« Supposedly Christian? (Video) | Main | Les Misérables and the Death Grip of Works-Based Worldviews »

January 01, 2013


If what he's saying is true, then he shouldn't even care enough to have a stance on the issue. His opinion is irrelevant and insignificant…

He claims that Christianity is offensive, but he is the one that calls man pollution. Also, how do you measure significance? By size alone? Why is that important? I find my significance in what God thinks of me. When the eternal, all-powerful, all knowing, creator of the universe takes notice of me, that means something. Even in the atheist's view Heaven and earth will pass away. But if a human soul is eternal, would not that make it more significant?

Actually, I don't see where the Bible makes the claim that the universe was made for humanity. The strawman that this argument attacks is a side-step move that avoids addressing the origin of the universe, which science most certainly cannot address fully. Quoting Krauss was not the best move in this instance either, as 1% + 30% + 70% = 101%!

According to the Big Bang theory, this grand universe began as a single point smaller than a dot on this page. Assuming that is true, the size at the beginning had nothing to do with the potential that was later realized. What is our destiny in eternity to come as redeemed, transformed humans?


Where did you get the idea that the BB was the beginning of the universe - that there was nothing before that?


“[The universe] may be full of life that needs no redemption. It may be full of life that has been redeemed. It may be full of things quite other than life which satisfy the Divine Wisdom in fashions one cannot conceive. We are in no position to draw up maps of God's psychology, and prescribe limits to His interests. We would not do so even for a man whom we knew to be greater than ourselves. The doctrines that God is Love and that He delights in men are positive doctrines, not limiting doctrines. He is not less than this. What more He may be, we do not know; we know only that He must be more than we can conceive. It is to be expected that His creation should be, in the main, unintelligible to us........ We are hard to please. If the world in which we found ourselves were not vast and strange enough to give us Pascal's terror, what poor creatures we should be! Being what we are, rational but also animate, amphibians who start from the world of sense and proceed through myth and metaphor to the world of spirit, I do not see how we could have come to know the greatness of God without that hint furnished by the greatness of the material universe. Once again, what sort of universe do we demand? If it were small enough to be cozy, it would not be big enough to be sublime. If it is large enough for us to stretch our spiritual limbs in, it must be large enough to baffle us. Cramped or terrified, we must, in any conceivable world, be one or the other. I prefer terror. I should be suffocated in a universe that I could see to the end of....... I hope that you do not think I am suggesting that God made the spiral nebulae solely or chiefly in order to give me the experience of awe and bewilderment. I have not the faintest idea why He made them; on the whole, I think it would be rather surprising if I had. As far as I understand the matter, Christianity is not wedded to an anthropocentric view of the universe as a whole. The first chapters of Genesis, no doubt, give the story of creation in the form of a folk-tale..and if you take them alone you might get that impression. But it is not confirmed by the Bible as a whole. There are few places in literature where we are more sternly warned against making man the measure of all things than in the book of Job: "Can you draw out leviathan with a hook? Will he make a covenant with you? Will you make him your servant? Where were you when I laid the earth's foundations?" In Paul's writing the powers of the skies seem usually to be hostile to man……… In the parable, it was the one lost sheep that the shepherd went in search of: it was not the only sheep in the flock, and we are not told that it was the most valuable - in so far as the most desperately in need has, while the need lasts, a peculiar value in the eyes of Love...." (C.S. Lewis)

"[We] have a bad habit of talking as if revelation existed to gratify curiosity by illuminating all creation so that it becomes self-explanatory and all questions are answered. But revelation appears to me to be purely practical, to be addressed to the particular animal, Fallen Man, for the relief of his urgent necessities --- not to the spirit of inquiry in man for the gratification of his curiosity. We know that God has visited and redeemed His people, and that tells us just as much about the general character of the creation as a [single] dose [of medicine] given to one sick hen on a big farm tells us about the general character of farming in England. What we must do, which road we must take to the fountain of life, we know, and none who has seriously followed the directions complains that he has been deceived. But whether there are other creatures like ourselves, or how they are dealt with; whether inanimate matter exists only to serve living creatures or for some other reason, whether the immensity of space is a means to some end, or an illusion, or simply the natural mode in which infinite energy might be expected to create --- on all these points I think we are left in our own speculations………” (C.S. Lewis)

I will add one thing: the entire universe, all of it, every vector breaking through, from the sublime distances over our heads to the crassness within our own skins, testifies of Him, and of His love for us.

