|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 53 OF 237 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Dec-23-16 | | diceman: <Big Pawn:
This is true, very few people really want to get into the philosophy behind it all and are content to say "Republican GOOD Democrat BAD" or vice versa.> When it comes to "living" very few actually live liberal.
When it comes to their home life, Obama/Clinton are as conservative as I am. The yap, yap, yap, is for someone else. |
|
| Dec-23-16 | | Big Pawn: < chancho: <Matthew 15:18-20>
<Jesus: 18 But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man unclean. 19 For out of the heart come evil thoughts,> <<murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. 20 These are what make a man unclean; but eating with unwashed hands does not make him unclean.> <Matthew 17:17> <Jesus: "You unbelieving and perverted generation, how long shall I be with you? How long shall I put up with you? Bring him here to Me.">> Well done, <chancho>. Also, Paul, after he met Jesus on the road to Damascus, spent a lot of time with the disciples making sure he knew the message inside and out. The NT says plenty about homosexuality and for that matter sexual perversion and all of it is based off of Jesus' teaching. Right, <tuna>? |
|
| Dec-23-16 | | thegoodanarchist: <BP:
1. If God does not exist then OMV do not exist
2. OMV exist
If one wants to refute premise 1, he needs to show that:
1. Moral values exist objectively
2. They have a transcendental foundation but <not> in God.>
Agreed.
<<tga>, this is all about ontology; origins; the foundation in reality of moral values; their metaphysical status.
I guess only really intelligent people (?) are able to understand that evolution is irrelevant to this question. That is, we can accept evolution as a given, as a truth in reality, and it has no bearing on either premise <nor> the negations of either premise, should someone try to argue for their plausibility.>
Maybe, but I don't discuss evolution much. I'm not an expert on it. If people try to debate the truth (or not) of evolution, I tell them to go talk to a professor of biology at their local university (seriously, I've done that.)
<The second premise:
2. OMV exist
is one that some try to refute with appeals to evolution too. Amazing.>
Agreed. To me it seems obvious that appeals to evolution do not address origins of moral values. Darwin wrote <Origin of *Species*>.
<Now, if atheists could show that God does not exist at all, then they would have a good reason to say that premise 2 is false, because there would be <no transcendent foundation> by which to ground moral values in order for them to exist objectively - but this would affirm premise 1, wouldn't it!>
Yes, they would have good reason to say that premise 2 is false, but off the top of my head I don't see how that would <prove> premise 2 is false. |
|
Dec-23-16
 | | saffuna: <Right, <tuna>?> Correct. <chancho> found what you were unable to. |
|
| Dec-23-16 | | Big Pawn: <saffuna: <Right, <tuna>?>
Correct. <chancho> found what you were unable to.> I'm glad you agree with us now.
That's very, very good.
Very.
<mort's> trolling, and your supportive trolling, had the opposite effect. Are you mad now? |
|
| Dec-23-16 | | Big Pawn: <tga: Yes, they would have good reason to say that premise 2 is false, but off the top of my head I don't see how that would <prove> premise 2 is false.> They would be saying that <OMV> do not exist because God does not exist. Premise 1:
1. If God does not exist then OMV do not exist. Thus they would affirm premise one.
< thegoodanarchist: <BP:
1. If God does not exist then OMV do not exist
2. OMV exist
If one wants to refute premise 1, he needs to show that: 1. Moral values exist objectively
2. They have a transcendental foundation but <not> in God.> Agreed. >
I should have written "can exist".
