Origin of God's Morality.

[Root of Jesse]

That does not address what I said. My point was, I see you using the self-referential "we" without clearly stating for what group of individuals you are actually speaking for, and I can only perceive this as a [fallacious] appeal to popularity.

You perceive wrong.

What about them? What have they to do with demonstrating that we are not simply talking of a character in a book?

Who or what designed it?

Okay, start with stating your testable, falsifiable hypothesis.

Why do I need to? You believe what you want, whether it's true or not. Do you believe there's such a thing as love? I don't care how you define it, is there such a thing?

 

[Root of Jesse]

As an 'ology' yeah, you could lump them together. But as a serious field of study, not so much.

..or perhaps more like astrology, or phrenology.

 

[Davian]

You perceive wrong.

Then correct me. Why do you claim to speak for a nebulous group of individuals when, to be intellectually honest, you can only speak for yourself?

Who or what designed it?

I do not understand the question. Where did you get the idea that these things were designed? By what criteria?

Why do I need to?

Is that not the purpose of this forum, and your reason for participating in it?

Are you abandoning that task?

You believe what you want, whether it's true or not.

No, I cannot. I do not have conscious control over my beliefs. Try it yourself, for what you believe.

Do you believe there's such a thing as love?

There is a feeling for which I use that label.

I don't care how you define it, is there such a thing?

What do you mean by "thing"? Is a waterfall a thing? if we divert the river, and go in with the most advanced detection equipment, will we be able to find this "waterfall" thing?

 

[Root of Jesse]

Then correct me. Why do you claim to speak for a nebulous group of individuals when, to be intellectually honest, you can only speak for yourself?

I speak as a Catholic with the Catholic belief. How hard is that?

I do not understand the question. Where did you get the idea that these things were designed? By what criteria?

Name something you believe was not designed. Some system.

Is that not the purpose of this forum, and your reason for participating in it?

(floating deftly over the question I asked...so I'll ignore yours...

Are you abandoning that task?

No, I cannot. I do not have conscious control over my beliefs. Try it yourself, for what you believe.

Well, I do. I can believe in many things, some of which might be false. I can choose not to believe that God exists, but having been shown that he does, with a heart open to something like that, I'd have to contradict myself.

There is a feeling for which I use that label.

Oh, there it is! Prove such a feeling exists, falsifiable, and all that.

What do you mean by "thing"? Is a waterfall a thing? if we divert the river, and go in with the most advanced detection equipment, will we be able to find this "waterfall" thing?

As love. Does it exist? You just said it does. How do you know? Falsifiable, etc.

 

[Davian]

As an 'ology' yeah, you could lump them together. But as a serious field of study, not so much.

There may be religionists that take their study seriously, but perhaps not in a manner that rises above astrology.

Recal what happened at the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, where Behe, in lowering the evidential bar low enough for his "intelligent designer" to hop over, also had to grant the same for astrology.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day11pm.html

 

[Davian]

I speak as a Catholic with the Catholic belief. How hard is that?

That did not address my point, unless you are saying that by "we", you are speaking for all that self-identify as Catholic. Was there a vote for that?

Name something you believe was not designed. Some system.

You will need to provide me with your criteria. By my criteria the question is nonsensical.

(floating deftly over the question I asked...so I'll ignore yours...

To answer your question, why do you need to, the answer is, you don't. What you claim here can simply dismissed as opinion.

Now, you could attempt to, and things might get discovered; you may be able to show that your "argument from design" has some validity, or you may come to understand why, from a scientific perspective, the argument is faulty.

Give it a try.

Well, I do. I can believe in many things, some of which might be false. I can choose not to believe that God exists, but having been shown that he does, with a heart open to something like that, I'd have to contradict myself.

Then you concede that you cannot consciously change your beliefs either. Why hold me to a different standard?

Oh, there it is! Prove such a feeling exists, falsifiable, and all that.

Now you have moved the goalposts. "Love" is just a label I put on, as the dictionary says, "an intense feeling of deep affection".

As love. Does it exist? You just said it does. How do you know? Falsifiable, etc.

Does it exist as a "thing" as you appear to being using the word, no.

Now, if you are looking to create a teaching moment, so you can explore the concept of falsifiability, just say so.

 

[Root of Jesse]

There may be religionists that take their study seriously, but perhaps not in a manner that rises above astrology.

And perhaps you're wrong. Priests study theology for 10 years to become priests, then continue their studies after becoming priests. Continuing education.

Recal what happened at the Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District trial, where Behe, in lowering the evidential bar low enough for his "intelligent designer" to hop over, also had to grant the same for astrology.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dover/day11pm.html

The very plaintiffs were YE Creationists. I'm not one of those. FYI, very few Catholics believe YE Creationism.