As in:

M-Theory’s mathematically incomprehensible Triune Topography emerges fated to a fabric of Omnipresence, Omnipotence, and Omniscience. Epistemology itself is laced all through with its own Triune Topography as the Self knows within the Self and within Relation and by Relation and these are so with both the Known and with the Keeps-On-Knowing. Ontology reveals its Triune Topography within Being’s singular and pleural amid the I and the You and the singular I-You for Being itself regresses to Love's embrace among the I and the You wherein the Singular-We streams uncreated. An Uncaused-Cause of the Just-Is type testifying by Self-Evidence that it just is a sort of Everlasting Free Lunch emerges as Necessary regardless of which vectors break through as No-Thing ever escapes Necessity's uncaused IS which forever shouts through all known vectors I-AM. Logic feigns a regress to Self-Evidence and is found sustained quite easily within Epistemology’s Triune Topography. Through all these windows our Uncaused-Cause is Self-Evident as a necessary Everlasting Free Lunch emerging atop a sort of terrain that has multiple yet perfect fronts all of which comprise a singular whole and all available evidence points towards the Immaterial as the source of this Everlasting IS which exacting Necessity inflexibly testifies of. We find in all this that there are strong vectors emerging from the Other and Outer which echo a staunchly Triune, Immaterial, Eternal Uncaused Cause. We find patterns of such a Triune Topography mechanized within the immutable semantics of a perpetual one-way incline in an eternal language comprised of Word’s material manifest wherein Truth precedes Corporeal. In all these things Love’s own Triune Topography casually ebbs and flows quite unobstructed and buoys up illumination of what Necessarily Exists. From Timelessness and into Time and back again into Timelessness these self-evident Triune patterns swallow up whole all of our formulas of infinities, all of our equations of pain, all of our rules of suffering, all of our blueprints of the purely human, all of our diagrams of multi-verses, and all of our prescriptions of the purely inhuman, and in all these the Triune holds fast to the satisfaction of coherence as it houses Multiple Perfect Distincts which effortlessly furnish us with their singular reality laced with ports and bays saturated with Ships that easily set sail and satisfy the demands of all these equations and serenely traverse all ad infinitums. In this set of patterns the entirety of vectors merge unhindered as all threads converge on Love’s Cross within that peculiar Eternally Sacrificed Self in Whom we find Power’s eternal merging of death and life, justice and mercy, law and liberty, wrath and ransom, suffering and joy, Word and Flesh, Truth and Corporeal, Immaterial and Material, God-In-Man and Man-In-God and in Whom both Logic and Love confirm the Triune Topography of Epistemology and of Ontology, of Will and of Love, and even of Perfection itself and thereby brings us to our Necessary End of all Ad Infinitums comprised yet again of those immutable semantics mechanized within that perpetual one-way incline assembled by the eternal language of the Everywhere and Always. Love’s embrace breaks through in the Triune God as in Him the I forever embraces the You and eternally begets the Singular-We. At an infinite speed all these vectors pierce the triad of Mind and Spirit and Body for an inescapable vacuum left in every vector’s wake reaches through eternity’s triune fabric and pulls Generation out of Timelessness and into the fated genesis of granted Will’s motion into the Created Self or into the Uncreated Other whereby the Zeal of the Created plunges The-Now into Time’s Degeneration in which Joy and Pain, Mercy and Justice are hurled into Regeneration’s return to Timelessness. The Zeal of the Uncreated withstands all Offenses for we are Dead, and not only Dead, but embalmed within Regeneration, and not only embalmed within Regeneration but also Alive in Re-Creation’s Delight and these three Ages thrice emerge in Mind, thrice emerge in Body, and thrice emerge in Spirit. Within His embrace my soul awakes to the sound of three harmonious contradictions wherein my soul’s bedrock called Existence testifies of incessant Need which itself testifies of unending Joy as it discovers that though it has but Nothing to offer, and in fact offers up Offense, the Uncreated Beloved declares this soul to be of an everlasting Value. The Uncreated Beloved here Manifests face to face and spreads His arms wide high atop that Tree called Life and pours Himself out and this He does for Love’s I and You and We. These infinite sets of triune patterns of a singular whole freely self-manifesting in these fashions fully account for all that we see, all that we observe, all that we perceive, all that we feel, all that we cry, and all that we scream out as we soar to our highest within Ivy Tower armchairs and as we descend to our lowest stumbling over corpses in all our fields of carnage. Tens of thousands of strong vectors and in fact all vectors whatsoever slice up the skies above our heads with the glaring light of the Truth of all things.