"If one wants to refute premise 1, he needs to show that: 1. Moral values <can> exist objectively" <tga>, you'll notice that there are a number of posters on rogoff that weigh in from time to time on this argument, and they <still> think they are refuting the argument, or at least offering a refutation, when they discuss evolution. The worst part is, they think they are enlightened. You don't need to be an expert on evolution to discuss the way it affects the argument. We can just accept that evolution is 100% true on all levels (micro, macro) for the sake of the argument and it matters not, as you rightly discern. |
|
| Dec-23-16 | | thegoodanarchist: <Big Pawn: <tga: Yes, they would have good reason to say that premise 2 is false, but off the top of my head I don't see how that would <prove> premise 2 is false.> They would be saying that <OMV> do not exist because God does not exist. Premise 1:
1. If God does not exist then OMV do not exist.
Thus they would affirm premise one. >
<BP> You say <affirm>. I agree with that choice of wording. I was trying to make the point that an affirmation of the point is not a proof of it. I cannot <prove> the non-existence of OMV any more than I could prove the non-existence of god when I tried to be an atheist. That's what I am saying. |
|
| Dec-23-16 | | thegoodanarchist: <I should have written "can exist". "If one wants to refute premise 1, he needs to show that: 1. Moral values <can> exist objectively"> Heh heh. If you want to parse at that level, you really are deep into philosophy. It's not for me, but if it makes you happy, have at it! |
|
| Dec-23-16 | | Big Pawn: <<BP> You say <affirm>. I agree with that choice of wording. I was trying to make the point that an affirmation of the point is not a proof of it. I cannot <prove> the non-existence of OMV any more than I could prove the non-existence of god when I tried to be an atheist.> Yes, the correct word is affirm, not prove. In a strict sense, and we need to be strict in philosophical discussions, the only thing that can be proven is math. In all other circumstances skepticism has it's say! This is why the arguments I choose to defend are modest in that I merely aim to show that A is <more rational> to believe than B. To a certain extent, justification provides warrant for rational belief. Of course, questions of epistemology (knowledge, truth, justification, rationality and belief) are a tangled web all unto themselves, but suffice to say that I appeal merely to rationality. The good part about that is that I don't not believe that the criteria for knowledge is 100% certainty. We don't need to be 100% certain in order for knowledge to obtain. <It's not for me, but if it makes you happy, have at it!> That's how it goes I guess. People that are really into hard sciences generally aren't inclined toward philosophical inquiry and vice versa. However, I strongly believe that many physicists and scientists <lack> sufficient philosophical training and understanding and this impacts their statements about life, truth and reality. A quick example: Look at Richard Dawkins, the well known evolutionary biologist. In his field he is renown but just have a gander at The God Delusion and you'll think you're reading a <rogoff> boob! Someone you may appreciate is Victor Stenger https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victo... His fields were physics and philosophy. He was an ardent atheist and was able to intelligently (but ultimately wrongly imo) blend his advanced knowledge of physics with philosophy, reality, truth and so on. In a broad and very simple (perhaps overly simple) sense, we can say that scientists discover facts while philosophers understand the facts and their implications. In this sense, the two go together hand in hand. But aside from <people> who are either physicists or philosophers, we can direct our thoughts to a single person who fills both of these roles. What I mean is that as individuals, we can be trained, or perhaps it comes naturally, to be <fact discoverers> or <fact understanders>. We can tend to lean heavily one way or the other. But it might be best to be both. In each of us, we can have the scientists mind and the philosophers mind, at least to some extent without formal training. |
|
| Dec-25-16 | | diceman: Merry Christmas to all! |
|
| Dec-25-16 | | Big Pawn: Merry Christmas <dice> and everyone else. |
|
| Dec-26-16 | | Big Pawn: Question for the Christians: What do I have to do to please God? |
|
Dec-26-16
 | | OhioChessFan: <A quick example: Look at Richard Dawkins, the well known evolutionary biologist. In his field he is renown but just have a gander at The God Delusion and you'll think you're reading a <rogoff> boob! > Dawkins was a total buffoon and I am surprised more on his side weren't embarrassed by his blatherings. He is the perfect example of not understanding philosophy. <What do I have to do to please God?> Obey Him. |
|
| Dec-26-16 | | Big Pawn: <Question for the Christians: What do I have to do to please God?> <ohio: Obey Him>. What does it mean to obey God? If you pleased God today by obeying Him, what did he tell you to do today so that you could obey Him and please Him? |
|
Dec-26-16
| | OhioChessFan: This:
https://www.blueletterbible.org/ |
|
| Dec-26-16 | | Big Pawn: <Blue Letter Bible presents, Resolutions for the New Year; which introduces you to 18 of the 70 Resolutions of Jonathan Edwards’, as recited by the staff of Blue Letter Bible. This video will introduce you to BLB’s dedicated staff, and Lord willing, it will encourage you to live and think Biblically, by the power of the Holy Spirit, throughout the year ahead.> I don't see how this is something that God is telling you to do. That was from the link you gave. It doesn't make sense to me. You say to please God, we need to "Obey God", but what is that supposed to mean? Think about it.
