what makes good, good and evil, evil. You’re back at square one.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Your willingness to believe and to use this argument yourself shows exactly where you’re coming from. You don’t believe because you simply don’t want to, and any excuse, no matter how utterly vacuous, will be sufficient for you.

Extraordinary claims do not require extraordinary evidence at all. Nope, not even a teeny tiny bit! They require the same evidence as anything else that seeks credibility: Credible evidence—that’s all.

But, I’m sure that fact will not deter you from sticking your head in the sand… again.

It is not hard to understand the question of whether the natural universe is an isolated system. It isn’t a “big ask” to consider that it may not be isolated, especially since there are no other isolated systems.

It can’t be turtles all the way down.

Scientists were quite content to suppose (pre Big Bang theory) that the material universe was eternal. It seems that this is OK, only provided we are not talking about God. Selective exclusion.

Eternal != beyond time. (fwiw I don’t believe in an eternal universe.)

People ask questions about God as well.

And then people like you refuse to answer them.

Christianity either stands or completely falls depending on whether Jesus rose from the dead.

So what is your evidence for that? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Brent:

“Which is it? Is causality observed or isn’t it?” I think I was pretty clear on this.

“Not even a teeny tiny bit fantastic?” Ok maybe a little fantastic. No more fantastic than your claim though. Bascially when it comes to ultimate origins we are all in the realm of fantasy.

suckerspawn: peer reviewed! LOL

Something can come from nothing. The inanimate something is complexity and life just waiting for the sun to shine on it. It is foolish to even consider peer-reviewed, eye-witness accounts written by some guys a few thousand years ago.

“‘Nothing can come from nothing’ is not ‘the most foundational law of nature’, it is a hypothesis. Causality is not an observed phenomenon, rather it is surmised from observation of events.”

1.) The hypothesis hasn’t been contradicted once since… forever.

2.) Which is it? Is causality observed or isn’t it? You can try to slice this hair as many times as you like, but the conclusion will never be different. It is observed that everything has a cause, without exception. I cannot put a finer point on it for you.

“And we have only observed events for a fractional period of time over limited scales in a tiny slice of a vast and ancient universe.”

3.) If you are so secure in your position, why do you have to make excuses for why we haven’t (dang it) gotten a (darn it) glimpse of this (shoot) something that comes from nothing?

“There is really nothing fantastic in supposing that maybe, just maybe, such a seemingly fundamental ‘law’ might not apply for such things as the beginning of the universe and time itself.”

4.)Really? Not even a teeny tiny bit fantastic? You mean to tell me that you are willing to follow this “logic” into the darkness where, not only do we have no observed evidence to support it, but we have vast observable evidence that directly contradicts it? Great is thy faith.

“Even assuming for the sake of charity that ‘transcendence’ argument is valid, it does not take you as far as you would like. A transcendent phenomenon is all it argues for – not a god, not a personality of any kind. Indeed it is curious that to justify your belief in Christ you have to jump from arguments in logic and physics to a book written by some guys a few thousand or so years ago.”

This is nothing but good old-fashioned hand waving. Read what I wrote again, and if you have a cogent argument against it, then please make it. This simply will not do.

“a transcedent phenomenon, beyond space, beyond time” — It is not hard to understand the question of whether the natural universe is an isolated system. It isn’t a “big ask” to consider that it may not be isolated, especially since there are no other isolated systems.

“beyond causality, beyond justification,” — Scientists were quite content to suppose (pre Big Bang theory) that the material universe was eternal. It seems that this is OK, only provided we are not talking about God. Selective exclusion.

“beyond any further questions” — Hyperbole. People ask questions about God as well.

To Brent, you wrote: “Indeed it is curious that to justify your belief in Christ you have to jump from arguments in logic and physics to a book written by some guys a few thousand or so years ago.” — What at all is curious about considering the testimony of contemporary observers regarding the pivotal events of history?

Christianity either stands or completely falls depending on whether Jesus rose from the dead. How would it be curious to include consideration of the evidence of what the people who were there said? Do you think it more reasonable to decide such a question while excluding what they said?

