Green’s speech

Cancer charity blackmailer and John the Baptist wannabee Stephen Green of Christian Voice has penned The Queen’s Speech (As It Should Be), and put it up on his revamped website.

Highlights of his demented power-fantasy include:
– a reform of the criminal justice system to the “Biblical model”; disappointingly no mention of stoning disobedient children (Deut 21: 18-21) or making rape victims marry their rapist (Deut 22:28)
– regarding “each human being, however vulnerable and dependent upon others, as made in the image of God”, and therefore banning abortion and in-vitro fertilization
– reintroducing the death penalty
– no place in government for “adulterers, cheats, liars, thieves and perverts”
– introducing flexible retirement to counteract pensions crisis and skills shortage which have been caused by abortion
– repeal the Hunting Act of 2004
– provide a safe haven for asylum seekers (if they’re Christian)
– abolish private contracts in the NHS and bring cleaning back under the control of hospital managers

These are just a few of the measures he has dreamt up… no, sorry, that God has decreed, because “God makes the law, not fallible human beings”. I recommend reading the whole thing. It’s hilarious.

Thanks to Garry from A Big Stick and a Small Carrot for the heads up.

50 Responses to “Green’s speech”

  1. Andrew Nixon says:

    No place in government for liars? Rules out just about every politician then.
    Strange how he wants the law to be made by god, and yet still wants a government, whos job it is to make laws.

  2. Nick says:

    There’s all sorts of good stuff in there, but my favourite is the bit where he wants all schools to be independent of government, and then in the next breath, the government will legislate to make them all christian. Lovely definition of independent, that.

  3. G. Tingey says:

    A previous poster noted: “Strange how he wants the law to be made by god”
    ….erm, first of all, what is this god thing?
    Secondly, who writes “god’s” laws? Ans. The priests – just like medieval Europe or islamic countries now.
    More lies and blackmail ….

  4. Andrew Nixon says:

    I was paraphrasing Stephen Green…. don’t take that to mean that I think god is any more real than the tooth fairy.

  5. tom p says:

    So it’s OK to kill foxes or adult humans, but not foetuses?
    Right, got it.
    What about fox foetuses? Since they’ve never killed a chicken in their life, should they be spared? Should all foxes be checked for pregnancy before being torn to pieces?
    You could almost think he was a mentally unstable idiot who hadn’t thought this through

  6. […] terers, cheats, liars, thieves and perverts” from government [that’s the lot then -ed.]

    As Media Watch Watch points out, Mr Green curiously fails to mention those biblical laws […]

  7. Christopher Shell says:

    Poor foxes!

  8. Garry says:

    11th Commandment discovered:
    “Thou shalt be consistent in thought and deed”.
    Stephen Green is said to be entirely mystified as to it’s meaning.

  9. Stuart says:

    How does he square regarding “each human being, however vulnerable and dependent upon others, as made in the image of God” (and therefore banning abortion and in-vitro fertilization) with reintroducing the death penalty?
    Wouldn’t that mean logically that every alleged criminal you murder is also ‘God’?
    Incidentally, if he wants to bring back biblical justice, does that mean gay men can start stoning sloppily dressed evangelists? (read Leviticus on mixed fibres). I mean, the ‘let he who is without sin cast the first stone ‘defence doesn’t hold as I can’t imagine any self-respecting gay wearing a cheap suit!

  10. Christopher Shell says:

    Do note, however, that in treating the Old Testament exactly the same as the New Testament, you are going down the fundamentalist road.

  11. Garry says:

    Fundamentist? Would that be:
    A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.
    Dictionary .com
    Is that in any way relate to this:
    “Measures will be brought forward to invigorate the Christian foundations of the United Kingdom, to restore Sunday as a day of rest, to encourage local authorities to honour Christian festivals such as Christmas and Easter, to celebrate our Christian heritage, to make the promotion of the Christian faith an unassailable charitable object, and to remove charitable status from bodies promoting other faiths and those hostile to the Christian faith.

    It’s just a thought.

  12. Christopher Shell says:

    Strictly on the topic of OT and NT, critical thinkers cannot possibly lump them all together undifferentiated. Fundamentalists do – we should not join them in this.

