@Ignorant, I'm gathering your posts together, so anybody interested can see them easily. I see some problems with this definition, but maybe I just don't get it. I'm going to read this again later and then I will probably ask you my questions.

(February 23, 2015 at 6:34 pm)Ignorant Wrote: Goodness is the aspect under which we judge things to be more or less able to fulfill our human desires or appetites. As such, calling something good implicitly includes the understanding "good FOR". For example, we eat food because we judge that it will satisfy hunger (i.e. it is good for satisfying hunger), but we satisfy hunger FOR the sake of nourishment and growth (which are both sought under the aspect of goodness). The appetite/desire is "directed" toward fulfilling our humanity. Another example is more abstract: We punish criminals because it satisfies a desire for justice, and we satisfy the desire of justice FOR the sake of social order (which is sought under the aspect of goodness). All of these goods are sought in an order and for the sake of different goods judged subjectively by individuals for one common reason: happiness/human fulfillment. Goodness is the aspect by which we arrange and order our actions for the sake of happiness which is human satisfaction or fulfillment.

IF god IS the thing that, once obtained, completely fulfills our humanity, then he is goodness itself, and therefore, God is good. But only IF.

If god is not the thing that fulfills our humanity completely, then he is not goodness itself, even if he is good under some particular aspect.

(February 24, 2015 at 10:30 am)Ignorant Wrote:

watchamadoodle Wrote:This sounds very similar to what I saw in the Catholic Encyclopedia. How do you define "happiness/human fulfillment"? If we can't define those terms then we haven't defined "good".

Happiness/human fulfillment is the satisfaction of all human desire.

(February 24, 2015 at 11:36 am)Ignorant Wrote:

watchamadoodle Wrote:What if one human's desires are in conflict with the desires of others (humans, animals, plants)? For example, most people would agree that fulfilling Hitler's desires were not good. I suppose a Christian might argue that Hitler did not understand his true desire to know God and was pursuing the wrong desires.

According to your example, Hitler was simply wrong about what he thought was good. Therefore, any of us can simply be wrong about what we think is good. Welcome to the struggle to live a truly happy and fulfilled human life according to reason.

(February 25, 2015 at 5:31 pm)Godschild Wrote: This is a lie many animals have been found at the wrong levels of the so called geologic column, a column that does not exist in consistence around the world. In places it doesn't even exist in a way to be identified with others.

Then you should have no problem demonstrating this, instead of asserting it. Citation, please.

Quote:There have been many animals found that do not belong in certain layers, so speculation is all evolutionary science has.

You're welcome to provide evidence of this whenever you like. I'd certainly be open to seeing it; I don't think I've ever heard this particular argument before.

Quote:Actually a world wide flood would be a better observation of the geological column and the fossils found.

Why do you think that? Especially when there are consistent layers in certain areas like the Loess Plateau that contain fossil soils and windblown sediments that could not exist in flood conditions. Simply put, the flood could never have been worldwide, and area-specific floods aren't uncommon, or what you're asking for.

Quote: The fossil record has never nor will it ever prove evolution.

Because you say so? Hell, I said it earlier, but then I was being realistic, where you're just being dismissive. The fossil record won't "prove" evolution on its own, but then, we aren't just considering it in isolation either; there are many other fields of study contributing evidence to this case, and the fossil record is one part of that spectrum of evidence that, taken together, is conclusive proof for the existence of evolution.

Quote:Yep, if you insist. I would have chosen the word coincidence.

That's pretty unreasonable.

Quote: Is it, no what would you call finding many fossils in the wrong layers in the so called column, something like Christian scientist are sabotaging the dig sites. There is not one bit of proof that evolution is true, until that time if you don't mind I'm not buying it.

