 | | Re: One of my issues with the god of the old testament
|
|
(...) Forgive me if this comes across as trolling, but my understanding would benefit from a few points of clarification. Do you propose that morality is self-evident? I accept a priori your faith in God, but did God specifically create morality, or (...) (23 years ago, 15-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One of my issues with the god of the old testament
|
|
(...) I propose that human moral awareness is self-evident from the fact that all non- intellectually or emotionally impaired humans for as long as we have record have possessed an innate belief, sense, and faculty for moral calculus. So yes, my (...) (23 years ago, 15-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One of my issues with the god of the old testament
|
|
(...) Hmm. One of the long-standing concepts of God is "greater-than-which-...-thought." That is, of course, a formulation of the ontological argument and is therefore insufficient to prove His existence, but let's assume it (those of us who don't (...) (23 years ago, 15-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One of my issues with the god of the old testament
|
|
(...) Just jumping in for James, my guess is that he'd say that it's akin to mathematics. God can't suddenly make 1==2 or 3+9=234. Humans "invented" the basic rules mathematics, and the rest is true based on those rules, no matter what. To take away (...) (23 years ago, 15-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One of my issues with the god of the old testament
|
|
(...) Sort of, but I'm not sure that I agree with it. Why should an infinite being be constrained by our notions of impossibility, even if those notions seem absolute to us? I'm also not sure about the practical equivalence of math and morality: our (...) (23 years ago, 15-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One of my issues with the god of the old testament
|
|
(...) I dunno. What makes you so sure that he shouldn't be? Is it a logical fallacy to say that he shouldn't be? Is there a flaw with such a belief that makes it invalid? (...) Demonstrated, no. At least not within our abilities. But again, is there (...) (23 years ago, 15-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One of my issues with the god of the old testament
|
|
(...) A few posts back I put forth "God is that being greater than which nothing can be thought" as a rhetorical assumption. It's not my personal belief, but, in my attempt to understand the Christian source of morality, it seemed an okay starting (...) (23 years ago, 15-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One of my issues with the god of the old testament
|
|
(...) Very Descartian of you :) I think the only rebuttal I can say is "Why must it be that way?" I guess I just don't see a problem with a God for whom certain things are impossible, such as the absurdity of changing 4+3=9, while leaving the rest (...) (23 years ago, 15-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One of my issues with the god of the old testament
|
|
(...) You're saying (in essence) that if God exists, that existence must by definition be without limits. If that's what you're getting at, then I think you need to take a look at how you are using impossible. Impossible, by my understanding, is (...) (23 years ago, 15-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One of my issues with the god of the old testament
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Brown writes: [...] Dang... If you thought it was confusing before with 2 Dave's and one James, wait till you try it with 2 Dave's and 2 James's! :) DaveE FUT fun (23 years ago, 15-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: One of my issues with the god of the old testament
|
|
(...) I can't wait for the day when we have 2 Larrys & 2 Scotts.... ROSCO (23 years ago, 16-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: One of my issues (Warning: even wordier than usual)
|
|
(...) I can conceive of such a being in at least abstract terms, such as "that being which is not bound by our definition of logical impossibility." (...) And mine too, but I'll stand by the logical impossibility requirement. If you have any notion (...) (23 years ago, 16-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One of my issues with the god of the old testament
|
|
(...) Wait until a few Eric's show up, and maybe a Chris or two... Dave! (23 years ago, 16-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: One of my issues with the god of the old testament
|
|
(...) Any of us can construct nonsensical statements. How big is yellow? A square circle. 2+2=5. Whatever. How can any being *do* the logically impossible? That which our imaginations may conceive cannot be the standard which a Greater Being must (...) (23 years ago, 16-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One of my issues with the god of the old testament
|
|
Dave Schuler wrote in message ... (...) And then there's the rapidly proliferating horde of Kevin's.... Bwahahahaha! Kevin (Wilson) ---...--- NEW Tank Engine custom train set: (URL) Annual SYSTEM Creativity Contest: (URL) Lego Kits & Custom models: (...) (23 years ago, 16-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: One of my issues (Warning: even wordier than usual)
|
|
(...) asked (...) And his mum, quick as a flash, said "What did you say 'What did you bring that book that I didn't want to be read to out of up for' for?" ROSCO FUT: .o-t.fun (23 years ago, 16-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: One of my issues (Warning: even wordier than usual)
|
|
(...) I completely disagree. You're forcing a Christian God into something that it doesn't need to be. Certainly there are *some* sects of Christianity that would require it as you say, but again, they don't disprove the whole of Christianity. (...) (...) (23 years ago, 16-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One of my issues with the god of the old testament
|
|
(...) Really. You know better, Dave! There's only one Eric. Just many manifestations. This has already been established and no Eric/k persona has yet successfully proved the negative, so it must be true. (23 years ago, 16-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: One of my issues with the god of the old testament
|
|
