Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: BucsGuru and/or White Tiger « previous next »
Page: 1 2 3 4

BucsBullsBolts

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 4823
Offline
#45 : April 02, 2010, 04:54:02 PM

Nope, not that I am aware of, but to be blunt, what would be the point? It is what it is and history cannot be changed.

What if scenarios are always interesting, fiction or nonfiction..... and, btw, that's not history.


Whether you believe in God and/or Jesus is neither here not there, but a boat load of history has occurred since he died, a lot of it involving him, in his name, in the defense of his name or inspired by him. That's is what I was referring to.

I'm not questioning Jesus Christ as an historical figure .... we were talking about Adam and Eve when I made that comment.

Obamessiah

*****
Pro Bowler

Posts : 1219
Offline
#46 : April 02, 2010, 05:27:33 PM

In Isaiah 40:22 the Bible described the shape of the earth centuries before people thought that the earth was spherical.

It is He who sits above the circle of the earth,

"Circle" is not always synonymous with spherical ......

Ah, but if it sometimes does, then the argument is valid.

Not really. If "circle" doesn't always mean spherical, then you can't use this passage to assert "the Bible described the shape of the earth centuries before people thought that the earth was spherical."

An absolute morality requires a supreme being. That makes the case for "a" God.

You have failed repeatedly to make this case. Asserting that something is so does not make it so. What you term an "absolute" morality has been anything but. It has varied wildly from culture to culture and changed drastically over time even among singular societies. Strong evidence that the morality of any particular society is comprised from a consensus of those in that society or those ruling that society, not from some all-knowing deity. The weight of history does not support your conclusions.


The White Tiger

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 11371
Offline
#47 : April 02, 2010, 06:57:11 PM

In Isaiah 40:22 the Bible described the shape of the earth centuries before people thought that the earth was spherical.

It is He who sits above the circle of the earth,

"Circle" is not always synonymous with spherical ......

Ah, but if it sometimes does, then the argument is valid.

Not really. If "circle" doesn't always mean spherical, then you can't use this passage to assert "the Bible described the shape of the earth centuries before people thought that the earth was spherical."

An absolute morality requires a supreme being. That makes the case for "a" God.

You have failed repeatedly to make this case. Asserting that something is so does not make it so. What you term an "absolute" morality has been anything but.

Now, coming from you, that's funny.

I repeatedly make the case precisely because of it's veracity.

To perhaps get around some of your innate religious bias - let me ask it another way: I suggest that cultures founded on higher, unchanging, absolute morality are more stable and longer lasting because their morality drives law with a higher standard of expectations.

This can be proven by observing/comparing this society to one established on laws derived from the shifting sands of mans oft-changing"social standards".

If my argument is true, then societies founded on a constantly changing social standard should be more unstable - which would show stress from pressures emanating from the unstable foundation. For instance; lets say a certain group within a society felt they didn't want to work as hard, but were just as entitled to the rewards of another individuals labor - since there is no absolute - all one would have to do is attain enough power and he could escape harder work yet still attain the rewards of another's labor...

guess what...

It has varied wildly from culture to culture and changed drastically over time even among singular societies.

Yes, but it is not due to a failure of "truth" - the absolute doesn't fail man, man fails the absolute. You should not forgive credit card debt simply because men don't want to pay - because it would be immoral (according to one of the desists who wrote the Constitution) to the man who DID pay his credit card bill.

I'm not sure which societies founded on moral absolutes you intended to offer-up as examples - but from where I sit it appears that some societies may have started from a position of morality - cultures vary wildly because A) they are ruled by men who CHANGE their minds on acceptable standards B) Those that start out from a grounding in moral absolutes - they depart from the absolute - when they are confronted with a conflict that they decide to compromise on.

I suggest it is more likely that the man's rebellious nature causes him to disregard the standards = not that the standards are too limiting.

Strong evidence that the morality of any particular society is comprised from a consensus of those in that society or those ruling that society, not from some all-knowing deity. The weight of history does not support your conclusions.

Actually, it does.

