Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

POST GAME SHOW - Battle Royale II

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    And it still comes back to my initial point -- to prove the standard, you have to prove God.
    Ummmm, you think that's news to anybody?

    As a side note, I think the whole thing of absoute v. relative morality is pretty much irrelevant. I found the debate interesting, and in my opinion, Knight won. However, it isn't too relevant, so the victory isn't worth much.

    Comment


    • #62
      By Eireann

      An absolutist will vote for the absolutism candidate whether that candidate is able to demonstrate their case or not, as has been effectively shown with the number of votes Knight got, though he never demonstrated absolute morals.
      Not true. I believe in absolute morality but I voted for Zak. The question was a positive “Is there such a thing as absolute morality”. I didn’t see Knight prove there was. I saw him postulate a scenario the would be wrong almost all the time to most people and I then saw Zak counter that with something that would for most people be an explanation of the action. This happens more often that people think. My uncle was a colonel in WWII. He told me German women would lie down in front of American tanks to prevent them from moving. As soon as they saw it didn’t work, they quit. Was this justified for the greater good?

      However Knight did a much better job than I thought he would. He refused to get sucked into using the Bible or God as a standard.

      Comment


      • #63
        Thanks Hank, your check is in the mail...

        Comment


        • #64
          Uhh......... No problem Zak. But I thought we were keeping that part a secrete.

          Comment


          • #65
            It's the medicine he gave us. He took some to test it out, and come to find out it makes you blab like a whiney baby.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Eireann

              I believe in God, and I believe that if there is such a standard, it is established by God, but not that it [b]is]/b] God. For one, that would require a belief that God is good and only good, which I don't believe. And it still comes back to my initial point -- to prove the standard, you have to prove God.

              Eireann-

              What would be the counter arguement to say that Jesus was the standard of absolute morality?

              Comment


              • #67
                >>However Knight did a much better job than I thought he would. He refused to get sucked into using the Bible or God as a standard.<<

                Yes, that at least is a point in Knights favor. Zakath didn't pull out the God arguement untill his last post, and even then Knight refused to take it. Nevertheless, Knight has not demonstrated that such a thing as "absolute wrongness" exists, and as such I count Zakath as the winner of the discussion.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by admiral_d



                  Eireann-

                  What would be the counter arguement to say that Jesus was the standard of absolute morality?
                  Jesus was quite a fine standard for morality, I admit. But to have him as the standard for "absolute morality" would again require conclusive proof that Jesus was God incarnate. So far, the only thing that has been conclusively shown is that Jesus was a man. There still remains a great deal of unsupported and questionable mythology surrounding his divinity.
                  Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs!

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    But to have him as the standard for "absolute morality" would again require conclusive proof that Jesus was God incarnate.
                    Why?

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by cirisme


                      Why?
                      Because, as you pointed out earlier, God would be the standard for absolute morality. Therefore, for there to be absolute morality, God has to exist. In order to prove absolute morality exists, one must prove that God exists. For if God does not exist, then the standard does not exist, thus absolute morality does not exist. If there is a legitimate question of the existence of God, then there is a legitimate question of the existence of the standard, and thus the existence of absolute morality is legitimately questionable. Since there can be only one standard for absolute morality (as it would be relative if there were more than one standard), then it follows that if Jesus is also a standard for absolute morality, then Jesus must be God. Therefore the need to prove the existence of God in order to prove the standard in order to prove the existence of absolute morality applies to Jesus as well (in his case, the divinity of Christ is the thing that must be demonstrated).
                      Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs!

                      Comment


                      • #71


                        Sure...

                        ZZZZZZZZZZZ

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Another response at your usual level of intellectual rigor, cirisme.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by Eireann

                            Since there can be only one standard for absolute morality (as it would be relative if there were more than one standard), then it follows that if Jesus is also a standard for absolute morality, then Jesus must be God. Therefore the need to prove the existence of God in order to prove the standard in order to prove the existence of absolute morality applies to Jesus as well (in his case, the divinity of Christ is the thing that must be demonstrated).
                            So, absolute morality has to be taken by faith, just like believing that Jesus is God.....

                            So, since Jesus says that He is God, then He would be the standard for absolute morality.....

                            Which goes to show that the law that Jesus lived by was the standard by which all men should live by....

                            Wow, this has reporcussions that would undermine Knight and cirisme basic religious faith.......

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by admiral_d


                              So, absolute morality has to be taken by faith, just like believing that Jesus is God.....
                              Yes

                              So, since Jesus says that He is God, then He would be the standard for absolute morality.....
                              If Jesus is God, then yes. If Jesus is God, but is not the standard for absolute morality, then it also follows that God is not the standard. If God isn't the standard, what is?

                              Which goes to show that the law that Jesus lived by was the standard by which all men should live by...
                              As above.

                              Wow, this has reporcussions that would undermine Knight and cirisme basic religious faith.......
                              It has serious repercussions for any Christian who does not live Christlike. If there is absolute morality, then there are a whole bunch of people, not just us heathens, who need to really clean up their acts.
                              Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs! Chiefs!

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Another response at your usual level of intellectual rigor, cirisme.
                                When it comes to someone's opinion, yes.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X