Kay 17: @logicboy's OP.

I have serious objections with your write-up, it is a bit careless. Your definition of good (which is of universal appplication) is more or less utilitarianism. Which means whatever is considered by the most to be beneficial to the most is good, and whatever is harmful to the most is bad. Also that utilitarianism is self evident.

I believe that's a lie. First of all, utilitarianism is built on its own assumptions ( that what's beneficial to the majority is good) without which it is far from self evident. No pattern of reasoning without preconceived bias can lead to utilitarianism.

2. What's good for sheep is not the same to wolves. Both have different constitutions, in that condemning wolves with the standard of sheep is to create a standard of hypocrisy! There is no basis to believe predators be ruled under prey morality. People are unique and need different standards to develop themselves.

3. What does being "good for the sake of being good"?! Why not the other way?! Being "bad for the sake of being bad". So far they have the same VALUE.

Though we often don't agree and I think this thread is dumb, I must say I respect how you think. Your post is the only one I've seen so far on this thread that has any quality.

Logicboy03:
This is pure nonsense. Information can be both material and immaterial.

You are now arguing that information is always immaterial. How wrong.


Explain how one will understand a route without a physical source of information. That is, without someone verbally (sound-vibration-physical) describing it or you seeing a map (A map on a sheet of paper-physical) or personally driving around the route (i.e looking at physical roads and buildings).


You sir, are full of crap.

No further comments

@Uyi, you really shouldn't have bothered answering him but thanks anyway sha.

thehomer:
This is another point of your confusion. The information represented by the map isn't the map. The taxi drivers create information in their brain just that they don't do it with the map. So, their brains do create information.

Wrong sir. The information on the piece of paper (or whatever device bears it) IS the map. This information is objective and remains the same whether the taxi drivers understand it or not. The taxi drivers' brains do not create the information.

This is all true but it isn't really comparable to the situation with the taxi drivers.

It is good to see that you admit that it is true. I maintain that it is exactly the same type of scenario. However since you disagree, you are welcome to show how they are different.

Of course there are non-physical representations. e.g the number 1 can be a non-physical representation of the number of moons the earth has.

Lol, and what would be the physical representation of the number of moons the earth has? It appears you've perfected the art of chasing your own tail

Whether it is trivial is also important because merely conveying trivial information is pointless. Saying that non-matter affects matter is trivial. Temperature also affects matter. So does sound, gravity and lots of other things.

Yawn. The point has already been made. Triviality is a subjective opinion and if that is the best counter argument you can offer, then I have no need keep responding to something that has already been settled.

mazaje: The brain is you because without it there is no you. . . .You can not even think without a brain, you can not chose to think about something and then decide to do so if your brain is malfunction, many people with brain problems try to reason, think or remember things but fail to do so because they have problems with their brains. . .But when you brain decides to go haywire, whether you like it or not you just follow it as it leads. . .

Dude, it amazes me how oblivious you are to the fact that you keep conceding my point.

First of all, I think the problem you have is that you are confused between association and identity.

"Oxygen is you because without it there is no you.....You cannot even think without oxygen, you can not chose to think about something and then decide to do so if your oxygen supply malfunctions......."

Notice that X (insert oxygen, brain, heart e.t.c.) is associated to you but is not your identity. Furthermore

".....many people with brain problems try to reason, think or remember things but fail to do so because they have problems with their brains. . .But when you brain decides to go haywire, whether you like it or not you just follow it as it leads. . ."

Notice again from the above that there is a You trying to use a brain. If it isn't clear to you at this point that you are not your brain, then I can't help you.

How does brain activity not control consciousness?. . .You analogy with the TV is just flawed because TV signal is Very different from brain and consciousness. . .TV signal is sent by something, TV can exist and perform other function without a signal. . .The human can not exist or function completely without the brain. . .Consciousness is a function of the brain.