  13. tom p says:

    Doc – the use of ol’ testament quotes here to belittle green is highly appropriate, since it’s Green who says that he would change the justice system to one based on the biblical model without specifying nu testament rather than old.
    Also, of course, he does say that he’d make homosexuality illegal (repeal all sexual offences acts since ’57), which is sooo old testament, darling.
    It’s very good to see you admit that Stephen Green is a fundamentalist. I believe that elsewhere you’ve said dismissed fundamentalists as, essentailly (and I’m paraphrasing here) not worth listening to and unable to debate due to them being stoopid. Clearly that’s therefore your view of Stephen Green. I’m delighted to say that, if it is, then I agree with you wholeheartedly.

  14. Christopher Shell says:

    Exactly, because he qualifies as a fundamentalist. If you dont agree with his line, all the less reason to follow his example. What Christian-baiters (boohoo, I feel persecuted!!! sniffle) tend to do is avoid confronting the New Testament by using irrelevant ‘ammunition’ from the Old. The New itself (which is Christians’ foundational document) is ‘New’ for a reason, namely that the time of the Old came to an end. Book of Hebrews passim; Jeremiah 31; Matt. 5.17; Romans 10.4, and so on.

    Re Homosexuality: Let’s forget the OT for a moment and look at the New: Romans 1.26-7, 1 Cor.6.9, 1 Tim. 1.10 etc.. Christ’s point-of-view on sexual morality: more stringent than before (re divorce, Mark 10.5-9, cf. 9.43); simultaneously more forgiving (Luke 7.36-50, ‘John’ 7.53-8.11 – tho’ note the ‘Go and sin no more’); generally assuming and reasserting the existing perspective (Mark 7.20).
    It is Stephen Green’s praxis that I so strongly agree with – there is no chance that we would agree on every doctrinal matter under the sun. No doubt we agree on some. He is a good thinker, if too uncritically loyal. It’s well possible to approve one aspect of a person more than another aspect.

  15. Garry says:

    Exactly, because he qualifies as a fundamentalist… It is Stephen Green’s praxis that I so strongly agree with – there is no chance that we would agree on every doctrinal matter under the sun.
    Given that we now agree that Mr Green is a fundamentalist, I imagine we can also agree that he believes you will burn forever in eternal damnation due to this shocking attitude of doubt and heresy.
    If it’s any consolation, I don’t think it’s very likely.
    Anyway, back to the old/new issue. As I understand it you think the Old is slightly less true than the New. Interesting.
    I’m afraid I am not conversant with the verses you have quoted, perhaps you could explain your position. Are you saying that it is OK to stone gay people in bad suits, evangelists in bad suits, gay people in good suits, all gay people? Perhaps you are happy to let consenting adults participate in consenting activities of their own choosing?

  16. Christopher Shell says:

    The consenting adults principle I definitely dont agree with, since it leaves out 3 considerations from the equation:
    (1) you may ‘consent’ (and of course ppl will so-called ‘consent’ to anything that makes them feel good, or feel good short-term), but do your nearest and dearest?
    (2) Does your wider community or society?
    (3, and key) Even if all the above consent, whether the activity is beneficial or harmful is a separate question.
    The New Testament never approves stoning anybody.
    The New Testament is not ‘more true’, but it is ‘more good’ and ‘more now’. Both testaments agree on the pattern of the old dispensation being replaced with a new and better one. Better in what ways?
    (1) Less legalistic (as opposed to less righteous);
    (2) less ritualistic;
    (3) more inward;
    (4) the critical difference is that the New is post-Jesus whereas the Old was pre-Jesus.

  17. Garry says:

    Hmm, you didn’t answer my first point concerning Mr Green and fundamentalism. There is no no place for the questioning or interpretation of doctrine in the world of Mr Green.
    You’re points about consenting gay sex:
    You have neatly avoided the central issue. Do you feel that gay sex between consenting adults is a “sin”?

    And, as I underdstand it, the new testament says that I will be cast into hell for eternity if I don’t believe Jesus was the son of god, or some such. Well, I don’t. I think he was just some guy, you know. I suppose you believe my new testament eternal burning will now be done in a way which is less legalistic, ritualistic, and more inward looking. I’m almost looking forward to it.

