[quote]orion wrote:
So everything that exists has a cause, except when it suits your argument, then it doesnt.
[/quote]
It’s not my argument. Second, if you think it’s wrong then prove it.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
So everything that exists has a cause, except when it suits your argument, then it doesnt.
[/quote]
It’s not my argument. Second, if you think it’s wrong then prove it.[/quote]
Nothing to disprove, the introduction of an uncaused cause is as good as claiming that the toothfairy did it.
And, if this “uncaused cause” happened to be an anthropomorphic entity the toothfairy is as good a candidate as any.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
So everything that exists has a cause, except when it suits your argument, then it doesnt.
[/quote]
It’s not my argument. Second, if you think it’s wrong then prove it.[/quote]
Nothing to disprove, the introduction of an uncaused cause is as good as claiming that the toothfairy did it.
And, if this “uncaused cause” happened to be an anthropomorphic entity the toothfairy is as good a candidate as any.
[/quote]
Every existing thing has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Arranged marriages. In America, it’s illegal to force someone’s daughter to marry someone she doesn’t want to. Way back in the day, it was the daughter who was frowned upon for not wanting to. Also, it was okay for the husband to have sex with the woman when he pleased even if it was against her will. Today even in marriage, that’s called rape and punishable by time in prison.
Ancient Sparta. Infanticide was not only okay, but expected if your infant had a defect.
Suicide under certain circumstances in some Asian cultures is ok, but not in the US.
So right there, I’ve covered rape, murder, and suicide. (not to mention, what constitutes murder can be a blurry line at times and can depend on one’s perspective i.e. political assassinations, etc)
[/quote]
So, if you somehow managed to get yourself a time machine and travel back to ancient Sparta, there would be nothing wrong with your throwing an asthmatic baby over the side of a cliff. Is that what you are saying?
[/quote]
Man, I feel like a fat girl on prom night. I don’t post for weeks and when I finally decide to, in two different threads, I can’t get any kind of response.
Wish I were as cool as Sloth, Pat and eph… What’s your secret, guys?
[/quote]
I’ve been busy with school, hence why I haven’t posted in a page or two. If I were raised as a Spartan, I would probably find it perfectly acceptable. It’s part of the reason why they were one of the strongest groups in their region. Without doing this, I think it would have hurt their ability to create one the best militaries in history and help their legacy live on. Is it good to throw babies with medical issues off cliffs now… I say no because their are other things children can become besides soldiers and baby makers. Also, we’ve been conditioned to feel it’s an atrocity so doing so would have have great emotional and social repercussions.
If I were transported to the past, I would probably find it very uncomfortable but I would deal with it because I would probably be ostracized or stoned to death if I vocalized dissent.
[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:
(hopefully i can articulate this right)
The main point, is that science may eventually be able to prove that it is possible for something to be created. Ie why and how something like the big bang occurred.
Where as, a “creator” (as christians assume) just popped out of thin air and started creating universes. To me, that doesn’t make sense FOR IF HE IS THE CREATOR, HOW WAS HE CREATED?
Christians will never be able to prove anything… I mean its just blind faith. IMHO, a ridiculous way to live your life. Some might say the point is that you have this faith, but ignorance is easily mixed with stupidity.
[/quote]
So you have faith that science will explain how the universe was created from nothing? Yet science depends on logic and its unlogical to say that the universe had a cause because it began to exist?
All things that begin to exist have a cause and the causal chain cannot go back forever or it is committing the fallacy of begging the question, which leads you back to the first cause. This first cause is not caused otherwise it wouldn’t be the first cause and would have properties of being eternal, self existent and other properties. Another way to think about it is that everything that exist has an explanation for it existence either in an external cause or the necessity of its own nature which the first cause would have. This is logical, the crazy thing I will say is that the first cause is knowable on a personal level.
Your blind faith argument is covered extensively in my Misconceptions of Christianity Threads.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
Be careful, you know what Oscar Wilde said about telling people the truth…
[/quote]
Let’s ask the puritans who persecuted him.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
So everything that exists has a cause, except when it suits your argument, then it doesnt.
[/quote]
It’s not my argument. Second, if you think it’s wrong then prove it.[/quote]
Nothing to disprove, the introduction of an uncaused cause is as good as claiming that the toothfairy did it.
And, if this “uncaused cause” happened to be an anthropomorphic entity the toothfairy is as good a candidate as any.
