For sonship: On Childishness

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]I really don't think you understand how a good hypothetical works.
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 s ...[text shortened]... hat solar part, are you suggesting that light/glow/any-form-at-all would still be a possibility?[/b]

Nope.
I was using the sun and its light as allegorical to ultimate good.
Remember?

Oh, right. Thanks for the correction. Of course, it is irrelevant to my point. So just replace 'morality' with 'goodness' in what I wrote and everything I said follows just as before, including the fact that your hypothetical is profoundly unsuccessful. Here, I'll make this cosmetic correction for you below to save you time and for your reference. You're welcome....

"I really don't think you understand how a good hypothetical works. What you are trying to show, ultimately, is that God is the definitive standard of goodness. You're attempting to show this through some hypothetical exercise wherein the sun stands in for God. So, here's how this all SHOULD work. You should be presenting a hypothetical where the sun stands in relation to earthly light sources in a way that aptly tracks the way in which God, as the divine source of goodness, stands in relation to us human sources of goodness. Then, using the information provided in the hypothetical, you ought to be able to show how it non-trivially follows that the sun is the definitive standard of light in your hypothetical universe through some sound line of reasoning. Then, because the relationship between the sun and the earthly sources of light tracks in some apt way the relationship between God and us humans, we would be able to transfer that hypothetical reasoning to lend inferential weight to the idea that God is the definitive standard of goodness in our universe. Again, that's roughly how it SHOULD go.

However, what you are doing is just giving us a hypothetical where you basically just stipulate that the sun is the definitive standard of light, and you do this on the basis of nothing and, in fact, contrarily to how light description actually works. There is no source of light that is the definitive standard of light. What nonsense. And this does not somehow change just because you stipulate in your hypothetical universe that the sun is the only star. 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.

As I intimated already, the idea that the sun is the definitive standard of light should follow non-trivially from information in your hypothetical, not simply as a baseless stipulation that you claim is "more than close enough to the relevant facts to be taken at face value" when, in fact, it runs obviously contrary to actual facts regarding light description.

Again, the upshot to all this is that your hypothetical is profoundly unsuccessful.

Originally posted by SwissGambit

I'm trying to ease you into the idea that other people tacked things on to Jesus' message. These things can't be done instantly.

I think this reliability of the New Testament documents should be discussed on another thread dedicated to that.

It should not be that on every debate someone has with a Christian we have to stop and go off and argue about what Jesus did or did not really say. This is kind of an escape hatch issue through which one may bring to a halt practically any other issue about Spirituality.

I take some responsibility in asking you to provide evidence of NT document "tampering."

Instead of making me plod through hours of YouTube debates, and trashing Ehrman, why don't you offer specific rebuttals of what he said? Surely, given the body of work done by Dr. Craig and his army of Reasonable Theists, there is ample material at your disposal.

I don't expect anyone to consider Ehrman "trashed" by any serious second opinion by a qualified scholar. "Trashing" is not the goal here.
But it all depends on how much one wants to explore the allegations.

My conscience is clear because I have sat through a series of lectures from Bart Ehrman from "The Teaching Company" at the public library. And I might add that I found much in his talks to be valuable insight.

This was before I learned that he was controversial. So quite unaware I listened to a history of Christian doctrine from lectures by Ehrman. I detected that he was theologically liberal about early midway through the series of lectures. But I did not "trash" the whole series because of that.

Yes, the gospel writers got beaten to the punch by the Apostle Paul. It seems like the Apostle Paul is the true visionary of the faith. The one who saw how it could persevere even after Jesus' death.

While Paul was still breathing out hatred and threats towards the churching people in Jerusalem, the twelve (including the replacement for Judas) were already carrying out the great commission.

Jesus had told them explicitly that they would take the Gospel message to the world beyond. While they were preaching, young Paul (Saul then) acting as a cult fighter was doing his utmost to stop the spread of the heresy.

When the Jews stoned Stephen to death, Paul (then Saul) was standing by holding the cloths of the executioners. The point is that the Gospel was already being preached, and propagated, and believed.

