For sonship: On Childishness

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]You mean the self-contradictory one?
No, I mean this one:
[quote]For the sake of argument, let us say that the earth and her immediate solar system constitute the entire universe.
In this micro universe, the sun is the only light.
When the sun is not in the sky or is obscured, we have varying degrees of the absence of light.
On any given sun ...[text shortened]... e suns other than the one in our solar system?
Of course.
Is there good unrelated to God?
...[/b]

That light is not from the sun in any way, shape or form... yet it is light.
It is light because it imitates the real and ultimate light (the sun) albeit on a small scale.

The first statement is arguably wrong - the elements to make the candle, the flashlight, etc. would not exist on this planet without the heat and light given by the sun.

The 2nd statement is dead wrong. We do not classify the light from the candle, the flashlight etc. as 'light' because it imitates the sun.

All you have done this entire thread is show us just how stubborn you can be, even after making a ridiculous argument.

Originally posted by sonship

I did not say that Jesus displayed childishness (although Jesus is nothing special:

I think the view that Jesus Christ is "nothing special" is worse than juvenile. I think it is retarded.

A Perfect Man would be a more realistic description of Jesus.

[quote]
I would guess he would be somewhat above average in displayed virtue ...[text shortened]... m God no matter how "mature" or "grown up" or "unchildish" you wish to advertize such rebellion.

Ok, so correct me if I am wrong, but it appears you have no intention of addressing the actual content of my claims.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]You mean the self-contradictory one?
No, I mean this one:
[quote]For the sake of argument, let us say that the earth and her immediate solar system constitute the entire universe.
In this micro universe, the sun is the only light.
When the sun is not in the sky or is obscured, we have varying degrees of the absence of light.
On any given sun ...[text shortened]... e suns other than the one in our solar system?
Of course.
Is there good unrelated to God?
...[/b]

The man who controls fire in the first place, transferring the same to a candle he made doesn't know about electromagnetic radiation or wavelengths.
He is simply successfully attempting to replicate the light he gets from the sun, and put the same in places where/when the sun does not emit its light.

This is supposed to show what, exactly?

I honestly think your argument is worse than just lacking in persuasion: it is actually fairly dissuasive. Your argument has a humorous flow to it. Your argument amounts to saying that we should think God is the definitive standard of goodness in a way similar to the way in which we should think the sun is the definitive standard of light. But, in turn, your reasoning for why we should think the sun is the definitive standard of light seems based on the idea that some scientific dufus would have internalized it as such, in the lack of knowing any better. That's some really compelling stuff, Freaky. This really should go without saying: just because some scientific ignoramus would internalize the sun as the definitive standard of light, that does not give us a reason to think the sun is the definitive standard of light. Perhaps just the opposite, actually. Should we think the earth is flat too, on the grounds that your scientifically uneducated hypothetical subject might well have internalized that as true also?

Light is not light unless is agrees with what constitutes light.
For the more informed mind, this deals with electromagnetic radiation and wavelengths of varying ranges.

Right, so the more informed mind will think in a way that lends no validity to your claim that the sun is the definitive standard of light. You have to appeal to what the less informed or uninformed mind would conclude in order to base your case. Sounds about right….

Originally posted by LemonJello
Ok, so correct me if I am wrong, but it appears you have no intention of addressing the actual content of my claims.

LemonJello,

I think I am having some problem understanding your actual position based on repeated complaints you make.

I want to thank you for an interesting discussion.
For now, I am going to hold off further comment.

From time to time I will look back over some paragraphs and take another crack at figuring out a few things you wrote couched in some matter-of-factly expressed academic phraseology which I do not regularly encounter on this subject.

Be well until I resume any further exchanges on this or on Objective Grounds of Morality.

sonship

Originally posted by SwissGambit

That light is not from the sun in any way, shape or form... yet it is light.
It is light because it imitates the real and ultimate light (the sun) albeit on a small scale.

The first statement is arguably wrong - the elements to make the candle, the flashlight, etc. would not exist on this planet without the heat and light given by the su ...[text shortened]... entire thread is show us just how stubborn you can be, even after making a ridiculous argument.

The first statement is arguably wrong...
Which first statement?
That the light is not from the sun?
Do you really think that's a counter-argument?