I think my TV analogy was apt because it shows that just like how when the TV is switched of, it doesn't follow that the signal has been destroyed, so also the death of the brain doesn't mean that the conscious being has been destroyed.

mazaje:

You keep repeating this fallacy of higher moral code, how is it a higher moral code when it was set up by men?. . .When a company sets its opening hours by 8 am and tells every body that works in the company to abide by it and obey it(both employer and employee ), does that mean that the company has set a rule that transcends them because they must obey it?. . .It is just something they have set to serve as a guide line and make sure that business is done properly. . .Same with moral laws, men sat down, created and and set all of it to make them live in a less chaotic and peaceful society. . .

Using your analogy: In the case of a company that sets opening time at 8.00am, this law transcends the employees but not necessarily the business owner. However let us for the sake of argument assume that the employer and employees both agree to be bound by that time. The law will then not transcend them, it will also not be binding upon them since such a law, they can easily agree to change it.
Do you hold that the same applies to moral laws? Can people come together and decide to change moral laws? Because if you think they can, then tomorrow someone can decide that it is now right to kill innocent people and he won't be doing anything wrong.

Nope, your anology is quite daft because the answer has already been given, that you don't want to accept is your own business. . .

Question: Why is it wrong to kill somebody for the crimes of another person.

Answer: Because the person is innocent and doesn't deserve to be killed for what he is innocent of. . .

Simple, any thing is is your own convoluted logic that makes no sense at all. . .

No further comments

thehomer:
How can he be good when he gives what you've accepted to be immoral commands? How can he be changeless when he changes his mind?

Then you cannot say he loves man. Neither can you say he is a moral agent.

False. The Bible does teach this as I've demonstrated repeatedly. He did in Noah's flood and he did it in his command to Samuel. Note that so far, you've not been able to back up your linguistic claim that the command was an idiomatic expression. Until you do this, your claim that God didn't command the killing of children is simply false.

Did Mary invite God to plant "his seed" in her?

You've already accepted the premise. If you wish to deny the premise, simply say so.

But since we agree that it is true, then you have to also agree that your God does something immoral by commanding the killing of children and infants.

I refuse to repeat my answers ad infinitum, I refuse to join in your mud slinging match and I refuse to pursue multiple tangents that lead nowhere in particular.

By moral reasoning, I mean: the process in which an individual tries to determine the difference between what is right and what is wrong in a personal situation by using logic.

Good. So the way you go about determining the difference between right and wrong in a situation is by initially assuming the rightness or wrongness of what you set out to determine?
I'm afraid that your idea of moral reasoning is opposed to logic. If you can't see it as clear as it is, then I'm afraid I really can't help you.

thehomer:
What exactly is God's nature? And how do you know it is changeless?

The statement "God is evil" is like the statement "water is wet". Evil is simply God's nature.

Goodness and changelessness are part of what form God's nature. Talking about a being that is evil and whose character changes is to talk of a being other than God.

I've done that several times. His acts according to the Bible like commanding the killing of children and infants and actually killing children and infants in the flood show this fact. The virgin birth does because Mary's permission was never sought before he "implanted his seed" into her.

God is under no obligation to preserve man's life.
God did not command the killing of innocents. The bible does not teach this.
God did not have sex with Mary against her will. You are just hurling mud and hoping it sticks.

I'm simply showing you one of the premises for carrying out any sort of moral reasoning. You on the other hand are claiming not to accept the premise that you already accept. In case you didn't know, premises are assumptions so the fact that I've assumed it isn't in question. The problem you're facing is that you've assumed this premise too so unless you wish to cut this branch you're standing on, I don't see the point you're trying to make.

Yes premises are assumptions but that doesn't preclude them from the need to be explained especially when your "basic premise" is prescriptive (if it was descriptive, I might have given you a pass, but it isn't). Unless your idea of "moral reasoning" is anti-logic, I don't see why I have to accept a premise that prescribes actions without justification

Secondly, I wonder how many times I'll have to repeat before you get it. That we agree that a thing is true doesn't mean that we agree on why it is true.

It looks to me that you are abusing logic by making a circular argument in the name of "moral reasoning" What exactly do you mean by this "moral reasoning" of yours?

And I did not answer this question you're asking here.