This young man was an ancient "De-programmer" and "Cult Fighter" arresting Christians, dragging them out of houses, imprisoning, forcing them to recant, and I think involved in the death of some.

Jesus Christ, in resurrection and in His state of exaltation and glorification stopped Paul and turned him around 180 degrees. One day, He just might do the same to someone opposing His message in this Forum.

Yes, he was a visionary. But he got in the line of pre-existing visionaries. And he also was a tremendous pioneer in the experience of living in the realm of Jesus Christ in the Holy Spirit.

You heard of Star Trek ? You know? "Boldly going where no man has gone before !" Well the Apostle Paul was in "Christ Trek" pioneering deep into the life of being joined to Jesus Christ, living in Christ.

Yes, it is true that some statements attributed to "Jesus" do not sound morally worthy to me.

You should not feel that it is not a common matter. If you are not bothered by at least something Jesus said then you must be an angel.

There is not a toe somewhere that He does not step on. And the fact that the disciples, who were quite human, were faithful to record His statements even though some were difficult, or embarrassing, or hard to understand, or too strict, or seemingly unbelievable lends to the overall ring of authenticity of the New Testament document.

What we don't see is an effort to conceal problematic statements.
What we do see is stark candor - "This is what He SAID" - and letting the chips fall where they may.

I could elsewhere give many examples that we could well expect the disciples to have concealed, tampered with, embellished in order to propagate a fabricated "Jesus" story.

Historians look for details that would be embarrassing to the reporters as indications that what is being told is probably authentic.

The evangelist DID NOT have to record many problematic admissions like:

1.) Women were the first to witness the resurrection
2.) The leading disciples denied Jesus.
3.) All the twelve forsook him to save their skins.
4.) The Master called the leading disciples Peter "Satan" on one occasion.
5.) Jesus' own family thought He was insane at one point.
6.) His own brothers did not believe in Him at a point.
7.) He was called a alcoholic or wine biber because of company He had.
8.) A prostitute cleaned His feet with her hair in an extremely suggestive scandelous way for a proper Rabbi.
9.) He was accused of having a demon.
10.) He cried "My God, My God, why have you FORSAKEN Me?"
11.) He said He was the I AM on one occasion but that the Father was greater than He on another.
12.) A member of the Sanhedrin was more faithful to see that He got a proper burial than the disciples themselves.
13.) After resurrection some disciples STILL did not believe it was He.
14.) Peter went back to FISHING after Jesus died and even when he knew He was alive again.
15.) Any number of REALLY hard sayings which Jesus said that practically everyone wishes He had not said.
16.) Any number of sayings which could be easily exploited.
17.) Any number of sayings which are difficult to reconcile with other sayings.
18.) A number of things which a Jew would consider immediately disqualifying Jesus from being a Jewish Messiah, for example cursed by God and/or hanging on a tree in torture.
19.) Sayings which the disciples DIED before seeing fully fulfilled.
20.) Sayings seeming indicating that it is impossible to be His follower.

The candidness of the reporting of the evangelists are filled with indications of the authenticity of what is being historically recounted.

But that does not mean that I consider myself a high authority on morals. It simply means that I do not follow any person without question. I always evaluate what they say. To do otherwise is extremely dangerous; it means you can be easily made to do evil by a charismatic leader.

I understand what you meant now a little better.
If you read carefully you will see that this was a concern among the original disciples.

John corrects a misunderstanding that was circulated among them in John 21 -

"This word therefore went out among the brothers, that this disciple would not die, yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but, If I want him to remain until I come, what is that to you?" (John 21:23)

Here we see the Apostle John using caution that the reader would not take an ERRONEOUS understanding of Christ's words among even them. "THIS is what He had actually SAID and not what they thought He said."

You also have Paul cautioning churches about letters written as forgeries using his name.

So I think you have to recognize that people did not wait 2,000 years to start carefully examining what was fabricated from what was genuine concerning Christ and the apostles' work.

While you are asking questions please realize that before you did, the original followers of Jesus already did - much.

I stop here.

Originally posted by KingOnPoint
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 ar ...[text shortened]... t Him? Do you accept people that sin against you at every turn just because they want to do it?

KingOnPoint...more like KingMissThePoint. Maybe try re-reading the opening post again? Otherwise, you seem beyond help here. But by all means, please keep posting in this thread and tell us more about how you are incorrigibly sinful; how God does not want you to go your own way or do your own thing or be an autonomous adult; how God is in control and can do whatever He likes with you. After all, you're just adding more empirical data to help support the idea that yours is the stuff of childish deliberations.

Originally posted by SwissGambit

I'm not sure that I would call Jesus 'overflowing with mercy'. At least, not the version of Jesus that invented eternal hell to punish the dead beyond the grave. That's bizarro-mercy if I've ever seen it.

The passages on punishment in Gehenna or "eternal fire" are not the only passages in the four Gospels. If they were the only passages in the NT maybe I would agree. That a reader enlarges them in his own mind may indicate his main concern is with those teachings.

Does Jesus mention eternal punishment in everything He speaks? Far, far from it.

You see, this is why I encourage people to take in from beginning to end a Gospel, That is in order to get a steady well balanced diet. If you only remember the words of some preachers, you might get an amplified sense of the matter of punishment. If you start reading on your own, say, Luke - three chapters a day until you complete all 24 chapters, I think you get a well rounded presentation of the that whole Gospel.

On the other hand, God's hatred for sins a component of His entire all-inclusive Perfect Being. And against it His love for the sinner stands out.
To what extent God went that we would be saved, really from ourselves and from His awesome righteous judgment, is all the more impressive.

Of course, the whole threat of hell is simple mind control of the most banal kind. Yes, those who preach it are serious about it - they like to scare the hell INTO people and make them converts.

Two things really occupy your thoughts:

1.) What did Jesus REALLY teach as opposed to tamperings of others.

2.) This awful subject of punishment forever. And is its horror being used to threaten and manipulate people.

I think the second preoccupation is more related to the thread.

It is difficult to discuss this with some people who seem that hell is the only thing in the bible. It is like their bible is like this:

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
You are going to go to HELL !
The End."

I think people for whom no other teaching exists in the Bible but the teaching of eternal punishment, should start to really read for themselves more of the bulk material written in the Bible. Maybe they can get some perspective.

But if the Bible is dealing with an Ultimate God then it stands to reason that ultimates of both a positive and a negative nature will be revealed.
Did you notice the parable of the prodigal son ?
Did you notice the many similar teachings and parable of Jesus stressing the eagerness, the willingness, the intense love of God to reconcile the sinner to Himself ?

Sure, humans are doing well NOW, but a few million years ago, it was all about dinosaurs. Who is to say which species will dominate after a few more million years? Especially if we manage to create a massive nuclear exchange. Then it's any species' ballgame.

Yesterday morning I heard a program called "Ecoshock". It was very persuading about the problem of human induced climate change.

Personally, my heart is firmly at peace because I believe Christ is the Savior of the world. But some things Jesus said about the closing of the age seem quite related to climate change too.

Jesus spoke of the end time astronomical calamities and the raging of the sea -

" And there will be signs in the sun and moon and stars, and upon the earth anguish of nations in perplexity at the roaring of the sea and the billows.

Men fainting from fear and expectation of the things coming upon the inhabited earth, for the powers of the heavens will be shaken." (Luke 21:25,26)

Now there are some unknowns which we have little direct revelation from God's word about. When I was young there was common knowledge about dinosaurs. But I do not recall so much speculation about what could have caused their demise. It was only latter I heard much theorizing about how a whole ecosystem could have been terminated.

Before there was only talk of strange prehistoric animals. The artwork was often depicted with an active volcano in the backround. Men mused over the bones they found. Men and women speculated at how they all died suddenly. Then there was talk of killer asteroids, possible killer comets, possible killer gas bubbling up from beneath the ocean and igniting into flame. There were various calamity theories.