[/quote]
So you concede that the Uncaused-cause does in fact exist?
If the tooth fairy has the ability to create and cause, then yes. As far as I know the tooth fairy deals with putting money under pillow for teeth though.
I never said ‘he’ was an anthropomorphic entity.
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:
Arranged marriages. In America, it’s illegal to force someone’s daughter to marry someone she doesn’t want to. Way back in the day, it was the daughter who was frowned upon for not wanting to. Also, it was okay for the husband to have sex with the woman when he pleased even if it was against her will. Today even in marriage, that’s called rape and punishable by time in prison.
Ancient Sparta. Infanticide was not only okay, but expected if your infant had a defect.
Suicide under certain circumstances in some Asian cultures is ok, but not in the US.
So right there, I’ve covered rape, murder, and suicide. (not to mention, what constitutes murder can be a blurry line at times and can depend on one’s perspective i.e. political assassinations, etc)
[/quote]
So, if you somehow managed to get yourself a time machine and travel back to ancient Sparta, there would be nothing wrong with your throwing an asthmatic baby over the side of a cliff. Is that what you are saying?
[/quote]
Man, I feel like a fat girl on prom night. I don’t post for weeks and when I finally decide to, in two different threads, I can’t get any kind of response.
Wish I were as cool as Sloth, Pat and eph… What’s your secret, guys?
[/quote]
I’ve been busy with school, hence why I haven’t posted in a page or two. If I were raised as a Spartan, I would probably find it perfectly acceptable. It’s part of the reason why they were one of the strongest groups in their region. Without doing this, I think it would have hurt their ability to create one the best militaries in history and help their legacy live on. Is it good to throw babies with medical issues off cliffs now… I say no because their are other things children can become besides soldiers and baby makers. Also, we’ve been conditioned to feel it’s an atrocity so doing so would have have great emotional and social repercussions.
If I were transported to the past, I would probably find it very uncomfortable but I would deal with it because I would probably be ostracized or stoned to death if I vocalized dissent.[/quote]
So you’d kill the baby. But only really because you yourself feared death or pariah status from your new anachronistic friends. Okay. Gotcha.
Now I did not ask if you were a Spartan, I asked if none other than present day Fletch1986 would toss that wheezing baby into the dead baby hole, but your first paragraph does beg another question.
At the risk of misinterpreting your position, based upon what you’ve told me so far, morality is determined by the times, the particular situation of a given society, and the collective consensus of that society.
Did I miss anything here? Feel free to fill me in if so, or to correct me if I’ve got you totally wrong.
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
So everything that exists has a cause, except when it suits your argument, then it doesnt.
[/quote]
It’s not my argument. Second, if you think it’s wrong then prove it.[/quote]
Nothing to disprove, the introduction of an uncaused cause is as good as claiming that the toothfairy did it.
And, if this “uncaused cause” happened to be an anthropomorphic entity the toothfairy is as good a candidate as any.
[/quote]
Every existing thing has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause. [/quote]
If I decipher that correctly, the first cause just is and everything else is caused by it?
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
So everything that exists has a cause, except when it suits your argument, then it doesnt.
[/quote]
It’s not my argument. Second, if you think it’s wrong then prove it.[/quote]
Nothing to disprove, the introduction of an uncaused cause is as good as claiming that the toothfairy did it.
And, if this “uncaused cause” happened to be an anthropomorphic entity the toothfairy is as good a candidate as any.
[/quote]
So you concede that the Uncaused-cause does in fact exist?
If the tooth fairy has the ability to create and cause, then yes. As far as I know the tooth fairy deals with putting money under pillow for teeth though.
I never said ‘he’ was an anthropomorphic entity. [/quote]
I do not concede that.
One simply cannot build argument on the notion that everything has a cause and then introduce an uncaused cause.
That is just postulating a premise without whitout which the whole argument would fall flat on its face.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
So everything that exists has a cause, except when it suits your argument, then it doesnt.
[/quote]
It’s not my argument. Second, if you think it’s wrong then prove it.[/quote]
Nothing to disprove, the introduction of an uncaused cause is as good as claiming that the toothfairy did it.
And, if this “uncaused cause” happened to be an anthropomorphic entity the toothfairy is as good a candidate as any.
[/quote]
So you concede that the Uncaused-cause does in fact exist?
If the tooth fairy has the ability to create and cause, then yes. As far as I know the tooth fairy deals with putting money under pillow for teeth though.
