If everything has a purpose then evil doesn't exist

[R-Farmer]

are you saying durning the time on the ark there were no eggs at all?
Some chickens can put out 2 to 300 eggs per year. do you think there were no chickens? 

So.. let's say god sent Noah live birds and or reptiles.. and 1 chicken lays a few dozen eggs.. Noah sees this chicken that takes up/Needs say 2 cubic feet to live... but the dozen or so eggs it laid in the last week early takes up 1/2 a cubic foot. which one do you think someone responsible for getting 7 pairs of clean animals and 2 pairs of unclean animals on a limited food and space hand built wooden ship?

Not not say every animal needed to be an egg or baby. just the big ones, the dangerous ones or the ones who eat non stop. Why wouldn't someone do this? If Elon makes it to mars and the goal is to colonize the planet do you think he is sending live chickens who need a whole host od support to keep live? or a few dozen trays of fertile eggs in stasis where He could choose the time and place to incubate the eggs?

If a 4 year old could make this call (as to which passenger chicken or egg is more efficient to transport) Why is it your opinion the man who built a boat big enough to save creation would be too stew-pid to have the spacial reasoning of a current 4 year old?

It seems that if you're going to take the Ark story as literal truth, then you are constrained to follow a literal reading of that story:

13 On that very day Noah and his sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth, together with his wife and the wives of his three sons, entered the ark. 14 They had with them every wild animal according to its kind, all livestock according to their kinds, every creature that moves along the ground according to its kind and every bird according to its kind, everything with wings. 15 Pairs of all creatures that have the breath of life in them came to Noah and entered the ark. 16 The animals going in were male and female of every living thing, as God had commanded Noah. Then the Lord shut him in.

It says the creatures entered the Ark. It doesn't say that Noah put embryos into the Ark, or that he built incubators. Not a word about eggs.

As an aside, it says a pair of 'everything with wings'. Nearly two million insects on a boat that size would have make the Ark unlivable.

Boru

Kinda answered this with mr agenda:

So.. let's say god sent Noah live birds and or reptiles.. and 1 chicken lays a few dozen eggs.. Noah sees this chicken that takes up/Needs say 2 cubic feet to live... but the dozen or so eggs it laid in the last week early takes up 1/2 a cubic foot. which one do you think someone responsible for getting 7 pairs of clean animals and 2 pairs of unclean animals on a limited food and space hand built wooden ship?


Not not say every animal needed to be an egg or baby. just the big ones, the dangerous ones or the ones who eat non stop. Why wouldn't someone do this? If Elon makes it to mars and the goal is to colonize the planet do you think he is sending live chickens who need a whole host od support to keep live? or a few dozen trays of fertile eggs in stasis where He could choose the time and place to incubate the eggs?

If a 4 year old could make this call (as to which passenger chicken or egg is more efficient to transport) Why is it your opinion the man who built a boat big enough to save creation would be too stew-pid to have the spacial reasoning of a current 4 year old?

[The Grand Nudger]

Magic boat must have had one hell of a magic climate handler to keep all those eggs viable. During magic storm, no less.

Honestly, what's the point in trying and failing to make the story make some sort of rational or scientific sense? That's not what you believe in anyway. You don't believe in a god that had to give noah the plans for a mobile incubator, right? It just wills shit and that shit happens.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

It seems that if you're going to take the Ark story as literal truth, then you are constrained to follow a literal reading of that story:


It says the creatures entered the Ark. It doesn't say that Noah put embryos into the Ark, or that he built incubators. Not a word about eggs.

As an aside, it says a pair of 'everything with wings'. Nearly two million insects on a boat that size would have make the Ark unlivable.

Boru

Kinda answered this with mr agenda:

So.. let's say god sent Noah live birds and or reptiles.. and 1 chicken lays a few dozen eggs.. Noah sees this chicken that takes up/Needs say 2 cubic feet to live... but the dozen or so eggs it laid in the last week early takes up 1/2 a cubic foot. which one do you think someone responsible for getting 7 pairs of clean animals and 2 pairs of unclean animals on a limited food and space hand built wooden ship?


Not not say every animal needed to be an egg or baby. just the big ones, the dangerous ones or the ones who eat non stop. Why wouldn't someone do this? If Elon makes it to mars and the goal is to colonize the planet do you think he is sending live chickens who need a whole host od support to keep live? or a few dozen trays of fertile eggs in stasis where He could choose the time and place to incubate the eggs?

If a 4 year old could make this call (as to which passenger chicken or egg is more efficient to transport) Why is it your opinion the man who built a boat big enough to save creation would be too stew-pid to have the spacial reasoning of a current 4 year old?

‘Pairs of all creatures that have the breath of life in them came to Noah and entered the ark.’

Spin it however you like. Even the most cursory reading precludes eggs or baby animals. The story isn’t meant to be taken literally (it’s an allegory about the wages of sin), so arguing the it was an historic event makes you look - no offense - like an idiot.

Boru

[R-Farmer]

It’s gettin unwieldy to correct you point by point, on account of how you can’t seem to get anything right.