Now the Bible says that the Lord keeps watch over all knowledge. Just maybe along with the written revelation of the Bible there is provided by God clues in nature to educate us.

The eyes of the Lord preserue knowledge, and he ouerthroweth the words of the transgressour.
- King James Version (1611) - View 1611 Bible Scan

The eyes of the LORD preserve knowledge, But He overthrows the words of the treacherous man.
- New American Standard Version (1995)

The eyes of Jehovah preserve `him that hath' knowledge;
- American Standard Version (1901)

The eyes of the Lord keep knowledge, but by him the acts of the false man will be overturned.
- Basic English Bible

The eyes of Jehovah preserve knowledge; but he overthroweth the words of the unfaithful.
- Darby Bible

The eyes of the LORD preserve knowledge, and he overthroweth the words of the transgressor.
- Webster's Bible

The eyes of Yahweh watch over knowledge; but he frustrates the words of the unfaithful.
- World English Bible

The eyes of Jehovah have kept knowledge, And He overthroweth the words of the treacherous.
- Youngs Literal Bible

I think the sense of this passage is that even what mankind is able to learn and discover is under the providence of God and is also to a moral ended purpose.

We ARE in fact asking "Could we possibly go the way of the dinosaurs of the past ?"

Revelation also speaks of God judging those who destroy the earth:

"And the nations became angry, and Your wrath came, and the time for the dead to be judged and ... to destroy those who destroy the earth." (See Revelation 11:18)

Men are in fact destroying the earth in a greedy way.
Perhaps that is what this passage alludes to.

Now, on to the 2nd post. ----

What you call man's "dignity", I would simply call a heightened awareness of moral issues. It comes from our intelligence, mainly. We did not 'suddenly' pick it up. We gradually increased moral awareness over time.

But to be AWARE in a heightened sense is to be AWARE of some truth or reality that is in existence. See?

Something was there AWAITING humanity's heightened awareness.
This includes an awareness of his own superlative worth and nobility as compared, ie, to the sheep, camels, and fish.

That awareness is a waking up to grasp a truth that the lower creatures do not grasp. I think your concept of man becoming aware suggests not so much as creation of value but recognition or discovery of value.

It was curiously awaiting man's arrival.
Man did not create this moral value but rather discovered it.
It was there already waiting to be discovered.

This makes sense to me in the concept of an eternal Creator with that pre-existing ultimate value.

This goes through all human cultures.
This is a recognition of all tribes of men.
It cannot be said to be only "Christian" western civilization that awakes to this sense of the creature man's dignity.

You do not think that maximizing harmony and minimizing suffering are rational reasons for having sound moral principles? Seriously?

I am all for feeling good.
I am all for the pragmatism of avoiding discomfort.

The question is is that program backed by a meaningless existence of accidents with no purpose ?

Or is that program backed by higher will and purpose of God.

I have said a number of times in these exchanges that no one can practically live as if nihilism is the truth of the universe. Which represents realism.

What I see the optimistic humanist saying is " Though we're no better than the cockroaches, we at least should pretend that we are for awhile just to be able to make it. We have to live the lie of higher meaning than the roach even though is is our arrogance to assume we really are any better."

Really, I think you should reconsider what you said there.

And why do you think that I would believe anything as silly as 'we are accidents'? Of course I do not.

I would believe that about you because you are thoroughly given to a philosophy that there is no God or anything like God - naturalism.

And there is no purpose, no guide to the evolutionary process, no goal, no plan. That is what I hear most naturalist who jeer at the thought of God say.

Ie. Carl Sagan - paraphrased - The cosmos is all there ever was and ever will be.

Ie. Richard Dawkins - paraphrased - Biology is the study of living things which have the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.

I have gathered that you think along the lines of these popular atheistic naturalists.

If you now want to convince me that naturalistic evolution has is not a series of trillions of fortunate accidents please open up another thread on the purpose, goal, plan, etc. of naturalistic evolution.

Notice that I do leave room for some possibility of a divinely guided process.

