 | | Re: One of my issues (Warning: even wordier than usual) —Dave Schuler
|
| | | (...) 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 (Warning: even wordier than usual) —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | | (...) 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) —David Eaton
|
| | | | | (...) 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 (Warning: even wordier than usual) —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | (...) 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 (Warning: even wordier than usual) —David Eaton
|
| | | | | | (...) 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) —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | (...) 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) —James Simpson
|
| | | | | | | (...) 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: Peronhood (was One of my issues) —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | | | | | (...) 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: Peronhood (was One of my issues) —James Simpson
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) 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 ) —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | | | | | (...) 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: Thinking for your self, whoever that is (Was Re: Personhood ) —Richard Marchetti
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | 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) —Tom Stangl
|
| | | | | | | | | | | 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: Personhood[1] (was One of my issues) —Ross Crawford
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) 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: Peronhood (was One of my issues) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | (...) 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: One of my issues (Warning: even wordier than usual) —David Eaton
|
| | | | | | (...) 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: One of my issues (Warning: even wordier than usual) —James Brown
|
| | | | | (...) 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) —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | (...) 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) —James Brown
|
| | | | | | (...) 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) —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | (...) 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 (Warning: even wordier than usual) —James Brown
|
| | | | | | (...) 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) —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | (...) 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) —Richard Marchetti
|
| | | | | (...) 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) —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | | | (...) 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) —Richard Marchetti
|
| | | | | | | (...) 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 ...) —James Brown
|
| | | | | | (...) 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 ...) —David Eaton
|
| | | | | | | (...) 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 ...) —James Brown
|
| | | | | | | | (...) 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 ...) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | (...) 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 ...) —Richard Marchetti
|
| | | | | | (...) 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 ...) —David Eaton
|
| | | | | | (...) 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 ...) —Richard Marchetti
|
| | | | | | | 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 ...) —James Brown
|
| | | | | | (...) 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)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: One of my issues (Warning: even wordier than usual) —David Eaton
|
| | | | (...) 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)
|
| | | | |
