**The definition of person in the dictionary specifies they need to be human. This blackballs me into not pivoting the concept of an animal being more beneficial to society than a human to display the arbitrary nature of personhood and then to conclude that it should begin where we seem is most sane and convenient for society, which is 2/3 into a pregnancy.**
Wow, so the common accepted definition of "person" doesn't fit your concept of an animal being more important than human-- so your MO or desire is to change the definition to suit your agenda?
Remind me not to piss you off-- I would hate to have you mad at me because, who knows-- you might just redefine "person" again to exclude me and then next thing you know, I sleep with da' fishes....
** I fear for my legal safety if I admit my true views on the laws that irrationally favour our species. I'd prefer no official debate on it, just read between the lines.**
Seriously? You say you can provide "objective proof", but then when challenged on it you say no, for me to read between the lines? Sorry-- "objective proof" clearly lays out ideas, philosophies, and dare I say, facts to "prove something"-- it doesn't force the opposition to "read between the lines."
You are correct. Stem cells are not human beings. I don't think any reputable scientist or knowledgeable opponent of stem cell research opponent has ever said they are humans. Keep in mind not all stem cells are the same. Typically what is opposed is the killing of an embryo in order to harvest (use) the stem cells from that embryo. An embryo (per my other comment) is a stage of Human Life. Some institutions oppose the killing of a human at any stage,
The Church supports research involving stems cells from adult tissues or umbilical cord blood, neither which results in the killing of an embryo.
So, in short, it's not Stem Research that is opposed, but rather the killing of an embryo (human life) for stem research.
An analogy (not strawman, but analogy) would be this-- I fully support brain research in order to help cure cancers like brain cancer, etc. What I vehemently oppose is the intentional killing of another human being in order to study their brain....
Why is it an issue for you that the definition of "person" contains the word "human"? In order for it to be a "person", isn't it required to be "human?" To me it's redundant. "Person" implies human, unless you're advocating that a "person" can be something other than human?
I'm very curious to see your "objective" proof that it is irrtaiontlal to want something to live or consider it a person that should be illegal to dispose of just because the species of the being is human.
I'd be willing to engage in a debate with you on this, simply because I want to see your "proof". We can call the debate "It is irrational to want something to live or consider it a person that should be illegal to dispose of just because the species of the being is human."
1. You state "The goal of a moral system is to find a system which is logically consistent.". How would you define "consistent"?
2. In your comment below, you state "really you found a moral system that is 100 % consistent, that holds up in ANY scenario, ok share it with me." I take this comment to mean that you believe there is not a moral system that is 100% consistent? If something is not 100% consistent, doesn't that by definition mean it's inconsistent? If so then what would be debatable is it's "level" of inconsistency? Put another way, do you believe all moral systems are inconsistent to a certain degree? Or perhaps a 100% consistent moral system exists, we just haven't found it yet-- so we make do with what we got....a moral system that is inconsistent?
3. Aren't you using the Bible's "inconsistency" as a basis, your foundation, for discarding it as a moral system (a moral compass)? But then aren't other moral systems inconsistent to certain degrees (isn't that what you implied in your "100% comment"?). So, by your comments, you're basically trading one inconsistent moral system (the Bible) for another inconsistent moral system (how it benefits society).
I mean if you really wanted to be, dare I say it, "consistent", you'd be discarding pretty much other moral systems for their "inconsistencies"?
So am I correct to assume then that you are not discarding the Bible because it has "inconsistencies" (all moral systems are inconsistent if I understand your comment correctly), but rather you seem to believe that other moral systems are more "consistent" then the Bible?
Let me make sure I have this straight. Let's recap. From your perspective
1. The yard-stick (standard) you use for determining something as "good" or "bad" is the impact to society (is it "good" or "bad" for society).
2. In General, the government/society determines whether or not something is beneficial to said society. However, you also make the assessment of whether or something is "good" or "bad" for society. If you and Society differ on what, then you will stand firm in your belief (generally). In other words,
a) If "Society" says "X" is "good" for society, but you disagree-- you will stand firm and regard it as "bad"
b) If "Society" says "X" is "bad" for society, but you disagree-- you will stand firm and regard it as "good"
You may cast aside what I say as "reductio ad absurdum" fallacy. Maybe...Maybe not. Some of the things you mention were at some point deemed "acceptable" by their society. As MLK points out in his "Letter from a Birmingham Jail", let's not forget that what Hitler did was considered "legal" ("OK") in their society.
I would argue that a good moral system should hold up to any scenario.....ANY (otherwise, it's not consistent, right?). While you might dismiss some scenarios as "extreme", but I think it highlights the shortcomings of such a moral system. YOu get enough people to agree on something, even the most "extreme" scenarios could, eventually, be put in place.
Relax. I don't think you're a psycho or socio-path. I was simply using your words. You didn't necessarily provide context-- you just said a good moral system is one that is logically consistent and gives you results you like.
But now...I'm confused. I need you to clarify on what exactly a "good moral system" is. Correct me if I'm wrong, but according to you a Moral System should be
1. Logically consistent
2. Impact on society (good or bad for society)
3. Lines up with your views
When I first read your comment back, I thought it was just 1 and 2...and then you added #3. I'm not going to dispute #1, I tend to agree with that. But this now begs the question(s):
A. Who says/dictates what's "Good"/"Bad" for society-- you alone? You and someone else? Or does society as a whole do that? Is it done by popular vote?
B. What, if society deems X to be "Good" (or "Bad") for Society, but you don't happen to agree with it. Would you consider it as "Good" (or "Bad"), or would you go along and change your mindset to agree to it as "Good" (or "Bad") because Society says so?
C. Conversely, what if you think something is "Good" or "Bad", but society renders it the opposite-- would you go along with what Society says?
The flipside of this argument is this. I believe these things below to be logical impossibilities. My challenge to you is this, do you believe these to be logical possibilities? In other words, do you believe any of these to be "logically possible?"
1. Square circle
2. A 2-sided triangle
3. A married bachelor
4. An unlimited being that can be limited
If you would be so kind, just provide a simple yes or no (i.e. "Yes, logically possible"). Again, I'm talking "logically possible" not "physically possible").
This isn't just MY understanding, it's what the Church, and giants of the Church (like Aquinas, et al) believe. You are confusing the "logic" and "physics". YOu are saying because something is impossible for you and me, it's not logically possible, and therefore doesn't make sense that God would do them. That is incorrect. Just because something is impossible for you or me, doesn't necessarily mean that it is (a) logically impossible or (b) impossible for God.
Keep in mind, there is a difference between "defying logic" (doing the logically impossible) and "defying physics" (doing what humans consider "physically impossible"). What my faith believes is God can do the physically possible (it may be impossible for you or me, but it's possible for God). "Walking on water" may be physically impossible...for you and me. Would you call this "not logically possible?" I wouldn't. But from a physical standpoint, the "ability to walk on water" has the potential to be, we (you and I) just can't realize that potential. A being not bound by the laws of physics (aka an Omnipotent God) would be able to realize that potential of walking on water.
Also, don't fall into trap of equating 1 day for God as being equivalent for 1 day for you and me (one day for God is like a 1000, or something like that).
When you say "the same piece of literature", do you mean "within the same book within the Bible?"Are you going to be arguing that a specific/particular text in the Bible is internally consistent, or are you going to be arguing that something in text A within the Bible is inconsistent with something in text B within the Bible?
