J
JohnMichaels
Guest
I didn’t think I was asking it that way. But fair point.
Varying degrees is all I’m saying, i guess
- Status
Varying degrees is all I’m saying, i guess
J
johnweeder
Guest
My point (which I am failing to make) is that my obesity has a genetic component. If I act on that genetic predisposition, one could say “I am not affecting anyone else”. But, I point out there there are, in fact, effects on others.
Replace w/ “gay”:
… that being gay has a genetic component. If one act on that genetic predisposition, one could say “As two consenting adults we are not affecting anyone else”. But, I point out there there are (?may be?) effects on others.
That is the equivalence.
No, as in “society has rules against marrying your mother or sister because this leads to genetic issues with regard to inbreeding”.
My point is that this is evidence that the historical institution of marriage was primarily concerned with procreation. And that it is a matter of natural law that gays are not “equal” in this regard (no two men ever made a baby).
J
JohnMichaels
Guest
Forget his nature. It’s futile from it’s onset.
God is omnipresent, So God would be right next to Satan, as he planned his attack (as if)
God is omniscient, So God would not only know the plan beforehand, but know every possible scenario & every possible defense
How ANYONE could find motivation to undertake futile attempts at defeating such a being is beyond me. Satan or not
J
JohnMichaels
Guest
Replace all that with “straight” If you search hard enough I suppose you could find one negative affect, however slight - as you did with the example of obesity.
But operating under this logic, how could we do anything?
I like to take my dog for a walk. Sometimes she gets into barking matches with other dogs. What if one of those startled an owner inside handling something delicate made of glass, she drops it and gashes open her arm. Has my dog walk negatively affected at least 1 other person & should I stop walking my dog?
I realize walking my dog is not a genetic predisposition (at at least…I don’t think it is?)
Or maybe it is. The dog is definitely disposed to wanting to go, & my disposition is affectionate (damn spell-check) and I want her to be happy, so I am consenting. And this is going WAY off topic sorry…lol
J
johnweeder
Guest
I have said I pride myself on being able to argue both sides. People have often challenged me to argue the sky is not blue. I have generally been successful…
So… allow me to take a stab.
God cannot do anything which is impossible or against his nature. His nature may know that Satan’s existence ultimately brings a greater good by drawing some of humanity to himself.
Or, maybe God’s nature was to grant Satan free will and so he does.
Now, why Satan would exercise his free will in such a way is more difficult. To borrow Milton’s words, maybe “Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heaven.”
J
JohnMichaels
Guest
Fine, I’m not arguing for marriage, or even civil union (at least not here) just that the act of being together, in their own privacy, is negatively affecting nobody else - far as I can tell
(my knowledge on the subject grows daily, still not much change)
J
JohnMichaels
Guest
Why he resists I could see as being part of free will. Even so, he cannot win given the parameters. Seems strange he tries.
J
johnweeder
Guest
I will only say here that the overriding purpose of our species is to procreate. And so, to the extent that by “straight” you mean a baseline human male and female procreating… whatever negative they cause is by definition less than the good of procreation.
The dog example is a bit labored… sorry, I call 'em like I see 'em.
I would say here that you are making the fallacy of focusing on an individual in one case and the statistics of the group as a whole in the other. Certainly, if EVERY time ANYONE walked a dog then someone’s arm was gashed, we would very quickly outlaw walking dogs (even if there were a genetic predisposition to it).
J
johnweeder
Guest
Yeah… I’m trying for a counter point but failing. Best I could do was Milton. Gotta go. Enjoyed it. Thanks.
Tried to send a private message to you but failed (your message box is full).
J
JohnMichaels
Guest
Forget for a moment if it affects society, I’ll contend neither are living a lie by not committing their offenses
The pedophile you described is not living a lie. He is being honest with himself, at the very least.
The sociopath not acting on his urge to kill is not necessarily living a lie. If you asked him if he wanted to kill people, would he tell you no or yes, can we be sure? Maybe he is just aware enough to know the consequences of his actions.
So, not acting on these desires is not going against the 8th commandment, as it is with homosexuality so long as they do not engage in the “lifestyle”. Even accepting that part, I’ll contend being homosexual and being married to a straight spouse IS living a lie, quite literally.
J
JohnMichaels
Guest
Didn’t know I was only allowed 2, or I would have deleted them sooner. thanks
O
oneofmany
Guest
Can someone explain how nothing did something? I thought nothing did nothing. I thought that was the meaning of nothing, 0=0=0=0=0=0=0=0=0 Can it ever =1 or2 or3? If so how?
T
tonyrey
Guest
It is fantasy not philosophy.
I
inocente
Guest
OK, as long as you realize that taking what the likes of Feser claim physicists are saying rather than finding out for yourself is also known as gossip.
