Way too long to read properly so I just scanned through them. There's nothing new here - not surprising as most of these arguments are over 50 years old.
Just as a shorthand:
Physics
Anything that cites cause and effect is attempting to apply our reality down here on earth to either pre-universe or big bang conditions. Can't be done. Just a cursory look at what is going on in string theory or Quantum physics shows all of our common sense is all but useless (so you may well be able to get something from nothing for example).
For example I will now disprove Einstein:
When I peddle my bicycle I move forwards. The harder I pedal the fast I go. With sufficient gearing and strong enough legs I could, in theory, pedal my bicycle up to just below the speed of light. A bit more effort then and I exceed the speed of light and Einstein was wrong. Tada!
Morality
The - there must be a perfect morality to compare to argument again fails. Either there simply doesn't have to be and we can make relative judgements (with reference to the history of morality) or we need to be able to imagine perfect morality even if it doesn't exist. I am a fan of the former although there is utility in the latter.
Everything else
Can't remember - the links have gone.
Just as a shorthand:
Physics
Anything that cites cause and effect is attempting to apply our reality down here on earth to either pre-universe or big bang conditions. Can't be done. Just a cursory look at what is going on in string theory or Quantum physics shows all of our common sense is all but useless (so you may well be able to get something from nothing for example).
For example I will now disprove Einstein:
When I peddle my bicycle I move forwards. The harder I pedal the fast I go. With sufficient gearing and strong enough legs I could, in theory, pedal my bicycle up to just below the speed of light. A bit more effort then and I exceed the speed of light and Einstein was wrong. Tada!
Morality
The - there must be a perfect morality to compare to argument again fails. Either there simply doesn't have to be and we can make relative judgements (with reference to the history of morality) or we need to be able to imagine perfect morality even if it doesn't exist. I am a fan of the former although there is utility in the latter.
Everything else
Can't remember - the links have gone.