What could I call it? Well, I looked it up: I'd call it insignificant, and better explained by other things. The creationist case for these fossils in incorrect layers is some 200 apparent fossils, versus the estimated 250 million catalogued fossils found in the correct layer: if your 200 are evidence against evolution to you, doesn't it then follow that the amazing majority is evidence for evolution and against creationism? Or are you only willing to accept that evidence which squares with what you already believe, and special plead away the rest?

Besides, there are reasonable explanations for those 200 fossils of yours, that don't rely on a leap into magic.

Quote:
None, zip, nothing.

That's not what the science says.

Quote: Now it's species transition, yesterday it was natural selection, the two are not the same.

That's true, but yesterday you weren't talking about natural selection with me, but you did mention kinds, and assert that species were a conspiracy against you. That's why I bring it up.

Quote:It was used then to denote kinds such as the Canine. Then evolutionary scientist used it to divide the Canine into different species, and to this day they are all still Dogs.

Linnean Taxonomy, which is the basis for the modern system, finds its roots in 1735, and featured a full complement of classes, right down to the species level, including the binomial "genus/species" naming scheme we still use today. It was not used to differentiate kinds alone, but rather individual species in the same way that we do today. In fact, what you claim is literally impossible, since the initial Linnean taxa classified all birds in the same category, and then differentiated further down into species: your "they're still birds!" style logic is impossible with this fact in mind.

Quote:Evidence, good joke . I will not retract the truth, it's your burden to prove evolution, you've made the assertion, I do not have to prove anything, your burden of proof not mine.

I'm not talking about evolution, I'm talking about your claim that the idea of species is a scientific conspiracy invented to defend evolution, when now we both understand that the concept predates evolution, and does so in its modern form by at least a century.

Quote:Just because some scientist makes a claim and describes something with no proof means absolutely nothing. Speculation is all that evolutionary science has, nothing more. Species to species transitions have never been observed, if it were so the whole world would be abuzz. I do not have to use anything for a rebuttal, the burden of proof is in your court.

GC

Species to species transitions have been observed: in my first response to you I pointed to the Cope's Gray Treefrog, which is a separate species from the Gray Treefrog, having evolved that way via an autopolyploidy event, within a relatively small number of generations. Your response was that it didn't count as they were both still frogs, but that's not what a species is. They are two separate species of frog, and speciation in that sense is what evolution describes.

You could at least keep track of what is being said to you, I made that pretty clear in the post you're responding to. I practically spelled it out.

And here we continue to see the dishonesty and ignorance of the creationist.

(February 25, 2015 at 7:30 pm)Esquilax Wrote: Or are you only willing to accept that evidence which squares with what you already believe, and special plead away the rest?

Catching up with GC's brain pattern I see.

Esquillax! Stop provoking it. I also hear you shouldn't feed it past midnight...I hear gross stuff happens.

More important. Be honest and prove to yourself that you can be good wihout God.

(February 25, 2015 at 8:59 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: More important. Be honest and prove to yourself that you can be good wihout God.

I do that every day, thanks.

Now, you prove to me that you can be good with your god.

I'll wait.

(February 25, 2015 at 8:59 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: More important. Be honest and prove to yourself that you can be good wihout God.

Volunteered over Christmas in Sierra Leone to help combat ebola.

Doing so, I didn't get paid. I did most at my own expense, and I put off some critical exams that would advance me in my career.

No god required.

Your move.

I picked up a big ass turtle that was wandering through traffic! 1upped you Beccs!

---

(February 25, 2015 at 8:59 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: More important. Be honest and prove to yourself that you can be good wihout God.

Isn't that the same goal Christians have? I mean +/- a God? Just trying to be a good person?

(February 25, 2015 at 9:36 pm)The Reality Salesman Wrote: I picked up a big ass turtle that was wandering through traffic! 1upped you Beccs!

---

(February 25, 2015 at 8:59 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: More important. Be honest and prove to yourself that you can be good wihout God.

Isn't that the same goal Christians have? I mean +/- a God? Just trying to be a good person?

Damn us immoral, selfish atheists.