Good.

thehomer:

You can search a dictionary and discover that "rained cats and dogs" means it rained heavily. Now what dictionary shows you that "kill all people including infants" means don't kill all people including infants?



And as I've shown, it isn't contrary to his nature since he has been known to kill children and infants. My argument is that God wasn't speaking figuratively when he issued that command. You're the one merely claiming that he did despite the fact that there is no language dictionary that would support your claim.

And here we see an example of irrational skepticism. Are you saying that figurative speech only began to exist when people started compiling dictionaries?

If you had actually read the whole story, it would have become clear that it was figurative speech, but of course you can't be bothered can you? God must have to be evil for you or bust

thehomer:
How do you know an action is contrary to God's nature? What you're saying means that if God's character was one that supports rape (as it actually does - see virgin birth), then there is nothing wrong with rape.
As his character supports collective punishment of children and infants, then there is nothing wrong with those too.
To put it simply, if God is a moral agent, then he is bound by the concept of morality i.e he cannot make it whatever tickles is fancy from day to day.

First of all God's nature is changeless so the "what ifs" don't apply
Secondly, you are yet to actually show an immoral act of God. All you have done is sling mud (how does the virgin birth support rape?)

The statement "God is Good" is like the statement "Water is wet". Goodness is simply God's nature

Note what I said. I said when it comes to talking about morality, it is a properly basic premise. Now you're asking me whether with respect to morality, people should be killed for crimes they didn't commit. That to me is a meaningless question and one that you're not asking honestly because as I've already pointed out, you believe that people shouldn't be killed for crimes they didn't commit.

From this answer, it is obvious you don't know what I am asking you. By asking you why is X wrong? I am asking you the basis of our objective moral duties? All you have done is to assume the initial point. You have assumed that moral duties need no justification in other to prove that moral duties need no justification. Circular reasoning.

It is like asking me with respect to health why should a doctor not advice you to kill yourself.

I did not ask you "with respect to morality" why your parents should raise you not to punish the innocent?

thehomer:
How do you know an action is contrary to God's nature? What you're saying means that if God's character was one that supports rape (as it actually does - see virgin birth), then there is nothing wrong with rape.
As his character supports collective punishment of children and infants, then there is nothing wrong with those too.
To put it simply, if God is a moral agent, then he is bound by the concept of morality i.e he cannot make it whatever tickles is fancy from day to day.

First of all God's nature is changeless so the "what ifs" don't apply
Secondly, you are yet to actually show an immoral act of God. All you have done is sling mud (how does the virgin birth support rape?)

The statement "God is Good" is like the statement "Water is wet". Goodness is simply God's nature

Note what I said. I said when it comes to talking about morality, it is a properly basic premise. Now you're asking me whether with respect to morality, people should be killed for crimes they didn't commit. That to me is a meaningless question and one that you're not asking honestly because as I've already pointed out, you believe that people shouldn't be killed for crimes they didn't commit.

From this answer, it is obvious you don't know what I am asking you. By asking you why is X wrong? I am asking you the basis of our objective moral duties? All you have done is to assume the initial point. You have assumed that moral duties need no justification in other to prove that moral duties need no justification. Circular reasoning.

It is like asking me with respect to health why should a doctor not advice you to kill yourself.

I did not ask you with respect to morality why your parents should raise you not to punish the innocent?

thehomer:

Are you serious? You're saying a command to kill all people including infants doesn't mean kill all people including infants? This would be funny if it wasn't so tragic. So God was actually saying the opposite of what he wanted to say? I guess God too has problems with language.



Why do you say it isn't a literal command when Samuel prefaced it by saying:


What you're in fact saying is either God lied to Samuel or Samuel was lying to Saul. If this is merely hyperbole, why shouldn't one think that God's hatred for homosexuals is hyperbole? Or that the claim that only Christians can go to heaven is hyperbole?

Note that this is an actual command and not a suggestion.

What has become clear to me now is that you wish to deny the evidence of what is right before your eyes. God says kill everyone including infants but today, Mr anony has decided that God was really suggesting that a lot of destruction should be done. Please what dictionary did you use to make this adjustment to God's command?

God says kill children and infants right in that command but you translate this to mean don't kill children and infants. This has to be the most glaring examples of terrible apologist acrobatics.

I'll repeat myself again.

An example of a modern figurative speech: "It rained cats and dogs yesterday" means "it rained heavily yesterday". It is understandable for a person who is not familiar with the phrase to argue saying "it is a lie it only rained water" however after the point has been explained to him, it now becomes an irrational response to continue to insist that the expression must have to be literal.

My point has been made. God did not give an immoral command as you insist, it is contrary to His nature as I have also shown in scripture. Unless your argument is that God is incapable of speaking figuratively, I simply don't see the point in your contention.

thehomer: God too is under the authority of moral laws if he is to be a moral agent and he has clearly flouted them.

A moral agent is one who can judge between morally good and morally evil actions and thus can be held accountable for them. God is not a moral agent in the same sense that humans are moral agents. Good is defined by God's character and actions contrary to God's nature are evil.

It is a properly basic premise when it comes to dealing with morality. If you disagree, you're welcome to explain why you disagree.

No it is not a properly basic premise because it is a prescriptive statement and therefore it requires an explanation. To say that "X is wrong" is to say "Do not do X" this rightfully deserves the question "Why?"

thehomer:

You've never answered the question and you've run from it again.



You've not answered the question because I'm not asking whether or not the killing actually happened, I'm asking you whether or not the command itself is actually a moral command. The fact that there were some people still living in that account doesn't mean that the command was a moral command. In fact, you're willing to admit that the command wasn't a moral command but here, rather than addressing the question of the command, you decided to address the claim that the command wasn't fully carried out. This is the evasiveness I've pointed out to you several times already.

So once again, here is the question I asked.


Note that you began by claiming that it was an idiomatic expression. When that attempt failed since you're unable to give the true meaning if it was an idiomatic expression, you decided to say that the command wasn't fully carried out. Please desist from these evasions and address the straightforward question which is this. Was that command given by God a moral command? I didn't ask if the command was carried out, I'm asking you if it was a moral command to give. Don't run from this again.



Since we both agree that it is immoral, then you cannot say that God did the moral thing by giving such a command. You're being self contradictory when you say that the command is immoral and that God didn't do anything immoral by issuing that command.

I've not just rejected your answer, I've shown you that you're not answering the question I asked. Merely repeating your non-answer doesn't transform it into an answer.

Here's your answer again:

1 Samuel 15:3 is an example of Ancient Near East hyperbole signifying extensive destruction but not necessarily absolute destruction and therefore does not literally mean that the Israelites were commanded to kill all the people including infants

1. I hold that killing innocents is immoral
2. I hold that punishing a criminal for his crime is moral
3. God did not command the killing of innocents. What you have in 1Sam 15:3 is a hyperbolic statement and not a literal command.
4. Therefore God's commands are not immoral.

Is this clear enough for you now?

mazaje: Men have to obey moral laws because that is what guides them and make them live in a chaos free society with each other.

I don't know if you realize that "have to obey" means that they are under the authority of a higher moral code which transcends them and therefore they must obey.

I have shown why it is wrong. . .Killing someone for another person's crime is wrong because it is wrong to kill the innocent. . .

Imagine this conversation

A: Why is it wrong to punish someone for the crimes of another person?
B: Because it is wrong to punish the innocent
A: Why is it wrong to punish the innocent?
B: Because it is wrong to punish someone for the crimes of another person
A: So wait, come again. . . . Why is it wrong to punish someone for the crimes of another person?
B: Because it is wrong to punish the innocent
A: And why is it wrong to punish the innocent?
B: Because it is wrong to punish someone for the crimes of another person
A: Sorry no vex, explain to me one more time . . .Why is it wrong to punish someone for the crimes of another person?
B: As I said before....Because it is wrong to punish the innocent
A: Ok and why is it wrong to punish the innocent again?
B: Because it is wrong to punish someone for the crimes of another person
A: Ok seriously now.....Why is it wrong to punish someone for the crimes of another person?