(...) Hmmm...I partly agree with you here. God indeed cannot make 1=2, because that would be an absurdity. I wouldn't say that humans invented the rules of math, insofar as 1+1 actually equals 2 across time and space. (Obviously, though, our (...) (23 years ago, 16-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One of my issues with the god of the old testament
|
|
(...) The more I think about it, I think we *did* invent math. The fact that numerical analysis appears basic to us merely meaning that math is likely to be conceived of similarly elsewhere. (...) About math? Sure. About God's ability to *change* (...) (23 years ago, 16-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One of my issues (Warning: even wordier than usual)
|
|
(...) In that case we must be careful, or else we're once again presented with a receding target: A. How about this criterion? B. Well, that's not the *real* Christian God. A. Okay, how about this criterion? B. Well, that's not the *real* Christian (...) (23 years ago, 16-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One of my issues with the god of the old testament
|
|
(...) Hey, I think it'd be great to have another Dave! Now, it could be problematic if there was a Dave, or even a Dave. And what would we do with a Dave? Any of those could cause big trouble. Especially in multiples. But I think it'd be cool to (...) (23 years ago, 16-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: One of my issues (Warning: even wordier than usual)
|
|
(...) So in other words, you're changing your definition of impossible. You are restricting impossible to mean "impossible within my frame of reference". (...) Dave E addressed this more eloquently than I can, I suspect, so I will only comment that (...) (23 years ago, 16-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One of my issues (Warning: even wordier than usual)
|
|
(...) What I was attempting to do was provide a conception of a being that can perform what throughout this debate has been considered a logical impossibility. I don't see how offering one criterion without excluding others is a restriction on (...) (23 years ago, 16-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One of my issues (Warning: even wordier than usual)
|
|
(...) That's ok. I think the subject of debate in this thread is James' (pick one) view on Christianity. You'll have to take the battles as they come. Certainly I could try the turn-around on you: - Science is wrong, cuz it says the world is flat. - (...) (23 years ago, 16-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One of my issues (Warning: even wordier than usual)
|
|
(...) We're arguing semantics, I think, over the meaning of "impossible". I am suggesting that if there are absolute limits, they limit everything (including God). You are stating that if there are are absolute limits, God can't exist. That doesn't (...) (23 years ago, 16-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One of my issues (Warning: even wordier than usual)
|
|
(...) But as you of all people konw, science doesn't declare truths; it's a system of explanation endlessly refined to fit more closely with observation. Christianity, by contrast, declares certain absolutes that remain absolute regardless of (...) (23 years ago, 16-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One of my issues (Warning: even wordier than usual)
|
|
(...) If you're asserting that a universe in which more people are legitimately saved is less desirable than a universe in which fewer people are legimately saved, then I think we have another debate on our hands. Besides which, 'don't criticize (...) (23 years ago, 16-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One of my issues with the god of the old testament
|
|
(...) Wow. On face value I can't find any reason why I disagree with your summation of my view. I would ammend, however, the idea that God doesn't care about our measure against the yardstick, if we remain consistent with the level of our own moral (...) (23 years ago, 16-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One of my issues (Warning: even wordier than usual)
|
|
(...) This 5-response string of linear debate was so remarkably thorough and compicated in its exigesis, and so many Jameses were postulated, quoted, and deconstructed that I am frankly coming to doubt my own identity. A friend and i have recently (...) (23 years ago, 16-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One of my issues with the god of the old testament
|
|
(...) Like Dave? Dave? How about Dave!, (Dave), or even Dave!? ROSCO (23 years ago, 16-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Peronhood (was One of my issues)
|
|
(...) a (...) On initial inspection, I'd say the latter - those memories & neural functions are (IMO) based on the combination of body / brain in which they reside. Suddenly changing that would cause...well I don't really know what it would cause, (...) (23 years ago, 16-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One of my issues with the god of the old testament
|
|
(...) Or, when sojouring en España, ¡Dave! or even ¿Dave? Dave! (23 years ago, 16-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Peronhood (was One of my issues)
|
|
(...) An even hairier one: Person X's brain is cut in half, as is Person Y's. One pair of lobes is swapped between the two of them (Person X's right lobe is fused with Person Y's left lobe, etc.) What has become of their singular personhoods? Do the (...) (23 years ago, 16-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Thinking for your self, whoever that is (Was Re: Personhood )
|
|
(...) There is a body of evidence--not really conclusive, but provocative--gleaned from the study of epileptics who have had the corpus callosum (the goop connecting the two hemispheres of the thinkbox) severed. Studies have shown that in some cases (...) (23 years ago, 16-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Peronhood (was One of my issues)
|
|
Unfortunately, I don't think you're going to get an answer to ANY of these cases until they are actually tried (and make no mistake, they'll be tried sooner or later, we are too curious a lot to ignore them). (...) -- | Tom Stangl, iPlanet Web (...) (23 years ago, 16-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One of my issues (Warning: even wordier than usual)
|
|
(...) I'm not sure where you read that. I'm not asserting any outcome, I'm saying that the only honest answer I can give is "I don't know". Your whole beef appears to be that if it isn't verfiable by empirical science it's inferior, and then you go (...) (23 years ago, 16-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One of my issues (Warning: even wordier than usual)
|
|
(...) disproven. (...) Well, the similarity was insofar as by asking "How about this criterion? No that's not the *real* Christian God", one assumedly is receding the Christian beliefs, but only to a point. IE, accepting the answers as true results (...) (23 years ago, 16-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Thinking for your self, whoever that is (Was Re: Personhood )
|
|
What is this? The ugly return of the Julian Jaynes part of the argument? See: (URL) is exactly the kind of stuff that Jaynes would have used to support his seemingly radical theory. What's worse is that if you follow it further it seems to justify a (...) (23 years ago, 16-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Peronhood (was One of my issues)
|
|
(...) Do we have Peronistas here? Ack. Something about Ross we did not know! Don't cry for me, Argentina! (and no, I am not going to give up my day job...) (23 years ago, 16-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: Personhood[1] (was One of my issues)
|
|
(...) A (...) in (...) new (...) terms (...) body (...) adjustment (...) not (...) that? (...) swapped (...) Yep, exactly. How much of the "person" is in the "soul"? I say none, the soul doesn't really exist, but who knows? ROSCO [1] Lar, note (...) (23 years ago, 17-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One of my issues with the god of the old testament
|
|
(...) the S¢LDave ´Dave…………babyDave `Dave…………seriousDave .Dave…………historicalDave ;Dave…………colostomyDave =CDave………euroDave (this will look a lot cooler one of these days) =Ctr#Dave……eurotrhashDave C=Dave……… navalDave Dªve…………mysteriouslyhighDave (see (...) (23 years ago, 17-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: One of my issues with the god of the old testament
|
|
(...) Oooo, "Low" blow... ...by the way, how's the business? =oP -- Hop-Frog (23 years ago, 17-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: One of my issues with the god of the old testament
|
|
(...) HEY! I still hold the copyright to this name from back in my Lego retail days! LegoDave was my name...don't wear it out! ;) -Dave 'still ticked off that he didn't register www.dave.com when he had the chance' Johann (23 years ago, 17-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| |
| | Re: One of my issues (Warning: even wordier than usual)
|
|
(...) I don't understand the goal in seperating this from the question of asking how believers know God to be. If you accept that they know that God exists at all, why not accept that they know God to be good as just part of the definition of God? (...) (23 years ago, 18-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One of my issues (Warning: even wordier than usual)
|
|
(...) Let's start by trying to distinguish between two slippery terms... I am uncomfortable with even the idea of "morality" (i.e. conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct) because it suggests something beyond the conduct (...) (23 years ago, 18-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One of my issues (Warning: even wordier than usual)
|
|
(...) Wow, and I didn't even have to pay him (much) to ask me that :) Phase I: Desire Humans have emotions about their state. Very basic. "Happy", "sad". (Normally I might say "good" or "bad", but that's easily equatable with morality, so I'll (...) (23 years ago, 18-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One of my issues (Warning: even wordier than usual)
|
|
(...) For the record, I also think of this as a deeply romanticized notion of what I'm experiencing...not some literal description. (...) I certainly agree with this and your further characterization of our social nature and how that leads to an (...) (23 years ago, 19-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: One of my issues (Warning: even wordier than usual)
|
|
(...) You are probably expressing neither morals nor ethics, but rather your own will. Knowing these things are "right" for you, doesn't make them "right" for everyone else. Moral and ethical acts are expressed in relation to agreed upon standards (...) (23 years ago, 19-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Morals & Ethics reprise (was ...)
|
|
(...) The way I define things (similar to Richard, but not quite the same), you would be expressing morals - that is, a system of conduct in accordance with right and wrong as you understand them. IMHO, morals are not universal. Ethics are much like (...) (23 years ago, 19-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Morals & Ethics reprise (was ...)
|
|
(...) Darn you! Now I wanna go reply to that oh-so-old-post... again. :) DaveE (23 years ago, 19-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Morals & Ethics reprise (was ...)
|
|
(...) That's REALLY good James! The lexicographers should be talking to us, Baby! "YOUR morals are not OUR ethics." I will always remember this point of distinction. Damned slippery words... -- Hop-Frog (23 years ago, 19-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Morals & Ethics reprise (was ...)
|
|
(...) Heh. I know what you mean... in hunting down the reference, I found myself rereading the entire thread. :) James (23 years ago, 19-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Morals & Ethics reprise (was ...)
|
|
(...) Me too! (and considering a post or two as well) (23 years ago, 19-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Morals & Ethics reprise (was ...)
|
|
(...) So-- ok, I've heard several times now that there's a distinction between ethics and morality. Personally I never was aware of the distinction, but what exactly is it for those who distinguish? At a guess, I'd say you're defining it as: - (...) (23 years ago, 19-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Morals & Ethics reprise (was ...)
|
|
That's more or less what *I* mean (agreeing with James' further tweaking of these words), but those are not the accepted definitions of the word, not exactly. Generally, the definitions for the words "moral(s)" and "ethics" are very similar, except (...) (23 years ago, 19-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Morals & Ethics reprise (was ...)
|
|
(...) Nope, that's pretty close. I would say that ethics are not a combined morality, but rather are a suggested morality, but that's only because it has a different implication of the derivation.(1) Further, something as broad as a societal ethic (...) (23 years ago, 19-Nov-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
