Mark Nutter wrote:

timopeng@gmail.com wrote:

I think Gatekeeper gives a very good piece of evidence.

Where? I've not seen any.

It's called cause and effect.

Actually, it's called superstition. Johnny's Little League team wins
against a tough opponent. Johnny says they won because he was wearing
his "lucky" underpants. Johnny can't give any rational reason why that
particular effect (winning) should be traced back to that particular
cause (lucky underpants). Likewise, Gatekeeper cites an effect (the
existence of human beings) and attributes it to a particular cause (the
Trinity) without being able to give any rational reason why that
particular effect should be traced back to that particular cause, and
not some other. The only evidence GK is giving is evidence that his
beliefs are superstitious.

I will give you another piece of evidence, the existence of morality...

This common stardard of morality is given by God the creator, the
absoulte standard of good, and anything not measuring up to Him is
evil.

So, then, if God wanted us to murder innocent schoolkids, it would be
"good" to murder them, because the only standard of good is what God
says is good. You can't say "God would never do that," because that
would assume there was some other, non-divine standard of good and evil
by which God's wants and desires could be judged. Murder, lying, rape,
and so on would not be bad in and of themselves, and could be good and
righteous any time God wanted us to do those things. Is that what
you're saying?

The absoulte standard of good resides in God. Because he is the
absoulte standard of good, therefore everything he said is good. not
the other way around.

I trust you are "pro-choice," since you have no authority over anyone
else to decide for them what God has and has not told them (e.g.
through the Bible), and therefore it's not your place (according to
sola scriptura) to deny that God might have told them abortion was ok
in their case. After all, according to what you say above, there's
nothing inherently wrong with abortion itself; it's goodness or
wickedness depends only on whether or not God approves of it in that
particular case.

I am not pro-choice, for the record.

Well, to keep the conversation going, I would like to see you provide a
common standard of morality from evolutionary point of view. That is,
where does morality come from?

Morality comes from enlightened self-interest. Individuals benefit from
social cooperation; morality is the set of principles and values which
experience has shown does the best job of balancing the interests of
the individual against the interests of the group. Too much emphasis on
the interests of the group, and society becomes totalitarian and
oppressive, a moral evil. Too much emphasis on the interests of the
individual, though, leads to the disruption of society and the loss of
the benefits that come from being part of a well-functioning group.

Enlightened self-interest? what is that? a process of evoution? Let us
back up a little bit before this enlightening process started. Let's 2
monkey-man were arguing, billions of years ago, before all form of
enlightment occured.

Monkey man A: "you promised last time if I gave you a banana, you will
give it back this time."

Monkey man B: "well, I am not keeping my promise."

What should monkey man A say at this time before the enlightment?
"well, I guess so?" or "you liar." ?

what will be required for him to go from 'well I guss so' to 'you
liar'? What would give him the enlightment of the concept of lie?
self-interests? so self-interests enlights itself?

You said: "Morality comes from enlightened self-interest". so
self-interest enlights itself? what kind of non-sense is that?
self-interest enlights self-interest produces morality? not trying to
be rude, but check yourself in the mirror, you sounded like monkey C.

Even religions that emphasize humility and self-denial are based on
self-interest. The individual who humbles himself does so in the
context of knowing that he will receive a greater reward as a result.
No religion teaches that if you humble yourself and endure self-denial,
God will send you to eternal torment so that someone else can receive
the benefits of your sacrifice. That would be true self-denial,
suffering with no expectation of future compensation, but who would
want to follow a religion like that? That would be suicide without any
redeeming features.

Good thing there is no religion like that.

so what we humble ourselves
for self-interest? so what we have eternal blessings in mind when we
deny ourselves? If I told you all of your hardwork will result in
transferring of funds to my account, will you work?

you said morality comes from self-interest, then you say religion comes
from self-interest,

then you said that's a evil religion. so
self-interest produces morality and produces evil religions? do I hear
you right? how can something produce both moral and evil things?
explain please.

The absoulte standard of good resides in God. Because he is the
absoulte standard of good, therefore everything he said is good. not
the other way around.

Mark Nutter wrote:

timopeng@gmail.com wrote:

I will give you another piece of evidence, the existence of morality...

This common stardard of morality is given by God the creator, the
absoulte standard of good, and anything not measuring up to Him is
evil.

So, then, if God wanted us to murder innocent schoolkids, it would be
"good" to murder them, because the only standard of good is what God
says is good. You can't say "God would never do that," because that
would assume there was some other, non-divine standard of good and evil
by which God's wants and desires could be judged. Murder, lying, rape,
and so on would not be bad in and of themselves, and could be good and
righteous any time God wanted us to do those things. Is that what
you're saying?

The absoulte standard of good resides in God. Because he is the
absoulte standard of good, therefore everything he said is good. not
the other way around.

I trust you are "pro-choice," since you have no authority over anyone
else to decide for them what God has and has not told them (e.g.
through the Bible), and therefore it's not your place (according to
sola scriptura) to deny that God might have told them abortion was ok
in their case. After all, according to what you say above, there's
nothing inherently wrong with abortion itself; it's goodness or
wickedness depends only on whether or not God approves of it in that
particular case.

I am not pro-choice, for the record.

Morality comes from enlightened self-interest. Individuals benefit from
social cooperation; morality is the set of principles and values which
experience has shown does the best job of balancing the interests of
the individual against the interests of the group. Too much emphasis on
the interests of the group, and society becomes totalitarian and
oppressive, a moral evil. Too much emphasis on the interests of the
individual, though, leads to the disruption of society and the loss of
the benefits that come from being part of a well-functioning group.

