When you can be arsed listening I'll post you some Lennon and McCartney type songs that will make you want to go through their entire catalogue!

Check these out. Melodic, melancholic, beautiful and strangely uplifting.

Noel Gallagher - Revolution song https://youtu.be/BfUmpP6mv7w

Noel Gallagher - Getting older https://youtu.be/fqnenUY_-_g

This fact reveals a feeling deeply anchored in each person: that of inviolability of our conscience.> No strange constraint should violate this sanctuary where a human being finds himself alone with himself, master of his choices.> It is only within, that he will forge his convictions.> How can we not see in it a powerful affirmation of human dignity!>

<<<<<<<< Awareness and Values>

Conscience is responsible for the practical judgment by which we determine what is good or bad, what we choose to do or not.> Thomas Aquinas believes that even if the human being is wounded and fragile, his conscience generally allows him to discern good from evil.> He is able to hear the call to do good and avoid evil.> For this is what corresponds to his profound being and his values.> Thus, with exception, we prefer righteousness, honesty, solidarity, compassion, respect, tenderness, peace, and so on.> Through education, the child becomes aware of these values and finds that they correspond to what is the best in him.It is thanks to them that he grows up in humanity.>

Let us see this as one of the main reasons for maintaining confidence in the future of our humanity.>

<<<<<<<<<<<<< Ethics and Discernment>

However, Thomas Aquinas recalls that in morals (or in ethics), "general principles serve little, for morality is always from the particular".> The values themselves do not appear in the abstract.> For example, both supporters and opponents of euthanasia appeal to the value of human dignity.> In addition, there are often conflicts of values.> In the same case of euthanasia, there is a choice between personal autonomy and solidarity with the most vulnerable peoples.> It is then that our conscience intervenes.> It can weigh all the elements of a given situation, then identify the best choice between all the values involved.> It seeks to appreciate what will make individual or social life more human, in conformity with its noblest aspirations.> Discernment therefore implies the ability to listen to one's own humanity and that of one's fellow human beings.> Ideally, bioethical choices are made in this way.>

The simple answer is because he may not see it as the same kind of context.

You're still faced with the problem of forcing the atheist to confront a cosmic beginning.>

No I'm not. That happens right away, and as a reaction to that, if the atheist decides to give up on accepted mainstream science, with observable evidence, and opt for a non-scientific theory that is without evidence, then the job has been done.

Okay, but now atheists are challenging the implication that the Big Bang proves a cosmic beginning, so you're back to square one in attempting to engage the atheist on the question of theism using science as the basis of your argument.>

No need. The vast majority of cosmologists subscribe to the big bang and a finite universe of 14.7 billions years old.

Again, if the atheist needs to run away from observable, mainstream, accepted science in order to maintain his faith, then that in no way burdens the theist who is <perfectly comfortable> in mainstream science!

The Big Bang is not in question. It is not in danger of losing its status as mainstream, accepted cosmology and it does come with a beginning of the universe.

Just because a few crackpots open their mouths and say that this or that could have happened doesn't mean that the big bang and the finite universe goes away.

There is only evidence for the big bang and not for anything else.

Here is the transcript: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/god-...

Craig sidestepped Carroll's expected criticism with a different formulation of argument from the beginning of the universe by arguing for a beginning of classical spacetime first.

<For example, you’ll find that my opening argument was formulated precisely in such a way as to be immune to Carroll’s anticipated criticism that the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem concerns classical spacetime and so does not take quantum physics into account. Here is the outline of my case:

1.0 Evidence from Expansion of the Universe

1.1 Classical spacetime began to exist

1.11 Borde Guth Vilenkin theorem
1.12 Carroll’s model ruled out on other grounds

1.2 Quantum Gravity era began to exist

1.21 If such a state did not begin to exist, it would produce our classical spacetime either from eternity or not at all. So if such an era exists, it is the beginning of the universe.

2.0 Evidence from Thermodynamics

2.1 Universe began to exist in a low entropy condition 2.11 Carroll’s Model
2.111 Carroll’s model violates unitarity of quantum physics 2.112 Carroll’s model doesn’t solve Boltzmann Brain problem

2.2 Quantum Gravity era began to exist
2.21 Wall theorem holds for Quantum Gravity era and requires a beginning. One can avoid it only by having a reversal of time’s arrow, which implies a thermodynamic beginning of time and the universe.

