- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
2
Posted on 7/26/21 at 11:47 am to Azkiger
quote:I'm not arguing that laws of logic don't exist and aren't universal and unchanging (I've argued that very thing, in fact). I'm arguing that someone who believes that the material is all that there is cannot account for immaterial laws of thought that cannot be observed and have no behavior in and of themselves but require a mind to recognize them. They are purely conceptual by nature and yet are real and binding in order to make sense of the world. Their very existence doesn't make sense in a materialistic worldview, not that they don't make sense at all. My contention is that they only make sense (can be rationally justified) in a worldview that presupposes the eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, immaterial, unchanging God.
You word this as if it's a limitation for me.
Anything we do presupposes them. The universes existence presupposes them. Even without a universe, nothing would equal nothing, and wouldn't equal something, and couldn't be both nothing and something at the same time. There's no way to escape them.
If you believe that the material world is all that exists because it is all that we can observe, then you cannot account for the immaterial and unobservable laws of nature. You cannot give a reason for why they exist, all you can say is that they do.
quote:Would they? How does a definition of a thing manifest itself in the physical world that is mind-independent? When we say A cannot be not-A in the same way and in the same sense or relationship, we are describing a concept, yet there isn't a physical correspondence to that truth. We can see a rock, but we can't see not a rock, as that would simply be nothing. If a rock is not a rock, it's nothing, so we wouldn't say it's a rock because we wouldn't have something to call a rock. But how does that work outside of the mind? Logic is a concept of truth, not behavior, and truth is, itself, conceptual.
If no minds existed A would still equal A. They are not dependent on minds. The concept of them exists in the mind, but that's it.
quote:They don't, because they can't be accounted for. The atheist has to assume their existence in order to reason, yet they cannot account for or justify their existence within their professed worldview (naturalistic, materialism). There isn't a rational justification for them apart from God, yet they are presupposed to exist without God. It's why Cornelius Van Til described the atheist as having to sit in God's lap to slap His face. They have to presume His existence (or those things that require Him to exist, such as laws of thought) in order to describe a world in which He doesn't exist.
Of course they do, they fit any worldview.
quote:Again, why do you think those are called the laws of thought? Thoughts are immaterial and conceptual or abstract, not particular. They do not describe behavior of matter that can be observed but conceptual truth that must be rationalized.
Because even "nothing" follows the three classical laws of thought. If you want to entertain the idea that nothing can actually be something, then that will have some interesting possibilities for the origins of the universe
Posted on 7/26/21 at 12:28 pm to Azkiger
quote:Why not? Let's pretend we live in a society 100 years from now where the ideological left "wins" the culture war and destroys all opposition once and for all. They determine that conservatives are no longer human and worthy of rights but that they may be subjugated as slaves where they can be raped, tortured, and killed, or treated any way desired by the discretion of their owners.
Alright, I'll word it this way: If you're trying to build a prosperous society with low crime rates, high education rates, etc. you don't practice American slavery or Biblical slavery. One's worse, sure, but both don't point your society in that direction.
How will such a society lead to higher crime rates, lower education rates, etc. necessarily if the slaves are not counted as part of the general population and acts of brutality against them aren't counted as crimes? Why must such a practice lead to things that are arbitrarily defined as ideal for society?
quote:True, but the two options were given for good reasons. If you let your enemy live, they may come back to kill you. In this case, it was more about destroying the idolatry and rejection of God by those tribes as judgement on them from God, and in particular God getting vengeance on Midian for their rebellion against Him through enticing the people to disobey. God has the right to do with the wicked as He sees fit.
Those were the only two options your man of God gave, there are other options.
quote:You're appealing to emotion here. You aren't saying it's objectively immoral (and can't), so you have to appeal to what people agree with as a normative moral conclusion and say that because it's icky, it must be objectively immoral. We're going in circles at this point because you seem content to infer that Christianity morality is "immoral" while not being able to provide an objective basis for saying such.
Christian morality at work here folks, raping and killing women and children is "completely justifiable" within the context of war. I hope haven't, and never, serve in our military.
That said, we do see that killing women and children out of necessity is moral, such as when we drop bombs on enemies and collateral damage occurs. The issue, then, is whether or not it is moral for them to be killed as a punishment for waging war. Well, we, too sometimes put people to death for punishment after a war is concluded. The Nuremberg trials are a good example of this. So therefore it's not a question of whether or not such a thing is morally tolerable, but for which crimes do we tolerate it for. Our secular societies might not think that rebellion against God is a justifiable reason, but if God is God, then it certainly is a justifiable reason to kill His enemies after a conflict is concluded to ensure that they don't rise again.