This atheist makes the unwarranted assumption that value and size are positively correlated.

"Look at me! Judge me by my size, do you? And well you should not, for my ally is the [Lord] and a powerful ally [He] is."

I think it's significant that there are really two points made here. There are two conditions discussed, that of irrelevance and insignificance. On the point of insignificance, the Bible clearly states this when we compare ourselves to the grand scale and complexity of the world around us. But to say that this impacts our relevance may be a fallacy.

But to speak directly to the challenge:

1 - Evidence of fine tuning of the universe for HUMAN life.
2 - God's revelation to "insignificant" man.
3 - Jesus coming to earth as an "insignificant" man.

I think those three points, to an honest observer, would both embrace our perceived insignificance while highlighting the fact that God still cares for us.

Plus, this is coming from a man who thinks space + time = nothing. Fix that before challenging someone else.

To claim irrelevancy of mankind is to assume you know the purpose of mankind. If the purpose of mankind was to fill the universe, then the atheist is right in his claim that we are insignificant and irrelevant compared to other things in the universe. But is filling the universe the greatest purpose that a being can rise to? Is that the ideal? If so, then folks who weigh in at over 500lb are way ahead in being relevant to the universe than the rest of us skinny folks. But why is the universe the thing we should measure ourselves against in order to determine our relevancy? Is it because we have found that only the physical has great value? Or did we actually find that other things that are not physical, such as love, justice, compassion, reason, mercy are things that go beyond the limits of the physical universe and whose value far surpasses any measuring stick we have been able to devise? Is love subject to the laws of the universe and is it bound to its physical laws..is mercy...compassion..or do all of these things transcend it? Being creatures that posses these qualities, does that not mean that we transcend the bounds of this universe in some very real way and thus it is the universe that becomes insignificant and irrelevant in light of this truth.

According to Dr Hugh Ross' argument in his book "Why the Universe is the Way it Is" the universe simply must be as large, empty, etc, as it is, otherwise it (and we) could not exist.

Sean stole my answer!

And extra points to David for his.


Honestly, I don't know why atheists like this person even want to wake up every day. How can they function if they believe nothing has significance or meaning in the world, not even themselves?

It's also tiresome to see the insults. Can we ever have atheists who post their views without insulting religious people or their views?


According to Dr Hugh Ross, what is the context for such rules - like "The universe must be large and empty"?

Do you really think that Dr Hugh Ross can prove scientifically that your god couldn't make the universe small and crowded?


Krauss first claims that we make up so little of the material world that we are irrelevant. Irrelevant, according to who or what? Maybe materially insignificant, but not irrelevant. 'Irrelevant' is a value term not a scientific term.

