Originally posted by LemonJelloI really don't think you understand how a good hypothetical works.
I'm not sure that constitutes much of a revision. (Oh, you already basically said that.) But given the fact that you are attempting clarification, I'll reply in kind.
When I said the sun is the standard of light, that is straightforward and more than close enough to the relevant facts to be taken at face value.
It is "more than clos ...[text shortened]... e human eye. The hypothetical fact that the sun is our only star would not somehow change this.
Right.
And my mom wears Army boots, right?
The only time I used the term 'hypothetical' was when I used it to describe the "hypothetical universe" which contained nothing but our solar system.
This hypothetical universe was then used allegorically to draw a parallel between the sun and God, between light and good.
What you are trying to show, ultimately, is that God is the definitive standard of morality.
Nope.
I was using the sun and its light as allegorical to ultimate good.
Remember?
But let's set morality aside and just talk about good and God.
So, here's how this all SHOULD work.
What you describe COULD work, but it--- by no means--- is the only way to convey the concept.
In a world of blindness, the one-eyed man is king.
The hypothetical universe readily positions the sun as the ultimate source of light, regardless of any earthly light sources, on the basis of its existence as the only light known to man!
There is no source of light that is the definitive standard of light. What nonsense.
You're saying this from the informed state... informed by your perception of reality as it presents itself to you.
This is precisely why I suggested a hypothetical universe--- sans stars or any other light from outside our solar system.
In our solar system and from man's perspective of that hypothetical reality, the sun is the definitive standard of light.
Save the occasional flash of lightning or chemically-induced glow, there is no other light to be had or seen.
So man finds a way to control fire and eventually creates an approximation of the light he sees in the day time in order to abate the lack of light he experiences in the night.
Again: some earthly source of light qualifies as a source of light because of its own emissive properties; not because there exists some source of light, as a definitive standard, to which this earthly thing stands in relation.
I'm pretty sure if man hasn't learned yet how to control fire or how to put particular materials together in such a fashion as to emit man-made light, he prolly hasn't figured out much beyond 'light = good.'
You're making an argument that is in the inverse to what I offered: man could just as easily look at a field of fireflies and consider ways of intensifying their short bursts in such a manner as to benefit from their glow.
Micro to macro, as it were.
Big deal.
He's already got macro: the sun covers the entire half of the planet upwards of 12 hours of every day.
He doesn't think to make the world awash in the glow of a billion fireflies; he endeavors to replicate a small portion of one sun.
Again, the upshot to all this is that your hypothetical is profoundly unsuccessful.
Since I didn't use the device except as noted, I don't feel as bad as I ought.
My bad.
It is light because it is electromagnetic radiation over specific wavelengths that happen to be visible to the human eye. The hypothetical fact that the sun is our only star would not somehow change this.
Chuckle.
Okay, I'll bite.
If our isolated solar system (I guess it's just a system now, right?) didn't have that solar part, are you suggesting that light/glow/any-form-at-all would still be a possibility?
Originally posted by FreakyKBHMore thoughtful input for you
Thanks for your thoughtful input.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
If there were any type of similar light available to man in the darkness, he would never have invented any form of light.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
This response was directed at your objection--- you do remember objecting, don't you?--- to something I hadn't said, namely, that man had invented light.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHDay and night. Sure they are nearly even. Plus/minus 12 hours!
The earth being one of those planets in that isolated universe has its share of days in the sun; every numbered day is split nearly evenly between light and then the absence of the same.
Or are you speaking metaphorically or allegorically or just stupidly?
Originally posted by wolfgang59Forms of light, man-made:
More thoughtful input for you
[b]Originally posted by FreakyKBH
If there were any type of similar light available to man in the darkness, he would never have invented any form of light.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
This response was directed at your objection--- you do remember objecting, don't you?--- to something I hadn't said, namely, that man had invented light. [/b]
candles
light bulbs
stadium incandescent towers
tv's
flashlights
light houses
flashing LED adult marital aids
You know, stuff like that.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHNone of those are "forms of light"
Forms of light, man-made:
candles
light bulbs
stadium incandescent towers
tv's
flashlights
light houses
flashing LED adult marital aids
You know, stuff like that.
More irrelevancy.
btw ... tv's [sic] ... what do they own? 😀
Originally posted by wolfgang59I'm nearly certain you understand the intent of the term 'form,' yet you persist in this childishness.
None of those are "forms of light"
More irrelevancy.
btw ... tv's [sic] ... what do they own? 😀
Not sure if I have it exactly right, but I've got to be pretty close: you're just a troll, huh.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIf I asked a class of 10 year-olds for different forms of light I'm sure I
I'm nearly certain you understand the intent of the term 'form,' yet you persist in this childishness.
Not sure if I have it exactly right, but I've got to be pretty close: you're just a troll, huh.
would get UV, laser, IR and all the colours of the rainbow. I may even
get sunlight, moonlight and candlelight.
I would not get candle, tv, or lighthouse!
As for trolling NO. I'm finished here - have the last word if it makes you feel good.
LemonJello,
You Typed
--------------
(4) Punishment or reward as a moral motivators. Fixation on retribution and recompense. If you talk to a theist who holds some version of theological voluntarism to be true, he or she will often proffer (avoidance of) punishment or (reaping of) reward as moral motivators. I suspect they have some idea that these are inadequate but what other choices do they really have? Take sonship's view that God is simply definitive of goodness. You can ask him "But why should I be good on your view?" He can say because you would be thereby more Godlike. "But why is it good to be Godlike on your view?" He can only say that this is definitional. He cannot say that it is for this or that God-independent explanative reason, pace the Euthyphro dilemma. This is pretty much a vacuous and meaningless response with respect to any sincere moral inquirer. So what is he left with? He would only be left with prudential reasons to offer, by suggesting this or that will come to you if you do this or fail to do that. This is not so different from a child whose early moralistic behaviors are basically pressed into service by reward and punishment programs of some guardian.
------------------------
Are you saying that God can relate to us as sinners who want to go our own way and do our own thing? Are you saying that God wants us to be autonomous and sin against Him at every turn we desire?
Are you saying that God would accept us even though we do what is against Him? Do you accept people that sin against you at every turn just because they want to do it?