To say that to please God we have to "obey God", then when we look at today (because we only live in "today") we have to ask, "What do I need to obey today"? If we are to obey God today, then we need to know what God told us to do today so we can do it and obey Him. It seems like "Obey Him" is a bit of a trite remark, since it doesn't really go anywhere. There are things that we are not to do like stealing, adultery, murder and so on, and to avoid these things is to obey God, but these aren't things we are doing to please Him, these are things we don't do to please Him. Maybe someone else will be able to say something meaningful. |
|
Dec-26-16
| | OhioChessFan: I don't care a whit what Jonathan Edwards says. I care what the Bible says and that was my intent in linking to it. That is where you'll find what God wants you, me, and the man behind that tree to do. In any case, if you think I need copy every command of God to answer your question, you're being purposely obtuse. I am sure I'm not alone in noticing you conceded the point that you were being dishonest in regards to me and <optimal play>, so I have to say my patience is limited here. |
|
| Dec-26-16 | | Big Pawn: <In any case, if you think I need copy every command of God to answer your question, you're being purposely obtuse> If you can't answer the question just say so. I never conceded anything to you about me being dishonest. Truthfully, I think you were way out of line and out in left field somewhere as your comment came without warrant of any kind. Your reaction was really perplexing and puzzling, and not worth my time on this forum where I aim to have discussion above that of the rogoff page. Take your patience and get out of here if you have this much of a persecution complex. I don't need it and you offer zero value like this, so go jump in a lake. You have no wisdom or insight to offer in regard to understand what God wants of us, and you just want to cry about some imagined lie I tossed your way. You're completely nuts. If you want to comment seriously about what we need to do to please God then do so, otherwise take a hike. |
|
| Dec-26-16 | | Big Pawn: So much for the so-called <Christians> eh? I have better conversations with people that disagree with me, like <jbc> and <tga> and <optimal> (who is also a Christian but a self described liberal Catholic which is opposite of me) than I do with <the other Christians>. I will ask <optimal play> and <playground player> and <sugardom> as well as any other Christian, "What do we need to do to please God?" If you have philosophical mind and can handle some the Socratic method, then share your answer here. |
|
Dec-26-16
| | OhioChessFan: Let me explain to you. You don't get to play the bully and be dishonest and expect no blowback. <diceman> saw it and commented. Any honest observer would see it. Anyway, what is written is written. |
|
| Dec-26-16 | | Big Pawn: Just buzz off <ohio>, I couldn't care less about what you or anybody else thinks about that <NON ISSUE> to which I was utterly shocked when you had your melt down. You're a trouble maker so get lost. Go predict moves somewhere. This space is reserved for serious conversation. You want to stomp around like a little girl and all that? Go do it on the <rogoff> page. |
|
| Dec-27-16 | | diceman: <Big Pawn:
Question for the Christians: What do I have to do to please God?> Not this:
<Big Pawn: Just buzz off <ohio>, I couldn't care less about what you or anybody else thinks about that <NON ISSUE> to which I was utterly shocked when you had your melt down. You're a trouble maker so get lost.> |
|
| Dec-27-16 | | playground player: <What do I have to do to please God?> Uh... Love God with all my heart, and love my neighbor as myself--would that work? |
|
| Dec-27-16 | | playground player: P.S.: "If you love me, keep my commandments," John 14:15. |
|
Dec-27-16
 | | chancho: <Make my joy complete by being of the same mind, maintaining the same love, united in spirit, intent on one purpose. Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves; do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others. Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Philippians 2:2-8> |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 53 OF 237 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
|
|
|
Kibitzing