Have you spotted the circle yet?

thehomer:

You can check an English dictionary if you're simply not familiar with the language. See the meaning here.
Secondly, cats and dogs don't fall from the sky as rain. I would have thought that much was obvious.

But in what language is the command "kill all the men, women, children and infants" an idiomatic expression meaning something else? And what is the actual meaning of the command? Those are the questions you've been shying away from. Please answer them in your next response.

You have asked the same question over and over again and I have not shied away from it but have answered you. I'll answer again for the last time.

1 Samuel 15 is an example of Ancient Near East hyperbole signifying extensive destruction but not necessarily absolute destruction and therefore does not literally mean that the Israelites to killed all the people including infants. We know this because we still see that the Amalekites in 1 Samuel 30 attack David and carry away his wives (mind you this happened during Saul's lifetime). If you maintain that 1Samuel 15 is to be taken literally as an utter genocide, then you will have to explain how come a few years later we still have an Amalekite army attacking and enslaving people.

You can say that you are not satisfied with my answer but accusing me of being evasive is inaccurate.

False again. Now you're running away from justifying an assertion that needs to be justified.

My point once again is that killing people for crimes they didn't commit is obviously immoral. You also agree that it is immoral but say it isn't obvious to you. The bottom line here is that we both agree that it is immoral yet God gave such a command. But because you're having a hard time explaining this away, you say this fact isn't obvious to you but you also accept it. This tells me you're either just arguing for the sake of argument or you wish to abandon moral reasoning to support the immoral actions of your God.

I am not running from anything. It is you who is running away from justifying an assertion that needs to be justified.

My point too once again is saying X is obviously immoral is not an explanation of why X is immoral. Secondly, the fact that we both agree that X is immoral does not mean that we therefore agree on why X is immoral. God did not do any immoral deeds and I have made that point clear but you are having a hard time understanding it judging by how many times you've asked the exact same question and rejected the exact same answer. This tells me you are either arguing for the sake of argument or abandoning basic logical reasoning to cling tightly to your anti-God bias.

mazaje:

It simply is because if it is not adhered to there will be total chaos. . .It doesn't have to transcend man because men use it to maintain a just society and live in a society without chaos. . .Men are not under the authority of any higher moral law since all moral laws were made and created by men. . .

If men are not under the authority of any moral law, then they do not have to obey any moral law.

You have failed to show that it is insufficient. . .Saying something doesn't make it so unless you can show it it makes it so. . .

Lololol.........My point exactly. Saying X is just wrong doesn't make it so unless you can show why X is wrong.

thehomer:

Was it God who gave the following command?

So it is now figurative for God to say "put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys"? Please how is this an idiomatic expression? And what is it supposed to mean if it is an idiomatic expression? Does it mean "don't kill women, children and infants"?

I wonder exactly what explanation you seek by asking me how figurative speech is figurative. Let's apply this question of yours to another example of figurative speech namely "it will rain cats and dogs tomorrow" please explain to me how this speech is figurative so I have an idea of what you expect my answer to look like.

If you disagree, you're welcome to say so and why. Just keep at the back of your mind the implications of your disagreement.

Lol, of course I disagree because you are simply wrong. . . .and judging from your arguments so far, I'm sure that should be a sufficient explanation for you

mazaje:

You are a dishonest person that will tell any lie in the book to further your belief in mythology.I remember the lie you came up with when i showed you the discrepancy btw the genealogy of Jesus in Mathew and Luke, your lying excuse at that time was Luke used a word that could loosely be translated as ancestor when nothing close to loosely translated was used there, the translators used the best word that carried the best meaning, but as usual you went with your lies that it could loosely be translated as ancestor, if we were to use your loosely translated nonsense it will still have no meaning at all, must you tell lies all the time? Now you are coming with the nonsense that it is ancient near east expression. . .We can also say that Jesus crucifixion is ancient near east expression since Jesus was not the only messiah at that time and he wasn't the only one that was crucified. . . Can't you just be honest?. . . . .Why do you guys do this?. . .I remember William Lane Craig saying that the Jews that wrote the heinous stories in the OT got it wrong, they wrote what they believed happened and said that it was god that told them when god didn't tell them to do those things. . .How dishonest can one be. . .