In terms of rape: the Biblical narrative doesn't say anything about rape of the women and children taken as captives from war. The "taking" of women is in relation to wives, and children for servants. Fornication and adultery wasn't tolerated in the civil or ceremonial law (much less the moral law) of God and Israel, and rape was outlawed.
quote:I'm not interested in convincing you of anything. I'm simply defending the Christian faith against attacks and showing the irrationality and inconsistency of atheism. Just because you don't like something doesn't make it immoral.
Yes, in that case it wasn't because the women being married weren't prisoners of war. You're going to have a harm time selling me on the idea that women who just saw their families slaughtered would want to have sex with the people who killed their families
But more to the point, taking wives was still an act of mercy towards the women who could have been justifiably killed for their involvement and association with pagan worship and rebellion against God and His people. The women had a chance to live their lives and raise children. Perhaps it took some time for the women to warm up to their husbands (if ever), but they did what was culturally acceptable and expected at the time.
Even so, that example (as you called out) of marrying to find out if a woman was a virgin likely wasn't the primary way to go about identifying the virgins from the non-virgins. Anyone who was previously married could be excluded right away (without marriage or any sort of verification process).
quote:The equivalent of an OBGYN appointment to determine who should live or die wasn't exactly the same thing as forcing women to the ground and having sex with them. I know you want to equate the two, but they aren't the same thing. They weren't "fingered" for the sake of sexual assault and pleasure but for identifying who was a suitable wife amongst a bunch of strangers. Yeah, it isn't exactly something we would do to find a spouse today, but we have other ways of getting to the same results.
I will give you props for sticking with the scripture so closely regardless of optics... But that's still rape...
quote:Except that isn't what happened. And yes, you're right that you have no rational basis to condemn anything is objectively immoral, including rape. I can say rape is immoral because it violates God's intent for marriage and assaults human dignity for God's image-bearers, but you just have arbitrary standards to hold to and feelings.
I know, I know, I can't say that rape is bad and God is the source for all things so if he wants his little clay figurines to rape each other than dammit that's just as moral as giving to charity! Yay rape!
quote:That's a purposeful misrepresentation of what I have described and it's intellectually dishonest, but you're right that we're speaking different languages. You are incapable of seeing the truth until God opens your eyes to see it, so yes, I'll keep praying for you. You need to repent of your rebellion against God and put your trust in Jesus' sacrifice on the cross to pay the penalty for your sins.
I'm going to stop here. Feel free to reply, but I don't see a reason in continuing this discussion as we're essentially speaking a different language. The fault is with me and not seeing rape as completely justified within the Biblical context of war, I know. I'm just a heathen, convinced by the devil that children shouldn't be slaughtered - especially when the problem could have been solved without bloodshed.
I'm not going to convince you, a man who believes in a just and loving God, that God shouldn't kill children or allow his subjects to finger bang women POWs in his name.
Posted on 7/26/21 at 12:51 pm to anc
you hate capitalism and love government overreach huh. Fake conservatives everywhere. Keep your religion out of politics or else you are no better than those fighting in the middle east
Posted on 7/26/21 at 12:58 pm to Hayekian serf
quote:
But of course conservatives aren’t small
Government
Most people aren't. Most people, if their group has the levers of power, don't mind pushing their values on others. It's not a conservative or progressive thing, it's just a human thing.
Posted on 7/26/21 at 1:01 pm to anc
Porn is pretty destructive.
I say a happy medium is requiring porn to be on its own “internet” that you have to opt into with your ISP.
Then those of us with kids don’t have to worry as much, and all you porn addicts can continue to turn yourselves into Gollum while impulsively chasing your “precious” porn.
I say a happy medium is requiring porn to be on its own “internet” that you have to opt into with your ISP.
Then those of us with kids don’t have to worry as much, and all you porn addicts can continue to turn yourselves into Gollum while impulsively chasing your “precious” porn.
Posted on 7/26/21 at 10:07 pm to CatholicLSUDude
quote:
Porn is pretty destructive.
quote:
Posted by CatholicLSUDude
I'm shocked.
Posted on 7/26/21 at 11:55 pm to Flats
quote:
What specifically did you disagree about in that paragraph?
This part:
quote:
Presumably you don't want hippies screwing on a park bench across from an elementary school, correct? That's you forcing a sexual norm on others.