If you read "there are pragmatic reasons that make good morals good" and you think "sounds to me like there is indeed no purpose", that strikes me as simply a non-sequitur. I know YOU personally have trouble accepting that we can have a purpose and be temporary at the same time, but I don't share this problem.

You do have to admit that your view has no REAL enforcer and no that many wi...

You do have to admit that your view has no REAL enforcer and no that many will get away with quite a lot. Much evil will go undetected and unremedied.

If the Governor of the universe is totally sloppy or non-existent, then it doesn't matter. But does creation itself suggest an encouraging confirmation of this ?

If the Governor of the creation gives as much attention to our thoughts, words, deeds, acts as to the arrangement of protons, elections, and neutrons, then we should listen up. Especially we should listen up if Someone comes along demonstrating those characteristics of a perfect, righteous, all-powerful living Person, one whom His enemies cannot put into a grave forever.

Yes, I know what the definition of "God" is. I am just pointing out that the argument you made does not help you deal with the 'problem' you cited of abstract principles existing before humans existed to follow them.

Cont. below.

Originally posted by sonship

I'm trying to ease you into the idea that other people tacked things on to Jesus' message. These things can't be done instantly.

I think this reliability of the New Testament documents should be discussed on another thread dedicated to that.

It should not be that on every debate someone has with a Christian we have to stop and go ...[text shortened]... alize that before you did, the original followers of Jesus already did - much.

I stop here.

Well, you did ask, "what am I to do with this Jesus who said and did everything so awesomely?". For you to complain that I'm derailing the discussion by pointing out that Jesus did not actually say many of the things attributed to him is amusing. Bad form, Jay.

I'm glad your conscience is clear on trashing Ehrman. I'll just go on thinking he's right on the quoted points I used, since you offered no rebuttal.

Maybe the right description for the Apostle Paul is "better publicist"? I have no idea who actually had the idea to make Jesus into God, but he promoted it the most vigorously.

----

Stark candor is great. When I say that 'some of his statements don't sound morally worthy', I don't mean that they offend people. I mean that they are simply bad moral values to hold.

Values like:
Looking at a woman to lust = adultery
Divorced people who re-marry commit adultery
Servants, obey your masters

...seem misguided to me.

----

I think there probably was a real, historical person named Jesus. It's just that tales of his deeds have been greatly exaggerated. I think he was trying to bring the Kingdom of God to earth within his lifetime. His followers were certainly going in that direction. Then, he died unexpectedly. What to do?

They came up with a brilliant and inspired solution. The "Kingdom" was no longer a worldly one. "Jesus" was no longer merely a rabble-rousing street preacher; he was the Son of God, and the Jewish Messiah. A little massaging of genealogies saw to that. (Hence the trouble with prophecy; it would be much more impressive if the prophecies had been sealed in an envelope and opened only AFTER the events happened, but I digress).

Originally posted by sonship
Cont.

Both atheist and theist may agree "So and So is just Objectively Wrong to do." But the theist's explanation of moral truths grounded in a higher Being for whom no greater goodness is conceivable is a better explanation.

If I understand you, minds created these moral values and duties on their way up the process of gradualism in evolution. Wh ...[text shortened]... of awareness of a transcendent Mind and Person to pick up the slack which we simply do not have.

I am leaning towards understanding that you believe these brute given moral truths and duties did not exist at that stage of the world because no minds could consider them into existence. Certainly, bacteria did not contemplate moral truths.

I do not recall claiming that they are "brute". My claim regarding the dependence on the existence of minds also was not regarding "moral truths". More importantly, I also never claimed that minds somehow "consider them into" existence. And I am certainly not committed to the idea and associated notions you outlined that "minds created these moral values and duties on their way up the process of gradualism in evolution". So, this entire section of yours is irrelevant to my view and is predicated on gross, even negligent, misunderstanding of what I have claimed.

My claim, again, was that the existence of moral properties depends on the existence of minds; that they cannot exist if no minds exist. Again, you are, I believe, committed to the same thing, or something similar. It's just that you think at least one mind was still in existence back then (in the form of God), whereas I do not.

