For sonship: On Childishness

Originally posted by wolfgang59
You missed out bioluminescence.
Bioluminescence is the production and emission of light by a
living organism. Bioluminescence [b]occurs widely in marine
vertebrates and invertebrates, as well as in some fungi,
microorganisms and terrestrial invertebrates. Some symbiotic
organisms carried within larger organisms produce light.
from wik ...[text shortened]... lly
such as fire, lightning, St Elmo's, bioluminescence etc.

It's hard to argue with that!![/b]

No, I didn't miss it; I mentioned these and similar to these.
But, as the atheist side is wont to do, you didn't read it.
And, as the atheist side is wont to do, you simply take the opposing viewpoint, no matter how ridiculous.

Unless you're Aquaman, the negligible glow of the marine life where bioluminescence is prevalent isn't something you're likely to either know about or read a book by.

And, if the clear intent of the argument is to be heard--- which is highly unlikely given the intransigence of those arguing such a ridiculous point--- if the naturally-occurring light was as prevalent as is being purported, what possible use do we have for all of the artificial light currently in use in the world?

The fact remains that light like the sun is nowhere found on the planet and when we create an artificial substitute for that light, we are simply mimicking some of its characteristics.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
The fact remains that light like the sun is nowhere found on the planet and when we create an artificial substitute for that light, we are simply mimicking some of its characteristics.

Now that, I would generally agree with, however, it is not what your original argument said.
You even went so far as to say:

It is light because it imitates the real and ultimate light (the sun) albeit on a small scale.

which is quite a different claim altogether.

Yes, when we light up our houses we do so because we have evolved eyes to see in sunlight and we are imitating that sunlight, but this in no way makes the light we create any less real than sunlight, nor does it make sunlight the 'ultimate light', nor is it called 'light' because it is in imitation of sunlight.

Originally posted by sonship
[quote] Of course, I am kidding. The truth is that you just cannot be bothered to take the time to read and assimilate what I say in these discussions. At any rate, I've made it clear in this thread that I do not think the truth value of moral claims hinge on what any persons or groups of persons think about those claims. So, now after reading this, if you s ...[text shortened]... d universal moral standard, which you seemed to be say before that you didn't know what I meant.

I would prefer to respond to your salient points in one post.

What I re-call you writing was that it "seems" to be true.

Why not try reading just a little bit further down that same paragraph? You'll reach the point where I clearly stated "But, at any rate, I think these beliefs I mentioned are true because they report objective facts." It would be hard for me to be any clearer on this point than that, don't you think?

I know other objective foundations are proposed. But I think they fail to replace a Moral Law Giver though people like yourself wish they did.

Sorry, but we have been over this point many times: your view does NOT provide objective foundations for morals, remember? That you ground morals constitutively in some agent arbiter who acts in this capacity as the "Moral Law Giver" is precisely what makes morals mind-dependent and thus subjective on your view. It's remarkable how many theists on this forum have put forth subjectivist views of morality, only to turn around and pride themselves on their "objective" accounting for morals. This is why I keep referring to you as the emperor with his new clothes.

It makes no sense to suggest that an agent in the form of a Moral Law Giver is necessary for objective foundations for morals. That boils down to saying that some moral-mind connection is necessary for morals to be at the end of the day mind-independent.

Again, you do not require that morals be 'objective'. You just require that they be independent of what any humans think about them. Again, there are many secular ethical theories to be taken seriously that entail this.

If some truth claims are truly true regardless of anyone's opinion, then you hold to some sense of transcendent and universal moral standard, which you seemed to be say before that you didn't know what I meant.

Again, I do not know what you mean by "transcendent and universal moral standard". Mostly, I do not know what is meant here by 'transcendent'. Again, I hold that the truth values of such claims are independent from any observer attitudes; they do not depend on what anyone thinks about them. If that is sufficient for what you mean by "transcendent and universal", then okay. Note, however, that you cannot say the same as me on this: the fact is, you hold that the truth values of moral claims DO depend on the attitudes, mentality, character, etc, of one, and only one, particular agent; whereas I think they depend on no agents. Your view is subjectivist because of this; mine is an objective account.

Regarding the "meta-ethical accounting", again, the point is that there are two separate issues: one is just some explanation of where the human moral sense comes from; the other is some account that purports to show that these human moral sensibilities can be true, pick out something actual; can be justified, etc. The first issue is wholly descriptively specifiable, which is to say that the discourse can proceed wholly through descriptive claims. The second issue, however, has irreducible normative dimension and cannot proceed wholly through descriptive claims.