"That’s why, in such an age of scientific, rational thought, religion, to me at least, is not only wrong, but offensive" So regarding Krauss' second point, how does one go from positive statements about factual information (scientific) to normative statements about metaphysical beliefs regarding who this world was created for? I believe this is a non-sequitor at its best.

Further, wouldn't the fact that we are materially insignificant in relation to everything else mean we are MORE relevant if the universe was designed for us? (Indicating more thought and precision was put into the design of the universe FOR us?)

Again materially significant in relation to other matter - Does Not Equal - An irrelevant race or that the universe lacks design

Put in another way

P1) If the human race is materially insignificant, then they are irrelevant and therefore the universe not created by design
P2) Scientific data shows the human race to be materially insignificant
C) Therefore the human race is irrelevant and not created by design

P1 does not hold up

What's offensive, er...no, comical, is that the atheist is making his barbaric yawp in a universe that by his own admission has no meaning. And to think his little website carries any significance!

Talk about delusional....

The quotation, in the OP, of the blog contains a quotation of Krauss.

Want to re-format the OP?

Here is Krauss making his contribution.

The blogger says " And that’s why I’m atheist. "

Roughly speaking, it seems he and Krauss think that dark matter/energy is more 'significant' than we are because there is more of it.

You all think this is a bad argument.

And I think you are right.

So what? This?

The people disagreeing with me here are making a really bad argument.
Therefore: Their conclusion is wrong; mine is right.

(Often, I wish it were so.)

The Wikipedia article on WMAP gives the latest numbers as follows: 4% ordinary matter, 23% of an unknown type of dark matter, and 73% of a mysterious dark energy.

Krause spoke in round figures, Chris.


Long story short, the universe was created for the glory and pleasure of God, not us. We're not the beneficiaries of creation; we're part of it.

But on a related note, saying that humanity is insignificant betrays the limited vision of our atheist buddy.

Mankind is insignificant compared to the breadth of the universe now, but we're way more significant than we were, say, a million years ago. One, or two, or ten million years from now, we may be more significant still.

What you're seeing now, in terms of the relative size and significance of things, is just a snapshot. Have some perspective, man.

RonH and others...

"The Wikipedia article on WMAP gives the latest numbers as follows: 4% ordinary matter, 23% of an unknown type of dark matter, and 73% of a mysterious dark energy. "

It would seem that the rarity of something makes it valuable, not its ubiquity.

Not all rare things are valuable, Louis.

(Not all rare things are worthless either, Krauss.)


Not all rare things are valuable ...

It all depends on what is on the block. Consider the amout of water in the Sahara, an insignificant portion to the whole. Yet its presence means oases, growth, life.

In the same light, let's suppose to make this quantity rarer. What if the amount of potable water was halved? How precious, how significant would such water be? Therefore, in many cases, rarity is often the hallmark of significance.

Louis, you've offered a tremendous insight. Thank you.


Do you mean to say that the truth of

not all rare things are valuable
depends on what is on the block?


This appears to me to be nothing more than a matter of a point of view. If you view life as being worthless, simply an accident that happened, then perhaps we are insignificant. But if we are truly created beings, intentionally made for a purpose, then we are not only NOT insignificant, but the MOST significant thing to be found among all that dark matter and dark energy. The fact that we exist at all, even for someone who sees things from an evolutionary standpoint should marvel at the existence of humanity. That fact that he fails to see how amazing we are in light of all that is found in the universe simply tells me he chooses to look at things from a different perspective. The problem is that he chastises those who see our lives here not as insignificant or inconsequential, but as part of a plan, as something more significant than all the dark matter and dark energy that make up the rest of the universe.

Essentially the conclusion as to why Lawrence Krauss is an atheist is not supported by the supposed reasons he gives. I would classify his assertion as more an emotive declaration. In other words, a more honest statement from him might have gone something like this, "I am depressed and feel insignificant. There is no reason for my being here. There is no One who cares about me. I choose not to see anything in existence that suggests a Master Mind who designed it all, because that possibility is already ruled out in my narrow way of thinking; therefore I am an Atheist."