The Bible is really just a collection of texts (books, letters, texts of poetry, etc) written by different authors. Think of the Bible like a bookshelf in your room, filled with many different types of books, texts, poems, etc. Are you looking at the bookshelf and saying "There are inconsistencies within this collection", or are you going to be pulling out a specific book/text/poem and saying "Within this particular text there are inconsistencies?"
eh, no it's not. You're taking 1 aspect (skin color) and attributing causation to it, without showing or explaining how. My point is there are many other factors that are common to the shooters-- why aren't you addressing those? Why are you choosing to focus on the skin color?
2A. You are basically saying you judge something as "good" or "bad" based on it's benefit to society as a whole and is morally consistent. In other words, you judge something as "good" or "bad" based on whether or not it's "good" or "bad" for society.
But again this begs the futher question, how you do determine the "goodness for society" (or "badness"). In other words you have action X, how do you judge if action X is "good for society" if the measure/yardstick you use is whether or not iit's "good for society"? That really doesn't make no sense. That's like saying, I"m going to judge if this action is good for me based on whether or not it's good for me.
**A good moral system should be one that's logically consistent and gives me results I like.**
This is very telling. While I agree it should be logically consistent, giving you "results you like" should not be the basis for whether or not something is good/bad, and quite honestly this should frighten the hell out of everyone around you. lol Just because you like the results should not determine if it's right or wrong, good or bad.
I would also argue that "benefiting society" should not be the basis (or at least the sole basis) for morality. I'm pretty confident that if Society says it's ok to take everything you own (AND I DO MEAN EVERYTHING) and distribute it to the rest of the society, you'd probably be the first to argue "NOT FAIR!". After all, this does benefit society-- everyone in society is just a little bit richer by your forced generosity.
um -- didn't I put that in the description? The debate description starts off like this:
"The argument goes something like this.........To be omnipotent is to be able to do anything....."
Granted, I didn't preface it with the words 'Omnipotent in this debate is defined as...". But I figured it would be understood that this is is how the arguer defines "omnipotence", since I do say "the argument goes something like this...." I then later say that this is a flawed argument and then leave it to the Rounds to debate if it's flawed or valid.....
I would say the Christian (Aquinas/Catholic) definition of "omnipotence" is not vague at all. It's actually very clear-- "omnipotence" means being able to do that which is possible (logically or has the potential for possibility) and not contradictory in nature (God's nature). "Omnipotence" does not mean having the power to do whatever scenario you or anyone else can conceivably come up with.
** The outcome of this debate is going to rest on whatever/whosever definitions the audience/voters agrees with, and I doubt they're going to agree with the fuzzy one that you have given over the opponent's one. **
But the opponent's definition pretty much opens the door to anything imaginable, even nonsensical challenges that are words strung along together (and I use "opponent" in a general sense, not specifically pointing to TheAtheist)
It's like the opponent/arguer is now expecting God to do his bidding in an attempt to prove He's God, no matter how nonsensical the requests are:
Ok-- you think you'r all powerful, God? Part the Red Sea!
Ok-- you think you're all powerful, God? Heal this man's arm
Ok-- you think you're all powerful, God? Create a stone so heavy not even YOU can lift (nonsense)
OK-- you think you're all powerful, God? Tell me flavor "brown" is (nonsense)
Ok-- you think you're all powerful, God? Tell me how much the number 7 weighs (nonsense)
Ok - you think you're all powerful, God? Tell me the name of the bachelor's wife (nonsense)
Ok - you think you're all powerful, God? Make me a 3-sided figure with only 2 sides (nonsense)
So you'd rather I'd list in the debate description the Christian's idea of omnipotence? I guess that could've been done-- but where would the fun be in that :).
Your "lying 'FIRE!' to get someone's attention" scenario is considered a good lie, in your opinion. But this is actually an excellent example of why lying is a "shortfall", and smacks in the face of perfection. Wouldn't a PERFECT being (human) be able to get another PERFECT being (Human) attention by using the truth (conforming to reality) as opposed to lying (saying something that contradicts reality)? But Humans are imperfect. So, due to the imperfection on the part of the sayer (person trying to get the attention) or the imperfection of the hearer (the person who is being summoned), or both, the sayer has to resort to lying. A perfect being would not have to resort to such tactics. AGain, don't attribute to God that which humans do or need to do in certain circumstances. Likewise your other scenario the so-called "need to lie" argument is solely based on man's imperfection.
The problem, the MAIN problem, the crux of the issue, with the "God can not be All Good" is that people often think that what THEY deem as "good" or "bad" should also be viewed by God as "good" or "bad". In other words, they see things as "bad" (or "good" for that matter), and expect God to view them in the same way. Put another way, they are essentially claiming to see things as "God" sees them, which some have considered the height of arrogance. Then they put forth all these bad things (children dying, rape, murder, mass shootings, etc) and use those as "proof" that God can not possibly be all Good.
um, no. I'm thinking you do not have a proper understanding of what it means to be "perfect" and what "change" means in respect to "Perfection".
Again, voluminous tomes have been written on God's immutability (Unchanging Nature). "Change" is contradictory to "Perfection".
- When an something "changes", it moves from one state to another. It, essentially, becomes either "better" or "worse".
- To be "perfect" is indeed as "good as can possibly be" as you state
- So, if something that is "perfect" changes, then 1 of 2 things happen:
a) It becomes "less perfect" (worse)
b) it becomes "more perfect" (becomes better). But this, again makes no sense. If something is as good as possible, it can't become better (more perfect) because it is already, by definition "as good as can possibly be"-- there is no "getting any better".
- It follows that if something is perfect (all perfect), then it can't possibly change. If it changes then (a) it loses the perfection it had or (b) it gets better (which means/implies it wasn't "perfect' in the first place).
Be careful, you fall into the trap that a lot of people do-- they take circumstances that are applicable to humans (lying, changing, etc) and expect those to apply to God. That's not how it works.
AGain, I'm wanting to debate "omnipotence", but as I suspected folks start arguing all of God's other attributes (Perfection, Omni-Benevolence, etc). I can address (and will address) your other concerns shortly.
And, again, the topic of the debate is not whether or not GOd's Omnipotence is real or able to proven, whether or not God is All-Good or not, etc-- the subject of the debate is whether or not the "Stone Paradox" is good or flawed argument against God's omnipotence.
that's kinda what the debate is about though. Part of my argument(s) was going to be put forth or explain a definition. In R1 I did lay forth the Christian's perspective of what it means to be "omnipotent". Didn't really see a point in putting this in the Debate description-- since that is what my argument was going to be-- the Christian's perspective.
Go back and read more Aquinas. He's written VOLUMES of stuff on God and HIs nature. I'll admit, it's very heady stuff. Takes a while to grasp and sink in.
Aquinas posits that God is "immutable" (i.e. unchanging). This means he does not change. (refer to his Summa again).
Everything has a nature, that which is inherent to it-- you...me..God..... If Goes goes against His nature, then that means that He would be exhibiting features, quality, or character that were not basic or inherent to Him. In essence, He would change. But again, he says God does not change-- He is immutable.
As far as explaining what "God's nature" is, it can be summarized as follows-- He is Perfect, Omni-potent, Eternal, Omniscient, All-Good.
The foundation of this concept of "omnipotence" is basically being able to do "that which is possible". We can string along words in all sort of ways to create some scenarios, but these scenarios must be "logically possible". Some scenarios are just pure nonsense or gibberish-- just because something makes sense "grammatically" doesn't necessarily follow that is sensible or possible. "God, please prove your omnipotence by telling me what flavor 'yellow' is. CAn't do it? Then you're not God!". See how this is nonsensical this is?
um, what did you ask me to do, specifically. I just scanned your comment again and I really don't see a request from you for me to do something....Perhaps you can just reference the specific request and the comment # for that request?
