An infinite series of finite causes.

[seer]

This must be why "God" is not referenced in the Constitution.

The Constitution does not reference the source of rights, it only sets out, generally, what they are.

America is not a Christian nation. It is not governed by Christian laws. Some of the founding fathers were Christian, many were deists. A few may have even been atheists. Regardless of their personal beliefs, the Founders insisted that every American be free to determine for themselves what they would or would not believe and to do so beyond the influence and control of the government.

Many founders were not deists. And of course we were governed by Christian laws, pretty much all the early states incorporated Biblical laws in state laws. Laws against adultery, sodomy, blasphemy, laws against working on the sabbath, many used public taxes to support state Churches - like in my state.

It would not have been in the US's best interests to have the Asia/Pacific region under Japanese control. And you forget that Australia has been a staunch ally of the US in every war the US has engaged in including the disasters of Vietnam and Iraq.

Right, I had friends who served with Aussie soldiers in Nam, and I heard nothing but good things. At least there are some real men left in your country...

[carpedm9587]

No Carp, see this is your tactic. Attempting to make everything so ambiguous as to not be relevant. It is not. In the context of the Mosaic code there is the lawful taking of life including the death penalty. So the "kill" of the Decalogue can not be a restriction on all taking of life.

You continue to make my point. Statements like, "in the context of the Mosaic code" mean that words are contextual. If they are contextual, they are subject to interpretation, by definition. And I am not claiming the commandment proscribes taking all life - I am claiming it requires interpretation to arrive at that conclusion.

That was not the point Carp. Which was, do I get to interpret your words in a way they were not intended by you? Of course not. Words have meaning. And if I believe that adultery is an objective moral wrong, and I refuse to practice it because it is an objective moral wrong - how am I engaging in subjective morality?

You have repeatedly misinterpreted my words, Seer. And, as with others here, have insisted that your interpretation takes precedence over what I was actually trying to say. This is exactly my point. I may have used words badly, leading to the misunderstanding. You may have interpreted badly, leading to the misunderstanding. But language is always interpreted. It is, by it's very nature, symbolic: it represents some aspect of reality. So when you read the proscription against "adultery," you are interpreting the words in that proscription. What you interpret is not necessarily what the author intended. Indeed, there is exegetical evidence that the proscription was specific to Israelite men and their relationship to married/betrothed Israelite women. But you reject that (apparently) and have imposed your own interpretation on it. Then you insist your interpretation is the "right" one, and it is "absolute/objective." But it is neither. It is Seer's interpretation (shared by a lot of people that do not know the Mosaic/historical context), nothing more. You are following your subjective interpretation of a moral law documented by another human. Hard to get more subjective than that.

Nonsense, the Bible never condones such actions. David committed adultery with Bathsheba, and it was a grievous sin. The Ten Commandments prohibits adultery, and reinforces it by saying that you shall not covet your neighbor's wife. This adultery assume that both parties are married - to other people obviously. Which Christ reinforces in the New Testament.

Sarai, Hagar, Abraham...as one example. Read your bible, Seer. There are others.

Meanwhile, your definition of "adultery" is not the dictionary definition, which says, "the term adultery refers to sexual acts between a married person and someone who is not that person's spouse." So if my son (unmarried) starts having sex with my neighbor's wife, it would be called "adultery." So we now have three different definitions of adultery, yet you tell me the term requires no interpretation?

Seer, your "objective/absolute" moral code is a figment of your imagination. I know you (and many others) cling to this fiction, but it simply cannot be shown to be true. You are subjectively valuing, subjectively interpreting, and then insisting that the result is objective/absolute. To quote a common saying, "you not making any sense."

[seer]

You continue to make my point. Statements like, "in the context of the Mosaic code" mean that words are contextual. If they are contextual, they are subject to interpretation, by definition. And I am not claiming the commandment proscribes taking all life - I am claiming it requires interpretation to arrive at that conclusion.

So what? Context is necessary in all language that does not mean we can't understand the meaning or that it is open to any kind of interpretation.

You have repeatedly misinterpreted my words, Seer. And, as with others here, have insisted that your interpretation takes precedence over what I was actually trying to say. This is exactly my point. I may have used words badly, leading to the misunderstanding. You may have interpreted badly, leading to the misunderstanding. But language is always interpreted. It is, by it's very nature, symbolic: it represents some aspect of reality. So when you read the proscription against "adultery," you are interpreting the words in that proscription. What you interpret is not necessarily what the author intended. Indeed, there is exegetical evidence that the proscription was specific to Israelite men and their relationship to married/betrothed Israelite women. But you reject that (apparently) and have imposed your own interpretation on it. Then you insist your interpretation is the "right" one, and it is "absolute/objective." But it is neither. It is Seer's interpretation (shared by a lot of people that do not know the Mosaic/historical context), nothing more. You are following your subjective interpretation of a moral law documented by another human. Hard to get more subjective than that.