What happened in this thread is that you asked me for the former explanation; then objected on the grounds that I did not provide the latter explanation. This despite the fact that I first attempted to clarify the distinction and attempted to verify with you that you were looking for the former, not the latter. Oh well.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
No, I didn't miss it; I mentioned these and similar to these.
But, as the atheist side is wont to do, you didn't read it.
And, as the atheist side is wont to do, you simply take the opposing viewpoint, no matter how ridiculous.

Unless you're Aquaman, the negligible glow of the marine life where bioluminescence is prevalent isn't something you're likel ...[text shortened]... te an artificial substitute for that light, we are simply mimicking some of its characteristics.

So, just like wolfgang said, your claim boils down to saying that there are no natural sources of light other than the sun…oh, except for a bunch of stuff that are natural sources of light other than the sun. That can only be one of two things: (1) you are contradicting yourself or (2) you are stating something that is basically tautological. Either way, it is not of interest.

Look, I have fairly and honestly addressed your hypothetical. I showed you from the very beginning that it is self-contradictory. I also explained that, even if I overlook the contradictions and also fully concede that the sun is the only natural source of light (which is an empirically false claim), it still would not follow that earthly sources of light only qualify as light because they bear some similarity relationship with the sun. This point is obvious to anyone who has a working familiarity with how light description works. So, your hypothetical shows nothing. That is why I keep asking if you have any other arguments or considerations to put forth. It seems that you do not.

That you ground morals constitutively in some agent arbiter who acts in this capacity as the "Moral Law Giver" is precisely what makes morals mind-dependent and thus subjective on your view.

That's not true. The "some agent" is God, a Being for whom a greater being cannot be imagined. Before my mind came into existence the mind of God was eternally existent.

I do not take the initiative to ground the moral values in "some agent". I with my creation in the image of God have some correspondence to my Creator.

I understand from your standpoint as an atheist you think I concoct "some agent". There is no reason why I should recognize this action as representing what is going on.

I did not concoct some arbitrary agent. I recognize that ultimate God who pre-existed and it eternal and who's being possesses that nature of righteousness. Neither do I concoct a Creator of the universe. I recognize that Creator.

It is not necessary that I know all the things pertaining to that Ultimate Governor. I know that no greater being could there be.

It's remarkable how many theists on this forum have put forth subjectivist views of morality, only to turn around and pride themselves on their "objective" accounting for morals.

Your explanation doesn't make sense to me.

The universe is there objectively. It was before I had subjective experience of it. It will remain when my subjective experience of it is terminated. Though I have not yet experienced that, I see no reason why it should not be so.

The righteousness of God is flowing out of His nature before I was. It will flow out of Himself still should I cease tomorrow. It is not terminated because my "subjective" sense of it is terminated.

This is why I keep referring to you as the emperor with his new clothes.

I have not read that reference yet. But I would regard that as the wishful thinking of the atheist.

It makes no sense to suggest that an agent in the form of a Moral Law Giver is necessary for objective foundations for morals.

It makes much more sense than that we evolutionary style meandered our way towards morality.

That we are made in the image of God, a being for whom no greater can be imagined, makes sense. And I think it is far far more humanly mature to realize this.

Absolutely nothing in your discussion gives me any confidence that a child-like recognition that God is good, is somehow less realistic than your convoluted philosophy.

I would say that the child's prayer "God is great, God is good, and we thank Him for this food" contains a superior human recognition of the truth of morality than the convolutions you have submitted here.

That boils down to saying that some moral-mind connection is necessary for morals to be at the end of the day mind-independent.

This does not make too clear sense to me.

What also weakens your argument is that I have in history a model, and example of that goodness manifested in human flesh - Jesus Christ.
You have a eloquent rocking chair philosophy about this. But we have in human history a manifestation of the transcendent and highest level of morality seen in a person.

While you're trying to tell us where the moral standard comes from Christ demonstrated in human history where its source comes from - [b]Himself[b]. That is Himself as He was completely one with the will of His Father.

His faithful witness encourages me that God is the source of the highest goodness and most complete justice. It is more persuasive to me than the armchair existentialism you are trying so eloquently to describe.

Again, you do not require that morals be 'objective'. You just require that they be independent of what any humans think about them.