You didn't, and I didn't say you did. You basically said though that I didn't provide a defnition. SO in my comment to you, I was seeking to do a few things:
1. Explain what "Omnipotence" is NOT from a Christian's perspective.
2. Offer up what I believe to be a suitable definition of "omnipotence" from a Christian perspective.
Facts don't necessarily provide, or lead to, causation.
My gut tells me most, if not all, the perps were wearing shoes....perhaps "shoes" were the cause of the shootings?
My gut tell me most, if not all, the perps had 5 fingers on each hand....perhaps we should be wary of folks who have all their digits on their hands?
Eh, the fact that the shooter is "white" (or "brown" or "black") doesn't necessarily provide causation. That's kinda like saying, the majority of vehicular accidents involve vehicles that have a radio in side them-- so it's obvious that the radio is the problem. Just because the shooter's exhibit a certain characteristic, does not necessarily mean that characteristic is the cause.
First off, "Omnipotence" does not mean that "God can do anything you can say." We can say all sorts of things that basically amount to gibberish. We can string along words in all sorts of ways, and then challenge God to do what we say to prove He is God. Here is an example "Can God make colorless green ideas sleep furiously?" This is gibberish-- it makes no sense whatsoever. It's illogical.
If it pleases the court, how about we use this definition or description that Aquinas put forth in his Summa. Pretty straightforward which basically amounts to God be able to do whatever is possible :
"All confess that God is omnipotent; but it seems difficult to explain in what His omnipotence precisely consists: for there may be doubt as to the precise meaning of the word 'all' when we say that God can do all things. If, however, we consider the matter aright, since power is said in reference to possible things, this phrase, "God can do all things," is rightly understood to mean that God can do all things that are possible; and for this reason He is said to be omnipotent."
The Contender can indeed use his own definition of Omnipotence, but he would need to show that the Christian also adheres to this definition of "omnipotence". This is after all what the debate is about....
Response to your Paragraph 1 - Again, begs the question—what versions of the Bible are you referring to that you say state God says Adam would surely die “that day”, and it begs the further question, is that version “authoritative”? I ask because it’s important. If I wanted to know what MLK thought about civil rights, I’d read HIS version of his “Letter from a Birmingham Jail”, not some version of some dude down the street who reinterpreted it. The version of the Bible I use does state that God says they would die “that die”, but rather that they would surely die….and guess what….they did die.
Response to your Paragraph 2 - Not sure what the point is of your 2nd paragraph (“You keep bringing up how…”). I’m giving you facts (and TheAtheist). SO far I’ve mentioned how the Christian does NOT believe that God can do the logically impossible (create a square circle, etc).
Response to your Paragraph 3 – As I implied in my other comment, my faith believes that the “Teaching Body of the Church”, technically known as the Magisterium, is able to authoritatively interpret the Bible. I’m sure you won’t accept that and we can debate that particular topic if you want. But my faith holds that Jesus gave his disciples the authority to teach and interpret the Bible, and this authority has been passed down, unbroken, to this day.
Paragraph 4 – My faith teaches that God has a nature—he is Almighty, All-Good, All-Knowing, Perfect, Unchanging, etc. Now by bringing up your examples of what you call “insane stuff”, you are effectively trying to refute the notion of God being All-Good (aka Omni-benevolent). This debate is more about debating God’s Omni-potence, not God’s Omni-Benevolence. As I mentioned elsewhere, debating/discussing all these at once is challenging—each is worthy of separate discussions. I prefer you stick to the topic of Omni-Potent. We can have a separate debate/discussion on God’s Omni-Benevolence—would you want to engage in such a debate?
No worries. What do you mean extend to round 3-- do you mean, I forfeit Round 3 and let you post your R2 argument in R3? I have no problem with that. I'll go ahead and forfeit this R. sorry-- I thought I had put the maximum number of days for an argument, but guess not.
Now, you may scoff and not agree with what I say about interpreting a text, but this is verifiable and demonstrated very easily using this Debate forum as an example.
Christen, let's say you post a comment on some debate. I read your comment and then start proclaiming to others my interpretation of what you wrote. But, it turns out, what I"m saying is actually not what you intended. What would you do-- you'd probably start telling others "no no no, that is not what I meant when I wrote that!" And you may actually have some choice words for me.
Or perhaps I read your comment and don't understand what you wrote. It's very confusing. What would be the right thing for me to do? WOuld it be smart for me to ask my neighbor down the street what you meant? Would it be smart for me to ask the guy working the cash register at the store? Would it be smart for me to ask SemporFortis what you mean in the things you wrote? No. If I truly, REALLY, wanted to know what you meant when you wrote what you wrote, the truly smart and wise thing would be to ask YOU-- the author. You are the only one with the true "Authority" to explain what is meant in the words you wrote. And if I can't ask you, the next best thing would be to ask those who know you-- your friends, your family, coworkers, etc. They are the ones that know you and could provide insight to your thoughts, beliefs, etc that shape you and would give me insight into the text. But the further we get away from the source, the author, the less likely we are interpreting the text (your comment, MLK's letter, the Bible) as the author intended.
When reading a work from an author, if you want to know what it means, what was actually intended you go to the source-- the Author. The author is the only with the authority to interpret it (notice the root of the word "authority"). All other interpretations simply becomes one person's "opinion"-- the person is not an authority-- they are not "the authority"). If the author is not available, then you do the next best thing-- you talk with the people who knew the author the best-- the friends, family etc. The are the ones that could probably give you the best insight into the author's beliefs, etc to guide your interpretation, etc.
You may ask "Well, what makes YOU an authority on the Bible then.". I would answer "Me? I never said I"m an authority on the Bible." My faith believes that the Church and the teaching body of the Church is both human and Divine. The Church is the Body of Christ and the Church has the Authority to teach and interpret the Bible. I can interpret the Bible any old way I want, but this may be only my opinion or interpretation and may not be how God intends the passage/story/Book to be understood. The true source of the interpretation would be God, the Author, and my faith believes the Church speaks for God (Christ).
I agree part of the problem is that when people interpret it a text, be it a work from George Orwell, JK Rowling, JRR TOlkien, Martin Luther King Jr, Hemingway, Biblical Scholars, it is simply their own interpretation of it. This interpretation may or not be what the author intended or actually meant.
One can read MLK's "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" and interpret this in a multitude of ways, none of which may be what MLK intended. One can read and proclaim "This is satire! He's not really serious about all this injustice!". Or one could actually pick and choose pieces from his letter and say something like "MLK was a supporter of Hitler. See, right here in his letter he says everything Hitler did was legal!" But that would be a wrong interpretation of a passage taken out of context (I encourage you to find the letter and read what he actually says to learn more ;-) ).
Regarding your Genesis comment, God did not lie in that story. Here's why:
As you relate the story of Adam, you state that God told Adam and Eve that "they would die THAT DAY" (emphasis is mine). I believe you added a few words ("that day") that are not actually in the Biblical text. I would agree that if God did indeed say they would die THAT DAY, one could view this as lying-- Adam and Eve did not die that day......But that is not what God told them-- he said they would die, he didn't specify that they would die THAT DAY.
I'd be curious as to which translation you are using that adds the words "that day" to the Genesis passage....
You and I have the capability to lie. It is possible for you and I. Why? Because we are human-- it is part of our nature to have this propensity to fall short, to fail...and yes, to lie. In short, the reason you and I are capable of lying is because we are imperfect beings. So yes, it is indeed possible for you and me to lie.