 

[Root of Jesse]

That did not address my point, unless you are saying that by "we", you are speaking for all that self-identify as Catholic. Was there a vote for that?

No. It's from the Catechism, which does speak for all that identify as Catholic.

You will need to provide me with your criteria. By my criteria the question is nonsensical.

I don't really care how you define it. But here:: to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan

To answer your question, why do you need to, the answer is, you don't. What you claim here can simply dismissed as opinion.

Now, you could attempt to, and things might get discovered; you may be able to show that your "argument from design" has some validity, or you may come to understand why, from a scientific perspective, the argument is faulty.

Give it a try.

I don't particularly care what science says, unless it affects me directly. From where I sit, science gets it wrong. A lot.

Then you concede that you cannot consciously change your beliefs either. Why hold me to a different standard?

Why couldn't I get mad because God gave me cancer, and quit believing any of it? It's my CHOICE to believe in God.

Now you have moved the goalposts. "Love" is just a label I put on, as the dictionary says, "an intense feeling of deep affection".

Does it exist as a "thing" as you appear to being using the word, no.

You really don't know what words mean...
1a : to have real being whether material or spiritual <did unicorns exist> <the largest galaxy known to exist>b : to have being in a specified place or with respect to understood limitations or conditions[/quote]
Now, if you are looking to create a teaching moment, so you can explore the concept of falsifiability, just say so.[/QUOTE]
No, but you're a squiggly worm, you won't admit to any beliefs. Sacrifice is love. Your bond with your parents and siblings is love. Sex is love, sometimes.

 

[Davian]

And perhaps you're wrong.

Demonstrate where.

Priests study theology for 10 years to become priests, then continue their studies after becoming priests. Continuing education.

Okay.

The very plaintiffs were YE Creationists.

Ironically yes, as it left them stuck with "creation-science" that "does not include as essential parts the concepts of catastrophism, a world-wide flood, a recent inception of the earth or life, from nothingness (ex nihilo), the concept of kinds, or any concepts from Genesis or other religious texts."

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard/kenyon.html

I'm not one of those. FYI, very few Catholics believe YE Creationism.

As we've discussed, other than timescales, there is little difference.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Demonstrate where.

Okay.

Ironically yes, as it left them stuck with "creation-science" that "does not include as essential parts the concepts of catastrophism, a world-wide flood, a recent inception of the earth or life, from nothingness (ex nihilo), the concept of kinds, or any concepts from Genesis or other religious texts."

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/edwards-v-aguillard/kenyon.html

As we've discussed, other than timescales, there is little difference.

I don't think it's a matter of only timescales. But I haven't discussed this with you. You've stated it, I've ignored it.

 

[Root of Jesse]

You know, the other thing I have to say is that, even if I'm wrong about a worldwide flood, so what? It really doesn't change the Catholic faith, one way or the other. I believe (me, myself) that there was a worldwide flood. But even if I was concerned, and decided to do research into the links I provided, and found them to be erroneous, so what? What does it prove, either way? As I've stated, and this is not opinion, the Bible is not a science text book, an never was supposed to be. Catholics are not obligated to believe a worldwide flood, nor does it change the faith of Catholics.

 

[Davian]

No. It's from the Catechism, which does speak for all that identify as Catholic.

The you should say that, rather than the ambiguous "we".

I don't really care how you define it.

How charitable of you.

But here:: to create, fashion, execute, or construct according to plan

No criteria?

If that is all I have to work from, then I do not see "design" in a flower, small child, or an ocean, as I have not seen evidence of them resulting from a "plan". Was the ocean floor and coastline carefully tailored to fit the ocean that resides in it?

I don't particularly care what science says, unless it affects me directly. From where I sit, science gets it wrong. A lot.

If by "wrong" you mean, conflicts with your religious beliefs, I grant you that.

Why couldn't I get mad because God gave me cancer, and quit believing any of it? It's my CHOICE to believe in God.

I do not disagree with that; my position is that it is not a conscious choice. Feel free to try it out, on your own beliefs.

You really don't know what words mean...

In the manner that you use some of them, I am left wondering.

1a : to have real being whether material or spiritual <did unicorns exist> <the largest galaxy known to exist>b : to have being in a specified place or with respect to understood limitations or conditions

Those are things, in the common vernacular.

Davian: Now, if you are looking to create a teaching moment, so you can explore the concept of falsifiability, just say so.

No, but you're a squiggly worm, you won't admit to any beliefs.

I still do not see where you are going with this. What does it matter whether I have religious beliefs or not?

Sacrifice is love.

Where does the sacrifice go once it has been made?

