1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayif it happens to be the case that god does not exist, then he doesn't direct anything. yet the golden rule would still be a concept available to man. i see your 'by the direction of God' as relying on a mighty big assumption that remains dubious.
By the direction of God yes, we are to treat each other as we want to
be treated.
Kelly
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by LemonJelloWhat according to you is not a man-made construct?
[b]Do you know that you have just quoted the words of Christ? Are you also saying that the Golden rule for morality comes from the Bible?
christ are you obtuse, dj2.
i have never disputed the fact that i think the bible just happens to contain some useful concepts of morality. since i think that 1. morality is a man-made construct AND 2. ...[text shortened]... saying that the Golden rule for morality comes from the Bible?[/b]
far from it.
[/b]
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by LemonJello...if it happens to be the case that god does not exist...
if it happens to be the case that god does not exist, then he doesn't direct anything. yet the golden rule would still be a concept available to man. i see your 'by the direction of God' as a mighty big assumption that remains dubious.
Isn't this also a mighty big assumption that remains dubious seeing that you are incapable of proving a universal negative?
1 edit
Originally posted by dj2beckerno, and your ignorance is showing like underwear over pants. 'if it happens to be the case that god does not exist' is not an assumption at all. it is part of a conditional statement.
[b]...if it happens to be the case that god does not exist...
Isn't this also a mighty big assumption that remains dubious seeing that you are incapable of proving a universal negative?[/b]
the full statement was 'if it happens to be the case that god does not exist, then he doesn't direct anything.' do you disagree with this logic?
EDIT: ok, to be fair, i also added 'yet the golden rule would still be a concept available to man.' maybe this is what you wish to disagree with?
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
1 edit
Originally posted by LemonJelloThe point is that you are using circular reasoning. If everything is a man-made construct it would mean that man itself would also be a man-made construct, which is totally illogical reasoning. That is why I wish to know from you what you don't consider to be a man-made construct.
how is this question of yours relevant to anything? honestly, dj2, you need to rethink your approach to debating because it is old and tired.
Originally posted by dj2beckerlol. well, rest assured then. i don't think everything is a man-made construct. i'm quite certain man didn't make the stuff that existed prior to the big bang. satisfied?
The point is that you are using circular reasoning. If everything is a man-made construct it would mean that man itself would also be a man-made construct, which is totally illogical reasoning.
still lol.