If you want more discussion on what this claim of mine amounts to, we could consider an analogy with secondary physical properties. You brought up (I think in the other current thread) the example of the property of "redness". That's an apt example, since color is a secondary physical property, not a primary physical property of objects. Of course, a physical description of what ultimately explains color would make reference to primary physical properties of the object, but the property "redness" itself is not a primary property of the object. It is a secondary, relational property that holds between that object and an entity like you or me who visually processes the object in the manner we do. So, you can see how the existence of such a property as "redness" depends on the existence of minds, in the form of entities with visual systems like us. However, this does not entail that we visually process such properties into existence as though it were simply the product of our mentality or visual processing faculties, since their existence grows naturally only out of the relation between both our visual systems and other objects. This analogy is not perfect, but I would hold something structurally similar about moral properties: that they depend on the existence of minds, in that they are like a relational property holding between the world and conscious entities that have particular types of processing systems, such as the human moral faculty or something along similar lines. Of course, as I mentioned before, this outlines one alternative sense in which our views are "subjective" or mind-dependent. This all has nothing to do with subjective/objective distinction in the meta-ethical sense we have been discussing, which would mostly have to do with the truth conditions of moral or evaluative claims.

Your extended discussion pertaining to what I am "allegedly" committed to is mostly pure nonsense and fantasy that I will not bother to address here. Perhaps you could reload, armed this time with better understanding of what my claim there amounts to. As I explained, probably the best physical analogy is with a secondary property, like color. I'll remind you that you yourself independently raised the subject of color in the other thread, with your examples regarding "redness", in support of the idea that theists like you are committed to moral properties that are analogous to such properties as redness. Well, now I am explaining to you that my view of moral properties is also roughly analogous to something like color. So, you should be satisfied with this, seemingly at pain of inconsistency within your arguments. Of course, you'll still object on the grounds that your appeal to God is a better explanatory vehicle for how visual processing systems come about (or how moral faculties come about), which reduces this to a debate on the relative evidential merits of creation versus evolution.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Paragraph by paragraph. I will limit my responses to one sentence, JUST to make it fair.

P1. Read your history.
P2. The winners write the history.
P3. See response to Jay above.
P4. Do your own homework.
P5. You can't diminish what does not exist.
P6. (Hypothetically) my domestic partner would actually exist, and thus provide me a valid reason to be indignant.
P7. Nope.
P8. Morals are NOT only manifested with a mind like ours.

P1. Read your history.
This is an inadequate response to my challenge of your "huge battle" claim.
You were asked to narrow down your claim to as broad of a time frame as either before or after the martyrdom of the disciples.
You are unable to be as vaguely specific as this, yet I am the one who should read my history?

P2. The winners write the history.
I've heard that before.
Now, let's see your contortion of logic and reality as you apply this axiom to the message of Christ and what has transpired since then.
Do we really see Christianity as taught by Christ and His disciples "winning" in ANY time since His death, burial, resurrection and ascension?
Literally, ever?

P3. See response to Jay above.
I, too, have read Erhman's complaints.
They are unfortunate and ultimately wrong.
And, as sonship pointed out, they do not in any way, shape or form amount to even a remote challenge to any other aspect of doctrinal teachings which even Erhman does not reject--- not that his 'standards' are by any means meant to represent approved academic rigor.

P4. Do your own homework.
I've done my homework and continue to do so.
You're being challenged on your claims.
You've made them with a bravado which is not supported by any fact, save your own baseless opinion.
You turn the phrase to suggest the car has an engine, but there is absolutely nothing under the hood.
Either prove yourself or simply shut up.

P5. You can't diminish what does not exist.
Fingering your ears and closing your eyes tight doesn't make the rain go away; you can still feel it on your skin.

P6. (Hypothetically) my domestic partner would actually exist, and thus provide me a valid reason to be indignant.
It is hard to meet good partners, I'll give you that.

P7. Nope.
Um, yep.

P8. Morals are NOT only manifested with a mind like ours.
Do tell.