I never said ‘he’ was an anthropomorphic entity. [/quote]
I do not concede that.
One simply cannot build argument on the notion that everything has a cause and then introduce an uncaused cause.
That is just postulating a premise without whitout which the whole argument would fall flat on its face.
[/quote]
Go look it up…There is tons of stuff about it. Don’t take my word on it.
Second, it’s not a premise it’s a conclusion, to a very clean linear argument. Why can you not come to the conclusion of an uncaused-causer? Make perfect sense to me. Makes a lot more sense than utter nothingness begetting all existence. ← That is far more absurd. A nothing cannot make a something, because nothing isn’t. What isn’t cannot make what is, it’s simply not logical.
People have tried to refute it for centuries and no one has been successful. So good luck.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
At the risk of misinterpreting your position, based upon what you’ve told me so far, morality is determined by the times, the particular situation of a given society, and the collective consensus of that society. [/quote]
Bingo. Couldn’t have said it better myself. However, I would like to add that I feel some moralities are better than others at developing societies and some are even destructive. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, the human sacrifice on a mass scale done by the Aztecs was a self-destructive form of ‘morality’.
the ancient Spartans didn’t sacrifice their children because they thought it was “good”, but because they thought it was necessary to keep their nation strong.
ie : they did it for survival
the ancient Aztecs didn’t sacrifice their children because they thought it was “good”, but because they thought it was necessary to appease the Gods, and reassure the harmony of the Cosmos.
ie : they did it for survival.
in both cases, it has nothing to do with morality, nor even with ethics.
it was just (perceived) necessity.
in other words, “necessary” evil.
morality start when you act toward good without external necessity or despite external necessity.
morality doesn’t deals with high value. that’s economics and/or politics.
it deals with infinite, inestimable value.
^
Hmmm… When you put it that way… I’m not sure if I believe in morality… I’ve got some thinking to do…
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:
(hopefully i can articulate this right)
The main point, is that science may eventually be able to prove that it is possible for something to be created. Ie why and how something like the big bang occurred.
Where as, a “creator” (as christians assume) just popped out of thin air and started creating universes. To me, that doesn’t make sense FOR IF HE IS THE CREATOR, HOW WAS HE CREATED?
Christians will never be able to prove anything… I mean its just blind faith. IMHO, a ridiculous way to live your life. Some might say the point is that you have this faith, but ignorance is easily mixed with stupidity.
[/quote]
So, what you are saying is, you have faith that science will eventually prove that something came from nothing? But in the meantime all the theists who have faith (blind faith, mind you) that that “something” had to have been caused by a first mover, are both ignorant and stupid.
You want to read the above again and tell me where I got off the tracks, or is this, indeed, what you are saying?
[/quote]
Not quite - So there are two theories right, religious theory and scientific theory to how universes were made.
At the moment science has its theories, but cannot irrefutably prove them. (but imo they are getting closer to understanding our world and therefore must be closer to proving their theories.) There are some methods like dating the age of rocks (carbon dating?) that have thrown some religious theories out the window, ie when the earth was created. So its a just matter a time for us to understand the world around us.
On the other hand, religion has its theories, but are not, and will probably never be able to prove them. Thus, religion is stagnant, they will never be able to PROVE their claims. (unless a scientist figures something out for them)
So there lies the stupidity, imo, in blind faith. When we are talking about creation of earth, science, universes etc etc there is no other truth than a scientific truth. logic, morality etc shouldnt even be discussed.
bit of a laugh
[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]krsoneeeee wrote:
(hopefully i can articulate this right)
The main point, is that science may eventually be able to prove that it is possible for something to be created. Ie why and how something like the big bang occurred.
Where as, a “creator” (as christians assume) just popped out of thin air and started creating universes. To me, that doesn’t make sense FOR IF HE IS THE CREATOR, HOW WAS HE CREATED?
Christians will never be able to prove anything… I mean its just blind faith. IMHO, a ridiculous way to live your life. Some might say the point is that you have this faith, but ignorance is easily mixed with stupidity.
[/quote]
So, what you are saying is, you have faith that science will eventually prove that something came from nothing? But in the meantime all the theists who have faith (blind faith, mind you) that that “something” had to have been caused by a first mover, are both ignorant and stupid.
You want to read the above again and tell me where I got off the tracks, or is this, indeed, what you are saying?
[/quote]
Not quite - So there are two theories right, religious theory and scientific theory to how universes were made.