I wonder what this rant and attack on my character has to do with what we are talking about.

thehomer:
So which is it? Are you saying God didn't actually command the killing of the children? Or are you merely suggesting that it wasn't fully carried out?

You're talking about whether or not the command was fully carried out. I'm talking about whether the command itself was moral.

So was God misquoted by the prophet?

God was not misrepresented by Samuel. God commanded the Israelites to attack the Amalekites in punishment for their sins. This event was recorded in using the figurative expressions common to the people of the Ancient Near East. It did not literally mean "kill the innocent babies".

A modern example:
I prophesy: thus says X "It will rain cats and dogs tomorrow". If it rains water heavily tomorrow, the prophecy is not void and I didn't misrepresent X. For a person not coversant with modern day English, I'll simply explain to him/her that the expression was figurative and didn't literally mean cats and dogs.

What you see is what is a sufficient explanation when it comes to the concepts of morality and justice.

Lololol, of course it is.

thehomer: My basic point is that your claim ignores other dimensions of physical reality that are better described using other concepts.

I was clearly talking about matter vs non-matter. I don't have to include things that are irrelevant to the point I'm making.

You said information isn't created by the brain. But it can be created by brains and transmitted to other brains. Secondly, for information to be information, brains are required to understand and interpret it otherwise, what you have is the physical representation.

Yes I said information isn't created in by the brain but it was in the context of my discourse with logicboy about london taxi drivers learning routes i.e. the information on the map remains the same regardless of whether there are any brains to be used to comprehend it.
A book in a city of illiterates still contains information regardless of the fact that no one in the city can access it. If these illiterates learn how to read, they can then comprehend the information. Their brains did not create the information.

Secondly, when you say that A is a "physical representation" of B it means A represents B therefore A is information about B. So you haven't really said anything.....unless the action word here is "physical" to which I would ask if there are such things as "non-physical representations"? because if there are no such things as non-physical representations, then the "physical" qualifier you have employed here has no relevance and what you really meant by "physical representation" is really "information".

I thought you were trying to convey non-physical things affecting the physical but if all you wish to say is that the non-material can affect matter, well that is just trivially true.
Well saying information is non-material is trivial and pointless as far as I can see here.

What is important here is not whether you consider it trivial or not, what is important is whether it is true and you have admitted that it is true

thehomer:
"It rained cats and dogs" is an idiomatic expression not an exaggeration. Saying you killed 10,000,000 people when you killed 1,000 is an exaggeration and a lie. You're basically making a comparison error.
Secondly, you're once more trying to skip the issue. The problem is with the command and not how well it was carried out.

First of all, my apologies for using the term "exaggeration" instead of "idiomatic expression" blame it on my limited knowledge of the |English language. The point however remains that the command was written in a figurative expression which is commonly found in Ancient Near East writings and would not have been understood by people of that time and place to literally mean "go and kill the infants".

Secondly, since it isn't obvious enough to you, I am talking about the command and have been doing so all along.

But you agreed that the command was immoral and that it was given by God. The fact that it was given by God means it isn't contrary to his nature so how exactly did you make this mysterious point?

I did not agree that God literally commanded the Isrealites to kill innocent infants.

What sort of explanation are you looking for? Because as far as I can see, I've given sufficient explanation.

Lololol, ok I see. I now know what passes for a sufficient explanation where you are concerned.

thehomer:
I saw it but thought you had something stronger to offer. I'll now show you the problems with what you've put up there.

Ok, let's see what you have.

This isn't really correct. e.g the kelvin pertaining to temperature, candela pertaining to luminosity and others can be considered as relating to physical phenomena.