But the Christian (and I can point you to centuries worth of Theological writings and Church documents if you like) believes that it is NOT possible for God to lie. Why? Because it is NOT in God's nature. The Christian believes that God is not imperfect, but on the contrary God is All-Perfect. The reason God can't lie is because it's inconsistent (Contradictory) with his All-Perfect nature.
So no, you didn't refute me. I will address your comments on Genesis in the next comment, as I fear I will be running of out of characters lol
I might not have been clear in my comments. I'm not saying this is my position, i'm just posing an argument from the other side-- the side of someone who believes there to be a genetic reason/determination for homosexuality, aka the "gay gene". The crux of the argument would be, genetic makeup is determined at conception, not at birth. It is not at birth, but rather conception when the genetic makeup is formed and various traits are determined. Now, these traits may not reveal themselves to later on after conception (i.e. AFTER they are determined), such as eye color, hair color, biological sex (which I still call gender), etc. NOw if someone were arguing there is such a thing as a "gay gene", then it follows that this "gay gene" would be determined at conception, but revealed later on.
Again, this is not my position, but I'm just posing it as a point of discussion.
** Without a flat minimum wage, companies could pay absurdly low wages to workers for long hours, knowing that the impoverished, young adults, and immigrants will all eat them up regardless. The flat minimum wage makes it so that these people can actually afford to pay for their own expenses without having to work absurd hours simultaneously in terrible living conditions. **
This is false. THe current national minimum wage is 7.25. You imply that employers are out to pay employees absurdly low wages, or at least the lowest wage possible. If that were true, employers would probably be seeking to pay only waht to they could get away with, namely, the minimum wage. In other words, they would be paying $7.25 for their employees now.
But they dont'. Many jobs pay more then the minimum. If the employers were as money hungry as folkds make them out to be , most jobs would be paying the minimum. But that is not the case because the market wouldn't bear it. My company doesn't have any jobs that pay the minum. Most pay twice and many pay more than 3x the minumum. Why? Because the market dictates what we pay.
Nope, that's not what i'm stating. I was playing Devil's Advocate. For starters, I don't believe a Gay Gene exists, so no you can't be "gay" before birth. But let's just say there is a gene that determines sexual orientation. Again, let me repeat- i don't think there is one, this is just for the sake of argument. If there. IF, and it's a big unvalidated IF, there is a gay gene, then this gene is part of the genetic code at conception, and would not be determined at birth, but rather revealed at some point in the child's life. Much the way eye color, hair color, etc are determined at conception and revealed (not determined) at some later point in time (birth, toddler years, adulthood, etc).
My point being, if the "gay gene" is the foundation of your argument, the answer to the debate question would be no, it's not determined at birth.
But again, this is un-substantiated assertion that there exists a gene that determines orientation.
All confess that God is omnipotent; but it seems difficult to explain in what His omnipotence precisely consists: for there may be doubt as to the precise meaning of the word 'all' when we say that God can do all things. If, however, we consider the matter aright, since power is said in reference to possible things, this phrase, 'God can do all things,' is rightly understood to mean that God can do all things that are possible; and for this reason He is said to be omnipotent.
eh, no. Go back and re-read what I wrote. I'm saying that what christopher_best suggests is actually another argument to make, and I elaborated on it. At no point did I say that was an argument I would make. In fact, I specifically state I'm not a fan of that argument. That is not my argument, which is why I didn't use that argument in the debate.
I explained why it's a flawed argument. His definition of "omnipotence", which includes being able to do what I call the logically impossible, is not what my faith/religion believes when it comes to omnipotence. I'm not changing my religion's definition of God's omnipotence, he is.
I do not contradict my own statements. In fact, I believe God is Omnipotent, with omni-potent including those things which are logically possible or do not go against God's nature. Aquinas agrees with me ;-) . GOd can not sin. He says To sin,is to be capable of failure in one's actions, which is incompatible with omnipotence" (Summa, I, Q, xxv, a. 3).
Again, you say God is not omnipotent (based on my statements), but I would argue that God doesn't fit YOUR idea of omnipotence. Which is not my faith's understanding of omnipotence. True, God can not lie, can not sin, etc. But this does not take away from God's omnipotence.
I would further add that nothing is "determined" at birth, but rather "revealed" at birth. A baby's biological sex is not "determined" at birth, but rather revealed at birth (sometimes before birth via ultrasound). When a doctor proclaims "It's a boy" or "It's a girl!", they are not "determining" the child's gender, but rather revealing it based on what we, as a society have determined what makes up a boy (male) or a girl (female).
Now if we are sticking to semantics, say there is a "gay gene". Science is still on the fence on this one, but say, for the sake of argument, there is a "gay gene". I don't hold this belief personally, but let's just say there is one. I'm not a geneticist, but it is my understanding that genes are not made at birth. Rather, the genetic code is determined at, you guessed it...conception. So if anything the sexual orientation would not be "determined" at birth, but rather "revealed" at birth. But this doesn't seem logical or possible-- it would technically be right to argue that the orientation is "revealed" later.
So technically speaking, if there was a "gay gene", the sexual orientation would technically not be determined at birth, but rather when the genetic code is made (conception).
This would've been fun to debate. Some thoughts. Words are important:
Sexual orientation is basically a desire or tendency towards a center type of person to satisfy a need for sexual gratification. Is this "determined" at birth? I would say No. As an analogy, we have a desire to feed our bodies, to satisfy a biological urge. This is innate. Yet, how we choose to satisfy this urge is primarily based on what we learn or experience. Some choose to satisfy this desire to eat by eating Steaks...some choose to satisfy this desire by eating Fish.....Some choose to satisfy this desire by eating berries and nuts. The need to satisfy an urge, be it eating, drinking or having sex, might be innate, but what we lean towards (i.e. what type of foods, what type of drinks, what type of people) I would argue is not innate. I might even go so far as to argue that if anything makes sense to be innate, it would be the heterosexual desire, because this, after all is what propagates the species.
Yes, that is actually another position to take-- that, like not being bound by the laws of physics, God is not bound by the laws of "logic". He could very well have the power to make "married bachelors", "square circles", and "one-ended sticks". These may seem illogical to us, but we, as humans, with our small minds, have a hard time understanding and comprehending how this could be. I've hard the Paradox answer this way: God can make anything He wants, and He can lift anything he wants. Far it being from me to be able to explain how he is able to do it-- he's omnipotent, i'm not.
But I don't necessarily like that argument. I think saying God does the logically impossible or contradictory is in effect saying God goes against His nature, if he is All-Good (subject for another debate). I think the bottom line is, the atheist (in this case, The_Atheist) has a definition of "omnipotent" which doesn't align with the Christian idea of Omnipotence. The Christian does not believe God can lie, commit evil, etc. I still think the heart of the paradox is this:
1. The arguer sets up a definition (in this case, for "omnipotent") and assumes his definition is what the Christian believes
2. The arguer then sets up a scenario in which God doesn't meet his definition and then proclaims God is not omnipotent and thus non-existence.
My point is, the Christian, at least my faith/religion, doesn't subscribe to this definition of Omnipotence.
**The definition of person in the dictionary specifies they need to be human. This blackballs me into not pivoting the concept of an animal being more beneficial to society than a human to display the arbitrary nature of personhood and then to conclude that it should begin where we seem is most sane and convenient for society, which is 2/3 into a pregnancy.**
Wow, so the common accepted definition of "person" doesn't fit your concept of an animal being more important than human-- so your MO or desire is to change the definition to suit your agenda?
Remind me not to piss you off-- I would hate to have you mad at me because, who knows-- you might just redefine "person" again to exclude me and then next thing you know, I sleep with da' fishes....