I think that would have made more sense than his non sequitur ramblings.

Actually the atheist blogger is being honest up to a point as in the atheist worldview the universe is ultimatley irelevant and meaningless. His logical fallacy lies in the fact he does apply his assertions to his own statements which according to his own logic should also be irelevant and meaningless too. His beloved "Science" according to his own logic is also irelevant and meaningless so his entire argument is self refuting.

This argument is poorly founded. The universe was not made for man. It was made to glorify and magnify God. Everything that God does is for His glory first and foremost. Humans are simply a part of this creation. We too were made to glorify God. Objecting to the thought that the universe was made for man is really irrelevant to someone's atheism, because this is not what theism (specifically Christianity) teaches. Additionally, our significance/relevance in this universe is based upon our being created in the image of God, not whether the universe is all about us. So, again, this argument is completely irrelevant and senseless.

I don't think he really believes what he's saying or has considered its implications on ALL of life.

I would ask him if what happened at Sandy Hook upset him. Hopefully the killing of those innocent children and adults was tragic to him, and if so, I would ask him why it was tragic. If they're so insignificant and irrelevant, what's the big deal? Why care about any of the shootings or tragedies that happen around the world for that matter? On his view, it may have even been a good thing - less people, less mouths to feed, less people to educate, etc. He has no good reason to be upset with that kind of perspective.

Also, he's simply making the observation that humanity makes up a smaller percentage of the rest of creation, which should humble us, but he then jumps to the conclusion that because something is smaller in size, it must be irrelevant. The human heart is smaller than the brain, but that certainly doesn't make it irrelevant. Without it, we're dead. Oxygen has no size, but is very relevant to our existence. Plus, we have faculties entirely unique to most of creation - such as consciousness. So I don't think he's thought through his view to its logical ends.

Sorry it took me a while to weigh in here.

I had removed 1% of my computer, deeming it to be irrelevant pollution.

Turns out that it was hard to post (or do anything else) after that.

Ron H,

Notice how you didn't respond AT ALL to the post in question, only to other comments?

You frequently ride along a string of non sequiturs. Deal with the post in question -- what do you think about Krauss's comment?

Careful with that tree saw, Cory.


What I meant was: I did respond to the OP.

For example

You all think [Krauss's] is a bad argument.

And I think you are right.


Not all rare things are worthless [...] Krauss.

I intended those things to speak directly to the OP. So, I assumed you hadn't read my comments before you asked what I thought of the OP.

To me, there doesn't seem to be much of a challenge here for you. I don't think the fraction of regular matter in the universe weighs clearly for or against the existence of a creator god.

I can't guess why Krauss (and the blogger) seem to think it weighs strongly against.

I suspect, at this point, that I'd be unimpressed if I asked either of them

Why do you say that?

But, before critiquing, I'd ask.

Then, I'd listen.

Then... I have no idea. It would depend on what he said. Right?



Insulin is worthless to me. But if I was a diabetic it would be worth a lot more to me. That is the subjective assessment of the value of insulin. But there is also an objective assessment of insulin and it certainly has great value because of the nature of what it is. The objective assessment does not change with the needs of the individual and thus is a more stable measure of the value of, in this case insulin. The stability is grounded in the fact that what is being assessed is the nature of the thing itself, not a given particular need of an individual. But if you do not know the nature of insulin, you cannot objectively assess its value. The same is true when it comes to human beings. Unless you have a clear understanding of the nature of human beings, you cannot make an objective assessment and thus you are left with only subjective analysis which leaves you with a broad range of variability in value assessment. This means that you will deviate greatly from an objective assessment of human value in one direction or the other. This is why this site has often dealt with tackling the issues concerning human nature. It is gaining a greater understanding of that, which will bring you closer to an objective assessment of human value.