I wasn't talking about S.I units of measurement, I was talking about the physical phenomena pertaining to matter, space, time and energy these would include heat and luminous intensity which can also be expressed in terms of kg, m and s
temperature for instance is a measure of the kinetic energy(1/2MV²) of molecules in a system. The more they move, the hotter it is. When you come to the root of it what you are really measuring is the square of half the velocity(m/s) of a molecule(kg). You'll find the same applies to luminuosity which can be expressed as watts per second (kgm²/s⁴)

For information to be formed, transmitted or interpreted, it needs physical structures so why do you say it isn't physical? One can accept that it isn't physical such that it would have mass but that doesn't mean it isn't physical.

If you noticed, the word I used was "non-matterial". I have also clarified what I mean by the terms I have used. You are asking me a question about my statement that is not in the same sense as my statement.

Who says information isn't created by the brain? Actually, information isn't the same whether there are brains or not the physical representation would be the same though.

I fail to see what your objection is here in the context of my statement. Please clarify

So, while what you've said above is correct, I don't think it conveys what you want to convey.

I am trying to show that non-material things effect matterial things. You have said that this is correct. I wonder what else you were thinking that I was trying to convey.

mazaje:

It is statements like these that make me wonder if anony is really serious when he says all these things. . .Why is it wrong to kill person A for the crimes of person B?. . .Are you really asking this or is this just your excuse at promoting an illconcived god idea that was not properly thought through by those that concieved of the idea?. . .Its wrong to kill Mr A for the crimes of Mr B because Mr B is innocent and killing innocent people is simply wrong. . .

To say that something is "simply wrong" implies that there is a code of behaviour that "simply is" which transcends man and which man has a duty to uphold regardless of his preferences i.e. All men are under the authority of a higher moral law. Is this what you are implying?

If it is not what you are implying, then I'm afraid "X is simply wrong" is an insufficient answer here.

thehomer:
Actually you have shown inconsistencies because what you're calling "Ancient Near East exaggeration" is what would be called a lie if we're to accept the Bible as being a source of accurate information.



I'm not having anything both ways. God gave an immoral command that couldn't be carried out by his minions.
My argument doesn't presuppose that it happened, in fact, historical evidence doesn't support it but you're once again missing the point. The point is that delivering such a command is immoral whether or not it was carried out. Just as Charles Taylor's commands were immoral whether or not they were carried out.



How is it not a valid answer? One aspect of my morality is based on the wrongness of killing someone for the crimes of another because what would follow from it is that you could be killed because someone else killed John Kennedy. As far as I can see, it is a basic premise of living in a society.



It isn't contrary to God's character because he did give the command that children be killed for the crimes of their parents. Read the quote in my OP. Saying otherwise means implying that God is at best inconsistent and at worst self contradictory.

An example of a modern exaggeration "It rained cats and dogs yesterday" means "it rained heavily yesterday". It is understandable for a person who is not familiar with the phrase to argue saying "it is a lie it only rained water" however after the point has been explained to him, it now becomes an irrational response to continue to insist that the expression must have to be literal.

My point has been made. God did not give an immoral command as you insist, it is contrary to His nature as I have also shown in scripture.

To the second issue: Simply saying X is wrong because X is wrong is an insufficient explanation of why X is wrong.

thehomer:

Based on what you're saying here, the conclusion is that information is physical.



Why do you say that it isn't physical? You're welcome to quote yourself answering this.

I'm afraid you have missed it. Scroll up and read my last reply to logicboy. If you are still confused as to what I'm saying, ask me again.

wiegraf:

And I've been wasting time highlighting the physics, why? Do I have to point out the obvious, again? Are you honestly saying it's irrelevant? Also note, I have never stated the non-material does not exist.

What generated the non-material you speak of?

1. Physics has nothing to do with the fact that the non-material effects the material.

2. Asking me what generated the non-material is irrelevant because the answer will not tell us whether or not non-material things can effect matter. You are only trying to add one more link to the causal chain in the hope of leading to infinite regress. It appears to me that you have implicitly accepted the fact that there is a direct causal link from the non-material to the material.

mazaje:

Anony is here again with his misinformation. . .