It begs the question, what is your social construct, i mean, definition of "personhood?"
** I fear for my legal safety if I admit my true views on the laws that irrationally favour our species. I'd prefer no official debate on it, just read between the lines.**
Seriously? You say you can provide "objective proof", but then when challenged on it you say no, for me to read between the lines? Sorry-- "objective proof" clearly lays out ideas, philosophies, and dare I say, facts to "prove something"-- it doesn't force the opposition to "read between the lines."
Come on, let's play.
**I'm implying both that and also that a human can be a non-person. It's a social construct.**
So can I recap. Please correct me if I"m wrong.; You believe the following:
a) A "person" can be non-human
b) A human can be "non-person"
Am I understanding you correctly? Is that what you meant?
You are correct. Stem cells are not human beings. I don't think any reputable scientist or knowledgeable opponent of stem cell research opponent has ever said they are humans. Keep in mind not all stem cells are the same. Typically what is opposed is the killing of an embryo in order to harvest (use) the stem cells from that embryo. An embryo (per my other comment) is a stage of Human Life. Some institutions oppose the killing of a human at any stage,
The Church supports research involving stems cells from adult tissues or umbilical cord blood, neither which results in the killing of an embryo.
So, in short, it's not Stem Research that is opposed, but rather the killing of an embryo (human life) for stem research.
An analogy (not strawman, but analogy) would be this-- I fully support brain research in order to help cure cancers like brain cancer, etc. What I vehemently oppose is the intentional killing of another human being in order to study their brain....
Why is it an issue for you that the definition of "person" contains the word "human"? In order for it to be a "person", isn't it required to be "human?" To me it's redundant. "Person" implies human, unless you're advocating that a "person" can be something other than human?
I'm very curious to see your "objective" proof that it is irrtaiontlal to want something to live or consider it a person that should be illegal to dispose of just because the species of the being is human.
I'd be willing to engage in a debate with you on this, simply because I want to see your "proof". We can call the debate "It is irrational to want something to live or consider it a person that should be illegal to dispose of just because the species of the being is human."
You game?
Are you arguing "PRO" - meaning you believe "personhood" should be attributed at conception?
A few more questions, if I may be so bold:
1. You state "The goal of a moral system is to find a system which is logically consistent.". How would you define "consistent"?
2. In your comment below, you state "really you found a moral system that is 100 % consistent, that holds up in ANY scenario, ok share it with me." I take this comment to mean that you believe there is not a moral system that is 100% consistent? If something is not 100% consistent, doesn't that by definition mean it's inconsistent? If so then what would be debatable is it's "level" of inconsistency? Put another way, do you believe all moral systems are inconsistent to a certain degree? Or perhaps a 100% consistent moral system exists, we just haven't found it yet-- so we make do with what we got....a moral system that is inconsistent?
3. Aren't you using the Bible's "inconsistency" as a basis, your foundation, for discarding it as a moral system (a moral compass)? But then aren't other moral systems inconsistent to certain degrees (isn't that what you implied in your "100% comment"?). So, by your comments, you're basically trading one inconsistent moral system (the Bible) for another inconsistent moral system (how it benefits society).
I mean if you really wanted to be, dare I say it, "consistent", you'd be discarding pretty much other moral systems for their "inconsistencies"?
So am I correct to assume then that you are not discarding the Bible because it has "inconsistencies" (all moral systems are inconsistent if I understand your comment correctly), but rather you seem to believe that other moral systems are more "consistent" then the Bible?
Let me make sure I have this straight. Let's recap. From your perspective
1. The yard-stick (standard) you use for determining something as "good" or "bad" is the impact to society (is it "good" or "bad" for society).
2. In General, the government/society determines whether or not something is beneficial to said society. However, you also make the assessment of whether or something is "good" or "bad" for society. If you and Society differ on what, then you will stand firm in your belief (generally). In other words,
a) If "Society" says "X" is "good" for society, but you disagree-- you will stand firm and regard it as "bad"
b) If "Society" says "X" is "bad" for society, but you disagree-- you will stand firm and regard it as "good"
If the above is incorrect, please correct me.
It's too bad you can't insert graphics here....I'd insert one of those "Watching and eating popcorn" memes .....right....about......NOW!
You may cast aside what I say as "reductio ad absurdum" fallacy. Maybe...Maybe not. Some of the things you mention were at some point deemed "acceptable" by their society. As MLK points out in his "Letter from a Birmingham Jail", let's not forget that what Hitler did was considered "legal" ("OK") in their society.
I would argue that a good moral system should hold up to any scenario.....ANY (otherwise, it's not consistent, right?). While you might dismiss some scenarios as "extreme", but I think it highlights the shortcomings of such a moral system. YOu get enough people to agree on something, even the most "extreme" scenarios could, eventually, be put in place.
Relax. I don't think you're a psycho or socio-path. I was simply using your words. You didn't necessarily provide context-- you just said a good moral system is one that is logically consistent and gives you results you like.
But now...I'm confused. I need you to clarify on what exactly a "good moral system" is. Correct me if I'm wrong, but according to you a Moral System should be
1. Logically consistent
2. Impact on society (good or bad for society)
3. Lines up with your views
When I first read your comment back, I thought it was just 1 and 2...and then you added #3. I'm not going to dispute #1, I tend to agree with that. But this now begs the question(s):
A. Who says/dictates what's "Good"/"Bad" for society-- you alone? You and someone else? Or does society as a whole do that? Is it done by popular vote?
B. What, if society deems X to be "Good" (or "Bad") for Society, but you don't happen to agree with it. Would you consider it as "Good" (or "Bad"), or would you go along and change your mindset to agree to it as "Good" (or "Bad") because Society says so?
C. Conversely, what if you think something is "Good" or "Bad", but society renders it the opposite-- would you go along with what Society says?
what would you rather the topic be changed to? Or how would you have it phrased?
The flipside of this argument is this. I believe these things below to be logical impossibilities. My challenge to you is this, do you believe these to be logical possibilities? In other words, do you believe any of these to be "logically possible?"
1. Square circle
2. A 2-sided triangle
3. A married bachelor
4. An unlimited being that can be limited
If you would be so kind, just provide a simple yes or no (i.e. "Yes, logically possible"). Again, I'm talking "logically possible" not "physically possible").
This isn't just MY understanding, it's what the Church, and giants of the Church (like Aquinas, et al) believe. You are confusing the "logic" and "physics". YOu are saying because something is impossible for you and me, it's not logically possible, and therefore doesn't make sense that God would do them. That is incorrect. Just because something is impossible for you or me, doesn't necessarily mean that it is (a) logically impossible or (b) impossible for God.
Keep in mind, there is a difference between "defying logic" (doing the logically impossible) and "defying physics" (doing what humans consider "physically impossible"). What my faith believes is God can do the physically possible (it may be impossible for you or me, but it's possible for God). "Walking on water" may be physically impossible...for you and me. Would you call this "not logically possible?" I wouldn't. But from a physical standpoint, the "ability to walk on water" has the potential to be, we (you and I) just can't realize that potential. A being not bound by the laws of physics (aka an Omnipotent God) would be able to realize that potential of walking on water.
Also, don't fall into trap of equating 1 day for God as being equivalent for 1 day for you and me (one day for God is like a 1000, or something like that).
When you say "the same piece of literature", do you mean "within the same book within the Bible?"Are you going to be arguing that a specific/particular text in the Bible is internally consistent, or are you going to be arguing that something in text A within the Bible is inconsistent with something in text B within the Bible?
