In the beginning...

[Tex]

Part of me thinks you are intentionally trying to waste my time, but the other part of me thinks this is fun.

Define ordered.

It doesn't really have a good definition. "Proper arrangement" is the only thing I can think of. If we think of an engine, that engine must be in the correct order to actually be a working engine. Synonyms would be "organized" or "systematized" or even "reasonable" if in the right context.

The universe we know is fundamentally governed by quantum mechanics which deals with probability wave functions.

But the universe we knew in 1880 wasn't fundamentally governed by quantum mechanics. Does the universe depend upon what we think?

What if 500 years in the future they know that quantum is false but that theory Y is true? That makes your position that "quantum mechanics explains everything" a lot like an atheist in 1880 saying "Newtonian mechanics explains everything".

Nevertheless, the fact that quantum or newtonian or other mechanics is true isn't actually addressing my claim. It is that fact there is a system that governs the universe. There is only one possible coherent system, but infinite incoherent systems.

I did not say it was part of you undefined god. It would be absurd to say the universe is part of something undefined because what is undefined in unknown.

I define my God as "Being per se". Saying the universe is a part of God is not an uncommon response.

I did say, by analogy, you are claiming inventing a board game requires omnipotence because the rules of the game say board games cannot be invented. Substitute universe for board game. It is only in the arbitrary rules of this creation that further creation is not possible for members of the creation.

You are helping my case.

To assume that rule applies outside this universe is a fact no in evidence and which can never be in evidence as seeing outside of this universe would violate another arbitrary created rule of this universe.

I'm assuming the rule doesn't apply outside this universe. Therefore, there are more possible rules. In fact, there are an infinite possibility for rules. We get the one that is statistically impossible without design (coherency).

Then why did they write it down? Record keeping is a healthy part of intentional distribution of knowledge.

Asking a question is called begging the question, a logical fallacy known for at least 2500 years. Record keeping has nothing to do with your claim it was designed to teach. I am still not impressed with your claim.

First, asking a question is not begging the question. Begging the question is circular reasoning, and "the question" is "why does the system exist in the first place?".

Second, record keeping is instrumental to teaching. Don't we record scientific experiments, history, personal information, and a whole sort of different things? If we didn't record information, no one would have text books, there would be no internet, no one would record history, and the cap to technological advancement would be so low it would be laughable.

Third, with writing being such a rare ability and papyrus expensive, record keeping was only for what was most valuable. The only reason to write things down 3000 years ago was because something was REALLY important and the information shouldn't be lost. Information in the bible does not speak of empirical data, so Ryan sees it as valueless. The people of the time and people now see it with great value.

None of the OT stories appear in history before the mid 2nd c. BC without evidence of prior existence so you have to answer why they were written at that time.

The OT is the history book for the Jews. Your rejection of it does not restrict truth, but restricts your knowledge of the truth. More importantly:

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

I hate to attribute it to the Brits but clearly they were more moral than your god and priests as they condemned slavery while you folks' god approved of it.

Slavery is not inherently bad. Cruelty or racism is, and the bible condemns those. The Jews were slaves in Egypt and were commanded not to be like their ancient oppressors multiple times. Contracted employment under a person with multiple ways out of the contract is by no means cruel. Human rights limits upon slave owners is by no means cruel. The only thing that could even be interpreted as cruel is punishment. However, even that is regulated to a certain number of whips, a certain amount of damage to the person's body, and a sentence of "life for life" if the slave dies.

As to human behavior in general ALL social species including wolves, ants, bees and elephants follow generally the same rules as commandments 4 through 10 so obviously your religion has nothing to do with morality. If you substitute master for lord dogs follow the first three too.

Animals only follow stimulus. They do not will. Plus, even if some person were to follow the law perfectly, it doesn't mean they're doing it for the right reason. If I give money to charity because I want to help shoeless children, I have done good. If I give money to charity because I want to get media attention, I have not done a good thing, even though the result is good.

My statement was to the benefit of human race. There is nothing new or even specifically human in the morality of any religion. Religions have not benefited the human race in any manner.

Your use of "benefit" is restricted. Religions provide meaning and answers to life where science does not. Again, science can tell you how to make an atom bomb, religion tells you if you should use it or not. Science does not tell you if you should use it, it only says you can use it. Lets use the current US gun debate. Science tells you how to make guns. Science tell you how to make really cool guns. Science (math, but close enough) tells you the statistics about guns and death. Science tells you how fast certain guns can fire, how much ammo they hold, and approximate reload times. Science cannot tell you that restricting gun ownership is beneficial. It might be able to say that there will be less deaths, but then you have to make the philosophical/religious claim "Less death is beneficial".

