(February 25, 2015 at 1:50 am)Godschild Wrote:

(February 24, 2015 at 10:19 pm)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote: There is precious little of truth in that collection of iron age myths you cling to in hopes of surviving the death you so fear.

Absolutely no understanding of any tested, verifiable models of reality and yet you go on and on about the ignorance of others.

Your ignorance would be astounding if it weren't self inflicted. That it is, while astonishing, is also incredibly sad.

Why is this kinda' crap all you ever offer to a discussion, if this is the extent of your best stay away.

GC

Just calling them as I see them. If you don't like your willful ignorance being called out, do something to fix it.

@Ignorant, I've spent some time pondering your definition of "good", and it still leaves me confused. You say goodness is subjective, but you also say we can be wrong about our perception of goodness (like Hitler). You also say that goodness is for the sake of other goodness, and I'm not sure what purpose that serves in your definition. Then you throw God in at the end and say if he satisfies all our desires then he is goodness itself. What does "goodness itself" mean? I thought Christians believed that God was a person.

So I give up. No more questions.

(February 25, 2015 at 10:37 pm)watchamadoodle Wrote: @Ignorant, I've spent some time pondering your definition of "good", and it still leaves me confused. You say goodness is subjective, but you also say we can be wrong about our perception of goodness (like Hitler). You also say that goodness is for the sake of other goodness, and I'm not sure what purpose that serves in your definition. Then you throw God in at the end and say if he satisfies all our desires then he is goodness itself. What does "goodness itself" mean? I thought Christians believed that God was a person.

So I give up. No more questions.

Because the nature of this conversation is about varying degrees of a commonly used sentiment, such as "good", it's important to be particular with the words used to describe each degree that separates them. Sounds confusing but consider how you might rank things that are good on a scale of 1-10. 1 being a buy one get one half-off coupon on hemorrhoid ointment, a 10 being the highest example of things that qualify as the word. But what is the ultimate standard by which all things are determined to be "good". Just as a shadow of a person shares the characteristics of human shape, it is not human. And so on a scale of 1-10 with regard to human-ness, a shadow could rank somewhere on the list, but it would be lower than a reflection since a reflection shares more of the human-like qualities. And a human would not be on the scale of human-ness, but THE standard by which all humanly things might be measured. He's saying that if an equal standard to goodness DID exist, then we might just call that "God". But it's not necessarily true that such a thing does. Make sense? It's some old Plato stuff. Here's some more info. Hope that helped!

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Form_of_the_Good

(February 25, 2015 at 7:30 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(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.

The burden of proof belongs to you, you say you do not have to disprove something you do not believe exist, but you will dodge the same responsibility you place upon me. Double standards do not fly with me, so get busy showing me the geologic column exist the same world wide and that no fossils are found out of place or stop your whining.

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

Quote: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.

It's your belief and the responsibility falls upon you to prove what you say, by the way that is quite common knowledge, to those who search.

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

Quote: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.

I do not see why those sediments couldn't of occurred either before or after the flood. I'm not familiar with that particular place, what I do know about floods of great enormity they do not lay down equal layers of sediment and the strip other areas clean so there is little to no sediment.

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

Quote: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,

This better for you, the fossil record doesn't even suggest evolution.

Quote: 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.

If you put together all my statements you would notice that I deny each of your points, seems to me I was taking in all you presented. Evolution has never and never will be proven, why do you wish to go against many of the leading evolutionary scientist that have stated it's not be proven. They're part of your bunch why do you not know this.

GC Wrote: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.

Quote: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?

Far more than any 200, I don't even know where you got that number. It's like this, you call fossils in the wrong layers for evolutionary science insignificant, does that mean you are fine with dismissing things that do not add up to keep alive this delusional fantasy. When fossils that are millions of years different from the other fossils and locked into the same so called geologic strata insignificant, I mean really, whats up with that.

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

Surely you can do better than this, and as I said above 200 isn't even close.

GC Wrote:None, zip, nothing.

Quote:That's not what the science says.

There is no proof, how many times am I going to have to say this. Natural selection is not evolution and has never been shown to lead to a change from one animal to another.

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

Quote: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.

I did not say it was a conspiracy against me, I said it was the only way evolutionary science could keep evolution alive after Christian scientist pinned down evolutionary scientist on macro evolution.

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.

Quote: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.

That was called sub-species, if I'm not mistaken.

GC Wrote: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.

Quote: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.

Evolution was being presented before then and so were long ages and yes my answer was to evolution, you made that very clear.

GC Wrote: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

Quote: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.

I used species in my reply for your benefit, and they are still frogs, they will always be frogs. They will not evolve into another kind of animal. For evolution to be realistic some animals will have to become totally different ones, that has never been demonstrated, proven or otherwise. If evolution was real why do we still have the so called living fossils and all other life forms have evolved into different animals, heck they haven't even changed.

