For sonship: On Childishness

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Let's try again, LJ: The Olympian width and length of this thread's Original Post exceeds my own personal 'best'. lol From which it would appear that you also attempt to present comprehensive information within a functional structure, presumably, because you care intensely about your objective. Few invest this level of effort; to what ultimate purpose do you do so?

Huh?

Originally posted by LemonJello
Huh?

My apology for intruding on your conversation with sonship; the sidebar could have been handled with a message. -Bob

Originally posted by LemonJello
Well, it would appear I have struck a nerve. Ironically, or perhaps fittingly, you sound like a petulant child. Maybe revisit this when you can entertain the topic in a more mature, objective manner?

I'll not waste more time than needed. I will reply only to the substantive, intelligible points you raise. That throws out the bulk of your post.
...[text shortened]... ity' is not an agent.

Well, that's about all I could find by way of substance in your post.

Well, it would appear I have struck a nerve.
Why of course you have!
I typically couldn't give two hoots when someone has an elevated sense of self (we all do what we think will best give us the largest portion of happiness), but I spare no quarter for one whose elevation of self is based upon a condescending attitude towards topics about which they clearly have no clue.

The spiritually dead man knows nothing of the spiritual life.
He can make all manner of observations about behavior and do his best to classify with phrases and buzzwords which will confer upon him a feeling of superiority, but in the end, he is still a clueless dolt about what happens in the spiritual world.
The spiritual man, however, is in a position to comment upon the spiritually dead man without the slightest bit of guile; that doesn't mean he always does, but only the one alive can truly make accurate observations about the one still dead.

You're missing the point.
Entirely possible, but highly doubtful.
I have repeatedly reminded you how the spiritual life of a believer is decidedly and emphatically NOT about morality; how morality is an inferior approach to life than what the believer has been equipped with and for.
And yet you continue going back to the well!

But let's set morality aside and just talk about good and God.
You claim that lacking a God-independent standard of good, we lack an objective view of good and are therefore trapped in a whirlpool of self-definition.

Naturally, I disagree.
But of course, this is what we expect of a petulant child.
I wonder if this petulant child can offer an example of why you are wrong and be successful in getting your support.

For the sake of argument, let us say that the earth and her immediate solar system constitute the entire universe.
In this micro universe, the sun is the only light.
When the sun is not in the sky or is obscured, we have varying degrees of the absence of light.
On any given sunny day, my house can only contain as much light as openings are available for the sunlight to enter, be it by window or door.
Once the sun is down or my windows and doors are closed off, the house is now experiencing an absence of light.
To allow for light in my house when the sun is not available, I strike a match and light a candle.
The candles holds the flame, which produces a measure of light.
That light is not from the sun in any way, shape or form... yet it is light.
It is light because it imitates the real and ultimate light (the sun) albeit on a small scale.

In a similar fashion, there is an ultimate source of good.
Those things which are inherently good are so because they imitate that ultimate good in one fashion or another.
Those things which are bad are simply varying degrees of an absence of God.

So it's not "Because daddy says so," but rather it is "Because daddy is so."

Sorry, but you're just notionally confused. 'Morality' is not an agent.
I don't think it's too much of a stretch to consider morality as an outside agency and not simply an outside pressure, owing to its evolving nature and its clear and utter dependence upon human nature.
In ways, it acts as a living, malleable entity even if it doesn't have a self-will.
Besides, you're going to be hard-pressed to give it any other descriptor without resorting to mystery and other vague unknowns...

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]Well, it would appear I have struck a nerve.
Why of course you have!
I typically couldn't give two hoots when someone has an elevated sense of self (we all do what we think will best give us the largest portion of happiness), but I spare no quarter for one whose elevation of self is based upon a condescending attitude towards topics about which th ...[text shortened]... pressed to give it any other descriptor without resorting to mystery and other vague unknowns...[/b]

That was a nice, deep one. I can still smell its stench and see the fumes wafting from it miles away.

I hope someone comes along to clean it up soon. Some with an industrial-strength machine. Perhaps a bulldozer.

Edit: and it starts with lecturing others on 'elevated self-assurance'. Priceless.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]Well, it would appear I have struck a nerve.
Why of course you have!
I typically couldn't give two hoots when someone has an elevated sense of self (we all do what we think will best give us the largest portion of happiness), but I spare no quarter for one whose elevation of self is based upon a condescending attitude towards topics about which th ...[text shortened]... pressed to give it any other descriptor without resorting to mystery and other vague unknowns...[/b]

You claim that lacking a God-independent standard of good, we lack an objective view of good and are therefore trapped in a whirlpool of self-definition.