The Bible is really just a collection of texts (books, letters, texts of poetry, etc) written by different authors. Think of the Bible like a bookshelf in your room, filled with many different types of books, texts, poems, etc. Are you looking at the bookshelf and saying "There are inconsistencies within this collection", or are you going to be pulling out a specific book/text/poem and saying "Within this particular text there are inconsistencies?"
This will be fun to watch. Scholars have debated for centuries on the "inconsistencies" of the Bible.
eh, no it's not. You're taking 1 aspect (skin color) and attributing causation to it, without showing or explaining how. My point is there are many other factors that are common to the shooters-- why aren't you addressing those? Why are you choosing to focus on the skin color?
2A. You are basically saying you judge something as "good" or "bad" based on it's benefit to society as a whole and is morally consistent. In other words, you judge something as "good" or "bad" based on whether or not it's "good" or "bad" for society.
But again this begs the futher question, how you do determine the "goodness for society" (or "badness"). In other words you have action X, how do you judge if action X is "good for society" if the measure/yardstick you use is whether or not iit's "good for society"? That really doesn't make no sense. That's like saying, I"m going to judge if this action is good for me based on whether or not it's good for me.
**A good moral system should be one that's logically consistent and gives me results I like.**
This is very telling. While I agree it should be logically consistent, giving you "results you like" should not be the basis for whether or not something is good/bad, and quite honestly this should frighten the hell out of everyone around you. lol Just because you like the results should not determine if it's right or wrong, good or bad.
I would also argue that "benefiting society" should not be the basis (or at least the sole basis) for morality. I'm pretty confident that if Society says it's ok to take everything you own (AND I DO MEAN EVERYTHING) and distribute it to the rest of the society, you'd probably be the first to argue "NOT FAIR!". After all, this does benefit society-- everyone in society is just a little bit richer by your forced generosity.
I don't mind debating it with you-- just let me finish this one, if you don't mind. I have hard enough time managing two debates simultaneously.....
um -- didn't I put that in the description? The debate description starts off like this:
"The argument goes something like this.........To be omnipotent is to be able to do anything....."
Granted, I didn't preface it with the words 'Omnipotent in this debate is defined as...". But I figured it would be understood that this is is how the arguer defines "omnipotence", since I do say "the argument goes something like this...." I then later say that this is a flawed argument and then leave it to the Rounds to debate if it's flawed or valid.....
I would say the Christian (Aquinas/Catholic) definition of "omnipotence" is not vague at all. It's actually very clear-- "omnipotence" means being able to do that which is possible (logically or has the potential for possibility) and not contradictory in nature (God's nature). "Omnipotence" does not mean having the power to do whatever scenario you or anyone else can conceivably come up with.
** The outcome of this debate is going to rest on whatever/whosever definitions the audience/voters agrees with, and I doubt they're going to agree with the fuzzy one that you have given over the opponent's one. **
But the opponent's definition pretty much opens the door to anything imaginable, even nonsensical challenges that are words strung along together (and I use "opponent" in a general sense, not specifically pointing to TheAtheist)
It's like the opponent/arguer is now expecting God to do his bidding in an attempt to prove He's God, no matter how nonsensical the requests are:
Ok-- you think you'r all powerful, God? Part the Red Sea!
Ok-- you think you're all powerful, God? Heal this man's arm
Ok-- you think you're all powerful, God? Create a stone so heavy not even YOU can lift (nonsense)
OK-- you think you're all powerful, God? Tell me flavor "brown" is (nonsense)
Ok-- you think you're all powerful, God? Tell me how much the number 7 weighs (nonsense)
Ok - you think you're all powerful, God? Tell me the name of the bachelor's wife (nonsense)
Ok - you think you're all powerful, God? Make me a 3-sided figure with only 2 sides (nonsense)
So you'd rather I'd list in the debate description the Christian's idea of omnipotence? I guess that could've been done-- but where would the fun be in that :).
Your "lying 'FIRE!' to get someone's attention" scenario is considered a good lie, in your opinion. But this is actually an excellent example of why lying is a "shortfall", and smacks in the face of perfection. Wouldn't a PERFECT being (human) be able to get another PERFECT being (Human) attention by using the truth (conforming to reality) as opposed to lying (saying something that contradicts reality)? But Humans are imperfect. So, due to the imperfection on the part of the sayer (person trying to get the attention) or the imperfection of the hearer (the person who is being summoned), or both, the sayer has to resort to lying. A perfect being would not have to resort to such tactics. AGain, don't attribute to God that which humans do or need to do in certain circumstances. Likewise your other scenario the so-called "need to lie" argument is solely based on man's imperfection.
The problem, the MAIN problem, the crux of the issue, with the "God can not be All Good" is that people often think that what THEY deem as "good" or "bad" should also be viewed by God as "good" or "bad". In other words, they see things as "bad" (or "good" for that matter), and expect God to view them in the same way. Put another way, they are essentially claiming to see things as "God" sees them, which some have considered the height of arrogance. Then they put forth all these bad things (children dying, rape, murder, mass shootings, etc) and use those as "proof" that God can not possibly be all Good.
um, no. I'm thinking you do not have a proper understanding of what it means to be "perfect" and what "change" means in respect to "Perfection".
Again, voluminous tomes have been written on God's immutability (Unchanging Nature). "Change" is contradictory to "Perfection".
- When an something "changes", it moves from one state to another. It, essentially, becomes either "better" or "worse".
- To be "perfect" is indeed as "good as can possibly be" as you state
- So, if something that is "perfect" changes, then 1 of 2 things happen:
a) It becomes "less perfect" (worse)
b) it becomes "more perfect" (becomes better). But this, again makes no sense. If something is as good as possible, it can't become better (more perfect) because it is already, by definition "as good as can possibly be"-- there is no "getting any better".
- It follows that if something is perfect (all perfect), then it can't possibly change. If it changes then (a) it loses the perfection it had or (b) it gets better (which means/implies it wasn't "perfect' in the first place).
Be careful, you fall into the trap that a lot of people do-- they take circumstances that are applicable to humans (lying, changing, etc) and expect those to apply to God. That's not how it works.
AGain, I'm wanting to debate "omnipotence", but as I suspected folks start arguing all of God's other attributes (Perfection, Omni-Benevolence, etc). I can address (and will address) your other concerns shortly.
And, again, the topic of the debate is not whether or not GOd's Omnipotence is real or able to proven, whether or not God is All-Good or not, etc-- the subject of the debate is whether or not the "Stone Paradox" is good or flawed argument against God's omnipotence.
that's kinda what the debate is about though. Part of my argument(s) was going to be put forth or explain a definition. In R1 I did lay forth the Christian's perspective of what it means to be "omnipotent". Didn't really see a point in putting this in the Debate description-- since that is what my argument was going to be-- the Christian's perspective.
I have to ask-- what exactly is the Christian's definition of "omnipotence" since you mention it contradicts Aquinas?
Go back and read more Aquinas. He's written VOLUMES of stuff on God and HIs nature. I'll admit, it's very heady stuff. Takes a while to grasp and sink in.
Aquinas posits that God is "immutable" (i.e. unchanging). This means he does not change. (refer to his Summa again).
Everything has a nature, that which is inherent to it-- you...me..God..... If Goes goes against His nature, then that means that He would be exhibiting features, quality, or character that were not basic or inherent to Him. In essence, He would change. But again, he says God does not change-- He is immutable.
As far as explaining what "God's nature" is, it can be summarized as follows-- He is Perfect, Omni-potent, Eternal, Omniscient, All-Good.