  18. tom p says:

    doc – by pretending to open out the question into one of consent to anything, you’re implying that if i wish to do anything at all with another person (even if that be going on the pedaloes with my wife at my local pond) requires the consent of my family and friends, the community in general and a risk/benefit assessment.
    This is a slight reductio ad absurdem, admittedly, but then lets confine it to the bedroom. Under your scheme, should I gain the consent of my parents, my sister, my wife’s parents and all her siblings before my wife and I fuck? Should this be written consent, or would oral do. Does it need to be obtained before each fuck, or is it ok to imply by extrapolation from previous consent given?
    Should I ask the neighbours if they mind? Do we need to specify which positions we’ll be using?
    Who will check if I haven’t got all the appropriate consents?
    On another point, you state that the nu testament is better than the old one because it is “more now”.
    Our current legal system is far more now than interpretations of 2,000-odd year old text based on the half-remembered platitudes of a deluded fantasist who thought he was the son of god (nowadays we recognise such people as schizophrenics and give them the help they need).
    Does this mean that you recognise that the way society and the law is presently is better, at least in this respect, than whatever jeebus is claimed to have said?
    Or is it that your facile justification for the new testament as more contemporaneously relevant is simply ill-conceived nonsense?

  19. Christopher Shell says:

    Hi Tom – love the comedy.
    These are all considerations. The general idea is to have a default society where ppl naturally (through upbringing) consider the feelings of others. Then all the rigmarole you sketched out wouldnt be necessary. Having said that, I wd like to see you try, and see what reaction you got!!!
    Re: deluded fantasist: Such ppl are mixed-up; Jesus came across to his contemporaries as supremely unmixed-up. I dont know how you view the old CS Lewis chestnut about Jesus being either mad, bad or God (I personally see there as being 2 other options: sincerely deluded, or the victim of inaccurate reporting). CSL had a point: mad people are not sane or shrewd in the way Jesus was. But if one takes the ‘God’ option, one has to define what one means: e.g. the long-expected embodiment of the divine purpose, or some such.

    The ‘now’ point is re biblical dispensations. (I certainly dont believe in any law of steady human progress, least of all in spiritual matters.) I havent noticed anyone since Jesus who has made an improvement on Jesus. But the main point is not that he was ‘the best’, but that he split history into a ‘before’ and an ‘after’ (not just in terms of our dating system).

  20. Christopher Shell says:

    Hi Garry-
    Yes. The ‘consenting’ point Ive addressed. For the rest, any lifestyle which produces a lower average life-expectancy than many diseases, which produces a higher chance of STDs than any other ppl-group, and which (simultaneously) doesnt make biological sense, is to be advised and warned against – but that much is common sense.

  21. tom p says:

    Doc – the current default society is that, in matters private and sexual we do consider the feelings of others, and do not prevent people from expressing their love for one another because of our own dislike of how they go about doing so, hence homosexuality is accepted as part of the tapestry of our sexual fabric. Personally, I don’t approve of catholic priests’ abstinence, but that doesn’t mean i’m going to shove fanny down their throats. Nor should catholics (or other xtians for that matter) try and do so to the gays.

    as for your implications that homosexuality produces a far higher number of STDs per se, this isn’t true. it’s promiscuity that leads to that. compare promiscuous homos to equally promiscuous heteros and you’ll find std rates are similar across the 2 groups.

  22. Garry says:

    Hi Dr. Shell. My question again – Do you feel that gay sex between consenting adults is a “sin”? I don’t want to put words, or anything else, in your mouth but you still don’t seem to have answered this question.

    The point is that you may try to portray the New Testament as tolerant, loving, and wonderful but this is a misleading portrayal. The “God” of the New Testament is quite prepared to condemn unbelievers to everlasting torment in the lake of fire. The New Testament says this will happen to me and to the vast majority of the population of the planet throughout it’s history. Even if he did exist, I still wouldn’t want to worship the uncaring torturer.

  23. Christopher Shell says:

    I agree, but a higher proportion of homos are promiscuous in the first place.

