Comments for Expository Thoughts

Comment on Want to learn Logos 4? by Kevin McAteer

Kevin McAteer — Mon, 28 Dec 2009 17:48:10 +0000

Paul, now it’s $25. Still, that’s a great deal to tap into John’s mind on learning Logos.

Comment on No need to “trick things up” with NT narrative by Kenny Day

Kenny Day — Sun, 27 Dec 2009 04:13:56 +0000

Even though Morris fabricated a lot of Ronald Reagan’s story as pres biographer,
I do appreciate his volumes on Theodore Roosevelt which I think are much more accurate as they are based on the Teddy’s own diaries etc.

But David McCullough is by far a better biographer and admirable writer. Instead of infusing his own opinions and politics into the writing like Morris, he simply tells it like it was…history and all of its ugly facts.

Comment on Logic chopping in the naturalist universe by Boz

Boz — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 01:30:13 +0000

You and I think that it is immoral, as do 99%* of the population. Is that sufficient to proclaim that “X is immoral” ? Is 100% sufficient? Is 90% sufficient? 51% ? I’m not sure. I don’t think so. It sounds like the argument from popularity.

I can only say that my opinion is that X is immoral.

Given that there are no “Laws of the universe”, I don’t think that it is possible to proclaim that “X is wrong”

If you can demonstrate how I am mistaken in any of this, please do. I am keen to know if I am wrong.

I am an atheist, and I don’t know enough about naturalism to give myself that label. A quick look at the wikipedia article returns “It requires that hypotheses be explained and tested only by reference to natural causes and events”, which I disagree with because it eliminates the possiblity of paranormal/magical/supernatural/divine events, which I am open to.

Comment on Logic chopping in the naturalist universe by Paul Lamey

Paul Lamey — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 04:18:47 +0000

Why is it immoral to kill another person? Just because most would agree?

“Also, you could get the Nobel Prize for Physics for knowing origin/beginning/cause of the universe and its laws.”

That depends on what you mean by “knowing.”

Boz, would you consider yourself an atheist, naturalist, or some other mixture? It would be helpful to know where you’re coming from.

Comment on Logic chopping in the naturalist universe by Boz

Boz — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 04:12:15 +0000

almost all humans, including myself, would agree that it is immoral/wrong to kill another person. Perhaps I was unclear about this earlier.

Also, you could get the Nobel Prize for Physics for knowing origin/beginning/cause of the universe and its laws.

Comment on Logic chopping in the naturalist universe by Naturalist Logic Exposed? « Growing In Grace

Naturalist Logic Exposed? « Growing In Grace — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 03:40:54 +0000

[...] Expository Thoughts) 45.545648 [...]

Comment on Logic chopping in the naturalist universe by Paul Lamey

Paul Lamey — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 02:45:20 +0000

Boz,

It seems you’re getting hung-up on the word “wrong” so let’s try it another way. Is it evil/immoral/inhumane to murder a neighbor that is weaker mentally, physically, or socially? I realize that all such words have meaning and assumptions but let’s try not to be postmodern and assume that we can all speak and understand English. I’m not trying to be trite with your questions but I’m not wanting this to descend into a debate about linguistic theory.

The answer to your first question is “yes” I do know the origin of the universe and its so-called “laws.” However this post does not directly deal with any such questions. Maybe we can take this up in another post. For now let’s stay on topic.

Paul

Comment on Logic chopping in the naturalist universe by Boz

Boz — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 23:39:52 +0000

Paul, do you know what was the origin of the universe, and its natural laws? I don’t.

As to whether there is anything wrong with killing one’s neighbour, That depends on what you mean by “wrong”.

Comment on Logic chopping in the naturalist universe by Paul Lamey

Paul Lamey — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 22:05:24 +0000

It’s not a logical leap and it’s not my argument. That’s why I said, “assuming a purely naturalist explanation of life.”

Comment on Logic chopping in the naturalist universe by Skwirl

Skwirl — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 21:23:26 +0000

I agree that naturalism isn’t logical, but you took a logical leap here in that you still have to prove that it’s the natural order of things for primates to kill one another.