Quote: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.

I'm keeping track, and I've yet to see the first bit of proof from you that evolution has ever occurred, not natural selection, a change of one animal into a totally different one.

GC

---

(February 25, 2015 at 8:12 pm)Beccs Wrote: And here we continue to see the dishonesty and ignorance of the creationist.

You're full of smart remarks, how about some proof that animals change into different animals.

---

(February 25, 2015 at 10:31 pm)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote:

(February 25, 2015 at 1:50 am)Godschild Wrote: Why is this kinda' crap all you ever offer to a discussion, if this is the extent of your best stay away.

GC

Just calling them as I see them. If you don't like your willful ignorance being called out, do something to fix it.

You're blind as a bat.

(February 25, 2015 at 11:39 pm)The Reality Salesman Wrote: He's saying that if an equal standard to goodness DID exist, then we might just call that "God".

Why should god be considered the ultimate good? Satan liberated Adam and Eve, but apparently lost the war and the tyrant is now in power. The OT does nothing to contradict that idea, but rather enforces it throughout. If the bible is 'history', his-story is always written by the winner and not necessarily the good guy.

---

(February 26, 2015 at 2:04 am)Godschild Wrote: If evolution was real why do we still have the so called living fossils and all other life forms have evolved into different animals, heck they haven't even changed.

Animals and plants do not change into other lifeforms. Mutations that do not hinder survival are passed on in the genes and if they become dominate, they can steer a group to a new group that can survive better or in a different climate or just look or smell different and put off the original species. Evolution does not kill off the original species. Nature does that. Other than survival of the fittest, there is no reason to expect the original species to die off. They did not magically change.

(February 21, 2015 at 9:33 pm)Nope Wrote: The god of the bible is a sociopath. I am curious if Christians can explain why their god is good without resorting to "Because the bible says"

What is "good"? God says a lot of things in the bible, but God never says that God is good. God says of God'self "I Am that I Am," or, "I Will Be what I Will Be," depending on the translation. The creation story says that God says that everything God made was good, as far as who wrote the creation story, go figure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_creation_narrative

David, king of Judah says that God is good from his own experience that he wrote in a psalm. People can say what they want to say in a song, I'm pretty sure David didn't know that his psalms would live on 3000 years from when he wrote them.

So, then, whether God is good or not depends on who determines what the Good is (personally, I would turn to Plato; my personal understanding of Jesus' teachings, including his very teaching style, is quite Platonian). Then we can figure out if whatever we think God is or is not is good.

I think personally, that the God of the bible is good, using the Platonian definition. I also believe that the God of the bible is beyond good in a way that I don't understand so I would have to plead agnostic in that sense, but the God that I understand from the bible is at least Platonian good.

(February 25, 2015 at 10:37 pm)watchamadoodle Wrote: @Ignorant, I've spent some time pondering your definition of "good", and it still leaves me confused. You say goodness is subjective, but you also say we can be wrong about our perception of goodness (like Hitler). You also say that goodness is for the sake of other goodness, and I'm not sure what purpose that serves in your definition. Then you throw God in at the end and say if he satisfies all our desires then he is goodness itself. What does "goodness itself" mean? I thought Christians believed that God was a person.

So I give up. No more questions.

Your confusion is due to a few things, I suspect:

1) I do not mean the same thing by the words "subjective" and "relative" as in the common way most people use those terms. Subjective means that the judgment is made by a subject, a judge, an observer. Goodness is "subjective" in that it requires a subject to judge it according to his own experience. Goodness is "objective" (i.e. either truly good or else only apparently good) according to a given thing's ACTUAL capacity to satisfy the human desire for which that thing is sought.

A person may "subjectively" judge that dirt will satisfy his or her hunger for the sake of nourishment and growth. That person is wrong in judging that particular object's (i.e. dirt's) ability to provide for nourishment and growth ("objectively"), and perhaps partially correct about satisfying hunger (e.g. the space occupied by the dirt in the stomach might actually sate the hunger).

2) As far as goods for the sake of other goods is merely a part of the fuller picture. The reality is that particular actions do not occur in a vacuum. Everything we do is ordered toward the obtaining of other, future goods which are also subject to judgment. Only when those goods are sought in the correct "order" can you call actions "good". E.g. Sleep is good. Being awake is good. Deciding to take a nap after only crossing a busy street half-way is not good. Always being awake is not good. Those goods must be done in the proper "order".

3) The last, conditional statement about God was merely to show how he would relate to goodness in such a way that a person could assert that "God is good". Being a conditional statement, and not a proof, I was merely pointing to the implications for my description of goodness for any such future argument.

4) Christians don't say that God is a person. Christians say that God is three persons.