    Oh, sorry – my ‘Yes’ was meant to answer this question in the affirmative. 😮

  24. Garry says:

    Doc, sorry I missed the yes. I spend so much time listening to politicians I sometimes forget to even look for a straight answer. Doh!
    It was a straight answer: you feel that consenting gay sex between adults is a “sin”. So they can be added to the list of people whom your loving “god” will condemn to burn in hell? It’s going to be a bit crowded down there. What percentage of the total world population would you estimate will have fulfilled the New Testament’s proscribed method of avoiding this fate?

  25. Christopher Shell says:

    ‘Ang on a bit – when did I say that?
    How can humans like you and me know about big cosmic questions like that? Even less can we control them. Our own wishes dont affect it a jot, unfortunately.
    Although there is a lot we do not know (and we certainly can’t hope with any likelihood that we are the biggest cheeses in the entire universe), there are some things that we do know. For example:
    (1) This universe is a massive-beyond-comprehension, intricate-beyond-comprehension masterpiece.
    (2) To flunk one’s part (or one’s chance) in a masterpiece like that is a lot worse than doing so in a mere West End play.
    (3) We have only one life, whose final day we do not know, which makes ‘getting it right’ a matter of urgency. Not uptightness, not earnestness, but urgency. This is our only shot; there aint no dress rehearsals.
    (4) Because of the nature of time (the present being the sum total of the past: many of the stars in the night sky are, in terms of linear time, long dead), the way we have succeeded or failed in our life will forever be indelibly written into the universe.
    (5) Even within this life, people can know the experience of being alienated from, or reconciled with, their origins, or their true self, or honesty/truth – even, for all we know (and who would wager otherwise, given the possible consequences) their Creator.
    (6) The existence of a Creator is plausibly argued from the existence of a universe which has no powers of creativity, eternity or necessity within itself. If there is a Creator, one can’t die in peace unless one is reconciled to him. For then one would be out of step with the universe, in rebellion against everything, making peace impossible. Ingratitude would also come into it, given that life is an indescribably wonderful gift (unless one is living in poverty or suffering), something we dont always remember because we are so unaccustomed to it.
    (7) The bottom line is that we have to die at peace with ourselves, our Maker (if there is a Maker) etc etc. At peace with as much as possible. Many of us know in the course of our lives the experience of failing to be at peace, through our own rebellion, stubbornness, or pride. If one dies in that state, one is eternally like that. No chance of changing it. That is an unspeakable tragedy, just as its opposite is an unspeakable delight.
    Most of the above is pretty undeniable, and I havent even mentioned any doctrine of heaven or hell. The net result is the same.

  26. Christopher Shell says:

    For ‘unaccustomed’ read ‘accustomed’.
    I didnt mention ‘eternal conscious torment’. What I described is certainly eternal torment.

  27. Garry says:

    Now I’m confused. I though we were speaking about the New Testament. I must have been mistaken.
    Anyway, I was making the point that the New Testament is a fundamentalist text. It presents a fundamental choice: believe or burn.

  28. Christopher Shell says:

    The point is that reason alone leads one to the same net result as the NT.
    If the NT presents a fundamental choice, it is right. Every person’s life could end in the blissful peace of fulfilment or in the agony of irresolution and alienation.

  29. Garry says:

    The point is that reason alone leads one to the same net result as the NT.
    Doc, I think that’s called default reasoning.
    Reason does not lead me to believe that I must trust in an imaginary being or endure the agony of irresolution and alienation. Reason leads me to believe that when I die I’ll be dead. Anything else is based on speculation and belief. It is not reason.
    (PS, I speculate that over 99% of the world population would not fulfil the criteria set by the NT. That’s a lot of burning souls.)

  30. Christopher Shell says:

    But what in #25 do you disagree with?
    And do you disagree that #25 produces the same net result as the NT?

  31. Garry says:

    I disagree that #25 produces the same net result as the NT.
    You are saying that reason leads you to believe that there is an afterlife and that Jesus was the son of “god” and that if we don’t believe in him we will be cast into the lake of fire for eternity. I am truly baffled.
    Is it possible to reasonably extrapolate the NT from the available evidence of the Universe?
    You will say yes because you argue from the default position that the NT is true and so you look for evidence which fits those beliefs. I cannot see any evidence in 25 which supports the NT.
    And so I say no because I see that there is no evidence of the truth of the NT. It is a fundamentalist and contradictory text written at a time when humanity had a much poorer understanding of the universe.
    I have no objection to you personally believing the NT but your attempt to describe this belief in terms of pseudo-science are rather unsavoury.
    BTW, any advance on 99%? At least I won’t be lonely down there.
    BTW2, Contradictory – God is love/God burns 99% of all souls.