Originally posted by LemonJello

Nope.
I was using the sun and its light as allegorical to ultimate good.
Remember?

Oh, right. Thanks for the correction. Of course, it is irrelevant to my point. So just replace 'morality' with 'goodness' in what I wrote and everything I said follows just as before, including the fact that your hypothetical is profoundly unsuccess ...[text shortened]... ion.

Again, the upshot to all this is that your hypothetical is profoundly unsuccessful.[/i]

Oh, right. Thanks for the correction. Of course, it is irrelevant to my point.
Really?
This is your argument?
That morality and goodness are the same thing?

Are you sure you really think on these things, or do you just have a box of index cards filled with assumed pithy statements on them hoping they'll somehow hit the mark?

I took morality OUT of the picture and offered just plain ol' unadulterated goodness.
Purposely.

There is no source of light that is the definitive standard of light.
Ah, LJ, but there IS a definitive standard of light.
In that hypothetical universe, man knew no other light source other than the sun.
How do you say it?
Ipso Facto with the only understanding of light known to man being the sun, it IS the definitive standard of light.

When there is nothing, the very first something is the standard of ALL things.
Later, there might be more, but for the time being, when there is only one thing, it is THE thing--- the ONLY thing.

I know this isn't really as hard to wrap your mind around as you're making it.
Quit kidding around and get to the thing, will ya?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]Oh, right. Thanks for the correction. Of course, it is irrelevant to my point.
Really?
This is your argument?
That morality and goodness are the same thing?

Are you sure you really think on these things, or do you just have a box of index cards filled with assumed pithy statements on them hoping they'll somehow hit the mark?

I took morali ...[text shortened]... o wrap your mind around as you're making it.
Quit kidding around and get to the thing, will ya?[/b]

I see your reading comprehension is failing you again. I did not say that morality and goodness are the same thing; nor does this constitute my argument. I said that the correction does not alter my argument against your hypothetical, since you can simply drop 'goodness' in for 'morality' and all my substantive points still follow. Geez, I even made the correction for you....

Ah, LJ, but there IS a definitive standard of light.

Nope. I see you are still rather clueless on how light description proceeds. Oh well....

Later, there might be more, but for the time being, when there is only one thing, it is THE thing--- the ONLY thing.

This shows that you cannot even follow your own arguments. In your hypothetical, it is not the case that the sun is the only light (your first offering was contradictory on this point, too). For instance, remember the candle? In your hypothetical, there is the sun in the sky...and also there are a bunch of earthly light sources; just like supposedly there is God...and a bunch of earthly creatures.

You really need to figure out what you're going to argue before attempting to argue it. Otherwise, you end up with this comedy of errors, in which you just keep contradicting yourself again and again and cannot even keep your argument straight in your own head.

Anyway, I am glad to see that you at least hold some mistrust toward the idea that in a universe where there are lots of light sources one of them respresents a definitive standard of light. I was beginning to think you were completely ignorant of how light description actually works....

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]P1. Read your history.
This is an inadequate response to my challenge of your "huge battle" claim.
You were asked to narrow down your claim to as broad of a time frame as either before or after the martyrdom of the disciples.
You are unable to be as vaguely specific as this, yet I am the one who should read my history?

P2. The winners write ...[text shortened]... ope.
Um, yep.

P8. Morals are NOT only manifested with a mind like ours.
Do tell.[/b]

P1: I am *unwilling to be more specific.
P2: Well, Christianity is still here, isn't it?
P3: Which one is wrong?
P4: c) shun false dichotomies.
P5: But I don't.
P7: nuh-uh! 😀

Originally posted by LemonJello

I am leaning towards understanding that you believe these brute given moral truths and duties did not exist at that stage of the world because no minds could consider them into existence. Certainly, bacteria did not contemplate moral truths.

I do not recall claiming that they are "brute". My claim regarding the dependence on the existen ...[text shortened]... , which reduces this to a debate on the relative evidential merits of creation versus evolution.

