lol i think LongShot rules, too!! he is a bit whacky sometimes (i kinda like it), but he's no dummy. both of you guys are easily some of my favorite ET people. you 2 are more similar than you are different, as scary as you guys may think that is. you 2 just had some minor beefs re: dieting.
Well, it looks like we have come to an impasse because you are no longer making sense to me, and apparently I am not making sense to you either having written off my last post as 'flashy.' You asked me to concede to 2 big assumptions for the sake of argument (1&2). You should not then assume I must therefore also conceed to the third one you made.. I did not ask you to concede points 1 & 2; it is necessary to give hypothetical approval to points one and two in the first place in order to discuss the morality of God! (this all goes back to a discussion on the morality of God, remember?) How do you discuss the morality of God in context of this world without first assuming for the sake of discussion that God exists? In the same way you say (1)God exists and (2)he is not anthropocentric, then I am reasonably and logically able to posit, at least by the same standards of validity which exists in your 1&2, that God may have already decided that everything will be considered in or by an anthropocentric viewpoint What the heck are you talking about? In order to debate the morality of God, one must assume for the duration of the argument that God exists, because if He does not exist then His morality cannot be debated! This is not a concession, it is a necessary condition of debating the morality of God! Is it so hard to understand that you have to at least temporarily posit the existence of A before debating the possible implications and ramifications of A, or is it just me who thinks this is very easy to understand? I do not 'force' condition (1) God exists down your throat or 'ask' you to concede it. It is necessary to assume condition (1) for the sake of argument IF the morality of God is going to be debated. Hence my requirement for condition (1) on the part of axeman in relation to axeman's debating the morality of God, which is mutually exclusive in regards to anthropocentrism. I do not 'force' condition (2) down anyone's throat, as (2) is a direct result of condition (1) IF you understand the generally accepted definition of 'anthropocentric'! Look: do a google search on anthropocentric. You will find it is a popular term for atheistic and materialistic arguments, i.e. arguments against God. Hawking used it as well in his 'brief history of time' I think. In every case you will find the term being used to describe a condition in which man regards himself the center of the universe from an egoistic perspective. In every case you will find it is a matter of PERSONAL REGARD FOR MAN'S POSITION IN THE UNIVERSAL HIERARCHY. Go look for yourself! The position that Hawking takes runs something like this: 1) God does not exist 2) Man invented God out of a personal necessity to feel important 3) belief in God is anthropocentric because it arises from a need for man to feel central, to feel the universe was created FOR him specifically. Now, let's go back to my last 'flashy' post. If (1) is not true, i.e. God does not exist, then Hawking is right: belief in God is an anthropocentric tendency. However, if God does exist, then belief in God is NOT an anthropocentric tendency, but rather a rational and straightforward one. If one is going to debate the morality of God, one must concede that God exists for the duration of the argument. This is not a sop to the theist, it is a necessary condition of discussing hypotheticals! And if one concedes this, even if only hypothetically for the duration of discussion, then one must ALSO concede, for the duration of discussion, that Hawking's point (1) is wrong, because to concede God exists for the duration of discussion and yet not to concede God exists within the same discussion is contradictory. In the same way you say (1)God exists and (2)he is not anthropocentric, then I am reasonably and logically able to posit, at least by the same standards of validity which exists in your 1&2, that God may have already decided that everything will be considered in or by an anthropocentric viewpoint You are reasonably able to posit what???? My conditions 1 and 2 were not a concession. This is not a bargaining table where we say "I'll give you this point if you give me that one." Conditions (1) and (2) are built into the context of this entire debate, the necessity of assuming God's existence for the sake of debating His morality and the understanding of the common term anthropocentric as it relates to central position + the fact that if God in truth exists He cannot be central and man central at the same time. In other words, Stu, you haven't 'given' me jack in concessions and there is no reason for you to deman an assumption on God in your point 3 that doesn't even make sense. How can you say you can decide what God may have already decided? And how can God decide for me to view Him as the central element of the universe and myself as the central element of the