It's why I introduced Kant into the argument - he was the first philosopher to conclude that truth was subjective. Kant opened the door, Mills expanded on altruism, Hegel pushed it open further yielding to Marx culminating with the existential philosopher the Nazi's and Communists love to emulate - Nietzsche - who kicked the door off it's hinges.

THAT - is the trouble with societies - not that their foundations and limitations on man are too rigid and too limiting - but because man allows himself to change the rules when he wants.

If you're in an airplane you can expect to forestall the effects of gravity - as long as you maintain forward momentum - but if something happens that causes an interruption in forward motion, you begin to increasingly deal with the effect of gravity.

Unrepentant man despises absolutes - because if absolutes exist (death being the most handy example) then mans moral authority isn't sufficient to order a stable and enduring society/culture based on his own standards.

That's why Franklin replied "A republic sir, if you can keep it..." to a question regarding his opinion on the best form of government for the U.S.

Man will only put up with limitations until he can talk himself into a good reason to abandon them. A culture begins a steady decent the moment it deviates from it's original foundations.

Incomparable sig by Incognito

YoozaHo

****
Starter

Posts : 362
Offline
#48 : April 05, 2010, 02:50:10 AM

YoozaHo,
Thanks for asking; not offended. I was born into a very troubled life and childhood. Seemed very confused about God and creation. The more I heard the bible preached, the more confused I became. Very fascinated with the unkown like Bigfoot and aliens as a youth; I blame "In Search Of and Leonard Nmoy!" At any rate, I always "felt" God was real and my life had purpose, but was so caught up in being an American and chasing the dream, braking free from my past, that I never gave it serious consideration. It wasn't until after I became an adult to where the thought of there must be more to life than this began creeping into my conscious more and more frequently. Why are we here? How can people really believe in God/Jesus? I intentionally allow some of those who knew me "before" I surrendered my life to God to see my posts on this board to see their reactions...priceless. Those who knew me before simply have no real answer to what happened to me. I simply changed instantly when I surrendered to the belief in Christ. I don't practice religion whatsoever, and I'm shunned by the church for this effort. I'm so fortunate to pastor a church where I'm accepted.
I so wish I had the ability to convey just how powerful and awesome it is to know God...but I don't know how. I'm not very smart and don't know too many fancy words and don't have the patience to Google them to impress others with my knowledge. I'm a prodigy of the songs though; Once was lost, but now I'm found. I was so blind, but now I see. It hurts me to know there are so many who are actively seeking the very thing I was, but refuse to "give up and surrender" to the belief. I use to think I would miss out on things and life would be miserable; I haven't it and it isn't! I guess I'm a cross between Ned Flanders and the apostle Peter; I love the Lord, but I'm pretty common and hard-headed.
This I know for sure though; I wouldn't change anything. My childhood, my failures, my arrogance, my victories...nothing. Life is what we make of it for sure, and at least I feel certain I've found my purpose and embarked on fulfilling it. To this end, I pity those who have not and wander. Get busy living or get busy dying Red would say....

Bucsguru

Just wanted to say thanks for the reply, didn't want to seem ignorant or anything but unfortunately this thread has become in danger of going where i didn't want to take it.

Love United Hate Glazer

BucsBullsBolts

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 4823
Offline
#49 : April 05, 2010, 08:21:36 AM

In Isaiah 40:22 the Bible described the shape of the earth centuries before people thought that the earth was spherical.

It is He who sits above the circle of the earth,

"Circle" is not always synonymous with spherical ......

Ah, but if it sometimes does, then the argument is valid.

Not really. If "circle" doesn't always mean spherical, then you can't use this passage to assert "the Bible described the shape of the earth centuries before people thought that the earth was spherical."

An absolute morality requires a supreme being. That makes the case for "a" God.

You have failed repeatedly to make this case. Asserting that something is so does not make it so. What you term an "absolute" morality has been anything but.

Now, coming from you, that's funny.

I repeatedly make the case precisely because of it's veracity.