BUT you have also assumed there is something good in morality when there is no evidence to that effect.

So there is nothing wrong with a judge accepting bribes? There is nothing wrong with raping children? There is nothing wrong with governmental imperialism? Or oppression? Or racism? Or anything? Ever? I think you make me look rather good.

Specifically most all the "benefits" of following the morality of religions was because god will get you if you violate them. As almost all of the means of god getting you have been solved by science there is no point in giving any attention to religion beyond expanding our knowledge of anthropology.

Fear is a valid reason for doing something, but it doesn't merit you any credit. If you simply follow fear, you are no better than the animals following their stimulus.

I exist.

No fault of your own. It was an egg and sperm thing. You know about that don't you?

I don't have that knowledge. I have no memory of that event, nor can I do a scientific experiment to show that I was born. More importantly, even if I could somehow travel back in time and witness my my life from conception (eww, parents...) to now, I don't need that knowledge to know I exist. Ergo, ontological reasoning is.

What pray tell might be the I when every aspect of self awareness and sense of identity has been traced back to a physical area of the physical brain?

The "I" is not the brain. If I get hit in the head with a rock really hard, I'm still 100% Tex. If my entire body shuts down (brain waves, heart beat, all of it) and then is revived, I didn't cease being Tex momentarily. The "I" cannot be brain (or body, for that matter). The "I" is hylomorphic. You're positing materialism, which is wrong for the reason that you must deny an "I" to begin with. There is no "I", there is only matter which, because it is in a certain position, will do certain things.

I said they are observed. What is observed is not an assumption.

How do you know you can trust your senses? Perhaps they are lying to you or you're in the matrix. Don't assume that, my good sir.

You're also using the brain/mind fallacy, but that's probably not worth discussing here.

Yes it is. Please do so.

Aint nobody got time for dat.

If those are intended to be your examples, the past and future are dependent upon observations, life experience and experimentation and such. You were claiming there was something which people can think about without any experience at all. Please tell me what those things are.

So the past depends upon what we observe. If I observe something new, the past changes? I'm going to assume you mean "the past and future can be known through present observations, life experience and experimentation and such". If that is the case (which I think it is), you are not learning about the past through material means. You're using deduction and induction, which are logical processes that generally have premises using physical data but are not exclusive to physical data.

With no experience (lets say some man was formed in a test tube, but we didn't allow any sort of brain activity beyond growth until 25 y/o) and only rational thought, one can know they exist due to the ability to have rational thought. This is Descartes' first example. Even if I was in the matrix and all experiences are false, I still know that I exist. Even if I was convinced I did not exist, I am still assuming an I that is convinced. Further, I can know I did not cause my own existence, and therefore have a parent (the scientists that did the test tube stuff). Descartes says therefore God, but I don't buy his logic on this one. Truthfully, I don't even know if Descartes buys Descartes' logic.

WHY do you go along with the mutterings of poorly educated near illiterates in what are largely political statements directed against branches of Christianity which held different beliefs?

Get off the conspiracy theory sites. First, they could write in very intricate Latin and Greek. Second, the bishops held no political power until the 600s and this is all 4th century. Third, they were defining what Christianity was, therefore denouncing Arius, Sabellius, and the like as "Christian" teachers.

Doesn't it bother you that all this time you have been pushing morality and when in a corner present things which have nothing whatsoever to do with morality? If one of them just said "I believe in one god who will damn all slave owners to hell and his only begotten son who will spit on his grave" you might have a point. But they list things things which have absolutely no bearing on the real world whether or not they are "true" in any sense.

I would be bothered if your claim that the creeds have no bearing on the real world were true. Those creeds define the Christianity and the Christian God. The fact that you do not get the connection between Christianity and the creeds is most likely why you hate Christianity so much.

Do you pay attention to what you believe?

What now? I wasn't paying attention.

Yes, which is why I do not claim a denomination as true. I have beliefs from multiple denominations (largely Catholic and Lutheran, but I include the Jehovah's Witness as influential as well) and use more philosophy as backing than church fathers.

Which Christ are you talking about? Again I can go through present day and defunct denominations to raise critical questions. For example, Deism the Christ was at most a social philosopher with no unique wisdom or message. In fact he said very little which is included in Christianity and much that is not.

I love this question. It's usually what I ask those people who believe that everyone goes to heaven, or that they believe in the same God I do, or something to that extent. Anyway, the Christ I speak about is in those creeds.