That is pure BS - adultery has to do with one man having a sexual relation with another man's wife (or visa versa). What do you think not coveting your neighbor's wife means? What do you think Jesus meant?

Sarai, Hagar, Abraham...as one example. Read your bible, Seer. There are others.

No kidding! But that is not the point, nowhere does God condone this! You don't think Sarai, Hagar, Abraham, like David, were sinners?

Meanwhile, your definition of "adultery" is not the dictionary definition, which says, "the term adultery refers to sexual acts between a married person and someone who is not that person's spouse." So if my son (unmarried) starts having sex with my neighbor's wife, it would be called "adultery." So we now have three different definitions of adultery, yet you tell me the term requires no interpretation?

Yes that would be adultery, but in Biblical times most were married at a young age. If you have sex with another person spouse that is adultery. Period. It was in Biblical times and today.

Seer, your "objective/absolute" moral code is a figment of your imagination. I know you (and many others) cling to this fiction, but it simply cannot be shown to be true. You are subjectively valuing, subjectively interpreting, and then insisting that the result is objective/absolute. To quote a common saying, "you not making any sense."

No Carp, it is not merely interpretation, it is what the text says. Adultery is immoral. Whether you believe it is a command or God or not has no bearing on whether it is or not.

[carpedm9587]

So what? Context is necessary in all language that does not mean we can't understand the meaning or that it is open to any kind of interpretation.

When did I use the word "any?" That language is subject to interpretation does not mean it is subject to any interpretation. "Thou shalt not kill" can have several interpretations, but it cannot mean "eat black beans on Friday."

That is pure BS - adultery has to do with one man having a sexual relation with another man's wife (or visa versa). What do you think not coveting your neighbor's wife means? What do you think Jesus meant?

Calling something "BS" doesn't make it so. As for "what Jesus meant," I don't get into those debates. My point is that language is interpreted - always. What the original authors meant is a quagmire I have no intention of getting into. The fact that there is so much room for interpretation is why the exact same bible has been used over the years to both defend and refute the same positions, depending on how it is interpreted and which passages are given precedence over which passages.

No kidding! But that is not the point, nowhere does God condone this! You don't think Sarai, Hagar, Abraham, like David, were sinners?

I do not use the word, "sin," for obvious reasons. As for the rest, I have given you a common exegetical interpretation of the adultery law. You can look it up for yourself. Or not...

Yes that would be adultery, but in Biblical times most were married at a young age. If you have sex with another person spouse that is adultery. Period. It was in Biblical times and today.

Unfortunately, your claim does not hold solid. I suggest you look it up.

No Carp, it is not merely interpretation, it is what the text says. Adultery is immoral. Whether you believe it is a command or God or not has no bearing on whether it is or not.

As you wish, Seer. I wasn't expecting you would suddenly "see the light." You're locked into this belief that your moral code is somehow objectively true. I have shown several ways in which it is not. That you reject them is not a surprise to me. It doesn't change what is.

[seer]

When did I use the word "any?" That language is subject to interpretation does not mean it is subject to any interpretation. "Thou shalt not kill" can have several interpretations, but it cannot mean "eat black beans on Friday."

Then tell me Carp, - what exactly does the bible mean by adultery?

And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

[carpedm9587]

Then tell me Carp, - what exactly does the bible mean by adultery?

And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

I've already covered that in my previous posts. This sentence is consistent with my previous posts.

[element771]

This is really the only point being made. You are not comfortable with it but for many reputable cosmologists multiverse theory is the outcome of developments in several major fields of physics such as quantum physics, cosmological physics and computational physics. All of these seem to lead to some form of a multiverse. Not enough as yet to establish that it exists, but it's seems to be where cosmology is currently at.

What developments?

The reason that I am uncomfortable is that each of these "outcomes" in major fields is that they are on very shaky scientific ground. I know there are some that disagree with me but that is the nature of science.

Also, the idea that multiple fields support the multiverse is misleading. For example, the many worlds idea for QM is just every wave function collapsing is another universe branching off. But what is meant by this? There is a multiverse of probable outcomes that have a single branch point if you go back far enough. That is so different than the multiverse that arises from chaotic inflation that they shouldn't even be called the same thing.

I don't agree. For example, the cosmic background radiation is something that is empirically measurable that supports the BB.


I don't think this is true. They view it as a plausible scenario but not the most. It is far too early to put that much stock into it. There may be a few exceptions.

[element771]

No. i do not make up my own English like seer and you.

I take it that you did not read why it isn't an ad hominem.

Way to go!

[shunyadragon]

I take it that you did not read why it isn't an ad hominem.

Way to go!

I simply refer to the accepted English definition that accurately describes the behavior of seer and you as resorting to ad hominems when you are unable to respond coherently. I have not found any unbiased sources for the definition that would define it differently. Can you cite a definition that defines it differently?

[element771]

I simply refer to the accepted English definition that accurately describes the behavior of seer and you as resorting to ad hominems when you are unable to respond coherently. I have not found any unbiased sources for the definition that would define it differently. Can you cite a definition that defines it differently?