To perhaps get around some of your innate religious bias - let me ask it another way: I suggest that cultures founded on higher, unchanging, absolute morality are more stable and longer lasting because their morality drives law with a higher standard of expectations.

This can be proven by observing/comparing this society to one established on laws derived from the shifting sands of mans oft-changing"social standards".

If my argument is true, then societies founded on a constantly changing social standard should be more unstable - which would show stress from pressures emanating from the unstable foundation. For instance; lets say a certain group within a society felt they didn't want to work as hard, but were just as entitled to the rewards of another individuals labor - since there is no absolute - all one would have to do is attain enough power and he could escape harder work yet still attain the rewards of another's labor...

guess what...

It has varied wildly from culture to culture and changed drastically over time even among singular societies.

Yes, but it is not due to a failure of "truth" - the absolute doesn't fail man, man fails the absolute. You should not forgive credit card debt simply because men don't want to pay - because it would be immoral (according to one of the desists who wrote the Constitution) to the man who DID pay his credit card bill.

I'm not sure which societies founded on moral absolutes you intended to offer-up as examples - but from where I sit it appears that some societies may have started from a position of morality - cultures vary wildly because A) they are ruled by men who CHANGE their minds on acceptable standards B) Those that start out from a grounding in moral absolutes - they depart from the absolute - when they are confronted with a conflict that they decide to compromise on.

I suggest it is more likely that the man's rebellious nature causes him to disregard the standards = not that the standards are too limiting.

Strong evidence that the morality of any particular society is comprised from a consensus of those in that society or those ruling that society, not from some all-knowing deity. The weight of history does not support your conclusions.

Actually, it does.

It's why I introduced Kant into the argument - he was the first philosopher to conclude that truth was subjective. Kant opened the door, Mills expanded on altruism, Hegel pushed it open further yielding to Marx culminating with the existential philosopher the Nazi's and Communists love to emulate - Nietzsche - who kicked the door off it's hinges.

THAT - is the trouble with societies - not that their foundations and limitations on man are too rigid and too limiting - but because man allows himself to change the rules when he wants.

If you're in an airplane you can expect to forestall the effects of gravity - as long as you maintain forward momentum - but if something happens that causes an interruption in forward motion, you begin to increasingly deal with the effect of gravity.

Unrepentant man despises absolutes - because if absolutes exist (death being the most handy example) then mans moral authority isn't sufficient to order a stable and enduring society/culture based on his own standards.

That's why Franklin replied "A republic sir, if you can keep it..." to a question regarding his opinion on the best form of government for the U.S.

Man will only put up with limitations until he can talk himself into a good reason to abandon them. A culture begins a steady decent the moment it deviates from it's original foundations.

Absolute morality doesn't require a supreme being .... only the belief in a supreme being.

The White Tiger

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 11371
Offline
#50 : April 05, 2010, 12:44:35 PM

Unrepentant man despises absolutes - because if absolutes exist (death being the most handy example) then mans moral authority isn't sufficient to order a stable and enduring society/culture based on his own standards.

That's why Franklin replied "A republic sir, if you can keep it..." to a question regarding his opinion on the best form of government for the U.S.

Man will only put up with limitations until he can talk himself into a good reason to abandon them. A culture begins a steady decent the moment it deviates from it's original foundations.

Absolute morality doesn't require a supreme being .... only the belief in a supreme being.


Kind of a fallacy to suggest that an absolute derives from a falsehood. It is a faulty premise and is doomed to fail.

It isn't that we have a god because we need one in order to make the right system of governance to work - it might just be that the right system works because God exists.

Maybe they're mutually exclusive.

That's why Voltaire used an "if".

Incomparable sig by Incognito

The White Tiger

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 11371
Offline
#51 : April 05, 2010, 01:14:52 PM

Lets be clear - the only problem I have with evolution is it has no origin

Why is that a problem? Do you need to know the origins of heat/energy to accept thermodynamics? Does a turbine spin any differently if the heat is from coal vs oil vs solar vs nuclear? If someone states that Valence Bond Theory shows that hydrogen and oxygen share electrons in a molecule of water, do you argue that it is wrong because the Theory doesn't state where atoms come from?