The 2nd statement is dead wrong. We do not classify the light from the candle, the flashlight etc. as 'light' because it imitates the sun.
Yeah.
We already kinda covered that.
Exhaustively, actually.
Anything else to add, or do you want to just read over the thread to this point so you can get caught up?

All you have done this entire thread is show us just how stubborn you can be, even after making a ridiculous argument.
Thanks, pot.

Originally posted by LemonJello

The man who controls fire in the first place, transferring the same to a candle he made doesn't know about electromagnetic radiation or wavelengths.
He is simply successfully attempting to replicate the light he gets from the sun, and put the same in places where/when the sun does not emit its light.

This is supposed to show what, exac ...[text shortened]... ess informed or uninformed mind would conclude in order to base your case. Sounds about right….

But, in turn, your reasoning for why we should think the sun is the definitive standard of light seems based on the idea that some scientific dufus would have internalized it as such, in the lack of knowing any better.
I don't think you should be so harsh on the poor guy: the only light he's ever seen is what he sees up in the sky during the daytime hours.
You did read the part about the sun being the only source of light he knows, right?

You have to appeal to what the less informed or uninformed mind would conclude in order to base your case.
And that's a problem... how?

We are thinking about a universe where the only light that can be found is the sun.
Those who wish to make light like the sun have to figure out something which imitates the same.
They really don't need to know about the scientific method, experimental controls or anything else remotely objective in that regard.

They do need to find something which agrees with what makes light in the first place.
In their vocabulary, the only thing that is light is the sun.
Certainly, they are attempting to expand their vocabulary--- and eventually their understanding of what makes light in the first place.

But even using the "light descriptors" as your rule, the allegory holds firm and fast.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]But, in turn, your reasoning for why we should think the sun is the definitive standard of light seems based on the idea that some scientific dufus would have internalized it as such, in the lack of knowing any better.
I don't think you should be so harsh on the poor guy: the only light he's ever seen is what he sees up in the sky during the daytim ...[text shortened]... place.

But even using the "light descriptors" as your rule, the allegory holds firm and fast.[/b]

I don't think you should be so harsh on the poor guy

I am not being harsh on your hypothetical subject. I am being harsh on your argument, which merits the criticism.

They do need to find something which agrees with what makes light in the first place.
In their vocabulary, the only thing that is light is the sun.
Certainly, they are attempting to expand their vocabulary--- and eventually their understanding of what makes light in the first place.

Right, your hypothetical scientific ignorami might well internalize the sun as the definitive standard of light. Now, what does that have to do with demonstrating that one ought to think that, within the bounds of your hypothetical, it actually is the case that sun is the definitive standard of light? Nothing, of course. You're trying to show something about the actual nature of light in your hypothetical universe, not something about what scientifically uninformed persons would think about the nature of light in your hypothetical universe. Do you just not understand the difference between these two? If we want to understand something about the actual nature of light, why would we defer to the opinion of uninformed persons who know virtually nothing about the actual nature of light, for lack of any established scientific effort in that area?

I mean, good grief, look at what you are saying here. You're basically saying that these hypothetical subjects who know virutally nothing about the nature of light will internalize the sun as the definitive standard of light, for lack of better scientific vocabulary and understanding. Eventually, these people will come to a heightened understanding of the nature of light, you hint. Right...and they will thereby come to abandon their unscientific, primitive notion that the sun stands as a definitive standard of light. So, your argument is dissuasive, not persuasive.

Look, if you want us to think that the sun is the definitive standard of light in your hypothetical universe (which is what you claim, after all), then you have to give us actual reasons to think that. Submitting as evidence the opinions of subjects within that hypothetical universe who, on supposition no less, have virtually no understanding of the nature of light is not exactly the best approach.

Originally posted by LemonJello

I don't think you should be so harsh on the poor guy

I am not being harsh on your hypothetical subject. I am being harsh on your argument, which merits the criticism.

[quote]They do need to find something which agrees with what makes light in the first place.
In their vocabulary, the only thing that is light is the sun.
Certainly, ...[text shortened]... o less, have virtually no understanding of the nature of light is not exactly the best approach.

The transfer moves from the sun to, as you say, light description.
We were speaking about a person who knows nothing of light other than the sun.
This person's understanding develops over time as he comes to discover that light is available by artificial means; however, his touchstone with respect to light simply moves from the sun to the eventually-understood electromagnetic radiation and its various wavelengths.