I don't follow this. And I do not see what it is yet important to have to follow it.

God has the last say about what I did, what you did, what all men did.
Now you may choose not to believe that God has the last say.
That's your risk.
That's your gamble.

But for all intents and purposes that One who has the final say is the final arbitrator. Fortunately, in the Christian Gospel provision has been made for complete reconciliation to this Final Arbitrator and Final Judge.

As ultimate righteousness flows out of His being according to what He is so also does ultimate love and the desire that we be reconciled to Himself.

Again, there are many secular ethical theories to be taken seriously that entail this.

There may be. And I do not know them all. But again, there are theories and there is the testimony of Jesus of Nazareth in history. The absolute moral goodness has been demonstrated in space and time on this earth.

And since He came a considerable impact has caused men to respond "Things will never be the same. We must now speak of Before Christ and in His year. - B.C. and A.D." I think it is no accident.

I think no living human being's ethics has made such an impact on world history as the Son of God.

Frankly, concerning childishness ? I think the 14 year old who understands that Christ embodies the highest goodness is far ahead of your philosophy, as tortured and eloquent as you make it attempt to answer these questions.

Again, I do not know what you mean by "transcendent and universal moral standard". Mostly, I do not know what is meant here by 'transcendent'. Again, I hold that the truth values of such claims are independent from any observer attitudes; they do not depend on what anyone thinks about them. If that is sufficient for what you mean by "transcendent and universal", then okay. Note, however, that you cannot say the same as me on this: the fact is, you hold that the truth values of moral claims DO depend on the attitudes, mentality, character, etc, of one, and only one, particular agent; whereas I think they depend on no agents. Your view is subjectivist because of this; mine is an objective account.

I am not sure I follow this. But the being of God from whom ultimate and highest moral value flows from is uncreated and eternal. As long as God was so these aspects of His being were.

God's existence is not dependent on my subjective experience. I came, a arrived and the creation, the universe was here already. I came, I arrived at existing yet God the infinitely righteous One existed already.

He did not START being righteous just because I came about.
Prior to my subjective realization He was every bit as a Righteous One as a Creator. He's eternal and uncreated - ALL of Him. I arrived created because of the uncreated.

I was bestowed with attributes that mirror Him because I arrived created in His image.

One of the ten commandments was to honor you father and your mother. That is to honor your source. If we trace our source back and back before all mothers and fathers we arrive at our Creator God.

My moral sense is in me because of the uncreated and eternal Creator who had it in Himself to bestow upon me. I am a borrowing entity who received an attribute from an owning entity. The buck stops with God.

There is nothing beyond God, or above God, or behind God as any source of what God is. The buck stops with God whether we like it or not.

And ultimately our moral obligations and duties are responsible to Him.

Originally posted by sonship
[quote] Again, I do not know what you mean by "transcendent and universal moral standard". Mostly, I do not know what is meant here by 'transcendent'. Again, I hold that the truth values of such claims are independent from any observer attitudes; they do not depend on what anyone thinks about them. If that is sufficient for what you mean by "transcendent and ...[text shortened]... e like it or not.

And ultimately our moral obligations and duties are responsible to Him.

The buck stops with God.

It is one thing for a person to say "The buck stops here" -- meaning the speaker -- but when a third party says it, it is commonly considered to be buck-passing.

However, it is hard to avoid concluding that the buck stops with a god, when the god is an ex-nihilo "omniqualitied" creator. It's just a little surprising to hear it from a person that I would expect to attribute some autonomous moral responsibility to humans, and even to a powerful person called Satan. Care to clarify?

Originally posted by JS357

The buck stops with God.

It is one thing for a person to say "The buck stops here" -- meaning the speaker -- but when a third party says it, it is commonly considered to be buck-passing.

However, it is hard to avoid concluding that the buck stops with a god, when the god is an ex-nihilo "omniqualitied" creator. It's just a little surprisi ...[text shortened]... ous moral responsibility to humans, and even to a powerful person called Satan. Care to clarify?

It is one thing for a person to say "The buck stops here" -- meaning the speaker -- but when a third party says it, it is commonly considered to be buck-passing.

It was president Harry Truman who has a sign on his oval office desk reading "The Buck Stops Here". I imagine that the sign was mostly for himself. There was no one left in the country who had the authority that vested in him as the nations president.

Now I don't mean to debate US civics. I am just saying the sign "The Buck Stops Here" meant that if it was an easier decision that someone else had to be responsible for the "buck" would have stopped elsewhere.