Yes, and no. Yes, you lack an objective view of good, since on your view goodness is constitutively dependent on one particular mind. That's clearly a form of subjectivism. No, I would not say you are "trapped in a whirlpool of self-definition". But your view clearly suffers from arbitrarity.

For the sake of argument, let us say that the earth and her immediate solar system constitute the entire universe.
In this micro universe, the sun is the only light.
When the sun is not in the sky or is obscured, we have varying degrees of the absence of light.
On any given sunny day, my house can only contain as much light as openings are available for the sunlight to enter, be it by window or door.
Once the sun is down or my windows and doors are closed off, the house is now experiencing an absence of light.
To allow for light in my house when the sun is not available, I strike a match and light a candle.
The candles holds the flame, which produces a measure of light.
That light is not from the sun in any way, shape or form... yet it is light.
It is light because it imitates the real and ultimate light (the sun) albeit on a small scale.

Well, first of all, the information you provide in this hypothetical is simply self-contradictory. You say on one hand that "the sun is the only light". Then later you state "That light [referring to that of the candle] is not from the sun in any way, shape or form…yet it is light". That's simply you contradicting yourself.

Secondly, there is nothing is this hypothetical that actually justifies your conclusion that "It is light [referring again to the candle] because it imitates the real and ultimate light (the sun)…." There is nothing here that warrants that statement. All the information we have is still consistent with the idea that a concrete example of light (such as what emanates from the candle) is light based on objective properties and facts (that it is comprised of photons, electromagnetic radiation, has a certain range of wavelengths, etc, etc). Yours, again, is simply a subjectivist view of good: that a concrete instance of good qualifies as good because it bears some relation to a particular agent. That is making good a matter of subjective relation. However, I see no actual reason to think this is how it works, and you have provided none here. Perhaps concrete instances of good qualify as good based on objective considerations.

So it's not "Because daddy says so," but rather it is "Because daddy is so."

Exactly how does this show that I was wrong in my assessment? That you're committed to the ultimate explanation "Because God is so" entails precisely what I already said: that you have no God-independent reasons that ultimately explain moral status. So, thanks for further supporting my point for me. Again, this is just like the child who thinks not of any Daddy-independent reasons that would explain what is right or wrong.

I don't think it's too much of a stretch to consider morality as an outside agency and not simply an outside pressure, owing to its evolving nature and its clear and utter dependence upon human nature.

'Morality' as you intend the term here is clearly not an agent, let alone an "outside" agent. It is not an "outside" pressure, either. It is an endogenous complex featuring in humans. So, you're just way off-base. As I was using 'heteronomy' in the opening post, it was in the explicit sense of "externally imposed by an outside agency". And I was referring to actual agency. An agent, in this sense, is by definition one who acts. God would be a clear example of an outside agent with respect to us humans. 'Morality' as you intend it here is an example of an endogenous non-agent. So you have it completely backwards.

Originally posted by LemonJello

You claim that lacking a God-independent standard of good, we lack an objective view of good and are therefore trapped in a whirlpool of self-definition.

Yes, and no. Yes, you lack an objective view of good, since on your view goodness is constitutively dependent on one particular mind. That's clearly a form of subjectivism. No, I wou ...[text shortened]... u intend it here is an example of an endogenous non-agent. So you have it completely backwards.

God would be a clear example of an outside agent with respect to us humans.

The new testament is all about God coming into humans.
That is what eternal life is.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
That was a nice, deep one. I can still smell its stench and see the fumes wafting from it miles away.

I hope someone comes along to clean it up soon. Some with an industrial-strength machine. Perhaps a bulldozer.

Edit: and it starts with lecturing others on 'elevated self-assurance'. Priceless.

Awesome.

Did you have something to say, or just wanting to rant?

Originally posted by LemonJello

You claim that lacking a God-independent standard of good, we lack an objective view of good and are therefore trapped in a whirlpool of self-definition.

Yes, and no. Yes, you lack an objective view of good, since on your view goodness is constitutively dependent on one particular mind. That's clearly a form of subjectivism. No, I wou ...[text shortened]... u intend it here is an example of an endogenous non-agent. So you have it completely backwards.

But your view clearly suffers from arbitrarity.
If something conforms to logic, does it do so arbitrarily or does it do so objectively?

Is logic a standard?
Is straight a standard?
Is perfect a standard?

If so, upon what are these based?

That's simply you contradicting yourself.
Work with me, will ya?
The sun is the only natural source of light in the hypothetical universe.
The light we manufacture shares the same properties as the sun, and is thus considered light.
Those physical reactions are miniature facsimiles of what occurs on the sun.
What we manufacture only resembles light insofar as the actions agree and follow the example of what occurs on the sun.

Literally nothing on this planet (save a volcanic eruption, lightning or fire) approximates what occurs on the sun: nothing creates light, save what replicates in some fashion or another what the sun is doing.