I did.

[shunyadragon]

I did.

Did what? Become an authority on how to commit ad hominems and live in denial.

[Tassman]

What developments?

The reason that I am uncomfortable is that each of these "outcomes" in major fields is that they are on very shaky scientific ground. I know there are some that disagree with me but that is the nature of science.

Also, the idea that multiple fields support the multiverse is misleading. For example, the many worlds idea for QM is just every wave function collapsing is another universe branching off. But what is meant by this? There is a multiverse of probable outcomes that have a single branch point if you go back far enough. That is so different than the multiverse that arises from chaotic inflation that they shouldn't even be called the same thing.

You have established that you are uncomfortable with mulitverse theory in any of its forms. All I can say is that many reputable, high profile cosmologists are not uncomfortable with it and view it as a productive direction to take cosmology.

I don't agree. For example, the cosmic background radiation is something that is empirically measurable that supports the BB.

I don't think this is true. They view it as a plausible scenario but not the most. It is far too early to put that much stock into it. There may be a few exceptions.

[Tassman]

The Constitution does not reference the source of rights, it only sets out, generally, what they are.

Indeed, without reference to a deity.

Many founders were not deists.

Nonsense! Many of the key Founding Fathers were deist including John Quincy Adams, Ethan Allen, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Thomas Paine, and George Washington. Multiple direct quotes from these Founders substantiate this claim..

And of course we were governed by Christian laws, pretty much all the early states incorporated Biblical laws in state laws. Laws against adultery, sodomy, blasphemy, laws against working on the sabbath, many used public taxes to support state Churches - like in my state.

The Continental Congress (prior to the Constitution), which consisted of delegates from the 13 Colonies certainly introduced some bible-based laws, but when the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution they excluded all reference to God or Jesus. Instead the Founders insisted that every American be free to determine for themselves, what they would or would not believe without any governmental interference or compulsion.

Right, I had friends who served with Aussie soldiers in Nam, and I heard nothing but good things. At least there are some real men left in your country...

[seer]

Indeed, without reference to a deity.

No kidding, because they already defined the source of rights in the DOI. They already knew where they came from.

Nonsense! Many of the key Founding Fathers were deist including John Quincy Adams, Ethan Allen, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Thomas Paine, and George Washington. Multiple direct quotes from these Founders substantiate this claim..

That is false - completely! John Quincy Adams was not a founder, Jefferson believed that God was involved in the affairs of man (something no true deist would believe). Washington was a regular church goer, no one really knows what Madison believed, Paine was a true deist. Benjamin Franklin believed in prayer, asked for help from God during the Constitutional Convention though perhaps he leaned towards deism.

Never mind the fact that early Congresses not only invoked God but Jesus Christ in NATIONAL days of thanksgiving and prayer:

https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel04.html

The phrase "Founding Fathers" is a proper noun. It refers to a specific group of men, the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention. There were other important players not in attendance, like Jefferson, whose thinking deeply influenced the shaping of our nation. These 55 Founding Fathers, though, made up the core.

The denominational affiliations of these men were a matter of public record. Among the delegates were 28 Episcopalians, 8 Presbyterians, 7 Congregationalists, 2 Lutherans, 2 Dutch Reformed, 2 Methodists, 2 Roman Catholics, 1 unknown, and only 3 deists--Williamson, Wilson, and Franklin--this at a time when church membership entailed a sworn public confession of biblical faith. [John Eidsmoe, Christianity and the Constitution, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1987), p. 43.]

The Continental Congress (prior to the Constitution), which consisted of delegates from the 13 Colonies certainly introduced some bible-based laws, but when the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution they excluded all reference to God or Jesus. Instead the Founders insisted that every American be free to determine for themselves, what they would or would not believe without any governmental interference or compulsion.

Nonsense, I'm speaking of laws on the state level where they affected everyday life. And there you find many of the founders instituting biblical laws. Even instituting taxes to support state Churches.

https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel05.html


I would not doubt that with the regular army, especially later in the war, but I doubt that he saw that with US Marines. Anyway my fellow Marines had only good things to say about your guys.

[element771]

You have established that you are uncomfortable with mulitverse theory in any of its forms. All I can say is that many reputable, high profile cosmologists are not uncomfortable with it and view it as a productive direction to take cosmology.

Sure but when you say I am uncomfortable it makes it seems like an emotion response as opposed to a scientific one.

That is where you are in error. This wasn't a serendipitous discovery. It was predicted as a consequence of the BB.

You keep stating that many reputable cosmologists believe this. I am not disputing that. I am not appealing to authority...I am appealing to the science which I have already indicated why I think that it is shaky.

I also do not lightly dismiss the idea. I think it is worthy of investigation (weirder things have been shown to be true)....however, if it turns out that the multiverse cannot be verified empirically, then I think everyone should remain skeptical until there is empirical evidence.