The foundation of this concept of "omnipotence" is basically being able to do "that which is possible". We can string along words in all sort of ways to create some scenarios, but these scenarios must be "logically possible". Some scenarios are just pure nonsense or gibberish-- just because something makes sense "grammatically" doesn't necessarily follow that is sensible or possible. "God, please prove your omnipotence by telling me what flavor 'yellow' is. CAn't do it? Then you're not God!". See how this is nonsensical this is?
um, what did you ask me to do, specifically. I just scanned your comment again and I really don't see a request from you for me to do something....Perhaps you can just reference the specific request and the comment # for that request?
You didn't, and I didn't say you did. You basically said though that I didn't provide a defnition. SO in my comment to you, I was seeking to do a few things:
1. Explain what "Omnipotence" is NOT from a Christian's perspective.
2. Offer up what I believe to be a suitable definition of "omnipotence" from a Christian perspective.
Facts don't necessarily provide, or lead to, causation.
My gut tells me most, if not all, the perps were wearing shoes....perhaps "shoes" were the cause of the shootings?
My gut tell me most, if not all, the perps had 5 fingers on each hand....perhaps we should be wary of folks who have all their digits on their hands?
Eh, the fact that the shooter is "white" (or "brown" or "black") doesn't necessarily provide causation. That's kinda like saying, the majority of vehicular accidents involve vehicles that have a radio in side them-- so it's obvious that the radio is the problem. Just because the shooter's exhibit a certain characteristic, does not necessarily mean that characteristic is the cause.
First off, "Omnipotence" does not mean that "God can do anything you can say." We can say all sorts of things that basically amount to gibberish. We can string along words in all sorts of ways, and then challenge God to do what we say to prove He is God. Here is an example "Can God make colorless green ideas sleep furiously?" This is gibberish-- it makes no sense whatsoever. It's illogical.
If it pleases the court, how about we use this definition or description that Aquinas put forth in his Summa. Pretty straightforward which basically amounts to God be able to do whatever is possible :
"All confess that God is omnipotent; but it seems difficult to explain in what His omnipotence precisely consists: for there may be doubt as to the precise meaning of the word 'all' when we say that God can do all things. If, however, we consider the matter aright, since power is said in reference to possible things, this phrase, "God can do all things," is rightly understood to mean that God can do all things that are possible; and for this reason He is said to be omnipotent."
The Contender can indeed use his own definition of Omnipotence, but he would need to show that the Christian also adheres to this definition of "omnipotence". This is after all what the debate is about....
Response to your Paragraph 1 - Again, begs the question—what versions of the Bible are you referring to that you say state God says Adam would surely die “that day”, and it begs the further question, is that version “authoritative”? I ask because it’s important. If I wanted to know what MLK thought about civil rights, I’d read HIS version of his “Letter from a Birmingham Jail”, not some version of some dude down the street who reinterpreted it. The version of the Bible I use does state that God says they would die “that die”, but rather that they would surely die….and guess what….they did die.
Response to your Paragraph 2 - Not sure what the point is of your 2nd paragraph (“You keep bringing up how…”). I’m giving you facts (and TheAtheist). SO far I’ve mentioned how the Christian does NOT believe that God can do the logically impossible (create a square circle, etc).
Response to your Paragraph 3 – As I implied in my other comment, my faith believes that the “Teaching Body of the Church”, technically known as the Magisterium, is able to authoritatively interpret the Bible. I’m sure you won’t accept that and we can debate that particular topic if you want. But my faith holds that Jesus gave his disciples the authority to teach and interpret the Bible, and this authority has been passed down, unbroken, to this day.
Paragraph 4 – My faith teaches that God has a nature—he is Almighty, All-Good, All-Knowing, Perfect, Unchanging, etc. Now by bringing up your examples of what you call “insane stuff”, you are effectively trying to refute the notion of God being All-Good (aka Omni-benevolent). This debate is more about debating God’s Omni-potence, not God’s Omni-Benevolence. As I mentioned elsewhere, debating/discussing all these at once is challenging—each is worthy of separate discussions. I prefer you stick to the topic of Omni-Potent. We can have a separate debate/discussion on God’s Omni-Benevolence—would you want to engage in such a debate?
No worries. What do you mean extend to round 3-- do you mean, I forfeit Round 3 and let you post your R2 argument in R3? I have no problem with that. I'll go ahead and forfeit this R. sorry-- I thought I had put the maximum number of days for an argument, but guess not.
Now, you may scoff and not agree with what I say about interpreting a text, but this is verifiable and demonstrated very easily using this Debate forum as an example.
Christen, let's say you post a comment on some debate. I read your comment and then start proclaiming to others my interpretation of what you wrote. But, it turns out, what I"m saying is actually not what you intended. What would you do-- you'd probably start telling others "no no no, that is not what I meant when I wrote that!" And you may actually have some choice words for me.
Or perhaps I read your comment and don't understand what you wrote. It's very confusing. What would be the right thing for me to do? WOuld it be smart for me to ask my neighbor down the street what you meant? Would it be smart for me to ask the guy working the cash register at the store? Would it be smart for me to ask SemporFortis what you mean in the things you wrote? No. If I truly, REALLY, wanted to know what you meant when you wrote what you wrote, the truly smart and wise thing would be to ask YOU-- the author. You are the only one with the true "Authority" to explain what is meant in the words you wrote. And if I can't ask you, the next best thing would be to ask those who know you-- your friends, your family, coworkers, etc. They are the ones that know you and could provide insight to your thoughts, beliefs, etc that shape you and would give me insight into the text. But the further we get away from the source, the author, the less likely we are interpreting the text (your comment, MLK's letter, the Bible) as the author intended.
When reading a work from an author, if you want to know what it means, what was actually intended you go to the source-- the Author. The author is the only with the authority to interpret it (notice the root of the word "authority"). All other interpretations simply becomes one person's "opinion"-- the person is not an authority-- they are not "the authority"). If the author is not available, then you do the next best thing-- you talk with the people who knew the author the best-- the friends, family etc. The are the ones that could probably give you the best insight into the author's beliefs, etc to guide your interpretation, etc.
You may ask "Well, what makes YOU an authority on the Bible then.". I would answer "Me? I never said I"m an authority on the Bible." My faith believes that the Church and the teaching body of the Church is both human and Divine. The Church is the Body of Christ and the Church has the Authority to teach and interpret the Bible. I can interpret the Bible any old way I want, but this may be only my opinion or interpretation and may not be how God intends the passage/story/Book to be understood. The true source of the interpretation would be God, the Author, and my faith believes the Church speaks for God (Christ).
I agree part of the problem is that when people interpret it a text, be it a work from George Orwell, JK Rowling, JRR TOlkien, Martin Luther King Jr, Hemingway, Biblical Scholars, it is simply their own interpretation of it. This interpretation may or not be what the author intended or actually meant.
One can read MLK's "Letter from a Birmingham Jail" and interpret this in a multitude of ways, none of which may be what MLK intended. One can read and proclaim "This is satire! He's not really serious about all this injustice!". Or one could actually pick and choose pieces from his letter and say something like "MLK was a supporter of Hitler. See, right here in his letter he says everything Hitler did was legal!" But that would be a wrong interpretation of a passage taken out of context (I encourage you to find the letter and read what he actually says to learn more ;-) ).
(more to follow)....
Regarding your Genesis comment, God did not lie in that story. Here's why:
As you relate the story of Adam, you state that God told Adam and Eve that "they would die THAT DAY" (emphasis is mine). I believe you added a few words ("that day") that are not actually in the Biblical text. I would agree that if God did indeed say they would die THAT DAY, one could view this as lying-- Adam and Eve did not die that day......But that is not what God told them-- he said they would die, he didn't specify that they would die THAT DAY.