Your bond with your parents and siblings is love.

An evolved, inherited trait of a social animal. The same label applies.

Sex is love, sometimes.

Or violence, in the case of rape.

Should we move this to Exploring Christianity, if you have abandoned the apologetics?

 

[Davian]

I don't think it's a matter of only timescales. But I haven't discussed this with you. You've stated it, I've ignored it.

Except where you responded in #1295.

 

[Root of Jesse]

The you should say that, rather than the ambiguous "we".

Less typing. Learn to follow.

How charitable of you.

No criteria?

If that is all I have to work from, then I do not see "design" in a flower, small child, or an ocean, as I have not seen evidence of them resulting from a "plan". Was the ocean floor and coastline carefully tailored to fit the ocean that resides in it?

I figured you'd say that.

If by "wrong" you mean, conflicts with your religious beliefs, I grant you that.

There you go redefining words again. It has nothing to do with my religious beliefs, which are separate.

I do not disagree with that; my position is that it is not a conscious choice. Feel free to try it out, on your own beliefs.

It was a conscious choice to me to accept the Catholic faith. Lots have disavowed the Catholic faith of their own volition.

In the manner that you use some of them, I am left wondering.

I speak English and understand you just fine. I don't have to ask you for common word meanings.

Those are things, in the common vernacular.

It's a dictionary definition.

I still do not see where you are going with this. What does it matter whether I have religious beliefs or not?

Where did I say anything about "religious" belief? I haven't seen any evidence of any beliefs.

Where does the sacrifice go once it has been made?

An evolved, inherited trait of a social animal. The same label applies.

Or violence, in the case of rape.

Should we move this to Exploring Christianity, if you have abandoned the apologetics?

So you don't really believe in love. See, you proved my point. You said you do, but you have all these qualification that really have nothing to do with them. So, I think we're done. It's a waste of my time.

 

[Davian]

Less typing. Learn to follow.

Learn to be clear, and less lazy.

I figured you'd say that.

Do you understand why I said that?

There you go redefining words again.

Words are defined how we use them; I am only calling out how I observe you using them, outside of the common vernacular.

It has nothing to do with my religious beliefs, which are separate.

You keep saying that, yet repeatedly declare how your positions on scientific matters are dictated by your religion.

It was a conscious choice to me to accept the Catholic faith.

So you claim.

Lots have disavowed the Catholic faith of their own volition.

So it would seem. Yet you cannot do it now, can you, change your beliefs? I can't either, consciously.

I speak English and understand you just fine. I don't have to ask you for common word meanings.

I do strive to keep within the common vernacular.

It's a dictionary definition.

Where did I say anything about "religious" belief?

Beliefs in the manner that you hold your religious beliefs.

I haven't seen any evidence of any beliefs.

I suppose I do not have any. What of it?

So you don't really believe in love. See, you proved my point. You said you do, but you have all these qualification that really have nothing to do with them.

I don't "believe" in love any more than I "believe" in hunger, or empathy. I do not see where you are trying to go with this.

So, I think we're done. It's a waste of my time.

Does that about wrap it up for God?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

And perhaps you're wrong. Priests study theology for 10 years to become priests, then continue their studies after becoming priests. Continuing education.

I have no doubt that they study theology for many years. I know because I seriously contemplated studying it myself, at a Catholic university. My concern was mainly with regard to this comment, in which you define it as "the science of the divine." Although this definition may appeal to the religious, it is dubious at best.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Learn to be clear, and less lazy.

Do you understand why I said that?

Words are defined how we use them; I am only calling out how I observe you using them, outside of the common vernacular.

You keep saying that, yet repeatedly declare how your positions on scientific matters are dictated by your religion.

So you claim.

So it would seem. Yet you cannot do it now, can you, change your beliefs? I can't either, consciously.

I do strive to keep within the common vernacular.

Beliefs in the manner that you hold your religious beliefs.

I suppose I do not have any. What of it?

I don't "believe" in love any more than I "believe" in hunger, or empathy. I do not see where you are trying to go with this.

Does that about wrap it up for God?

For God? No, He is eternal. IT does wrap up my attempt to dialog with you, though.

 

[Davian]

For God? No, He is eternal.

And hypothetical.

IT does wrap up my attempt to dialog with you, though.

 

[Oncedeceived]

And perhaps you're wrong. Priests study theology for 10 years to become priests, then continue their studies after becoming priests. Continuing education.

The very plaintiffs were YE Creationists. I'm not one of those. FYI, very few Catholics believe YE Creationism.

Were they? I know Behe is not a YE Creationist. I don't know who the plaintiffs were I guess so I don't know what their personal beliefs were.