Question about flood
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-03-2015, 01:53 PM
RE: Question about flood
(19-03-2015 11:37 AM)Nieko Sx Wrote:  Ok, so we can run with the idea that your god without doubt totally 100% clearly and definitively TOLD you to kill your kid. That makes your god a sadistic maniac that can't even stick to one set of his own commandments.

The death penalty is not murder, buddy.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-03-2015, 02:17 PM
RE: Question about flood
(19-03-2015 01:53 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  The death penalty is not murder, buddy.

I know, right? I'm surprised at how many people don't know about the fine print on the tablet under "thou shalt not kill" that says "except when it's an eye for an eye".

Rolleyes

@DonaldTrump, Patriotism is not honoring your flag no matter what your country/leader does. It's doing whatever it takes to make your country the best it can be as long as its not violent.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Impulse's post
19-03-2015, 02:44 PM
RE: Question about flood
(19-03-2015 11:06 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  If a lion goes on a killing spree against hyena's, just carelessly killing any hyena it comes across...is the lion wrong?

Lions kill to reduce the competition for prey. All of their actions come from one law - survival of the fittest. Not the same as when a human being tortures and murders another human.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Helio's post
19-03-2015, 02:50 PM
RE: Question about flood
(19-03-2015 02:44 PM)Helio Wrote:  Lions kill to reduce the competition for prey.

Drug dealers kill to reduce the competition for drug sales...and?

(19-03-2015 02:44 PM)Helio Wrote:  All of their actions come from one law - survival of the fittest.

Survival of the fittest is their law? Who determines this? Them? What determines what is objectively right or objectively wrong, if there is objective morality? Where does the laws come from?

(19-03-2015 02:44 PM)Helio Wrote:  Not the same as when a human being tortures and murders another human.

Humans are animals, according to your view...so a human killing another human is just an animal killing another animal. Nothing more, nothing less. Again, you people are making it seem as if humans are somehow more special than any other animal...but based on what??

This is speciesism at its best.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-03-2015, 02:51 PM
RE: Question about flood
(19-03-2015 02:17 PM)Impulse Wrote:  I know, right? I'm surprised at how many people don't know about the fine print on the tablet under "thou shalt not kill" that says "except when it's an eye for an eye".

Rolleyes

"thou shalt not kill" is obviously talking about premediated MURDER. Cmon now, people.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-03-2015, 02:55 PM
RE: Question about flood
(19-03-2015 02:51 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(19-03-2015 02:17 PM)Impulse Wrote:  I know, right? I'm surprised at how many people don't know about the fine print on the tablet under "thou shalt not kill" that says "except when it's an eye for an eye".

Rolleyes

"thou shalt not kill" is obviously talking about premediated MURDER. Cmon now, people.

Bullshit. Why are you back here anyway? It was fucking lovely when your disgusting presence wasn't wafting around nauseating people.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-03-2015, 03:17 PM
RE: Question about flood
(19-03-2015 11:40 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  The bolded part is an assertion for which you have failed to provide any proof or justification.

Sooo, I have to explain why something that BEGINS to exist needs a transcendent explanation for its existence?? Wow.

Tell ya what, do this for me. I want you to explain the origins of your computer, but the catch is, the answer has to lie within the computer. The answer that you give cannot be external to the computer and has to lie within it.

If you fail to give an adequate answer to that, then you have a lot of freakin' nerve sitting there making it seem as if "everything that begins to exist has a cause" needs further explaining to you.

(19-03-2015 11:40 AM)Grasshopper Wrote:  In your mind, they require a "transcendent explanation". I don't see that they require any such thing. Also, step 3 of the general argument makes the bold claim that something that exists in one possible world must exist in all possible worlds.

The Modal Ontological Argument is an amazing argument, and it just might be my favorite. It took me a longggg time to grasp it, but now I think I got it down.

Allow me to educate you (in a nice genuine way).

Necessary truths: Are propositions that are either true or false in ALL possible worlds. A good example of this would be logical/mathematical truths...like 2+2= 4...that is true in all possible worlds and there is no circumstances at which the answer would be different.

Contingent truths: Are propositions that are either true or false, but the truth value or the proposition COULD be different under certain circumstances. For example, it is true, I am an army veteran, but there is a possible world (set of circumstances) where I would have been a navy veteran, or marines.

Now, with respects to 3, an attribute of God is his necessity, and his omnipresence...so if God exists in one possible world, then it follows that he must exist in ALL possible worlds, because his existence would be necessarily true, and necessary truths are true in all possible worlds.

And it just so happens that the actual world (our world) is among the possible worlds that God would have to exist in.

See how that works??? You've just been educated, my friend. No charge Big Grin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-03-2015, 03:19 PM
RE: Question about flood
(19-03-2015 01:52 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(19-03-2015 11:35 AM)Chas Wrote:  I am pointing out that the logical inference is incorrect. You can't go from 'possible' to 'unique' - that is a logic error.

First off, I don't understand what you mean by "unique" in this context.

There is nothing in that argument that leads to the conclusion that there is only one 'maximally great being' - there could be many. In fact, all the beings could be equally great. It is a hidden assumption slipped in.

Quote:Second, since we know that life, consciousness, human morality, and the universe began to exist...whatever gave these things their beginnings must be a moral agent, non-physical, conscious, full of life, and has the ability to create from nothing...and that being must also be necessary in its existence, due to the impossibility of infinite regress.

No, we don't know that. That is what your argument sets out to prove.

Quote:So all of the qualties that are NEEDED to create life, consciousness, morality,universe (LCMU), the Creator of these things must have, not lack. The Modal Ontological argument states that it is possible for such a being to exist, which it is.

You just assumed the conclusion, well done.

Quote:
(19-03-2015 11:35 AM)Chas Wrote:  Occam's Razor is a rule of thumb, not a law of logic.

It is a rule of thumb that rightfully applies. If only one cause is necessary, why go beyond what is necessary to explain the effect??

It doesn't apply here as I'm not talking about causes.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-03-2015, 03:42 PM
RE: Question about flood
Why can't the christians just pray the Atheism out of us if God exists?

Would make this so much more efficient.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-03-2015, 04:01 PM
RE: Question about flood
(19-03-2015 03:42 PM)Typho2k Wrote:  Why can't the christians just pray the Atheism out of us if God exists?

Would make this so much more efficient.

I think it has something to do with free will. Consider

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: