Subject:
|
Re: One of my issues (Warning: even wordier than usual)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 16 Nov 2001 20:12:26 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1343 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, James Brown writes:
> > If God could be empirically demonstrated, wouldn't that be better then the
> > current situation, in which he cannot? Surely more people would be "saved,"
> > and that would seem to me a fine means of determining superiority of method.
>
> Ok. When you're in charge of the universe, you set up God as empirically
> verifiable, and we'll run a comparison study. Until then, the only answer
> can be "unknown", and you know that.
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 unless you can't do better' is about as
rhetorically useful as "I'm rubber, you're glue."
> > Even with the supposed moral absolute of Christianity, few
> > people indeed lead a perfectly moral life. Pragmatically speaking, is an
> > unachievable but perfect morality any better than an achievable but
> > incomplete morality?
>
> Nice trap question.
Not a trap question at all, but a reasonable result of your observation.
Your comment re: social evolution seems to suggest that at some point, with
sufficient social evolution, man can divorce morality from a higher
authority (and some people have done so already). When that happens, what's
the point of a higher authority?
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
117 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