I should point out something here that has, in the past, left some folks confused. Simply because someone can make a subjective decision in a particular area, does not mean that the object of that decision is subjective in nature. Some folks have a lot of confusion about this and often defend the legitimacy of subjectivism on that shaky ground.


Pardon my slowness in responding, as situations drew me away from the computer for a day.

To the point ....

Do you mean to say that the truth of

not all rare things are valuable

depends on what is on the block?

I was unsure of your direction, but was convinced that Krauss presents an unrealistic calculation to what is deemed worthy of significance. My reference to water as preciously important, thus significant, was centered on its rarity in desert settings. My idea of it becoming far more significant should it be halved was inspired by James Bond.

Do you recall the premise of Goldfinger? Bond's nemesis plotted to enhance his gold holdings by contaminating the gold reserves at Fort Knox. In such a situation, of course, the value of gold would sky-rocket. Rarity would imply a greater value, a greater significance. But I suggest also a second scenario. What if some confident prospector found the Lost Dutchman Mine at about the same time some diligent archaeologist stumbled across King Solomon's Mines? In short, the total amount of gold doubled? Sure the value of gold would drop, but I'm not certain about its significance. People would still be charmed by the metal's luster, and metal workers would appreciate its malleability (and who knows if dentist would enjoy working with the material that served as a deluxe filling compound?). Gold may still hold onto its allure of being a kingly metal.

To conclude, I find that Krauss' insistence on finding significance in universal percentages based on faulty rudiments. Dark matter ... Ordinary matter ... why should that matter?


You must know I've heard the rap you all give on objective/subjective many times.

So I wonder why you offer it again and why now.

I'm not at all convinced that objective/subjective is as useful as you all seem to think, by the way.

And, while it could be said to relate to everything, it's not the topic here.



"You must know I've heard the rap you all give on objective/subjective many times.

So I wonder why you offer it again and why now."

I thought that was obvious, but maybe not. It certainly relates to the OP in one critical area and that is a valid assessment of human value. It is not enough to simply offer an assessment of human value and be done with it. You must assess the validity of your own assessment and offer that as the foundation for that assessment. If the foundation is not sound, neither can the assessment that rests on it. I think that we are all guilty, at one time or another, of cavalier treatment of a very important subject and should guard against that. I offered a way to perhaps do that. That's all. You may be ambivalent to that...I don't know...but I think it is important in critical evaluations.

His argument is a non-sequitor. Usually pointing that out doesn't convince anyone that their position is wrong, but it does give us a clue about something: He's being disingenuous. In other words, it's not the real reason he's an atheist. I would have to probe gently around as though looking for a buried mine to find out his real reason for being an atheist. If I find the real answer, it might be volatile for him and he could explode, figuratively speaking, on the spot. But then I'll have something truly important to talk with him about.

Thanks Louis,

Sure, this can be related to the OP; it can be related to every OP.

Sometimes it seems like it is brought up under every OP.

But then you don't really need an OP; you can just pretend that playing games with words can teach you something about the world. Or, pretend that the product of conceptual analysis is something more than analyzed concepts.

You must assess the validity of your own assessment and offer that as the foundation for that assessment.

And repeat?

I think not.

If you actually had a foundational trump card, that would be something. But such a card - a positive, final, connection between theory and reality - is not part of the evidential game.


Hope you feel better soon, Brett.

"Why such a universe in which we are so irrelevant would be made for us is beyond me."

Me too. But I'd still like to know how it came into being. Why is there something rather than nothing? How does realizing the immenseness of the Universe and our relative insignificance even start to answer that question?

"If you actually had a foundational trump card, that would be something. But such a card - a positive, final, connection between theory and reality - is not part of the evidential game."

Hi Ron, in your haste to dismiss Louis' charge with the wave of a hand, you seem to miss that he's not appealing to evidence for proof, he's trying to challenge your worldview that hopes to stand on something...anything but there is nothing of its own. You pretend that you dont need foundation rather than admit that you borrow from Louis' worldview to support yours.