You have to admit that some decisions you and I do not have the authority to decide upon. Some decisions do stop with you or I in our family life or employment. Those which are beyond our paygrade we bring to someone else. This is not "passing the buck" as in shirking our responsibilty. This sending the problem to a higher station qualified to arbitrate.

These excerpts from the book "Authority and Submission" by Watchman Nee helped me to these issues.

God’s works issue from God’s throne; God’s throne is established upon authority. All things have been created by the authority of God, and all laws on earth are held together through authority. Hence, the Bible says that God upholds all things by the word, which is of His authority (Heb. 1:3b). It does not say that God upholds all things by His power. God’s authority represents God Himself; God’s power only represents God’s works. It is easy to be forgiven of sin against God’s power, but it is not that easy to be forgiven of sin against God’s authority, because sinning against God’s authority is sinning against God Himself. In the whole universe only God is authority. All other authorities are appointed by God. Nothing is greater than authority in the universe; nothing can surpass it. For this reason, if we want to serve God, we must know God’s authority.

This helped me in my former days when in the early 1970s my cynicism against practically all authority was at its peek.

This next section helped me to see where the source of all rebellion to authority had its source and where Satan came from.

Satan became Satan because he overstepped God’s authority. He wanted to compete with God and to stand in opposition to God. Rebellion is the cause of the fall of Satan.

Both Isaiah 14:12-15 and Ezekiel 28:13-17 speak of the transgression and the fall of Satan. Isaiah 14 tells us that Satan violated God’s authority, while Ezekiel 28 tells us that he violated God’s holiness. Violating God’s authority is a matter of rebellion; it is more serious than violating God’s holiness. Sin is a matter of conduct; it is easy to be forgiven of sin. But rebellion is a matter of principle; it is not easy to be forgiven of rebellion. Satan, in trying to set up his throne above that of God’s, violated God’s authority. The principle of Satan is the principle of self-exaltation. Sin’s coming into being was not the cause of Satan’s fall. Rather, Satan’s rebellion against God’s authority, for which he was condemned by God, subsequently gave rise to sin.

It also helped me to realize that a sin against the holiness of God, though serious, was not as serious as a sin against the authority of God. Nee said above that the former was more easly forgiven than the latter.

While I do not claim to know everything about this, it rings true to me. A challenge to God's authority is more fundamentally an offense against Himself.

In the so-called "Lord's Prayer" or the example He gave to the disciples in praying Jesus said -

"For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory, forever Amen."

I take this as the human acknowledging that the ultimate authority of all being is God's.

Just before this phrase there is the request "Lead us not into temptation and deliver us from the evil one." Nee says that this is a request not to be found following in Satan's rebellion -

Hence, if we want to serve God, we can never violate the matter of authority. To do so is to follow the principle of Satan. We can never preach the word of Christ under the principle of Satan. There is a possibility in God’s work that we can stand in principle on Satan’s side, while we stand in doctrine on Christ’s side. All the while, we may think that we are still doing the Lord’s work. This is a very evil thing. Satan is not afraid of us preaching the words of Christ. He is only afraid of us submitting to the authority of Christ. Our service to God can never be according to the principle of Satan. Once the principle of Christ comes, the principle of Satan has to go. Even now Satan is still a usurper in the air; he will not be cast out until the end of Revelation. Only when we wash ourselves spotlessly clean from the principle of Satan can we hope to serve God.

In the Lord’s prayer in Matthew 6:9-13 there is the phrase, “And do not bring us into temptation.” Temptation speaks of Satan’s work. There is also the phrase, “But deliver us from the evil one.” This refers to Satan himself. Following this, the Lord said, “For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen.” This is the most important declaration. The kingdom is God’s and so is the authority and the glory. Everything is God’s. What sets us completely free from Satan is seeing this most precious thing—the kingdom is God’s. The administration of the whole universe is under God. For this reason we have to learn to submit to God’s authority. No one can steal God’s glory.

JS357:

However, it is hard to avoid concluding that the buck stops with a god, when the god is an ex-nihilo "omniqualitied" creator. It's just a little surprising to hear it from a person that I would expect to attribute some autonomous moral responsibility to humans, and even to a powerful person called Satan. Care to clarify?

Nothing I wrote means I as a human being have no responsibility.
I have a sphere. And over this God has a sphere - the ultimate sphere.