Can your brain make you do things that you do not want to do?. . .The answer is yes. . .

If A can make B do what B doesn't want to do, then it is obvious that A and B are two different entities. You have just implied that your brain is different from you. You have conceded my point.

So what exactly are you on about?. . .If brain activity does not control consiousness then why does an alteration in brain activity makes one to lose consiousness?. . . .

Brain activity does not control consciousness, brain activity is evidence of consciousness.

A quick analogy. A TV with a signal shows programmes while one without signal doesn't. If you alter the TV activity by switching it off or changing the channel, you will lose that signal, but this does not mean that therefore the TV activity controls the signal. TV activity (TV programmes) is evidence of the signal and not the controller of it.

Logicboy03:



1) first of all, we have to define information. Note that i used the term ‘floating information’ to refer to any information deemed to be immaterial. However, information is very physical too. A map is physical information about an area. The perception of the map is immaterial information created by the brain. So simple


2) number one shows that the taxi driver’s brain swelling due to neuron activity as a result from learning maps start with a physical action......looking at a physical map and the brain actively trying to learn it.


3) You claim that I am presupposing consciousness when I say that the brain reacts to the map as if it nullifies my argument. LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION- ARE YOU NOT PRESUPPOSING THAT YOU ARE A CONSCIOUS BEING THAT IS MAKING SENSE TO ANYONE READING YOUR POST? OUR REASONING ABILITIES AND FIVE SENSES COME WITH A PRESUPPOSOTION THAT THEY WORK. You cant reason outside your brain.....you reason with it. The brain reasons out the information on the map

4) it is clear that you have claimed what is not true

I hear what you are trying to say, however you making some serious mistakes. I'll only address your number 1 because that's where you get it wrong and then it just continues to get worse from there.

As you suggested, I'll start with definitions
matter - anything that has mass (kg) and occupies space (length x width x thickness)

physical - phenomena pertaining to matter, space, time, and energy such that they can be mathematically expressed in terms of mass, distance and time i.e. kilograms(kg), meters(m), seconds(s). For example electric current = electrons having a mass(kg) moving at a particular speed (m/s). radio waves = particles with a mass (kg) vibrating at a particular frequency/speed (m/s) e.t.c.

information - Does not have a mass nor occupy space. It is "something about another" in that information communicates based on associated symbols that mostly have little or nothing to do with the precise material attributes of the carrier and receiver. It cannot be expressed with the physical attributes kg,m,s.

For instance, using your map example, the information contained on a map will still be exactly the same regardless of the
- size of the paper or the type of ink used in drawing it,
-you can even carve the exact same information in stone or bronze,
-heck you can verbally describe the route, Still the same information.

Now that the definitions have been clarified, I will now clarify something else:
Information is NOT created by the brain. The information on the map is the same whether there are brains to understand it or not.

So once again:

1. Is information non-matter= Yes
2. Is the brain matter = Yes
3. Does information effect brain size = Yes
4. Conclusion: Non-matter causes an effect on matter

Kay 17:

Data and information are not the same, the need to process data is the direct cause of brain mass increase. Not data per se.

Still very much besides the point

Kay 17:

Noooo anony. Note that data is received by the senses not information, data is unprocessed and must be processed before perception. Hence the need to process more data is responsible for the brain mass. The brain functions to process data, for it to process information like seeing the future.

I note your objection but nothing about it changes the point I'm making which is that the immaterial has caused a material change. Feel free to call it "data" or "information", also feel free to describe the process in more detail. The fact still remains.

So to simplify if you like;

"Immaterial data has caused a change in the mass of a material brain" This shows a direct causal link between non-matter and matter.

Please provide a refutation if you may

Lordlexyy: Chai. Sir, i love you. The Spirit of God indeed is with you. The wisdom of men is truely foolish. This is a master piece.

Thanks bro, may the Holy Spirit continue to lead us

Ihedinobi:

How does Luke 10 say that? I assume that by basic need you probably mean a hot meal, shelter and perhaps clothing, right?

Deducing from the command to take no extra personal belongings but eat whatever they set before you.