As I said before, public fornication is almost certainly outlawed where you live, so why present an objectively false argument couched in appeal to emotion? Second, why is it me forcing that illusory sexual norm on others? Do you believe that everyone who does not derive “objective” morality from the teachings of the bible supports public fornication? Curious.
quote:
It's not a better explanation, it's just addressing a different scope. The first claim is philosophical in nature, the second describes how it works at the practical level. I've said as much (I think, I lose track) earlier in this thread. I don't really get the "laws and not men" part; laws come from men, but in general yes, this is how society works.
It is a better explanation. Have all the philosophical debate about morality you wish, but what matters is what the law says because the law provides our universal code for personal conduct. The law provides only the minimum threshold for how we live in relation other people and other people’s property. If you wish to live to a higher philosophical moral standard according to your dictates then good for you.
At least we found some common ground in fiscal conservativism.
Posted on 7/27/21 at 5:28 am to anc
What happened to not telling people what to do
Posted on 7/27/21 at 6:13 am to Azkiger
quote:
I'm shocked.
Is he wrong though?
Posted on 7/27/21 at 6:15 am to Flats
quote:
Again, this is about drawing lines, and everybody draws lines.
Agreed, but what I don't understand—and no one yet has even tried to explain it—is why this particular issue is appropriate to draw a line in front of when so many other behaviors and issues that are at least arguably much more destructive to society aren't even considered.
All I see is that porn has the potential to destroy families.
Well, o.k.
But so do lots of other things that no one as far as I know are considering making illegal.
And when I specifically compare those things with porn and ask why it deserves special attention, I just get called names but no one answers.
So in the spirit of Steven Crowder's popular video broadcast, my mind has not been changed.
Posted on 7/27/21 at 6:22 am to anc
quote:
Pornography is not conservative
Correct.
Conservatism = absolute morality.
Liberalism = "Do as thou wilt."
Posted on 7/27/21 at 6:23 am to Azkiger
quote:
If you're trying to build a prosperous society with low crime rates, high education rates, etc. you don't practice American slavery or Biblical slavery.
But it's well worth noting that if materialist atheism is true, there's no moral advantage in building that sort of society vs a society with little freedom, high crime rates, low education rates, etc.
You may personally prefer the former, but you have no basis to think it's better morally.
And saying that the former is better because it fosters the progression—or even survival—of the human race doesn't work either, because there's no moral advantage to those things happening either.
You may prefer for the human race to survive and thrive but others may not, and you have no basis to tell than that they are wrong.
So when you say something like, "One's worse, sure, but both don't point your society in that direction," you're already appropriating a value judgement that you have no basis to use other than in the context of completely subjective preference.
This post was edited on 7/27/21 at 6:26 am
Posted on 7/27/21 at 6:26 am to wackatimesthree
quote:
my mind has not been changed.
We get it. You love porn.
Posted on 7/27/21 at 6:27 am to Mo Jeaux
quote:
We get it. You love porn.
And more of the same.
Posted on 7/27/21 at 6:28 am to wackatimesthree
quote:
And more of the same.
wut?
Posted on 7/27/21 at 6:28 am to Hayekian serf
quote:
The right to watch porno or make money with it without government permission is definitely small Government.
You can tolerate something existing without promoting it or giving it a platform. You don't have to let it in your tent and redefine yourself just to make the libertarians feel better. They certainly aren't going to cut back on the drugs, hookers, and sodomy and have put a lot of effort into distancing themselves from conservatives.
Weird that conservatives are now expected to concede all morality to libertarians.
This post was edited on 7/27/21 at 6:29 am
Posted on 7/27/21 at 12:04 pm to squid_hunt
quote:
You can tolerate something existing without promoting it or giving it a platform. You don't have to let it in your tent and redefine yourself just to make the libertarians feel better. They certainly aren't going to cut back on the drugs, hookers, and sodomy and have put a lot of effort into distancing themselves from conservatives.
Weird that conservatives are now expected to concede all morality to libertarians.
I don't understand how that would be redefining conservatism.
Again, I don't see anyone prohibiting convenience store owners who sell lottery tickets and alcohol from attending.
Substance abuse and gambling addictions aren't significant problems? Both morally and practically?
Posted on 7/27/21 at 12:10 pm to wackatimesthree
We get it. You love porn.
Posted on 7/27/21 at 12:18 pm to FooManChoo
I'll bite. I don't think logic can be applied universally, nor do I think mathematics can. They're both just the products of how our ape brains slice reality in regards to temporal and causal relations between matter. It makes no sense to apply them beyond that and every theologian and theoretical physicist that is pretending they can is just a snake oil salesman.
This post was edited on 7/27/21 at 9:56 pm
Page 30 of 35
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News