There is something entrusted to me and you.
And we are accountable to a higher one.

From the first chapter of the Bible we can see God brought about the being of the creation. However He did assign a creature - man to exercise dominion over that creation as a deputy authority.

"And God said, Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of heaven and over the cattle and over all the earth and over every creeping thing which creeps upon the earth. "(Gen 1:26)

So we can see that though the cosmic buck of responsibility stops with God, He delights to delegate to a deputy a sphere of responsibility. Can you see delegation in this passage ?

It is also interesting that in the oldest book of the Bible, the book of Job you have this colossal argument between Job and his three world renown wise friends. The argument is basically about "Why do bad things happen to good people?"

Eventually, toward the end of that great debate God comes in and includes these words to Job -

" Will you condemn Me that you may be justified ?" (Job 40:8)

Yet in the great love of God this is exactly what happened. In His triune being the Son was condemned on His cross that all sinners might be justified if they would believe in the Son of God -

"Him who did not know sin He made sin on our behalf that we might become the righteousness of God in Him." ( 2:21)

Originally posted by sonship

It is one thing for a person to say "The buck stops here" -- meaning the speaker -- but when a third party says it, it is commonly considered to be buck-passing.

It was president Harry Truman who has a sign on his oval office desk reading "The Buck Stops Here". I imagine that the sign was mostly for himself. There was no one left in the ...[text shortened]... in He made sin on our behalf that we might become the righteousness of God in Him." ( 2:21) [/b]

"For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory, forever Amen."

Just an aside -- wasn't this a later addition?

Edit: For the rest of your reply, thanks, it clarifies things.

Originally posted by JS357
"For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory, forever Amen."

Just an aside -- wasn't this a later addition?

Edit: For the rest of your reply, thanks, it clarifies things.

I am not aware of the phrase being not in all the copies of the NT.
It is possible that it does not occur in all copies.

What is your opinion about Adam and Eve suddenly realizing that they were naked after taking in the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil ?

"And both the man and his wife were naked and were not ashamed before each other." (Gen. 2:25)

"And the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made loincloths for themselves." (3:7)

"And Jehovah God called to the man and said to him, Where are you?

And he said, I heard the sound of You in the garden, and I was afraid because I am naked; so I hid myself.

And He said, Who told you that you are naked? Have you eaten of thetree of which I commanded you not to eat ?" (3:9-11)

I am looking for a non frivolous consideration.
You do not have to say that you believe it.
Just tell me what you think it could have meant.
Thanks

Originally posted by sonship
I am not aware of the phrase being not in all the copies of the NT.
It is possible that it does not occur in all copies.

For your info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord's_Prayer#Doxology

Originally posted by LemonJello
So, just like wolfgang said, your claim boils down to saying that there are no natural sources of light other than the sun…oh, except for a bunch of stuff that are natural sources of light other than the sun. That can only be one of two things: (1) you are contradicting yourself or (2) you are stating something that is basically tautological. Either way ...[text shortened]... king if you have any other arguments or considerations to put forth. It seems that you do not.

I realize you feel you have 'won' the argument in determining that some form of light exists on the planet, sans the sun.
But you're simply wrong.
And you know it.

There is nothing--- literally, figuratively, or even allegorically-- nothing on the planet which approximates the light that is emitted from the sun into our atmosphere.

Did I allow for any exceptions?
Of course.
I even restricted the playing field to keep the cute little word games from taking away from the point.

But that wasn't good enough for the childish counter-examples from you or the other contradictarians of the forum.
'If it glows, it must be light.'
Really?
This is your answer?

Do you (or any of the others who have contended this is the silver bullet to the example) seriously contend that any of the light which naturally occurs on the planet can be equated with the light which is emitted by the sun?

If so, each and every one of you is an idiot, unworthy of further dialogue.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I realize you feel you have 'won' the argument in determining that some form of light exists on the planet, sans the sun.
But you're simply wrong.
And you know it.

There is nothing--- literally, figuratively, or even allegorically-- nothing on the planet which approximates the light that is emitted from the sun into our atmosphere.

Did I allow for ...[text shortened]... itted by the sun?

If so, each and every one of you is an idiot, unworthy of further dialogue.

Really, these are the sorts of wounds that should be nursed in private. You're only embarrassing yourself by continuing. Just let the thread die.