  32. Christopher Shell says:

    I dont think the NT says that God excludes anyone who has not ‘heard’, as it were. Romans 1 suggests that everyone has heard, since the evidence from creation is so plain; whereas Romans 10 says ‘how can they hear without a preacher?’. This adds up to: Anyone can gain knowledge of God, or realise that there is likely to be a God – but no-one can have knowledge of Jesus unless someone tells them.
    Now – gosh – I think I have said almost none of the things you are claiming I have said. One thing I have never believed is that the default position is that the NT is true. In its entirety? It is 27 separate documents, each with many claims, and that’s even before we go into questions of historical/spiritual truth. Why should the way we assess these documents’ truth be any different from the way we assess the truth of any other documents?
    What I did say was that the final outcome of our life is of utmost importance and has eternal effects. Any separation from God, from the ground of our being, from our creator, from our origins, will be of eternal effect, and much to be lamented; whereas being at peace with God (etc) will also be of eternal effect, and the cause of great delight. This amounts to the same thing as the doctrine of heaven & hell, and can be deduced by reason alone. Of course, there may be a more physical manifestation of this reality, but how are we poor humans to know anything about that? Either way, these are cosmic realities we are talking about. Im not sure that the word ‘physical’ means much in a world where all matter is energy, anyway.
    I wonder what you think about all this. Youre surely (presumably) not saying that life is insignificant, or that it doesnt really matter whether we make peace before we die.

  33. Christopher Shell says:

    The point I forgot:
    Any separation from God is self-chosen and self-imposed. That’s why I see it as inaccurate when God is portrayed as the main mover here.

  34. Garry says:

    Doc – this is getting tiresome. I feel we have to agree to disagree. One final response:
    Any separation from God, from the ground of our being, from our creator, from our origins, will be of eternal effect, and much to be lamented; whereas being at peace with God (etc) will also be of eternal effect, and the cause of great delight. This amounts to the same thing as the doctrine of heaven & hell, and can be deduced by reason alone.
    How you can say that this is based on reason is absolutely beyond me, and, if I’m honest, I really have no interest in trying to work it out.
    Reason leads me to believe that when I die I will be dead. That’s it. My brain functions will stop and I will cease to be. I will be an ex-atheist. Feel free to write some more mumbo-jumbo about reasoning the existence of “god” below if you wish but I don’t think it’s likely to convince anyone.
    Perhaps, you’d be more at home discussing these matters with some anglicans or something.

  35. Christopher Shell says:

    What I reasoned was not so much the existence of God as the inevitable result of the nature of time.
    You write ‘when I die I will be dead’. That is similar to the point I was making about only having one chance, and it being of paramount importance to get it right the first time. Because the first time is also the last time.
    Re: the nature of time: All past times coexist in the sense that the present is merely the sum total of the past. If one looks into the night sky one sees stars that existed in the far past – but they are still part of the present, and indelibly written into the universe. Likewise, whatever we do now will for the entire future of the universe be indelibly written into the universe. We can’t erase it: what we can do is remedy it.

  36. Garry says:

    Oh, I can’t resist. I salute your indefatigability.
    What I reasoned was not so much the existence of God as the inevitable result of the nature of time.
    So you don’t reason the existence of god. Do you believe in god?
    You write ‘when I die I will be dead’. That is similar to the point I was making about only having one chance, and it being of paramount importance to get it right the first time. Because the first time is also the last time.
    This is all very sensible, very reasonable. It’s pretty much exactly the reason why it saddens me if people spend their lives following an antiquated belief system which had been pertetuated by fear.

    I know we’ll never agree on this stuff but lets look on the bright side. Up at comment 14 on this thread we agreed that Stephen Green is a fundamentalist. That’s pretty much the point of the original post so at least we’ve found some common ground.

