11 Mar 14
Originally posted by LemonJelloSo, in summary, there is nothing literally, figuratively or even allegorically on the planet that emits light like the sun...excepting, of course, numerous exceptions.
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"?
N ...[text shortened]... source of moral agency. You have produced nothing in this thread that would suggest otherwise.
As stated too many times now to count, the chemical reaction of bioluminescence which gives the firefly or various marine life their glow is nothing near the light we see from the sun.
If it weren't for man's ability to produce fire and light--- and save the rare exceptions already noted--- the earth would remain in complete darkness every time it turns on its axis away from the sun's rays.
When man lights a match or flips a switch, he isn't attempting to swath the night in a glow akin to jelly fish; he is attempting to replicate the light he sees from the sun, to chase away the darkness with a flood of light.
That is, perhaps the application properly proceeds through objective considerations, not through subjective relation with some external source of moral agency.
In my original thought experiment, I put forth the light of the sun as the ultimate light available to man (which it is), as an allegory for the ultimate good.
Just as man makes artificial light in replication of the light he sees from the sun, man 'makes good' as a result of his concept of the 'ultimate good,' namely, God.
11 Mar 14
Originally posted by FreakyKBHOK, you win:
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.
.
There are no suns on Earth.
The sun is unique and very, very special.
Just like the dust covered candle in my basement. It's one of a kind.
11 Mar 14
Originally posted by wolfgang59Is it just because you don't like where the topic obviously pushes you that you insist on averting your gaze elsewhere?
OK, you win:
There are no suns on Earth.
The sun is unique and very, very special.
Just like the dust covered candle in my basement. It's one of a kind.
Sad.
11 Mar 14
Originally posted by wolfgang59Strange that you would characterize it as bizarre.
Actually I haven't been following the topic much.
It was your bizarre light argument that caught my attention.
That is all.
What did you find so unusual: the fact that there is nothing on the planet which emits light like the sun, or the fact that a few posters were insisting--- without support--- such a thing actually exists?
11 Mar 14
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI think its all been through before.
Strange that you would characterize it as bizarre.
What did you find so unusual: the fact that there is nothing on the planet which emits light like the sun, or the fact that a few posters were insisting--- without support--- such a thing actually exists?
1. The sun is not nearly unique in the universe.
2. The light it emits is not unique.
3. Nobody knows what point you are trying to make!
11 Mar 14
Originally posted by wolfgang591. The sun is not nearly unique in the universe.
I think its all been through before.
1. The sun is not nearly unique in the universe.
2. The light it emits is not unique.
3. Nobody knows what point you are trying to make!
Asked, answered.
Read the original suggestion, wherein the sun was the only light in the universe.
2. The light it emits is not unique.
Actually, very unique, since without it there is nothing but darkness.
3. Nobody knows what point you are trying to make!
Nobody knows exactly the point, and nobody is doing everything he can to keep from hearing it.
11 Mar 14
Originally posted by FreakyKBH1. No. All evidence is that there was never a time when the sun was the only star!
1. , wherein the sun was the only light in the universe.
2. Actually, very unique, since without it there is nothing but darkness.
2. Without the sun, there is no sun. But still my pocket torch and a billion other stars.
3. Still pointless
Originally posted by SwissGambitYour "*only stars" works... if it's completely disassociated with the original suggestion.
*other stars
Now your feeble insult makes even more sense: you actually thought there was less to the conversation than what actually exists and were operating under that assumption.
You really believed I was saying something other than what I had clearly said.
No wonder the atheists herein are so confused: they refuse to listen to what the theist puts forth, then arduously launch assaults against what they assume the theists are saying!
11 Mar 14
Originally posted by wolfgang591. No. All evidence is that there was never a time when the sun was the only star!
1. No. All evidence is that there was never a time when the sun was the only star!
2. Without the sun, there is no sun. But still my pocket torch and a billion other stars.
3. Still pointless
Never.
Said.
There.
Was.
2. Without the sun, there is no sun. But still my pocket torch and a billion other stars.
If.
IF.
IF.
IF
IF.
If the sun in the earth's immediate sky was the only light in the universe, it would necessarily be the only sun in the universe.
3. Still pointless
You're telling me?
It's like talking to parrots and expecting an intelligent response.
I get that you want a cracker.
11 Mar 14
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI get it.
[b]1. No. All evidence is that there was never a time when the sun was the only star!
Never.
Said.
There.
Was.
2. Without the sun, there is no sun. But still my pocket torch and a billion other stars.
If.
IF.
IF.
IF
IF.
If the sun in the earth's immediate sky was the only light in the universe, it ...[text shortened]... like talking to parrots and expecting an intelligent response.
I get that you want a cracker.[/b]
12 Mar 14
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
[b]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.
As stated too many times now to count, the chemical reaction of bioluminescence which gives the firefly or various marine life their glow is nothing near the light we see from the su ...[text shortened]... s from the sun, man 'makes good' as a result of his concept of the 'ultimate good,' namely, God.[/b]
In my original thought experiment, I put forth the light of the sun as the ultimate light available to man (which it is), as an allegory for the ultimate good.
Just as man makes artificial light in replication of the light he sees from the sun, man 'makes good' as a result of his concept of the 'ultimate good,' namely, God.
What you tried to show is that just like earthly sources of light qualify as sources of light because they imitate the sun; so too do earthly sources of goodness qualify as sources of goodness because they imitate God. Problem is, it is patently false that earthly sources of light qualify as sources of light because they imitate the sun. Again, some eartly thing qualifies as a light source based on the specifics of its emissive properties, period. And that would hold even if, as you stipulated, the sun were ultimately the only natural source of light available to man. So, your hypothetical is something less than successful, don't you think?
12 Mar 14
Originally posted by LemonJelloAgain, some eartly thing qualifies as a light source based on the specifics of its emissive properties, period. And that would hold even if, as you stipulated, the sun were ultimately the only natural source of light available to man.In my original thought experiment, I put forth the light of the sun as the ultimate light available to man (which it is), as an allegory for the ultimate good.
Just as man makes artificial light in replication of the light he sees from the sun, man 'makes good' as a result of his concept of the 'ultimate good,' namely, God.
What you tri ...[text shortened]... ght available to man. So, your hypothetical is something less than successful, don't you think?
When man is creating light, is he recreating the glow of the earthworm, or is he attempting to replicate/replace the light of the sun?
12 Mar 14
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI know it's not what you originally stated, but I got bored waiting for it to go somewhere.
Your "*only stars" works... if it's completely disassociated with the original suggestion.
Now your feeble insult makes even more sense: you actually thought there was less to the conversation than what actually exists and were operating under that assumption.
You really believed I was saying something other than what I had clearly said.
No wonde ...[text shortened]... eist puts forth, then arduously launch assaults against what they assume the theists are saying!
(But if you're that desperate to score some points, then take them)