I’ll give you a quick and dirty primer on metaethical positions.  It’s nothing I haven’t already explained, but maybe you’ll take the time to listen…and then genuinely reflect on how much of a flaming ass you’ve made of yourself.

Within the set of cognitive metaethical theories there are three broad positions.  Subjectivism, relativism, and objectivism.  Metaethical subjectivism posits that things are right or wrong insomuch as you, a, god, or a house cat thinks so.  Metaethical relativism posits that things are right or wrong insomuch as your family, your tribe, our your culture says so.  Metaethical objectivism posits that things are right or wrong insomuch as those things possess right or wrong making properties.

They’re called cognitivist positions because they describe facts.  Facts about you, our your group, or the thing itself.  There are other positions.  Non cognitive..where bad would be more accurately understood as “yuck” - and then…ofc, there’s error theory.  Which isn’t so much a position on morality as a position on moral systems.  That for whatever reason or no reason, regardless of whether there are moral facts, they can’t be gotten right.

I’ve already discussed the many ways my very Christian and constantly changing society fucks the pooch- so there’s no charitable explanation for why you continue to yammer on about moral relativism with me.  I think moral relativism is wrong.  There’s no point in asking me whether things are only wrong on tuesdays, or at any point in past or future.  Slavery is wrong now, and it was wrong when Christendom enslaved whole continents.  It’s pointless to ask me if abortion is bad, because I use a harm standard.   OFC it is, yet another way that my very Christian society has been fucking up.  Who do you think is bortin all the babbies?  

Change is fine.  If I’m doing something morally incorrect because I don’t have some relevant fact…I’d want to change that.  If I thought left hand turns were bad because every time someone turned left it killed a puppy, and you showed me that it didn’t…then my moral conclusion would change.  Not because it’s relative, but because I was wrong.  Same as getting a math problem wrong.  

Let’s see if you can do any better going forward, shall we?

Look, I get all of this. I even admitted agreeing with this from a philosophical stand point. As It all sounds very well thought out and good. Here's the problem/reason I can not fully accept everything you said as stated.. The practical application of morality does not completely jive with what you say here. The observations made and the classification of morality is rather short sited and does not take into account, that with out a transcendent absolute point of reference like say God's law/Righteousness, there is absolutely no way we can assign or say things possess right or wrong properties/have intrinsic moral value. Because when the predominate culture changes those right or wrong properties get redefined. As again might literally makes right.

The only way those right or wrong properties transcend societal change is if a greater power or greater authority cements those changes. Kinda how like God's law has seen empires come and Go. and while the morality of say the Roman Empire set the subjective standards of morality for hundreds of years, these standards fell when the empire fell. ( Example we no longer endorse blood sports to the death as an acceptable form of entertainment.)

Now I know you have identified what I describe here and a Metaethical relativism, and that there is an unchanging standard of metaethical objectivism which I am willing to go along with IF and only if you can provide just one example of a moral standard that has not changed. Who's intrinsic value/inherent right or wrong properties is the only defining factor on whether a deed is considered right or wrong. Which again should remain a constant through out time. meaning all cultures are forced to adopt this given point of morality.

[R-Farmer]

What makes you think God does not want me to live any longer?

What makes you believe god wants you to live longer? 

You just don’t want the long dirt nap waiting for jesus to set you free of the grave. 1 Thessalonians 4:16-17

Why are you taking scientific drugs going against gods will?

I’ll bet you’ve had scientific surgery to save your life at least one time in life.

#Hypocrite

So.. You are not going to produce an answer to the question I ask, but rather just double down and ask the question again?

oh and your quotation has 0 application here.
15 What we tell you now is the Lord’s own message. Those of us who are still living when the Lord comes again will join him, but not before those who have already died. 16 The Lord himself will come down from heaven with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trumpet call of God. And the people who have died and were in Christ will rise first. 17 After that we who are still alive at that time will be gathered up with those who have died. We will be taken up in the clouds and meet the Lord in the air. And we will be with the Lord forever. 18 So encourage each other with these words.

If you want an answer, You must first establish your question legitimately represents God's will for my life span. Otherwise your question can rightly be dismissed as a red herring built on the back of a straw man.

#builderofredherringsonthebackofstawmenquestionasker-er

[The Grand Nudger]

Look, I get all of this. I even admitted agreeing with this from a philosophical stand point.

Like pulling teeth.

As It all sounds very well thought out and good. Here's the problem/reason I can not fully accept everything you said as stated.. The practical application of morality does not completely jive with what you say here. The observations made and the classification of morality is rather short sited and does not take into account, that with out a transcendent absolute point of reference like say God's law/Righteousness, there is absolutely no way we can assign or say things possess right or wrong properties/have intrinsic moral value. Because when the predominate culture changes those right or wrong properties get redefined. As again might literally makes right.

God cannot possess righteousness if there is, in fact, no such thing as right.  If what you mean to say is that god possesses mightiness, fine?  Who cares? I could follow mighty amoral potentates in the real world. I don't need to invent one.