  37. Christopher Shell says:

    Ok – at other points on this site I have listed reasons for considering belief in a creator reasonable: ie the universe as we know it is not so constituted as to have powers of creativity, eternity or necessity, therefore it’s reasonable to posit someone or something that has. This much is old hat – top scientists like Martin Rees consider this a good option, the only main alternative being a practically infinite multiplicity of universes, which not only breaks Occam’s razor (ie is too uneconomical an ‘explanation’) but also fails to address the question of how they got there in the first place.
    The trouble is that if things are true we have no option but to follow them, whether or not they induce fear. Fear is scarcely at the heart of Christianity (quite the reverse: morbid fear is associated with sin in the Christian scriptures, though awe and accountablilty are seen as good things) – but even if it were, whether or not Christianity is true is a separate question from whether it induces fear. It weouldnt become untrue by virtue of inducing fear, norwould any other worldview.

  38. Garry says:

    the universe as we know it is not so constituted as to have powers of creativity, eternity or necessity, therefore it’s reasonable to posit someone or something that has.
    This is what I meant by default reasoning. In essence “the existence of the universe is beyond our understanding therefore it must have a creator.”
    I don’t deny you the right to believe this, but please accept that it is a belief.
    As for your questioning of multiple universes, I’m sure Occam’s Razor could have been applied to the theory of the behaviour of electrons. Now that we know a little more about it, we realise that electrons actually do behave in an extremely complex way. Occam’s razor doesn’t imply that there must be a simple solution to every problem.

    And you say the theory of multiple universes also fails to address the question of how they got there in the first place.
    As opposed to a creator whose existence we can fully explain? Please, this isn’t science doc. Believe it by all means, but please don’t dress it up as science.

  39. Monitor says:

    Garry, dressing up his religion in the language science, logic, and reason is what Christopher Shell is all about. It’s worth remembering what it is exactly that Christianity expects you to believe:
    that a creator/deity deliberately made the universe in such a way that the “crown of creation” (humanity) would disobey and displease Him, so that the only way to rectify matters would be for Him to dress up in a man-suit and sacrifice Himself to Himself, thus allowing His creation to be unified with Him once more (if – and only if – they believe that’s how things happened).

    Which leaves us with two possibilities:
    a) The above is a true and reasonable explication of life and the universe
    b) The above is a man-made myth (and a pretty stupid one at that).

    Hmm… Toughie.

  40. Garry says:

    Yes, I actually know one or two people who remind be of the Doc in their attitudes to this. It seems that their mission in life is to dress up the hocus pocus in the language of science. I find it quite interesting. Utterly unconvincing, but interesting nonetheless.

  41. Christopher Shell says:

    Dress up the hocus pocus? I scarcely mentioned Christianity from beginning to end. I was just seeing how much of a worldview one can deduce from reason alone. We’re all stuck together in this world, & therefore need to work out, and refine, whatever seems the best possible default theory about what’s actually going on.

    There are two kinds of people in the world: those who have presuppositions and those who have tentative/provisional conclusions, pending further discoveries/info/evidence. The former assume and the latter argue. One should never listen to the former camp, albeit there are penty of Christians (and of humanists, and of relativists, and of atheists, and of most other things) among them.

    Only trust a person who never knows in advance what they are going to conclude.

    Of course, it is never this straightforward, because one’s tentative conclusions then become one’s tentative presuppositions. But at least we should be people who are aware of the fact that our presuppositions may not be watertight rather than people (and there are many of them) who take their presuppositions for granted.

  42. tom p says:

    But you weren’t deducing anything from reason.
    Even if there is a creator (and you still, consistently, refuse to answer what created the creator – all you’re doing is shifting the question back a level, then saying that this answer is a must and a given. A bit like Bertrand Russell’s ‘the universe is and that’s it’, but substituting the universe for god), that doesn’t necessarily mean that there is an afterlife. It’s purely assumption that there must be one. And, of course, the concept of an afterlife also fails Occam’s Ravor (since you invoked it).
    All we know is that before the big bang we know nothing and (presently) can know nothing. To say that you know there must have been a god is false. Plain and simple. It’s a lie (although because there’s sufficient people who have bought it, the rest of us are generally polite to your sort and call it a belief, although, of course, you can’t spell belief without lie).