Comically, NONE of this changes the kernel of truth within the allegory.
In order for light to be light, it must be within specific wavelengths, must emit prescribed radiation.

It is light because, well, it is light.

Is light subjective?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
The transfer moves from the sun to, as you say, light description.
We were speaking about a person who knows nothing of light other than the sun.
This person's understanding develops over time as he comes to discover that light is available by artificial means; however, his touchstone with respect to light simply moves from the sun to the eventually-unde ...[text shortened]... st emit prescribed radiation.

It is light because, well, it is light.

Is light subjective?

In order for light to be light, it must be within specific wavelengths, must emit prescribed radiation.

Do you even remember what you were initially arguing? Here's what you stated before:

It is light because it imitates the real and ultimate light (the sun) albeit on a small scale

Originally posted by LemonJello

In order for light to be light, it must be within specific wavelengths, must emit prescribed radiation.

Do you even remember what you were initially arguing? Here's what you stated before:

It is light because it imitates the real and ultimate light (the sun) albeit on a small scale

I do remember.
For that man who has no other light in that hypothetical universe, who must manufacture light for when the only light that he knows is on the other side of the planet, the light he is able to create is simply an imitation of the only light he has ever known.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I do remember.
For that man who has no other light in that hypothetical universe, who must manufacture light for when the only light that he knows is on the other side of the planet, the light he is able to create is simply an imitation of the only light he has ever known.

Apparently, children aren't born in hospitals in this hypothetical universe. 😕

I strongly suspect that the only light that has been 'the only light I have ever known' at any point in my life emanated from a fluorescent bulb.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Apparently, children aren't born in hospitals in this hypothetical universe. 😕

I strongly suspect that the only light that has been 'the only light I have ever known' at any point in my life emanated from a fluorescent bulb.

Well timed rejoinder from the peanut gallery.
Isn't there a sitcom you're supposed to be studying lines for somewhere?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I do remember.
For that man who has no other light in that hypothetical universe, who must manufacture light for when the only light that he knows is on the other side of the planet, the light he is able to create is simply an imitation of the only light he has ever known.

What does that have to do with it? You claimed something different: you claimed that what emits from the candle constitutes light because it imitates the sun. Whereas everything you say here is fully consistent with the falsity of this claim of yours. The fact that this hypothetical subject creates light sources that imitate the only natural source of light he knows (the sun) is still consistent with its not being the case that what emits from his candle constitutes light because it imitates the sun. After all, it is consistent with its being the case that what emits from the candle constitutes light in virtue of sun-independent facts, such as that the candle's flame has specific emissive properties that are fully specifiable independently of the sun (though they may be incidentally shared with the sun).

Of course, this confirms exactly what I have been saying: your claim that the sun is the definitive standard of light in no way follows from the information in your hypothetical scenario.

You also apparently missed the point. The two quotes I referenced, both from you, are prima facie contradictory (the first entails that for something to constitute a light source it is necessary that it have certain emissive properties and which happen to be specifiable independently of the sun; the second contradicts this by entailing that it is sufficient that it just have some set of sun-dependent properties). That was your cue to reconcile these. I suppose that is just asking too much in a thread in which you have contradicted yourself at nearly every turn.

Originally posted by LemonJello
What does that have to do with it? You claimed something different: you claimed that what emits from the candle constitutes light because it imitates the sun. Whereas everything you say here is fully consistent with the falsity of this claim of yours. The fact that this hypothetical subject creates light sources that imitate the only natural source of ...[text shortened]... s just asking too much in a thread in which you have contradicted yourself at nearly every turn.

That light is not from the sun in any way, shape or form... yet it is light.
It is light because it imitates the real and ultimate light (the sun) albeit on a small scale.

You claimed something different: you claimed that what emits from the candle constitutes light because it imitates the sun.
If the sun is the only light source known to man--- his only exposure to any light whatsoever--- and man creates some form of light, would you say he is imitating the source in some fashion, if not all?

He doesn't need to know the properties of light, or any of the scientific understandings currently available: he is simply trying to duplicate the only source of light he knows, i.e., that visible electromagnetic radiation he experiences from the sun.

Until he is able to either find another light source or create it on his own, for that man the sun is the definitive standard of light.
For the time being, that sun IS light.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Well timed rejoinder from the peanut gallery.
Isn't there a sitcom you're supposed to be studying lines for somewhere?

You expect me to actually watch a British show? 😲