I
inocente
Guest
I just posted this on another thread, it may help.
The word nothing is colloquially used to mean empty space, but empirically empty space is found to be far from nothing.
Couple of short videos by way of explanation:
youtube.com/watch?v=y4D6qY2c0Z8 (Lawrence Krauss)
youtube.com/watch?v=J3xLuZNKhlY (Derek Muller)
P
Paddy_Walker
Guest
i thought ‘nothing’ referred to the time before the big bang, that is, the time before time and space.
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
Apparently you don’t read all the posts the other folks have been posting. They have cheerfully and boasfully informed me what physicists are saying, that is, the metaphysical conclusions they extrapolate from their scientific studies, as opposed to the science actually involved. And Feser is honest enough to call them to account…OK, as long as you realize that taking what the likes of Feser claim physicists are saying rather than finding out for yourself is also known as gossip.
Linus2nd
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
Apparently you discriminate in your choice of philosophers. Krauss seems to regard himself as something of a philosopher. And I must say, your defense of Krauss is strange in light of the following. It explains is a skeptic and is dedicated to blunting the influence of religion in the culture ( and of course this includes those of the Baptist persuasion as well).
A quote from Krauss in the Atlantic magazine " If the multiverse really exists, then you could have an infinite object—infinite in time and space as opposed to our universe, which is finite. That may beg the question as to where the multiverse came from, but if it’s infinite, it’s infinite. You might not be able to answer that final question, and I try to be honest about that in the book. But if you can show how a set of physical mechanisms can bring about our universe, that itself is an amazing thing and it’s worth celebrating. I don’t ever claim to resolve that infinite regress of why-why-why-why-why; as far as I’m concerned it’s turtles all the way down. The multiverse could explain it by being eternal, in the same way that God explains it by being eternal, but there’s a huge difference: the multiverse is well motivated and God is just an invention of lazy minds. "
theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/04/has-physics-made-philosophy-and-religion-obsolete/256203/
One assumes that even Baptists are included among those " lazy minds " which have " invented " the notion of God. What he is saying here is that God is nothing more than an invention to fill in the " gap " of explantion needed make our existence intelligible. Strange that you should defend on who has so high a disregard for even those of your persuasion. And while you may dislike Feser because of his polemics, at least he is defending the notion of God, even if he is not of your faith persuasion. It is difficult to see how you could ever reach Krauss or those who follow him by Sola Scriptora. He would just laugh at you, in fact he already has. The only way to reach him is through solid philosophical argumentation. He may not be reached by that, but some of those who have listened to him may.
Linus2nd
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
Apparently you discriminate in your choice of philosophers. Krauss seems to regard himself as something of a philosopher. And I must say, your defense of Krauss is strange in light of the following. Krauss seems dedicated to erasing the notion of God from all the young skulls full of mush.
A quote from Krauss in the Atlantic magazine " If the multiverse really exists, then you could have an infinite object—infinite in time and space as opposed to our universe, which is finite. That may beg the question as to where the multiverse came from, but if it’s infinite, it’s infinite. You might not be able to answer that final question, and I try to be honest about that in the book. But if you can show how a set of physical mechanisms can bring about our universe, that itself is an amazing thing and it’s worth celebrating. I don’t ever claim to resolve that infinite regress of why-why-why-why-why; as far as I’m concerned it’s turtles all the way down. The multiverse could explain it by being eternal, in the same way that God explains it by being eternal, but there’s a huge difference: the multiverse is well motivated and God is just an invention of lazy minds. "
theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/04/has-physics-made-philosophy-and-religion-obsolete/256203/
One assumes that even Baptists are included among those " lazy minds " which have " invented " the notion of God. What he is saying here is that God is nothing more than an invention to fill in the " gap " of explantion needed to make our existence intelligible. Strange that you should defend on who has so high a disregard believers of all of all persuasions. And while you may dislike Feser because of his polemics, at least he is defending the notion of God, even if he is not of your faith.
It is difficult to see how you could ever reach Krauss, or those who follow him, by Sola Scriptora. He would just laugh at you, in fact he already has. The only way to reach him is through solid philosophical argumentation. He may not be reached by that, but some of those who have listened to him may.
Oh, by the way, you omitted the philosophical definition of " nothing, " which is the absence of anything, even " empty space." ( Courtesy of Thomas Aquinas )
Linus2nd
L
Linusthe2nd
Guest
John Michaels and JohnWeeder
If you want to discuss sex, pedophilia, etc. please have the courtesy to start your own thread.
Linu2nd
/SIZE]
If you want to discuss sex, pedophilia, etc. please have the courtesy to start your own thread.
Linu2nd
/SIZE]
- Status