Searching for GOD...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

shiny shiny shiny mirror

I'm afraid I don't appear in mirrors.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

How is someone saying that they don't think that they have gone into detailed discussion on earthquakes a denial that that they have ever said  earthquakes are increasing? None of the above from you answers that.

He didn't say that he "didn't think" we'd discussed earthquakes in the way I described, he said categorically that it didn't happen:

"...At no time have I gone into any great detail about earthquakes with you, or anyone"; and later

"Out of a courtesy you don't really deserve bluehillside...I have not gone into any details with you on the business of earthquakes...and certainly not as you previously implied in a tat-for-tat dialogue in which you presented your proof in exceptional detail."

His only way out of that if I'd had access to the exchange would have been the reverse ferret of, "oh OK fine, but I don't consider the extended exchange we had to have constituted "any great detail" or "any detail" about earthquakes so I'm off the hook anyway".

I'd have thought that to be very thin, but you presumably would have disagreed.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

No.....

I think we all have to decide if there is really such a thing as moral truth. Whether there really is good or evil etc.

If not then your morality is just made up. Just a redundant label pasted onto the term 'behaviour'.

You've crashed and burned without that line before, so I'm surprised you've tried it again. Actually, on reflection no I'm not.

We can all decide on moral truths according to all sorts of factors. What we can't decide on though are absolute or objective moral truths because there's neither reason to suspect that such things exist and nor any way to identify them even if they did. What would you use - a moral-ometer? An ethics-oscope? What?

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

He didn't say that he "didn't think" we'd discussed earthquakes in the way I described, he said categorically that it didn't happen:

"...At no time have I gone into any great detail about earthquakes with you, or anyone"; and later

"Out of a courtesy you don't really deserve bluehillside...I have not gone into any details with you on the business of earthquakes...and certainly not as you previously implied in a tat-for-tat dialogue in which you presented your proof in exceptional detail."

His only way out of that if I'd had access to the exchange would have been the reverse ferret of, "oh OK fine, but I don't consider the extended exchange we had to have constituted "any great detail" or "any detail" about earthquakes so I'm off the hook anyway".

I'd have thought that to be very thin, but you presumably would have disagreed.   

.'.At no time have I gone into any great detail about earthquakes with you, or anyone" is not a denial of either having discussed it (see the qualification 'no great detail'), or of saying earthquakes have not increased.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

You've crashed and burned without that line before, so I'm surprised you've tried it again. Actually, on reflection no I'm not.

We can all decide on moral truths according to all sorts of factors. What we can't decide on though are absolute or objective moral truths because there's neither reason to suspect that such things exist and nor any way to identify them even if they did. What would you use - a moral-ometer? An ethics-oscope? What?

Yes Hillside , but what makes what you decide.....True?.....What else is true because we decide it is rather than it actually is true?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

You've crashed and burned without that line before, so I'm surprised you've tried it again. Actually, on reflection no I'm not.

Crash?
Burn?
Your'e not turning into Ian Paisley are you?

[Nearly Sane]

I'm afraid I don't appear in mirrors.

kudos!

[Nearly Sane]

Yes Hillside , but what makes what you decide.....True?.....What else is true because we decide it is rather than it actually is true?

so your morality is right because you say ooh I have a god, that makes me right, just as it makes IS right.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

so your morality is right because you say ooh I have a god, that makes me right, just as it makes IS right.

No i'm saying there is an absolute morality. Not that I am completely and unbrokenly keyed in to what it is.
In fact that recognition is quite different from the assumptions of IS..........

......Who's ever said ''ooh, I have a God''? Sounds like someone more full of Grace Brothers than full of grace.

[Nearly Sane]

No i'm saying there is an absolute morality. Not that I am completely and unbrokenly keyed in to what it is.
In fact that recognition is quite different from the assumptions of IS..........

......Who's ever said ''ooh, I have a God''? Sounds like someone more full of Grace Brothers than full of grace.

and the difference between you and IS is?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

and the difference between you and IS is?