Plato and Aristotle...they knew better than to dismiss the necessity for objective foundations, they tried to account for them, and even knew that you cannot derive the preconditions for knowledge from experiences, they must preceed sensory input.

Your worldview cannot account for the preconditions for knowledge and without that, you have no justification to claim to truly know things. That you do know things doesn't mean that you dont need foundations, it means that you deny the source of the preconditions and use them [either steal or borrow, you choose which] to hide the philosophically beggarly and vacuous worldview you own.

I recommend you read the first few pages of an e-book by Vincent Cheung called: Presuppositional Confrontations. Dont mistake the trouble your worldview is in as if Plato and Aristotle were unsophisticated ding-a-lings hung up on epistemological challenges that moderns cant be bothered with. Louis has every right to challenge a worldview that has no use for objective standards. You cant have the world according to RonH without granting the everyone else world according them....an by doing that you are saying there is nothing but mere opinion.

For Christians, I have recommended, and recommend again The Wisdom Of The Reflective Light, Augustine's Logos Doctrine, an alternative to Greek thinking.

Brad B,

you seem to miss that he's not appealing to evidence for proof

No, I don't. My complaint is he's not appealing to evidence.

The challenge is based on particular evidence. My point is: why bother going through the motions of singling out a particular evidence-based challenge to work on if you are just going to go claim you know the answer without examining said evidence?

I looked at the beginning of the ebook. So far, I don't see how it can turn out different from Sye's word-game site. Can you promise me it's different and briefly say how?


Hi RonH, I googled "sye's word-game" and no meaningful options, where can I find out about this site or what its point is?

As far as having any meaninful, or compelling measage from your system, you have to account for the foundation it rests on, otherwise Louis' criticism stands as far as I can see. You may be putting emphasis on another part or what he's been saying, but it seems pretty obvious that he is also challenging what your arguments rest on.

Accounting for forms/categories, preconditions for knowledge has troubled serious truth seekers over the ages, most agree that in a purely naturalistic worldview, you cannot.

I linked to it already.

Brad B

I think he is talking about the link he gave before, which asks an irrelevant question then proceeds to give four irrelevant answers to choose from.


It completely ignores the concept of "truth about something" and replaces it with the notion of "truth for someone". It assumes its conclusion that truth is subjective, which is obvious by its treatment of it. The question asked is loaded as are the answers toward a particular kind of answer that certainly excludes any possibility of objective truth about something. It in fact never even deals with such a concept in the page he linked to. That the game there is being played with a stacked deck, pretty much speaks for itself.

Just one further comment, I think he might be claiming that I stacked the deck in this same way by insisting that he present objective validation for the foundation on which his assessment of human value stands, assuming that an objective validation is required when it in fact all boils down to nothing more than subjective opinion.


It completely ignores...

What is it? (Sye's site?)

The question asked is loaded...

What is the question? (Is it What do you believe??)

I just want it to be clear.


Hi RonH, I see why you see similarities, but I think the difference in that even though we are discussing grounding, or justifying our foundational propositions, Cheungs opening pages are explaining the challenge to account for the categories in the first place. I know you are committed to a worldview that doesn't include a supernatural agent, but you, by virtue of logical necessity should still strive for coherency instead of just dismissing the need to have objective standards.

You use logic so long as it serves you, but when it becomes your taskmaster it is dishonest to ignore where it is driving you because of subjective concerns or prior commitments that are preferred. It know it really bothers you that Christians have justification for everything listed at the web site you linked to, but you will not question your own worldview by inspecting its foundations since that would [or should] bother you more. You are believing what you want to believe, and ignoring what you will not believe...not because it is hidden from your intellect, it is hidden by your human will.

Brad B,

Opening pages means what? Up to the 4 possibilities listed on page 6?


Brad B,

I know you are committed to a worldview that doesn't include a supernatural agent...

That's your characterization, not mine.


The comments to this entry are closed.