As I explained, probably the best physical analogy is with a secondary property, like color. I'll remind you that you yourself independently raised the subject of color in the other thread, with your examples regarding "redness", in support of the idea that theists like you are committed to moral properties that are analogous to such properties as redness. Well, now I am explaining to you that my view of moral properties is also roughly analogous to something like color.

I am not familiar with the term "secondary properties."
I don't think I used that term.
What do you mean by "secondary properties" ?

Now in your analogy is the redness of the apple "unanalyzable" and "irreducuble" ?

In Ethical nonnaturalism the redness of an apple I think I used to correspond to the rightness or goodness or worth of persons and acts. That is moral properties really exist as the furniture of the universe. The word irreducible is used in the literature I am consulting, to describe the moral properties ascribed to persons and acts in the ethical nonnaturalist theory.

"X is good" ascribes an un-analyzable irreducilbe moral property to X.

"The apple is red" ascribes a the natural property of redness to the apple.

It was in that context that I commented (and you disagreed) that most Christian theists have been some form of ethical nonnaturalist - per J.P. Moreland (not in the publication you mentioned, but in another).

It sounded right to me - God has moral properties (goodness, holiness, righeousness, etc.).

Is redness analogy saying the same thing when you bring up secondary properties and visual processing ?

So, you should be satisfied with this, seemingly at pain of inconsistency within your arguments. Of course, you'll still object on the grounds that your appeal to God is a better explanatory vehicle for how visual processing systems come about (or how moral faculties come about), which reduces this to a debate on the relative evidential merits of creation versus evolution.

Please read the description below of the word prescriptive and tell me if you think it is proper for a us to speak of moral values as prescriptive.

pre·scrip·tive (prĭ-skrĭp′tĭv)
adj.
1. Sanctioned or authorized by long-standing custom or usage.
2. Making or giving injunctions, directions, laws, or rules.
3. Law Acquired by or based on uninterrupted possession.
4. Linguistics Based on or establishing norms or rules indicating how a language should or should not be used rather than describing the ways in which a language is used.
pre·scrip′tive·ly adv.
pre·scrip′tive·ness n.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
prescriptive (prɪˈskrɪptɪv)
adj
1. making or giving directions, rules, or injunctions
2. sanctioned by long-standing usage or custom
3. (Law) derived from or based upon legal prescription: a prescriptive title.

Are moral values and/ or moral duties prescriptive in your view ?

Originally posted by LemonJello
I see your reading comprehension is failing you again. I did not say that morality and goodness are the same thing; nor does this constitute my argument. I said that the correction does not alter my argument against your hypothetical, since you can simply drop 'goodness' in for 'morality' and all my substantive points still follow. Geez, I even made th ...[text shortened]... ginning to think you were completely ignorant of how light description actually works....

In your hypothetical, it is not the case that the sun is the only light (your first offering was contradictory on this point, too).
Are you referring to my first post on the topic, wherein I said the sun was the only light in the hypothetical universe?

For instance, remember the candle?
Kinda.
Oh, wait: now I do.
Of course I do!
I said man invented the candle (and other similar forms) in order to replicate the light he sees from the sun... the only other source of light of which man is aware of in that hypothetical universe.

Otherwise, you end up with this comedy of errors, in which you just keep contradicting yourself again and again and cannot even keep your argument straight in your own head.
The only error thus far has been your continual arguing of points which I've not made, as well as the insertions of distractions from the main points.
Comedy gold, Jerry.

I was beginning to think you were completely ignorant of how light description actually works....
"Light description."
You keep saying that phrase.
I do not think it means what you think it means.
It literally has zero to do with the topic.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
P1: I am *unwilling to be more specific.
P2: Well, Christianity is still here, isn't it?
P3: Which one is wrong?
P4: c) shun false dichotomies.
P5: But I don't.
P7: nuh-uh! 😀

Well, then you have nothing to say and your claims have been exposed as rubbish.

NEXT!

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Well, then you have nothing to say and your claims have been exposed as rubbish.

[b]NEXT![/b]

*claims not countered

But yes, do go on to your next attempt. It's for the best.