At the moment science has its theories, but cannot irrefutably prove them. (but imo they are getting closer to understanding our world and therefore must be closer to proving their theories.) There are some methods like dating the age of rocks (carbon dating?) that have thrown some religious theories out the window, ie when the earth was created. So its a just matter a time for us to understand the world around us.
On the other hand, religion has its theories, but are not, and will probably never be able to prove them. Thus, religion is stagnant, they will never be able to PROVE their claims. (unless a scientist figures something out for them)
So there lies the stupidity, imo, in blind faith. When we are talking about creation of earth, science, universes etc etc there is no other truth than a scientific truth. logic, morality etc shouldnt even be discussed.
[/quote]
Your blanket statement involving your “us” (science) against their “them” (religion) betrays the silliness of everything you are saying.
It is not the job of religions to “prove” anything. Indeed, my particular religion has no problem leaving the issues of science to the scientists. You won’t find me arguing against the world being billions of years old, or that the present species inhabiting Earth today do appear to have evolved somehow or another from prior creatures.
There are other religions who possess certain beliefs which may or may not be in opposition to the conclusions of scientific thought. However, there is no bogeyman called “Religion,” who is the Lex Luthor to science’s Superman.
Religion is about one’s relationship with God. It is essentially metaphysical.
Science is about figuring out the physical and how it works. Neither is necessarily incompatible, but it is not “religion’s” job to figure out how we got here. Just as it is not science’s job to figure out why.
To conflate the two and act as if you are making some sort of fair comparison is nothing more than a straw man. If you disagree with something, then pick something specific. And if you say “God,” then you had better be careful, as you have already admitted that your “scientific” knowledge of His existence (or not) is just as faith based as any street-corner preacher.
[quote]kamui wrote:
the ancient Spartans didn’t sacrifice their children because they thought it was “good”, but because they thought it was necessary to keep their nation strong.
ie : they did it for survival
the ancient Aztecs didn’t sacrifice their children because they thought it was “good”, but because they thought it was necessary to appease the Gods, and reassure the harmony of the Cosmos.
ie : they did it for survival.
in both cases, it has nothing to do with morality, nor even with ethics.
it was just (perceived) necessity.
in other words, “necessary” evil.
morality start when you act toward good without external necessity or despite external necessity.
morality doesn’t deals with high value. that’s economics and/or politics.
it deals with infinite, inestimable value.[/quote]
At the risk of taking too much away from the discussion that is unfolding between Fletch and I…
bullshit. When you talk about killing babies and slamming a stone knife into the terrified, heaving chest of a 12 year old girl and ripping out her still beating heart, then kicking her dying body 200 feet down the steps to be cannibalized by the maddened populace below…well then, forgive me if I have to disagree, but you damned sure are talking about morality.
My engaging in an act for the purpose of survival, whether it be my own, my family’s, my tribe’s or my society’s, does not suddenly excuse immorality. Difficult choices do not somehow transform the inherent evil of an act.
[quote]Cortes wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
the ancient Spartans didn’t sacrifice their children because they thought it was “good”, but because they thought it was necessary to keep their nation strong.
ie : they did it for survival
the ancient Aztecs didn’t sacrifice their children because they thought it was “good”, but because they thought it was necessary to appease the Gods, and reassure the harmony of the Cosmos.
ie : they did it for survival.
in both cases, it has nothing to do with morality, nor even with ethics.
it was just (perceived) necessity.
in other words, “necessary” evil.
morality start when you act toward good without external necessity or despite external necessity.
morality doesn’t deals with high value. that’s economics and/or politics.
it deals with infinite, inestimable value.[/quote]
At the risk of taking too much away from the discussion that is unfolding between Fletch and I…
bullshit. When you talk about killing babies and slamming a stone knife into the terrified, heaving chest of a 12 year old girl and ripping out her still beating heart, then kicking her dying body 200 feet down the steps to be cannibalized by the maddened populace below…well then, forgive me if I have to disagree, but you damned sure are talking about morality.
My engaging in an act for the purpose of survival, whether it be my own, my family’s, my tribe’s or my society’s, does not suddenly excuse immorality. Difficult choices do not somehow transform the inherent evil of an act.
[/quote]
You cannot define inherent evil without defining true good.
You cannot define true good without defining purpose.
You cannot define purpose without defining cause.
Things in the world have inherent goodness because after God created the universe, He stated that it was good.