Enlightened self-interest? what is that? a process of evoution? Let us
back up a little bit before this enlightening process started. Let's 2
monkey-man were arguing, billions of years ago, before all form of
enlightment occured.

Monkey man A: "you promised last time if I gave you a banana, you will
give it back this time."

Monkey man B: "well, I am not keeping my promise."

What should monkey man A say at this time before the enlightment?
"well, I guess so?" or "you liar." ?

You said: "Morality comes from enlightened self-interest". so
self-interest enlights itself? what kind of non-sense is that?
self-interest enlights self-interest produces morality? not trying to
be rude, but check yourself in the mirror, you sounded like monkey C.

Even religions that emphasize humility and self-denial are based on
self-interest. The individual who humbles himself does so in the
context of knowing that he will receive a greater reward as a result.
No religion teaches that if you humble yourself and endure self-denial,
God will send you to eternal torment so that someone else can receive
the benefits of your sacrifice. That would be true self-denial,
suffering with no expectation of future compensation, but who would
want to follow a religion like that? That would be suicide without any
redeeming features.

Good thing there is no religion like that. so what we humble ourselves
for self-interest?

so what we have eternal blessings in mind when we
deny ourselves? If I told you all of your hardwork will result in
transferring of funds to my account, will you work?

you said morality comes from self-interest, then you say religion comes
from self-interest, then you said that's a evil religion. so
self-interest produces morality and produces evil religions? do I hear
you right? how can something produce both moral and evil things?
explain please.

The absoulte standard of good resides in God. Because he is the
absoulte standard of good, therefore everything he said is good. not
the other way around.

I trust you are "pro-choice," since you have no authority over anyone
else to decide for them what God has and has not told them (e.g.
through the Bible), and therefore it's not your place (according to
sola scriptura) to deny that God might have told them abortion was ok
in their case. After all, according to what you say above, there's
nothing inherently wrong with abortion itself; it's goodness or
wickedness depends only on whether or not God approves of it in that
particular case.

I am not pro-choice, for the record.

what will be required for him to go from 'well I guss so' to 'you
liar'? What would give him the enlightment of the concept of lie?
self-interests? so self-interests enlights itself?

You said: "Morality comes from enlightened self-interest". so
self-interest enlights itself? what kind of non-sense is that?
self-interest enlights self-interest produces morality? not trying to
be rude, but check yourself in the mirror, you sounded like monkey C.

Mark Nutter wrote:

timopeng@gmail.com wrote:

I think Gatekeeper gives a very good piece of evidence.

Where? I've not seen any.

It's called cause and effect.

Actually, it's called superstition. Johnny's Little League team wins
against a tough opponent. Johnny says they won because he was wearing
his "lucky" underpants. Johnny can't give any rational reason why that
particular effect (winning) should be traced back to that particular
cause (lucky underpants). Likewise, Gatekeeper cites an effect (the
existence of human beings) and attributes it to a particular cause (the
Trinity) without being able to give any rational reason why that
particular effect should be traced back to that particular cause, and
not some other. The only evidence GK is giving is evidence that his
beliefs are superstitious.

I do not recall, that I was in any way limiting the evidence which I
presented,

Mark Nutter wrote:

timopeng@gmail.com wrote:

I think Gatekeeper gives a very good piece of evidence.

Where? I've not seen any.

It's called cause and effect.

Actually, it's called superstition. Johnny's Little League team wins
against a tough opponent. Johnny says they won because he was wearing
his "lucky" underpants. Johnny can't give any rational reason why that
particular effect (winning) should be traced back to that particular
cause (lucky underpants). Likewise, Gatekeeper cites an effect (the
existence of human beings) and attributes it to a particular cause (the
Trinity) without being able to give any rational reason why that
particular effect should be traced back to that particular cause, and
not some other. The only evidence GK is giving is evidence that his
beliefs are superstitious.

I do not recall, that I was in any way limiting the evidence which I
presented, to the existence of human beings, when I said you are the
evidence! You err in thinking that I limited the evidence to a
discussion about creation/evolution, dating of fossils, etc.

Mark Nutter wrote:

Actually, it's called superstition. Johnny's Little League team wins
against a tough opponent. Johnny says they won because he was wearing
his "lucky" underpants. Johnny can't give any rational reason why that
particular effect (winning) should be traced back to that particular
cause (lucky underpants). Likewise, Gatekeeper cites an effect (the
existence of human beings) and attributes it to a particular cause (the
Trinity) without being able to give any rational reason why that
particular effect should be traced back to that particular cause, and
not some other. The only evidence GK is giving is evidence that his
beliefs are superstitious.

I do not recall, that I was in any way limiting the evidence which I
presented, to the existence of human beings, when I said you are the
evidence! You err in thinking that I limited the evidence to a
discussion about creation/evolution, dating of fossils, etc.

I also do not recall saying anything about the Trinity!

On the other hand, neither did I say anything about superstious
beliefs, or any other conclusion, than the fact that I believe you are
evidence of God!

One God, and yes this is the God of Christianity.
Though I certainly made no claims beyond that, that would get into any
superstious relationship with this God, that is another discussion!

So stick to the evidence, do not go beyond the evidence, either
projecting what you suspect my beliefs to be, or projecting your
beliefs into the analysis of the evidence.

Evidence which again is not
limited to some discussion about our existence as men!.

Though I know
some of you like to keep playing that music, like some bizarr form of
elevator music, by which with all of your playing, you think you can
get to the top floor of reasoning and science.