“Nothing can come from nothing” is not “the most foundational law of nature”, it is a hypothesis. Causality is not an observed phenomenon, rather it is surmised from observation of events. And we have only observed events for a fractional period of time over limited scales in a tiny slice of a vast and ancient universe. There is really nothing fantastic in supposing that maybe, just maybe, such a seemingly fundamental “law” might not apply for such things as the beginning of the universe and time itself.

Even assuming for the sake of charity that “transcendence” argument is valid, it does not take you as far as you would like. A transcendent phenomenon is all it argues for – not a god, not a personality of any kind. Indeed it is curious that to justify your belief in Christ you have to jump from arguments in logic and physics to a book written by some guys a few thousand or so years ago.

Sorry for the slow reply.

“We both agree, I presume, that questioning has to stop somewhere, one can’t just keep asking “why?”.”

Yes, the questioning should stop somewhere, but it must stop somewhere that is logical and foundational to what we are trying to understand if it is to have any meaning.

“I just prefer to stop one step before you.”

Preference has no standing when seeking answers. What one prefers has nothing to do with what the truth is. If we run a race and you lead me by 50 meters from, basically, start to finish, but you prefer to stop an inch short of the finish line while I prefer to stop an inch past it, who wins? Likewise, when seeking truth you must actually go all the way to the finish line or you have gained nothing at all.

“I don’t think a creator is necessary, and just what we have stands in no further need of explanation.”

That, however, goes against the most foundational law of nature—nothing comes from nothing. Something comes from something. We have never, ever, observed something coming from nothing—not once, ever, since we have existed. This is the reason we even bother to look for answers or even question anything at all. If things were observed to come from nothing at all then it would be futile to question anything. But, things always come from something, and to insist otherwise is to say that the laws of nature were at some point violated.

I agree! The laws of nature were violated, in a manner of speaking anyway. To trace the causes behind time, space, matter, energy, being, and whatever else, you will quickly realize that this problem exists. We both agree, I now presume, that, even according to science, the universe had a beginning. Science and materialism is very slim on the details, however, because if everything that exists isn’t eternal, then where did everything come from? Where is the source? Nothing comes from nothing, so where did everything come from? There must be something, without question, that transcends all of what we know and observe. It is wishful thinking at best to seriously entertain any other idea since, again, it would go against everything we have ever observed.

This transcendence must be at least equal to or greater than what we know or observe, also, or it would not be sufficient to cause it all. Therefore, not only from this transcendence do we find all matter, energy, and time, but also being, for this transcendence also caused us, living beings. Welcome to God.

You may like to argue that this doesn’t require one Transcendence, but that would be wrong. If there were one transcendent phenomenon behind each different thing (space, matter, energy…) that makes up our universe, it would be highly unlikely that they would function together as a whole the way that they do.

Now, another argument we see is the infamous, “Where did the creator come from? Who created the creator?” Well, we have to have a definition of God, don’t we? That is by very definition why we say “God” and not some other word. God is defined by that very quality as transcending everything; time, matter, energy, laws of physics and the universe. God created everything and stands outside of everything. So, asking the question above, that many do, is simply ignoring what “God” means when we use the term, and is why I label them ignorant.

As to your further question about whether I think arguments justify a belief in Jesus Christ, yes, I do. I believe that the Bible clearly paints a picture of God being completely transcendent over the universe. I don’t see the same in other “versions” of God. And, in regards to Jesus himself, I see no other figure in history that can compare with Him even slightly in any claim to deity. What impresses me, personally, the most about the uniqueness of Christ, however, is that He is the only one that knew what to do about sin. He knew how to pay the penalty for it. He knew how to deal with those who needed their debt paid. He paid the debt Himself, and then forgave the debts of those (us) who needed it. I see no other “holy man” having anything to say about this. They can fish the depths of their God-made heart and conscience and share about righteous living, but how to pay for any sins committed they didn’t know (though some have contrived extremely self contradictory ways to “pay” for or have their sins cleansed).

Vjtorley

I too will leave this discussion at this point.

Thanks for your polite and measured comments (even though I utterly disagree)