BoogeyMan 0 #101 January 6, 2012 QuoteDo me a favor? Don't put words in my mouth I don't put in there myself .. Fair enough? I am debating 10 other people at a time in here ( and loving it ) I've never been ashamed nor will I ever be of my belief and love for God. When people don't believe sometimes they have an emotional block sometimes an intellectual one apologetics can Help someone see a side of faith they normally wouldn't. I agree you need faith and faith alone to truly believe this is a stepping stone Spinning another's post out of the context in which it was meant is an old rabble rowser tactic. It's easy to do, and reveals the spinner as being unable to debate the topic on it's merits. The "I'll be the judge of what you meant". is old hat and fails when exposed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,255 #102 January 6, 2012 QuoteSpinning another's post out of the context in which it was meant is an old rabble rowser tactic. And claiming your words are being twisted but not clarifying what you meant is an old weasel's tactic. "How dare you say I said X!" "So what did you mean?" "I meant what I said" "But surely that means X?" "How dare you say I said X!"Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mikempb 0 #103 January 6, 2012 True. very true Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #104 January 6, 2012 >Those are perfect examples of relativism. Exactly. And we'd be horrified by what even the most moral 9th century lord thought moral. That's because standards change - because there are no one set of morals. Heck, look at the Bible, which many people use as a foundation of their morality. It instructs people to kill gays. It gives instruction on how to sell one's daughters off into slavery. Are those things universally moral? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BoogeyMan 0 #105 January 6, 2012 QuoteQuoteSpinning another's post out of the context in which it was meant is an old rabble rowser tactic. And claiming your words are being twisted but not clarifying what you meant is an old weasel's tactic. "How dare you say I said X!" "So what did you mean?" "I meant what I said" "But surely that means X?" "How dare you say I said X!" Again... (yawn) You have no point of discussion for the topic being debated. Again, you are being simply argumentative to, or for some personal gratification. Once again, I recommend rest. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mikempb 0 #106 January 6, 2012 Forgive me but I won't respond to references to the bible that will get us off tract faster than you can blink. My entire argument is that there is a constant unchanging set of absolute morals. When something is perfect it is unchanging because there is nothing to change or improve. If you disagree with absolute morals to be universally true then that's your relative finite belief. There are relative beliefs but not relative truths. Ex. The world can't be round and flat one is true one is false when people believed the world was flat it didn't make it true Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,255 #107 January 6, 2012 QuoteAgain... (yawn) You have no point of discussion for the topic being debated. Again, you are being simply argumentative to, or for some personal gratification. Once again, I recommend rest. I have rarely seen someone get so upset and defensive at the prospect of continuing a discussion based on what they actually said. So far I've engaged the OP on a variety of different topics. Your only contribution has been to say one thing and then strenuously deny you said it. What was your point?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #108 January 6, 2012 QuoteMy entire argument is that there is a constant unchanging set of absolute morals. I think you have failed to prove your argument. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,255 #109 January 6, 2012 QuoteMy entire argument is that there is a constant unchanging set of absolute morals. How do you know there is? What are they? QuoteIf you disagree with absolute morals to be universally true then that's your relative finite belief. If you believe there is a set of absolute morals that is your relative finite belief. The existence of your relative belief is not enough to make the object of that belief an absolute truth. QuoteThe world can't be round and flat one is true one is false when people believed the world was flat it didn't make it true I can test whether the world is round or flat, how do I test absolute morality? How do I know that my negative reaction to torture is not simply my relative finite belief that me being tortured is a bad thing?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BoogeyMan 0 #110 January 6, 2012 QuoteTrue. very true The odd thing in this thread is that we both have practically plagiarized Aristotle. Physics proves that "something" cannot come from "nothing". Simple as that. The Casmir effect was produced and measured between plates. Plates are "something". That a measurable "something" was observed between the plates can not be called "creation". The measurable "field" was manufactured by the plates. No real difference than generating electricity. If anything, the Casmir effect declares that you must have"something" to generate another "thing". "Black holes radiate, with a radiation known as Hawking radiation." Radiation is a measurable thing. A black hole is not a "nothing" as is can be measured. That there are other forces, as yet previously undiscovered is a scientific given everywhere. Because a "thing"cannot as yet be measured, does not mean it does not exist. The proposition that "something" can come from "nothing" is not valid and still stands and remains unassailable. so far......... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #111 January 6, 2012 QuoteHow do I know that my negative reaction to torture is not simply my relative finite belief that me being tortured is a bad thing? Especially when there are people that actually enjoy torturing themselves and others! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BoogeyMan 0 #112 January 6, 2012 QuoteQuoteAgain... (yawn) You have no point of discussion for the topic being debated. Again, you are being simply argumentative to, or for some personal gratification. Once again, I recommend rest. I have rarely seen someone get so upset and defensive at the prospect of continuing a discussion based on what they actually said. So far I've engaged the OP on a variety of different topics. Your only contribution has been to say one thing and then strenuously deny you said it. What was your point? (yawn)...... Boring........ Go away. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #113 January 6, 2012 QuoteBecause a "thing"cannot as yet be measured, does not mean it does not exist. Till we find a way to measure it then it can not be said conclusively to exist. If I say unicorns exist but can't show you any evidence then it would be unreasonable for you or I to believe they exist. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mikempb 0 #114 January 6, 2012 Well I tried.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #115 January 6, 2012 QuoteMy entire argument is that there is a constant unchanging set of absolute morals. When something is perfect it is unchanging because there is nothing to change or improve. If you disagree with absolute morals to be universally true then that's your relative finite belief. There are relative beliefs but not relative truths. Again this is an assertion, not a proof. This is a form of argumentation known as a rhetorical tautology where something is true just by virtue of it being repeated. It is not an especially effective form of apologetics. If you really want to engage in apologetics you really should at least attempt to learn some of the starting arguments."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mikempb 0 #116 January 6, 2012 What is a BAD thing? If you don't agree with my opinion ok let's move past it. You put a value on something as bad. You can't know what is bad unless you know what is good. If there is no universal law then there is no good or bad Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 0 #117 January 6, 2012 Christians need to apologize for making Jesus Christ look like a pasty-faced white guy from Amsterdam. http://images2.fanpop.com/images/photos/2700000/Jesus-Christ-christianity-2752506-375-500.jpg http://www.theworkofgod.org/Images/Jesus.jpg Really, what's with that? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BoogeyMan 0 #118 January 6, 2012 QuoteQuoteBecause a "thing"cannot as yet be measured, does not mean it does not exist. Till we find a way to measure it then it can not be said conclusively to exist. If I say unicorns exist but can't show you any evidence then it would be unreasonable for you or I to believe they exist. Out of context. Can we keep the spin in it's proper orbit? The point was made in the context of Hawkings radiation. If you see/ measure a force, yet are unable to identify it, then to speculate that it is in the realm of the supernatural is not valid. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #119 January 6, 2012 QuoteWhat is a BAD thing? If you don't agree with my opinion ok let's move past it. You put a value on something as bad. You can't know what is bad unless you know what is good. If there is no universal law then there is no good or bad Bullshit, good and bad is relative to many different aspects of life. The cultural aspect being a big influence on what is right and wrong. You still haven't come up with a good argument for a "universal law" or any evidence to support your assertion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,255 #120 January 6, 2012 QuoteYou can't know what is bad unless you know what is good. What is universally good? QuoteIf there is no universal law then there is no good or bad Using a combination of our social, altruistic instincts and some basic philosophical thought we can develop some pretty good ground rules. QuoteIf you don't agree with my opinion ok let's move past it. Yes, let's move on. So... we agree that you've failed to demonstrate the cosmological argument for god, we agree that you've failed to demonstrate the moral argument for god, I guess that must leave the design argument. What've you got?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #121 January 6, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteBecause a "thing"cannot as yet be measured, does not mean it does not exist. Till we find a way to measure it then it can not be said conclusively to exist. If I say unicorns exist but can't show you any evidence then it would be unreasonable for you or I to believe they exist. Out of context. Can we keep the spin in it's proper orbit? The point was made in the context of Hawkings radiation. If you see/ measure a force, yet are unable to identify it, then to speculate that it is in the realm of the supernatural is not valid. You are not making any sense. If you are able to measure something and you are the first person to do so you can call it what ever you want. example >> Hawkings radiation That is identifying what you have measured!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,400 #122 January 6, 2012 >My entire argument is that there is a constant unchanging set of absolute morals. And my argument that even the most moral, upstanding holy men of the 9th century would completely disagree with you on what they are. And someone 1000 years in our future will disagree with your definition of morality. All assume that they have the correct set of constant unchanging morals. Who's right? >Ex. The world can't be round and flat one is true one is false when people believed >the world was flat it didn't make it true Hmm. Is interracial marriage legal or not? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marinus 0 #123 January 6, 2012 I believe "pasty-faced white guys from Amsterdam" look more like this: http://www.stonerforums.com/lounge/members/blackdog-albums-miscellaneous-picture3209-jesus-toke.gif Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BoogeyMan 0 #124 January 6, 2012 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteBecause a "thing"cannot as yet be measured, does not mean it does not exist. Till we find a way to measure it then it can not be said conclusively to exist. If I say unicorns exist but can't show you any evidence then it would be unreasonable for you or I to believe they exist. Out of context. Can we keep the spin in it's proper orbit? The point was made in the context of Hawkings radiation. If you see/ measure a force, yet are unable to identify it, then to speculate that it is in the realm of the supernatural is not valid. You are not making any sense. If you are able to measure something and you are the first person to do so you can call it what ever you want. example >> Hawkings radiation That is identifying what you have measured!! Sure, you can call a mouse a buffalo if you wish. Hawkings radiation is so far a debated theory. Since no one can get anywhere near a black hole the point here is moot. Hawkings radiation topic occurred in earlier posts. However your post did remind me of a prof who once faced the same question about a unicorn from a student. He smiled and said "we are about physics here. Mythology is down the hall and on the first floor." You are correct in that I did not fully explain in scholarly terms exactly what I going for. To be back on topic......, Ya can't get sumthin' from nuttin'. I make/stand by no further claims. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Marinus 0 #125 January 6, 2012 QuoteIf there is no universal law then there is no good or bad And this is impossible because..... ? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