Originally posted by sonship
[quote] Again, I do not know what you mean by "transcendent and universal moral standard". Mostly, I do not know what is meant here by 'transcendent'. Again, I hold that the truth values of such claims are independent from any observer attitudes; they do not depend on what anyone thinks about them. If that is sufficient for what you mean by "transcendent and ...[text shortened]... e like it or not.

And ultimately our moral obligations and duties are responsible to Him.

God's existence is not dependent on my subjective experience.

I see that the vast majority of your last couple of posts is based on a misunderstanding of what I have claimed. I never said that your view entails that God's existence is dependent on your subjective experience. What I said is that your view entails that morals depend constitutively on God; that God is simply definitive of goodness; that His essential nature determines what is right or wrong etc. Thus, your view entails, for instance, that the truth values of moral claims are dependent on God and thus mind-dependent. That makes your view a form of subjectivism.

And ultimately our moral obligations and duties are responsible to Him.

This display of reasoning really showcases the childishness of your view, thus making my case for me. This is just how the small child thinks, that his or her moral obediences are something owed to his or her authority figure. The child will internalize "Stop pulling your sister's hair!" as something whose satisfaction is owed to the authority figure who barks it, at pain of their leveling punishment or deprivation of reward, no cookies after dinner tonight, or some such matter. A mature person would understand that not pulling another person's hair is something whose satisfaction is owed to the others around us who would be the potential receivers of such action. It would be owed to the sister, for example, who would suffer the experience of having her hair pulled. They are owed to the various members of our normative community, who all have similar abiding interests as yourself and who deserve to be treated as their own ends, not ultimately as just a means to your own eschatological end with your authority figure, God. The child has trouble recognizing this, since they do not yet have a developed capacity for perspective-taking, for being able to assume the perspective of others around them. Moral development requires, in part, recognizing that moral responsibilities are owed to persons and moral patients around us who stand as the receivers of our morally relevant actions. The idea that we ultimately owe all these things to some invisible God is a road block here.

I see that you clarify in some later posts that you recognize your responsibilities within your normative community (or "sphere" as you put it), but claim that you are still ultimately accountable to God for their satisfaction. So what you are saying is that you are entrusted with responsibilities proximately owed to others in your sphere but still ultimately owed to God. But this view is still essentially childish. It acts to stunt the dimension of moral development that eventuates in the realization that others in your moral sphere are ends unto themselves. The fact that these responsibilities are owed, proximately and ultimately, to the others in your sphere is very easy to explain. It comes on the basis of obvious reasons, such as that they are the actual receivers of your moral action; that they are entities that stand to be harmed or benefitted in direct response to your actions; that they are entities with psychological capacities similar to your own and represent their own conscious spheres that can be visited with suffering and hurt, as examples. On the other hand, what could purport to explain the idea that these moral responsibilities are ultimately owed to some authority figure, God? Nothing as far as I can see, excepting very childish modes of reasoning. You can hold that this ultimate connection is just definitional, but that leaves you with a vacuous account of ultimate moral responsibility. Otherwise, I am skeptical that you can offer any reasons other than those that would provide only egoistic motivators, such as those dealing with reward or retribution.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
I realize you feel you have 'won' the argument in determining that some form of light exists on the planet, sans the sun.
But you're simply wrong.
And you know it.

There is nothing--- literally, figuratively, or even allegorically-- nothing on the planet which approximates the light that is emitted from the sun into our atmosphere.

Did I allow for ...[text shortened]... itted by the sun?

If so, each and every one of you is an idiot, unworthy of further dialogue.

Alrighty, then. So, in summary, there is nothing literally, figuratively or even allegorically on the planet that emits light like the sun...excepting, of course, numerous exceptions. How interesting. I suppose that armed with this riveting realization, everyone else in this thread besides you will not be an "idiot, unworthy of further dialogue"?

No, I do not feel as though I "have 'won' the argument in determining that some form of light exists on the planet, sans the sun." Your hypothetical fails for a different reason. As I pointed out several times now, even if I fully granted your sunlight premise to you and even if I overlook the contradiction in your original hypothetical offering, nothing of interest would actually follow from your hypothetical. As I said, just like your hypothetical fails because application of 'light source' proceeds based on objective considerations of a body's emissive properties (and not based on satisfaction of relationship with some external source), perhaps something similar holds for application of moral terms. That is, perhaps the application properly proceeds through objective considerations, not through subjective relation with some external source of moral agency. You have produced nothing in this thread that would suggest otherwise.