The only way those right or wrong properties transcend societal change is if a greater power or greater authority cements those changes. Kinda how like God's law has seen empires come and Go. and while the morality of say the Roman Empire set the subjective standards of morality for hundreds of years, these standards fell when the empire fell. ( Example we no longer endorse blood sports to the death as an acceptable form of entertainment.)

I think it's a poor moral system that demands it's adherents remain mistaken forever, if ever they were once mistaken.  Ditto for god beliefs, really.  

Now I know you have identified what I describe here and a Metaethical relativism, and that there is an unchanging standard of metaethical objectivism which I am willing to go along with IF and only if you can provide just one example of a moral standard that has not changed. Who's intrinsic value/inherent right or wrong properties is the only defining factor on whether a deed is considered right or wrong. Which again should remain a constant through out time. meaning all cultures are forced to adopt this given point of morality.

I've addressed this multiple times, and again directly above in this post.  Insisting that people stubbornly cling to any moral proposition from their cultural past will not insure or even imply that their moral system is objective.  Rather, it strongly suggests that you demand a relativistic morality frozen in time.  It would make a silly sort of sense that you demand this - I'll give you that. As you've been conditioned to believe that the term "objective morality" refers to exactly this sort of thing, as expressed in the dead dead documents of your apparently frozen religion.

From an objectivists standpoint, just as people can get a math problem wrong, they can get a moral problem wrong.  The thing to do when you're wrong, is to get correct. In your own framing, there's only one question to ask - and it's not for me or any other moral objectivist. Was god getting all this shit wrong and then refusing to get correct..or is it just people like you fucking it up then laying their own inadequacies at the feet of their alleged gods?

[Mister Agenda]

That's what I just said.


Another ad hoc detail to insert your ideas into the Biblical story. The Bible is easy to believe when you can just make up additions to the stories so they'll make sense, huh?

are you saying durning the time on the ark there were no eggs at all?
Some chickens can put out 2 to 300 eggs per year. do you think there were no chickens? 

So.. let's say god sent Noah live birds and or reptiles.. and 1 chicken lays a few dozen eggs.. Noah sees this chicken that takes up/Needs say 2 cubic feet to live... but the dozen or so eggs it laid in the last week early takes up 1/2 a cubic foot. which one do you think someone responsible for getting 7 pairs of clean animals and 2 pairs of unclean animals on a limited food and space hand built wooden ship?

Not not say every animal needed to be an egg or baby. just the big ones, the dangerous ones or the ones who eat non stop. Why wouldn't someone do this? If Elon makes it to mars and the goal is to colonize the planet do you think he is sending live chickens who need a whole host od support to keep live? or a few dozen trays of fertile eggs in stasis where He could choose the time and place to incubate the eggs?

If a 4 year old could make this call (as to which passenger chicken or egg is more efficient to transport) Why is it your opinion the man who built a boat big enough to save creation would be too stew-pid to have the spacial reasoning of a current 4 year old?

No, I'm not saying that.

[Silver]

To limit one's intellectual integrity by assuming something cannot be done without god behind it is a tragedy of Greek proportions.

[R-Farmer]

Magic boat must have had one hell of a magic climate handler to keep all those eggs viable.  During magic storm, no less.  

Honestly, what's the point in trying and failing to make the story make some sort of rational or scientific sense?  That's not what you believe in anyway.  You don't believe in a god that had to give noah the plans for a mobile incubator, right?  It just wills shit and that shit happens.

lol.. I thought you were a real farmer.. I'm just some douche who raises chicken sin the side and I know this.. Someone else asked this and I pointed out that composting hay can reach an internal temp of upward to 160*F (normally) towards the middle of the composting pile. (that is why we have to turn the piles to alleviate the heat otherwise they can run away and self ignite) All we need for most incubation is about 100*F

Not only would the hay would act like packing materials by keeping them dry and safe. Plus you need hay any way for all the dairy animals. They significantly reduces the types of food one would need to keep and store on the ark.

Then when it came time to hatch everyone out, to start the composting pile all you need then is a little water, the poop from the dairy animals, and a few weeks. Then all Noah would then need do is set the eggs in the correct depth of the compost to get his 100*F butter/incubation zone.

Annnd Boom there you have the secrete to "God's portable egg incubator!"

[Mister Agenda]

If your system of right and wrong is based on any form of morality not decreed by god. Then at some point the acts you deem as moral or immoral have changed.

If you don't think this is the case, then provide an example.

Example that have already been discussed in this thread and disproven are: Rape, Murder, Child murder/abortion, Child sex, slavery. All immoral now, but at one time where considered moral acts by the societies in power.

So you have your own idiosyncratic definition of moral objectivism and moral relativism. The standard definition of moral obectivism is that there are objective moral principles that are valid for all people. Yours is an oxymoron.

I'll go out on a limb and say that no matter the circumstances, doing any of those (and I'll add torture) for fun or on a whim is immoral, alway was, always will be. The essence of moral objectivism is that some things are right or wrong no matter the prevailing fashion or who is in charge. This seems to be a difficult concept for you to grasp; since you're still struggling to impose some relevance on what the societies in power think.