I'd be curious as to which translation you are using that adds the words "that day" to the Genesis passage....
Nope you have not refuted me. Here is why:
You and I have the capability to lie. It is possible for you and I. Why? Because we are human-- it is part of our nature to have this propensity to fall short, to fail...and yes, to lie. In short, the reason you and I are capable of lying is because we are imperfect beings. So yes, it is indeed possible for you and me to lie.
But the Christian (and I can point you to centuries worth of Theological writings and Church documents if you like) believes that it is NOT possible for God to lie. Why? Because it is NOT in God's nature. The Christian believes that God is not imperfect, but on the contrary God is All-Perfect. The reason God can't lie is because it's inconsistent (Contradictory) with his All-Perfect nature.
So no, you didn't refute me. I will address your comments on Genesis in the next comment, as I fear I will be running of out of characters lol
I might not have been clear in my comments. I'm not saying this is my position, i'm just posing an argument from the other side-- the side of someone who believes there to be a genetic reason/determination for homosexuality, aka the "gay gene". The crux of the argument would be, genetic makeup is determined at conception, not at birth. It is not at birth, but rather conception when the genetic makeup is formed and various traits are determined. Now, these traits may not reveal themselves to later on after conception (i.e. AFTER they are determined), such as eye color, hair color, biological sex (which I still call gender), etc. NOw if someone were arguing there is such a thing as a "gay gene", then it follows that this "gay gene" would be determined at conception, but revealed later on.
Again, this is not my position, but I'm just posing it as a point of discussion.
Hope this clarifies it.
** Without a flat minimum wage, companies could pay absurdly low wages to workers for long hours, knowing that the impoverished, young adults, and immigrants will all eat them up regardless. The flat minimum wage makes it so that these people can actually afford to pay for their own expenses without having to work absurd hours simultaneously in terrible living conditions. **
This is false. THe current national minimum wage is 7.25. You imply that employers are out to pay employees absurdly low wages, or at least the lowest wage possible. If that were true, employers would probably be seeking to pay only waht to they could get away with, namely, the minimum wage. In other words, they would be paying $7.25 for their employees now.
But they dont'. Many jobs pay more then the minimum. If the employers were as money hungry as folkds make them out to be , most jobs would be paying the minimum. But that is not the case because the market wouldn't bear it. My company doesn't have any jobs that pay the minum. Most pay twice and many pay more than 3x the minumum. Why? Because the market dictates what we pay.
just read your last argument, i think we are saying the same thing lol
Nope, that's not what i'm stating. I was playing Devil's Advocate. For starters, I don't believe a Gay Gene exists, so no you can't be "gay" before birth. But let's just say there is a gene that determines sexual orientation. Again, let me repeat- i don't think there is one, this is just for the sake of argument. If there. IF, and it's a big unvalidated IF, there is a gay gene, then this gene is part of the genetic code at conception, and would not be determined at birth, but rather revealed at some point in the child's life. Much the way eye color, hair color, etc are determined at conception and revealed (not determined) at some later point in time (birth, toddler years, adulthood, etc).
My point being, if the "gay gene" is the foundation of your argument, the answer to the debate question would be no, it's not determined at birth.
But again, this is un-substantiated assertion that there exists a gene that determines orientation.
Aquinas puts it this way:
All confess that God is omnipotent; but it seems difficult to explain in what His omnipotence precisely consists: for there may be doubt as to the precise meaning of the word 'all' when we say that God can do all things. If, however, we consider the matter aright, since power is said in reference to possible things, this phrase, 'God can do all things,' is rightly understood to mean that God can do all things that are possible; and for this reason He is said to be omnipotent.
eh, no. Go back and re-read what I wrote. I'm saying that what christopher_best suggests is actually another argument to make, and I elaborated on it. At no point did I say that was an argument I would make. In fact, I specifically state I'm not a fan of that argument. That is not my argument, which is why I didn't use that argument in the debate.
I explained why it's a flawed argument. His definition of "omnipotence", which includes being able to do what I call the logically impossible, is not what my faith/religion believes when it comes to omnipotence. I'm not changing my religion's definition of God's omnipotence, he is.
I do not contradict my own statements. In fact, I believe God is Omnipotent, with omni-potent including those things which are logically possible or do not go against God's nature. Aquinas agrees with me ;-) . GOd can not sin. He says To sin,is to be capable of failure in one's actions, which is incompatible with omnipotence" (Summa, I, Q, xxv, a. 3).
Again, you say God is not omnipotent (based on my statements), but I would argue that God doesn't fit YOUR idea of omnipotence. Which is not my faith's understanding of omnipotence. True, God can not lie, can not sin, etc. But this does not take away from God's omnipotence.
I would further add that nothing is "determined" at birth, but rather "revealed" at birth. A baby's biological sex is not "determined" at birth, but rather revealed at birth (sometimes before birth via ultrasound). When a doctor proclaims "It's a boy" or "It's a girl!", they are not "determining" the child's gender, but rather revealing it based on what we, as a society have determined what makes up a boy (male) or a girl (female).
Now if we are sticking to semantics, say there is a "gay gene". Science is still on the fence on this one, but say, for the sake of argument, there is a "gay gene". I don't hold this belief personally, but let's just say there is one. I'm not a geneticist, but it is my understanding that genes are not made at birth. Rather, the genetic code is determined at, you guessed it...conception. So if anything the sexual orientation would not be "determined" at birth, but rather "revealed" at birth. But this doesn't seem logical or possible-- it would technically be right to argue that the orientation is "revealed" later.
So technically speaking, if there was a "gay gene", the sexual orientation would technically not be determined at birth, but rather when the genetic code is made (conception).
This would've been fun to debate. Some thoughts. Words are important:
Sexual orientation is basically a desire or tendency towards a center type of person to satisfy a need for sexual gratification. Is this "determined" at birth? I would say No. As an analogy, we have a desire to feed our bodies, to satisfy a biological urge. This is innate. Yet, how we choose to satisfy this urge is primarily based on what we learn or experience. Some choose to satisfy this desire to eat by eating Steaks...some choose to satisfy this desire by eating Fish.....Some choose to satisfy this desire by eating berries and nuts. The need to satisfy an urge, be it eating, drinking or having sex, might be innate, but what we lean towards (i.e. what type of foods, what type of drinks, what type of people) I would argue is not innate. I might even go so far as to argue that if anything makes sense to be innate, it would be the heterosexual desire, because this, after all is what propagates the species.
Yes, that is actually another position to take-- that, like not being bound by the laws of physics, God is not bound by the laws of "logic". He could very well have the power to make "married bachelors", "square circles", and "one-ended sticks". These may seem illogical to us, but we, as humans, with our small minds, have a hard time understanding and comprehending how this could be. I've hard the Paradox answer this way: God can make anything He wants, and He can lift anything he wants. Far it being from me to be able to explain how he is able to do it-- he's omnipotent, i'm not.
But I don't necessarily like that argument. I think saying God does the logically impossible or contradictory is in effect saying God goes against His nature, if he is All-Good (subject for another debate). I think the bottom line is, the atheist (in this case, The_Atheist) has a definition of "omnipotent" which doesn't align with the Christian idea of Omnipotence. The Christian does not believe God can lie, commit evil, etc. I still think the heart of the paradox is this:
1. The arguer sets up a definition (in this case, for "omnipotent") and assumes his definition is what the Christian believes
2. The arguer then sets up a scenario in which God doesn't meet his definition and then proclaims God is not omnipotent and thus non-existence.
My point is, the Christian, at least my faith/religion, doesn't subscribe to this definition of Omnipotence.