As you can see, in both cases I argued first for the beginning of classical spacetime and then for a beginning of any hypothetical quantum gravity era. Thus, my use of the BGV theorem was impeccable. That theorem proves that any classical spacetime which has, on average, been expanding over the course of its history cannot be past-eternal but must terminate in a spacetime boundary.[1] That boundary need not be singular; hence, it’s just mistaken to say that the theorem predicts a breakdown of physics’ laws. In the Hartle-Hawking model which you mention, for example, there is no breakdown of the laws nor a singular beginning, but there is a beginning nonetheless, and the universe is finite to the past. It thus is in line with the theorem.

So the controversial steps in the argument are not, or ought not to be, (1.1) or (2.1), but rather (1.2) and (2.2). Carroll had little to say on those matters and later admitted that he hadn’t even heard of Aron Wall’s theorem.>

Are you suggesting the visions in Revelation are a pipe dream?

I mean, if you're saying the seven days of creation is literal because Genesis is not a pipe dream, then your implication is that the dragon is symbolic because Revelation IS a pipe dream!?

Is that what you're saying because it sounds like it?

You'll need to clarify that before I can answer your question on Genesis.

~~~

<OP: Now okay, in debating theism, you can't just dismiss Carroll and his ilk as atheists who "abandoned mainstream science to go trolling on the outer fringes in search of some kind of escape from the cosmic beginning." You're still faced with the problem of forcing the atheist to confront a cosmic beginning.>

<BP: No I'm not. That happens right away, and as a reaction to that, if the atheist decides to give up on accepted mainstream science, with observable evidence, and opt for a non-scientific theory that is without evidence, then the job has been done. No longer can the atheist claim that it's science vs religion, where they are with science and the religious folks aren't. In fact, the roles are reversed!>

How is the job done?

If the job is to engage the atheist on the question of theism but the atheist is unconvinced that the Big Bang proves a cosmic beginning then you're still left with the job of proving the existence of God to the atheist.

God isn't dependent upon the Big Bang proving a cosmic beginning.

If you're going to engage the atheist scientist on the question of God, you have to play on his home ground.

If the atheist says "I don't accept a literal interpretion of the Bible" then it's no use quoting Genesis to him.

If the atheist says "I don't accept the Big Bang proves a cosmic beginning" then it's no use accusing him of abandoning mainstream science to go trolling on the outer fringes.

Do you see what I mean?

You still have the job ahead of you!

~~~

<The vast majority of cosmologists subscribe to the big bang and a finite universe of 14.7 billions years old.> So what?

<if the atheist needs to run away from observable, mainstream, accepted science in order to maintain his faith, then that in no way burdens the theist who is perfectly comfortable in mainstream science!> So what?

<The Big Bang is not in question. It is not in danger of losing its status as mainstream, accepted cosmology and it does come with a beginning of the universe.> So what?

<Just because a few crackpots open their mouths and say that this or that could have happened doesn't mean that the big bang and the finite universe goes away.> So what?

<There is only evidence for the big bang and not for anything else.> So what?

<The theist sits comfortably in mainstream science while the atheist has to abandon it, abandon observable evidence and literally dream up "possibilities" that have no evidence at all.> So what?

None of those assertions address the main issue!

You're supposed to be trying to engage the atheist on the concept of God!

The existence of God does not depend upon whether or not the Big Bang proves a finite universe.

That's a science question.

And in any event, there are plenty of cosmologists who believe the Big Bang had a beginning but are still atheists.

It doesn't prove anything one way or the other.

If you're engaging with an atheist cosmologist who doesn't subscribe to the Big Bang emanating from a definitive beginning, then how do you prove to him the existence of God using science?

<Dr. Carroll: One of the architects of the Big Bang model was George Lemaître, who's a Belgian physicist, mathematical physicist, MIT and Harvard graduate, and also a Jesuit priest. And later in life, in the 1950s, he was serving on a papal commission because the Pope at the time wanted to put forward a statement that said, “Look! The Big Bang! Excellent evidence for the existence of God.” And Lemaître stopped him from doing that. He said, “No, you can't get your peanut butter of theology mixed up with the chocolate of science. It does not actually taste great together because, who knows, someday some smartass will come up with a theory of the universe that is eternal and there isn't a Big Bang anymore.” Dr. Craig and I are on the same side. We think that Lemaître was wrong to make that kind of statement. We both believe that if you're going to be an intellectually honest theist you need to accord with the best data from the universe. And as we both agree, science isn't in the job of proving things with metaphysical certitude. It says that models get better and better at fitting the data. I think that works just as well for theism as it does for naturalism.>

Do you see that?