  43. Garry says:

    Doc, given the entire conversation in this thread, your last comment has amused me more than any of the others! If you could provide one “reason” which wasn’t full of holes, which wasn’t based on a presupposition, on a default position, I’d consider taking your arguments seriously. As is, I’m afraid it’s all getting rather tedious.
    Only trust a person who never knows in advance what they are going to conclude.
    Indeed. I predict that every “reasoned” conclusion you suggest is supportive of Christianity.
    We are still agreed that Stephen Green is a fundamentalist though (comment 14).

  44. Christopher Shell says:

    Hi Tom-
    I guess God and the universe are not ‘items’ in the same category as one another. So far as we can tell, the universe as we know it is not the sort of thing that would have powers of creativity, eternity or necessity. This forces us to look beyond it to someone or something that does have these powers or qualities.
    When did I speak about an afterlife? I spoke about the nature of time meaning that the present is the sum of the past, and the past can never be erased, but is always indelibly written into the universe. A lot of afterlife-thought is wishful thinking. The fact that something is what ppl wish does not in and of itself make that thing either true or untrue.

    Hi Garry-
    Hey, if there are holes all you need to do is isolate them, rather than give a general notice of their existence.

  45. Garry says:

    Hi Doc – I have. Several times. In this thread. This was the last hole you failed to respond to:

    And you say the theory of multiple universes also fails to address the question of how they got there in the first place. As opposed to a creator whose existence we can fully explain?

    There is no logic, no reasoned argument. You argue that the existence of multiple universes must have an explanation otherwise it is false. You make no attempt to explain the existence of a creator and yet you “reason” that this is true.

    I’m bored of this now. There are many more holes you’ve chosen to ignore. Why don’t you read all of the above and see how many flaws there are in your “reasoned” arguments before you add anything else to this thread. It’d save us all a lot of trouble.

  46. Christopher Shell says:

    Hi Garry-
    The main problem of multiple universes is not that we can’t fully explain how they got there. That is a problem which arises no matter which theory we hold. Whatever was there first, we can’t understand how.

    The main problem of multiple universes is that they are a much less economical ‘explanation’ than the alternatives. In addition, the theory (as it is often stated) seems to me to require more or less an infinite subdivision of universes every millisecond in every location. Given how incomparably vast the known universe is, this seems to me to fail to answer the question of where the extra energy/matter actually came from.

    The universe had some origin or other. At present, there are no unproblematic contenders, So we can do only one thing: go for the least problematic of the available contenders. We don’t arrive at our answer entirely by (positive) reason, but also partly by (negative) procewss of elimination.

    There is one golden rule which I have found often to apply: When the answer one is coming up with seems messy, one is generally on the wrong track.

  47. Garry says:

    Just one of many problems with your latest remark: There is one golden rule which I have found often to apply: When the answer one is coming up with seems messy, one is generally on the wrong track.
    Electrons: very messy, almost impossible to understand properly, accepted scientific theory all the same. We already did this one in this thread. You ignored it last time. Generalities don’t prove/disprove anything. And round and round we go again.
    Still, Stephen Green is definitely a fundamentalist (comment 14). What do you say we leave it at that? It’s the only thing we’ll ever agree on.

  48. Christopher Shell says:

    Of course! That’s why I said ‘generally’. There is another possible explanation: it seems messy to us because of our poverty of understanding.

    Do you think we might also agree that the Pope is a Catholic? Or is that too much to hope for? 😮

  49. Garry says:

    The reason I keep mentioning the fact that we agreed that Stephen Green is a fundamentalist (comment 14) is related to good manners in blog commenting. We have both gone massively off-topic in this thread. The original post is about Stephen Green. We have agreed that he is a fundamentalist. Lets leave it there. This off-topic ramble we’ve both been participating in might be considered impolite by many people. We should really stick to discussing the post we are commenting on, in this case it’s about Stephen Green’s fundamentaist views. This is the only subject I will comment on further in this thread.

  50. Christopher Shell says:

    Hurrah! Etiquette is not dead.

    (But who on earth decided in the first place what is internet etiquette? Wasnt it Alex Comfort who redefined chivalry as carrying condoms?)