---

(February 25, 2015 at 11:39 pm)The Reality Salesman Wrote: And a human would not be on the scale of human-ness, but THE standard by which all humanly things might be measured. He's saying that if an equal standard to goodness DID exist, then we might just call that "God". But it's not necessarily true that such a thing does. Make sense? It's some old Plato stuff. Here's some more info. Hope that helped!

Thanks for helping out! This is certainly Platonic, but it isn't exactly my position. The "standard" of goodness is any given thing's ACTUAL ability to satisfy the desires of a human being. There is no single object that we encounter in our universe that satisfies all of these desires, but some objects satisfy, either more or less, particular desires individually and sometimes collectively. We must, therefore, try and obtain goods at the right times and in the right ways which actually satisfy the desires which cause us to seek them in the first place. My position, therefore, while similar to Plato, accepts Aristotle's contribution to his teacher's position, as well as the development of Thomas Aquinas, with a working development that I am currently trying to workout for myself so I can understand it in today's terminology. That said...

IF there were some thing that, when we encountered it, was considered good from every possible view/aspect, and upon obtaining it we found that it satisfied all of our desires, that would be, at the very least, the human good. Admittedly, my quick conditional statement went the extra steps and called that human good, God, but it wasn't being proposed as an actual proof. Thanks again!

(February 21, 2015 at 9:33 pm)Nope Wrote: The god of the bible is a sociopath. I am curious if Christians can explain why their god is good without resorting to "Because the bible says"

I don't mean to be offensive in any way, but logically speaking, if a sociopath is someone who goes against morality and God is supposed to author the moral code, how can God be a sociopath?


What is "good" and who gets to decide?

(February 26, 2015 at 2:57 am)aemorrow Wrote: I don't mean to be offensive in any way, but logically speaking, if a sociopath is someone who goes against morality and God is supposed to author the moral code, how can God be a sociopath?
What is "good" and who gets to decide?

No one gets to just decide. I don't just run around saying I'm going to define good as punching people in the face and have people say yeah Sam we'll do that! There just are goals people generally action to produce. Also Christian theism doesn't have monopoly on moral theories. There are secular theories that theist philosophers support like utilitarianism, virtue ethics, deontology, natural rights, etc.

If one being gets to decide what is good, and that's it, then that is not morality at all. Especially since that being is not part of the group affected by the actions being judged. His judgements in no way guarantee whether actions are harmful or helpful to humans. So he could be an evil malicious tyrant. Which he is, he spells it out in detail in the bible.

So how can we know whether his judgements are actually good or bad? We use our own standard. All christians do this, they just claim that they don't. It's why most christians say slavery is wrong even though the bible condones it. They wouldn't stone their kids to death for being unruly, even though the bible says to. They wouldn't force a rape victim to marry the rapist, even though the bible says so. Like atheists, they have a conscience. An inner voice that guides them. It's not magic, it's part of everyone (except sociopaths). It's a product of evolution and environment, on a very basic level. Cooperation is a helpful trait.

How come christians are ignoring these, and so much more of the bible? Because they know these things are wrong. Wrong as in harmful, not wrong as in some uninvolved third party handing out random judgements. Of course they then justify this to themselves with ridiculous contorted arguments as to why most of the bible doesn't actually say what it says and why it no longer applies. But these are after-the-fact rationalizations, which is why they are always such terrible arguments.

But if christians were honest for one second, they would see that they are simply using their own idea of what is good to filter out what the bible says (or what any person presuming to speak as an authority for God says. You wouldn't kill your family because your fucking priest tells you to. Why's that?) What christians do though, is to use divine righteousness as a shield for their prejudices when they happen to line up with what the bible says. God hates homosexuals. I don't have to explain why I hate homosexuals, because God hates them. You're getting confirmation for your previously held beliefs from an imaginary, irrelevant third party.

If christians didn't do this filtering, they would be very soon dead or in jail.

Subjective morality is never going to be perfect. Everyone's judgement is going to be slightly different. Or perhaps a lot different. But as a society, we come to agree on many things naturally. Murder, theft, assault, rape... in most civilised societies, we agree these are wrong, without having to learn this from ancient books.

The finer details we deal with ourselves, by looking at each situation and evaluating it carefully. Just because our judgements don't all work out the same, and just because they aren't perfect, doesn't mean they are worthless. That is the false dichotomy that I highly suspect theists want to impose here and is where I suspect you are trying to drive this argument, ignorant. The world is not black and white. Things are not just either perfect or useless.

Subjective morality works, on the whole, and it's really good. God given morality does not work, because as I said above, theists filter it anyway.

You want to know what happens when theists stop almost entirely filtering their book? Take a look at Muslim theocracies and ISIS.

I rest my case.

---

@TRS: You are right, technically by imprisonment you're not affecting free will, just restricting what that free will can accomplish. And as I've said a million times, you can have free will and just good options, if an all powerful being wishes it. Hence the other false dichotomy you referred to. And indeed, free will and accountability are different; but intertwined in such a way as to be inseparable.