Only if you assert that atoms came from nothing, exploded, and then created everything.

You wouldn't actually be trying to say that would you?

- and I reject cross-speciation. I believe life can make small adaptions - just not make a jump to a new species.

there are no "jumps" in evolution. If there are small adaptions 10 million years ago, and then there are more small adaptions, and more small adaptions on and on for millions of years, you end up with millions and millions of small adaptions which when combined look like a big change.

There's that theory part creeping in - kinda like - it would be the evidence of things hoped for, the proof of things not seen...because so many really, really, need it to support a different hypothesis.

A good example of cross speciation is horses and deer. About 50 mya (million years ago) there were tapir-like critters living in the dense jungles eating tender plants that were abundant. But in the northern edges of these jungles, the climate started drying and grasses became more abundant and the tapir like critters in the north that had flatter tougher teeth did better. As the jungle became less dense, longer legs became an advantage. Over a few million years, the jungles became savanahs or forests. The long legged critters in the savannahs developed even longer legs (because there was little to hide behind) and much hardier teeth for eating only grasses, while in the forests the critters didn't need to get as big/husky and adapted to run around the numerous tress to escape and since there were still plenty of tender shoots, they didn't need the tough teeth. In the grass lands the critters found bulk and straight ahead speed an advantage, while in the forests, agility and quick turning were more advantageous. So after 50 million years you have big husky horses and smaller much more agile deer. 2 different species! And you still have the tapirs way down south in the dense jungles.

or, like fish needing lungs to walk on dry ground, so they grew them - or like the fish who grew lungs and figured out he could use them, or where he could use them, and then finding another mrs. lungfish to make more just like him...

Spotted owls needing to adapt - either better spots, or larger talons, yet they need some intelligent design in order to make the system work - that doesn't believe in intelligent design.

There's another philosophical problem - if evolution is natural, why do we suspend our convictions when life is impacted by something mankind does? It seems to me a little specious to ask humans to stop being human so we can protect spotted owls in Washington, rare multi-colored rodents on a farmers land in California?

cause man is often stupid.

Only the ones that believe in a self-sustaining process that isn't sufficient to sustain itself, or at least his favorites. If man intervenes, or is capable - then it is an example of a superior being designing something for an intended purpose.

Seems like man is going to a great effort to protect some of the weakest in our society - if natural selection wants to thin the heard - who does man think he is to interfere with the process?

That is called "lack-of-intelligence Design"

Would seem about as odd as evolving the intelligence to conceive of God - only to use the system to discredit the need for God.

Like being the poor unfortunate creature that evolved the first fleshy protrusion that became a hand - you'd kind of draw attention to yourself with the extra appendage - not many species treat those with defects as the "studly" new member to the herd...

Incomparable sig by Incognito

YoozaHo

****
Starter

Posts : 362
Offline
#52 : April 05, 2010, 04:02:59 PM

Ffs, what have i started?

Love United Hate Glazer

The White Tiger

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 11371
Offline
#53 : April 05, 2010, 05:15:18 PM

It is ever thus, despite good intentions, threads go awry.

Sometimes it's because it's making too much sense - so the bluejays swoop in to at least sew discord...then others begin reacting and before you know it we're no where near the intended topic.

I must say we stayed on topic much longer than usual and much was communicated without rancor.

So, well done Yoozaho!

Incomparable sig by Incognito

YoozaHo

****
Starter

Posts : 362
Offline
#54 : April 06, 2010, 12:24:50 PM

It is ever thus, despite good intentions, threads go awry.

Sometimes it's because it's making too much sense - so the bluejays swoop in to at least sew discord...then others begin reacting and before you know it we're no where near the intended topic.

I must say we stayed on topic much longer than usual and much was communicated without rancor.

So, well done Yoozaho!

I thank you.

Love United Hate Glazer
Page: 1 2 3 4
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: BucsGuru and/or White Tiger « previous next »
:

Hide Tools Show Tools