universe at the same time? Do you now wish me to make 3 concessions for the sake of your argument ?? If so make it clear before you put your case forwardI have read this carefully and it makes no sense to me. We defined anthropocentrism, we both know what it means (at least I hoped you did since you defined its terms). I have asked for no quarter and you have given me no concessions. The debate was in regards to the morality of God, and it is nonsense to suggest God's morality can be discussed without positing God's existence for the sake of argument, as it is nonsense to suggest man can view another being central and himself central at the same time. Your 'concessions' were simply in the framework of the debate. I said I didn't think it was logical to discuss God's morality from an anthropocentric viewpoint- and I still don't- and this is what you decided to challenge me on. You must either (a) Have me agree as yet another concession (#3) that God did not decide this or (b) give âproofâ or substantial reasons over mine that he did not decide this. Baloney. There were no original concessions, only the original proposition regarding axeman's argument and whether it is logical to debate God's morality without conceding God's necessary centrality and relation to man as an important element of the discussion. In terms of me giving you proof as to why your self contradictory add-on proposition is not true, this has no bearing on the original paramaters of discussion. You might as well demand proof that Homer Simpson didn't kill JFK. Assertions you choose to add have no bearing on the scope of the original argument. If you would like to have a separate discussion on an assertion you choose to introduce willy nilly, bring it up separately. All I have said is that he could well have decided this on the same grounds you use for saying he has not. You simply do not know. Therefore as I said before your statement to axeman and your assumption that God is not anthropocentric (I repeat he may have made himself purposely anthropocentric) FAILS. It is simple logical reasoning. I thought thatâs what you wanted ??"God's relation to man has no bearing on whether He is anthropocentric or not"[/b] Stu, how can you claim to understand what anthropocentric means and make the above statement. How can God be anthropocentric if anthropocentric is by definition a descriptor for a human viewpoint? How can he 'purposely have made himself' a descriptor for a human viewpoint? Stu, how can I regard my own existence as central to all things and posit the existence of another being central to all things at the same time? How can I believe myself to be the ultimate source of rationality and judgement in the universe and yet cede that position to God at the same time? How can anyone debate the morality of God without at least temporarily positing God's existence as a necessary condition of debate, which leads back to the first question in this paragraph and the clear mutual exclusivity of God's existence and anthropocentrism? It seems my last post had zero effect, except to impress upon you some notion of 'flashiness', and to that effect it looks like I am wasting your time- and mine- in trying to continue explaining what appears very simple and straightforward. Oh well, I thought I would regret stepping into this thread. And so I do.
I'll look at it. I know you may not believe me, but I don't have a lot of time to look at it as I've got a preschooler running around and my time after he goes to sleep is pretty valuable to me. But I'll give it a shot...
No. You are missing the whole point. The consensus on Origin of Life researchers is against your position. And I don't think there's anyone in the astronomical community who would say that materialism is supported by the cosmological evidence. Your argument of "that doesn't prove anything" is tiresome as we both have long ago agreed that neither of us can "prove" anything. The question is: whose science is stronger?
"The consensus on Origin of Life researchers is against your position." 1) I dont have a position, so that cant be true. 2) What consensus? Can you cite something current which claims this??? How are you determining what the "census" is? "And I don't think there's anyone in the astronomical community who would say that materialism is supported by the cosmological evidence. " Huh??????????? Are you claiming that not a single member of astronomical community supports materialism? "Your argument of "that doesn't prove anything" is tiresome as we both have long ago agreed that neither of us can "prove" anything. The question is: whose science is stronger?" Calling creationism science is blasphemy It is no such thing. It does not follow scientific principles. peace axeman
Certainly not. I am claiming that none of them claim that materialism is the stronger position based on the cosmological evidence. I know you won't believe me, but it's a drastically different world for the diehard materialist these days...
"I am claiming that none of them claim that materialism is the stronger position based on the cosmological evidence. " Versus what? peace axeman