You're just like Pope Pius XII who jumped to conclusions about the Big Bang "proving" God and had to be corrected by George Lemaître!

https://phys.org/news/2017-05-vatic...

"Lemaitre himself was very careful to remind people - including Pope Pius XII - that the creative act of God is not something that happened 13.8 billion years ago. It's something that happens continually."

"Believing merely that God created the big bang means you've reduced God to a nature god, like Jupiter throwing lightning bolts. That's not the God that we as Christians believe in."

Craig and Carroll both disagree with Lemaître because they each want to use science to prove their own position, but it's Craig and Carroll who are wrong!

And so are you!

What's the point of that? Why would God create the earth and universe a relatively long time ago but then create man relatively recently? >

God is not bound by time. Otherwise, God would not be God.

lol>

Praise the Lord!>

If the job is to engage the atheist on the question of theism but the atheist is unconvinced that the Big Bang proves a cosmic beginning then you're still left with the job of proving the existence of God to the atheist.>

I explained how the job is done. All atheists like to say that they are atheists because the choose science over "faith". If they then have to run away from real, observable science to some fringe theory, then they have to admit they are faith based and that they are atheist just because they want to be, not because of evidence or intelligence.

You are basically exposing them as someone who crosses his arms and declares, "From now on, whatever you say, I will tell you I'm not convinced. Just try me!" - but that's not a scientific position. Natural theology argues from science and reason.

Now, if you want to force people to confront the cosmic beginning, then you only need to be familiar with Leibniz' argument from contingency. It answers the question, "Why is there something rather than nothing?"

<<The theist sits comfortably in mainstream science while the atheist has to abandon it, abandon observable evidence and literally dream up "possibilities" that have no evidence at all.> So what?

None of those assertions address the main issue!

You're supposed to be trying to engage the atheist on the concept of God!>

No. You are supposed to be meeting the atheists where he thinks is stronghold is, science, logic and reason, and showing him that from that position, the evidence points toward God.

That is what is done. The atheist must flee and seek refuge on the fringes, using ad hoc theories and reasoning to support his faith, just as he accuses the theist of doing! The irony is delicious.

<The existence of God does not depend upon whether or not the Big Bang proves a finite universe.>

And so are you! >

As I demonstrated in my responses above, you fail to understand both the arguments from natural theology, and the point of natural theology.

<Believing merely that God created the big bang means you've reduced God to a nature god,>

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVK...

I like this guy! He is asking the right questions, thinking critically about the issues, and is cool/calm/collected at the same time.

You are, however old you are, and you <don't know> if you are an atheist or theist?

I've heard of people claiming ignorance but this is ridiculous.

Well, at least you don't have to shoulder a burden of proof, as a person who claims ignorance. Ignorance doesn't require any reasons, arguments, evidence or thinking.

I should note that whenever I have come across a theist in my life, they always tell me they are a theist. They never think to themselves, yes I believe in God but before I say so, I will ask this person to define God.

Never.

Another thing I noticed is that God is the only word that atheists ask to define before they admit to being atheists. For example, if I asked you if you believe tables exist, you wouldn't ask me to define a table first.

Or if I asked if you exist, you wouldn't ask me to define "you" in order to answer.

If I asked if the universe exists you would require me to define the universe first.

Nope.

But when it comes to God, suddenly there is huge ignorance!

I read that as disingenuous jiggerypokery.

Sorry, I've played this game before and I'm not going to lend any legitimacy to this disingenuous question, as though you really don't know what God means. I've explained that I already know your position, despite your plea to me to refrain from my deductions.

So what might seem nonsensical to humans who are bound by time, could make complete sense to a being who is outside of time.>

So in other words, "it pleased God to do so."

Got it!

Thanks for your help.

<Big Pawn> Natural theology is traditionally understood as knowledge of God based on observed facts and experience apart from divine revelation.

"A more modern view of natural theology suggests that reason does not so much seek to supply a proof for the existence of God as to provide a coherent form drawn from the insights of religion to pull together the best of human knowledge from all areas of human activity. In this understanding natural theology attempts to relate science, history, morality and the arts in an integrating vision of the place of humanity in the universe. This vision, an integrating activity of reason, is religious to the extent it refers to an encompassing reality that is transcendent in power and value. Natural theology is thus not a prelude to faith but a general worldview within which faith can have an intelligible place."

http://www.giffordlectures.org/over...

My views on this matter are closer to that of George Lemaître...