And the difference between you and somebody who has taken leave of his senses is?

[Nearly Sane]

And the difference between you and somebody who has taken leave of his senses is?

I'm not claiming objective knowledge, you are, just like IS.

[wigginhall]

No.....
I think we all have to decide if there is really such a thing as moral truth. Whether there really is good or evil etc.

If not then your morality is just made up. Just a redundant label pasted onto the term 'behaviour'.

But that's not what Hart is saying in the quote by enki.   Hart says that any movement 'towards a moral end' is 'necessarily a confession of a longing for God'.

The word 'necessarily' is incredible really.   How would he know that?

[ippy]

You don't agree that the idea of madness is based on an evaluation of what large numbers of people think of as normal?

I assumed you understood my origional post, if you like delving into the deeper regions of semantics as a subject, well good for you N S.

ippy

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

.'.At no time have I gone into any great detail about earthquakes with you, or anyone" is not a denial of either having discussed it (see the qualification 'no great detail'), or of saying earthquakes have not increased.

I see you missed out the part when he said, "I have not gone into any details with you on the business of earthquakes". I'd have thought "earthquakes are happening more frequently" is a "detail on the business of earthquakes", and quite a big one at that but hey - that's just me I guess.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Yes Hillside , but what makes what you decide.....True?.....What else is true because we decide it is rather than it actually is true?

Language, aesthetics, lots of things.

Your problem here is that you're conflating "true" in its sense of, "true enough to be useful according to what people intuit and reason it to be" with "empirically true according to an objective standard". Absent any reason to think there to be empirical morality, there can't be empirical moral truths. 

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

I see you missed out the part when he said, "I have not gone into any details with you on the business of earthquakes". I'd have thought "earthquakes are happening more frequently" is a "detail on the business of earthquakes", and quite a big one at that but hey - that's just me I guess.

Pretty much. It's again not a denial that he has said earthquakes are increasing.

[wigginhall]

The old phrase about morality and truth was that there are no moral facts.

[BashfulAnthony]

Probably not. I started to write a response to BA's post, but changed my mind.

Are you suggesting that you were about to criticise what I wrote?  If so, then I remind you, this is the Christian Topic, and I am a Christian affirming my belief.  If you don't like that, or have any objections, post them elsewhere, in a more appropriate place. It would indeed be highly offensive to log-on to a specifically Christian topic to make any kind of denunciation of a person's heart-felt belief.  I trust I am wrong in suggesting you had any such intention.

[Nearly Sane]

Are you suggesting that you were about to criticise what I wrote?  If so, then I remind you, this is the Christian Topic, and I am a Christian affirming my belief.  If you don't like that, or have any objections, post them elsewhere, in a more appropriate place. It would indeed be highly offensive to log-on to a specifically Christian topic to make any kind of denunciation of a person's heart-felt belief.  I trust I am wrong in suggesting you had any such intention.

you might get offended but it is not against the ethos of the Christian topic to have such a denunciation.

[wigginhall]

I thought mutual criticism was part of the reason for forums? 

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Pretty much. It's again not a denial that he has said earthquakes are increasing.

It's a denial that he discussed "...any details ... on the business of earthquakes", therefore it's necessarily a denial that he said they were increasing ("they are increasing" being a "detail on the business of earthquakes").

Enough already!

[bluehillside Retd.]

BA,

...and I am a Christian affirming my belief.

Then "affirm" it in the faith sharing area. This is a discussion area - if you don't want to discuss your faith, don't post here.

[BashfulAnthony]

BA,

Then "affirm" it in the faith sharing area. This is a discussion area - if you don't want to discuss your faith, don't post here.

Why come to a Christian topic to deride, criticise and vilify?  Discussion becomes obsession when it is daily and has been for years.  If I choose to say what I did, what is it to you, whether posted it here or elsewhere?

[BashfulAnthony]

I thought mutual criticism was part of the reason for forums?

I think you're missing something.. This is nothing to do with mutual criticism.  It is all about having a pop at Christianity, no more, no less. Where is the mutual aspect?