Believing it is not proving it

Hey Jar.I'm not sure why your including me in your list of potential speakers at this particular conference.Unless I am sorely mistaken, my only post of substance in the Mod thread took on a wider viewpoint as to why this conflict of opinion might exist. It had a bit more to do with what I see as your overall debating technique as it had with the specific issue of this moment.http://EvC Forum: General discussion of moderation procedures: The Consequtive Consecution Sequel -->EvC Forum: General discussion of moderation procedures: The Consequtive Consecution SequelOther than that? Seconding Faiths PotM for Robin was based (if you exclude motivations due to familial ties) on a thumbs up/thumbs down view on the essential point (as I understand it) in question. I sided with Faith due to the notion that the root (of this thread) might revolve around whether sheer belief is a valid defence of a position. I don't, for the record, think it is.I can understand the temptation to use such a tack (because I for example, know beyond all shadow of doubt that Jesus Christ is Lord). For myself, I have endeavored to hold in focus, in my time here, the reality in which I operate.

Much as I hope your spoke job goes well CS, I must protest. Declaring ones own victory in debate ranks as an abominationKeep a hold on yourself there bikerbuddy

Are you suggesting that this should really involve Faith, Jar and Robin? They seem to me to be the main protagonists.

A 6 sentence Jar post which attempts to cover a multitude.Which kind of goes to illustrate my global point.http://EvC Forum: General discussion of moderation procedures: The Consequtive Consecution Sequel -->EvC Forum: General discussion of moderation procedures: The Consequtive Consecution SequelI have given a (note: more that 6 sentence) synopsis in order to cover just a tiny, single issue point, to whit: the reasons why I have no reason to be called here.Say something Jar. Anything. You're having talks about talks and its already 80 posts in.

Like PD got you. Your getting me. I know Hemingway can write 15 words that makes your hair stand on end. The Bible, far less.The rest of us mere mortals however need to explain and engage. Jar nigh on never engages, nigh on never exposes - him views. Now that is fair enough should there be a more pressing motive. But when it comes to plain discussion on a "discussion" website I have to wonder why folk see his views as "views".Look back at the posts Faith. Soundbites. Why put effort into dealing with soundbites?It can only do one thing: absorb energy

Could you explain (in two sentences or less ) why you still include me in your list of main protagonists Jar

Where have I posted in the context of this thread on your beliefs? How can you include my comments as to your general EvC content and intent as threadworthy when you don't seem to know what the thread is about at this juncture? On that basis all posters should be made protaginists. Why me specifically?Prophecy: When the STOP! OFF TOPIC! STEP OUT OF THE CAR sign comes it will be unlikely come labelled Admin Jar. But it will come on my post.This message has been edited by iano, 01-Apr-2006 01:14 AM

A variation of Jars correct logic about the existance of God being independant of what we think, believe or feel (either for or against his existance). Objective morals don't rely in any way on what we believe or know. Objective morals rely only on the existance of God. A case of having to speak for oneself. God writes his laws on the hearts of those he makes his sons - no one else. Such folk are in a position to know (which is not diminished by not being able to prove it to another). If your not a son Gods law won't be written on your heart. They will either remain as rules to be followed (if one is a Jew (Religious) or rules to be ignored or a-la-cartedly referred to if one is a Gentile (unbeliever)

Sound like something Jar would say. But I was referring to something which he said which I thought was logical. To do with Gods existance or no not being reliant on what we think or feel or even know.

I agree... I was referring to this point of yours. By "as things stand" I presume you to mean "I don't believe" or "I don't know. But objectivity of morals is something which exists or otherwise externally to us. We can find out okay but we don't affect moral obejectivity by our finding out that morals are objective.At least we can find out whether they are objective. We cannot find out that they are not."But as things stand I don't know" would be a more correct statment

I was nit picking Robin. Sorry. Well there kind of is. I know God exists therefore I can ground objective morality logically. Whilst many might decry this it will be from a position of lack of knowledge as to Gods existance. In limiting the rules of logic to those that exclude God they merely say that the playing field is as they define it to be. Without being able to ground why it is that said playing field must be the one on which the game is played.You'll see it all the time. God pre-ordaining and yet wanting that none should perish for example leaves us with a paradox. Paradoxes are logical dead ends ergo God doesn't exist (or some such 300 post thread summary). This excludes that fact that God has dimensions open to him and closed to us in which to square circles in his realm. I agree.Gut feeling as opposed to head knowledge time. Do you sin?

Two beautiful commandments given by God. And if not God then just another person. So we're back to subjective againAbE: an aside: is Jesus God, Jar?AbE: changed was to isThis message has been edited by iano, 06-Apr-2006 12:55 AMThis message has been edited by iano, 06-Apr-2006 12:55 AM

Hi Omni It would seem so, but in the cold light of EvC you'd be amazed at how often the attempt is made. I agree that the world can seem coherent and consistant without God. But that is only if one is prepared to accept best guess notions for aspects of life - such as a nigh on universal sense of objective morality in practice. Away from the cut and thrust of focused debate on the subject I mean.Cowardice in battle is reviled. Stealing too. We have an inate aversion to the queue skipper. Yet all the proponants of such acts could be said to be expressing the much toted and overarching maxim of life: survival of the fittest.The man who stepped on that land mine and pushed you away hath no greater love than that he laid his life down for a brother.According to evolution he was unfit.Seek and you shall truly cohere...EvC ain't out of my blood yet. But life is sure looking brighter - I get to see a bit more of it...This message has been edited by iano, 06-Apr-2006 01:56 AM

I can imagine. And your attempt at cohering it leaves you with the best-guess as to why he did it. A jumble of instantaneous realisations on his part (which it seems are possible given ample evidence for life-flashed-before-me/time slowed down in times of emergency). And the fact that you think of it as an act of love.I suggest the latter is evident in your examination because when we look at ourselves and imagine ourselves in that situation then sacrificial love is not the conclusion we would imagine ourselves arriving at having has a slowed-down split second to consider it.He could have pulled you into his path to shield himself from the blast - a la the man on the Titanic who cried "woman and children and me to the lifeboats" That ascribes a purpose which I understood evolution to be void of. Evolution doesn't seek advantage in order that species increase or such thing. What survives survives and evolution is as satisfied when none survive as when some, or many survive. Point being, there is no advantage in his behaviour to his genetic line. As a product of evolution (whether direct genetic or genetic-prone-to conditoning-unto-self-sacrificial-love) his makeup made him unfit for survival. Like you say. And I imagine you have trouble cohering his act of love (because you to some degree see it as such) with his act demonstrating his simple unfitness. Same as me but in the arena of crime. You have to be stupid to get caught. I just became dog-tired with it. Evolutionist-speak Lite. Should God ever come a knocking Omni, do us all a favour and open the door will ya. Then drop me a line. You'd make a good evangelist but there are some tips I always like to give rookies from my position at point here. I'd hate to see you step on land minesThis message has been edited by iano, 06-Apr-2006 12:08 PM