Are those properties dependent or independent?
Does not light require waves, energy, photons?
Can light be reducible?
Broken apart, refracted and dispersed?

Said differently, in order for some aspect of the universe to be considered light, does it not necessarily follow certain rules?
Is the light superior to the rule, or is the rule superior to the light?
If the rule is the standard, is it objective?

Exactly how does this show that I was wrong in my assessment?
All these rules are language-dependent, right?
In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.
I'd say that sums it up very nicely.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Awesome.

Did you have something to say, or just wanting to rant?

Informing the public about hazardous waste is a civic duty. Not that anyone could possibly have missed it. 😛

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Informing the public about hazardous waste is a civic duty. Not that anyone could possibly have missed it. 😛

To you, I'm certain there exists a certain level of repugnance in every ounce of truth to which you are exposed; I'm sure it stings your soul.

This knowledge gladdens my heart, lightens my load, makes my day that much better.

Keep reading.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
To you, I'm certain there exists a certain level of repugnance in every ounce of truth to which you are exposed; I'm sure it stings your soul.

This knowledge gladdens my heart, lightens my load, makes my day that much better.

Keep reading.

If I had just taken a dump as big as the one you did, I'd feel glad, lighter, and better too. 😛

Originally posted by SwissGambit
If I had just taken a dump as big as the one you did, I'd feel glad, lighter, and better too. 😛

Feces fetish?
How about instead of flinging yours around, you refute the points being made.
Your sophomoric attempts at humorous insults are cute, but they really don't make you look as smart as you're hoping.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]But your view clearly suffers from arbitrarity.
If something conforms to logic, does it do so arbitrarily or does it do so objectively?

Is logic a standard?
Is straight a standard?
Is perfect a standard?

If so, upon what are these based?

That's simply you contradicting yourself.
Work with me, will ya?
The sun is the only natural ...[text shortened]... s the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.
I'd say that sums it up very nicely.[/b]

I do not understand your questions. I think it would be more effective to simply state whatever thesis you are driving toward and attempt to support it with ancillary statements.

We do not call the radiative emission from a candle's flame "light" because it is similar to the sun ipso facto. Your argument here is outrageous. I may as well create a hypothetical that goes like this: "In our hypothetical universe, Mount Augustus is the only rock. When it is obscured or out of view, you have the absence of rock. The pebbles in my driveway are not from or part of Mount Augustus; yet they are rocks. They are rocks because they share the same properties as Mount Augustus and imitate Mount Augustus albeit on smaller scale." This should be met with nothing but ridicule. First off, I am contradicting myself by stating that Mount Augustus is the only rock that exists and then going on to explain how lots of others things that exist also constitute rocks. Secondly, no one in his right mind thinks that what makes some rock a rock is that it shares properties with another particular rock ipso facto. How absurd. The word 'rock' is properly applied to them because they meet the technical definition of the term on their own, not because they look like one particular really big rock. The similarity to the big rock is incidental. Your light hypothetical is no less silly than my rock hypothetical and shows nothing, excepting perhaps that you have a flawed understanding of how scientific description works.

Do you have any other arguments for your view that God is definitive of goodness?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Feces fetish?
How about instead of flinging yours around, you refute the points being made.
Your sophomoric attempts at humorous insults are cute, but they really don't make you look as smart as you're hoping.

Whatever happened to Freaky, the soul-stinger?! I'm so disappointed.

Looks like LJ's got you covered on refutation of your 'points', such as they may be.

Originally posted by LemonJello
I do not understand your questions. I think it would be more effective to simply state whatever thesis you are driving toward and attempt to support it with ancillary statements.

We do not call the radiative emission from a candle's flame "light" because it is similar to the sun ipso facto. Your argument here is outrageous. I may as well cr ...[text shortened]... tion works.

Do you have any other arguments for your view that God is definitive of goodness?

This planet is replete with rocks--- nearly 75% of it's surface is made up of the stuff.
Where does the light come from?
Anywhere on the planet?

Light comes from OUTSIDE of the planet.
When we replicate light, we are imitating the sun.
Your analogy is pathetic, since the thing you use is something that is already a part of the landscape.

The distinction is that light isn't found here on the planet (with the exceptions already noted), except when man imitates the exact properties/reactions as observed being performed by the sun.

We do not call the radiative emission from a candle's flame "light" because it is similar to the sun ipso facto.
No, we call it light because it imitates the thing the sun does.
Without the sun, we wouldn't have any idea what light is, right?

In fact, you have such a hard time rejecting the illustration, you had to come up with a self-contradictory counter-example.
That's funny.
Probably because you have such a firm grasp on how scientific description works.