13 Mar 14
Originally posted by FreakyKBHEither all of your opponents in this thread can't read, or you can't write.
Congratulations!
You've won the Grand Prize in our Failure to Read Contest!
How did this luck befall you?
You did it all on your own!
Remember when you asked me to support my argument?
[b]Already noted...by whom? You? If so, I can't find it. Please provide page and post numbers.
And then I gave you dates, times and even whole quotes from with ...[text shortened]... typed here in this post.
Is that just the strangest coincidence ever?!
What does it all mean??[/b]
Hmm, which one could it be.
13 Mar 14
Originally posted by wolfgang59Whoa.
OK
I don't believe "any form of light" has been invented.
It is discovered.
When man invented
put certain pre-existing ingredients and/or components together with the resulting outcome of a new thing
the light bulb, was it considered a form or source of light?
Do you really think this entire pointless conversation was intended to argue whether man had invented light?
We always hear of exceedingly dim-witted folks in the world; I really didn't think they knew how to get on the web.
Good on you, tiger.
13 Mar 14
Originally posted by SwissGambitEither all of your opponents in this thread can't read, or you can't write.
Either all of your opponents in this thread can't read, or you can't write.
Hmm, which one could it be.
It's entirely possible that I lack the gift of concision and/or clarity with respect to the written word.
I think your claim is crap-infested for a few reasons, however.
• You (and others) joined in the fray without actually reading the originating source of disagreement.
• Later in the ruck, you admitted to arguing against points which you knew I hadn't put forth.
• Later still, you claimed an inability to find my noted exceptions within the thread, but...
• When I quoted those exceptions, you not only understood them...
• You used them in an attempt to counter-argue the point, nearly quoting my exact words!
I've boiled the whole thing down to the essence of the idea a couple times, however it's pretty clear the atheists do understand the concept but they do not wish to discuss it, so they will spend all of their efforts on pettiness and distractions irrelevant to the topic.
Pretty typical, really.
13 Mar 14
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYou said
Do you really think this entire pointless conversation was intended to argue whether man had invented light?
If there were any type of similar light available to man in the darkness, he would never have invented any form of light
You are now
1. Back-tracking. (Talking about light-bulbs being invented)
2. Saying it's irrelevant to the debate. (wtf ... YOU brought it up!)
Everyone's entitled to be stupid but don't abuse the privilege.
13 Mar 14
Originally posted by FreakyKBH"light of its kind"
I am interpreting that as "light from the sun" but you seem to
be endowing the sun with ownership of that light spectrum.
Not sure how that's a problem, given that it's the only light in the hypothetical universe.
And certainly the only light of its kind in the actual solar system.
As well as the only source of light which exists close enough to impact man with "daylight."
What do you mean by that?
What is special about light from the sun?
13 Mar 14
Originally posted by wolfgang59This response was directed at your objection--- you do remember objecting, don't you?--- to something I hadn't said, namely, that man had invented light.
You said
If there were any type of similar light available to man in the darkness, he would never have invented any form of light
You are now
1. Back-tracking. (Talking about light-bulbs being invented)
2. Saying it's irrelevant to the debate. (wtf ... YOU brought it up!)
Everyone's entitled to be stupid but don't abuse the privilege.
Not only was that idea not the intent, there was so little within what I did say that you had to alter my post in order to object to it.
Are you now going to pull a SwissGambit and act as though you can't find that exchange in the thread?
I'm merely using light bulbs here as but one example of man's many inventions which were specifically designed to bring daylight in to the night, or light where there is an absence of the same.
What was irrelevant to the idiotic conversation was your false objection, as well as the whole 'you can't triple-stamp a double-stamp' diversion of whether the light of the sun could be equated with the occasional glow-producing natural reactions otherwise found on the planet.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI'm not sure that constitutes much of a revision. (Oh, you already basically said that.) But given the fact that you are attempting clarification, I'll reply in kind.
There is nothing to revise, really.
When I said the sun is the standard of light, that is straightforward and more than close enough to the relevant facts to be taken at face value.
That standard of light is imitated by man, in order to bring daylight into the darkness.
If there were any type of similar light available to man in the darkness, he would n ...[text shortened]... of light.
The imitation of the sun's light is the issue here.
Nothing more than that, really.
When I said the sun is the standard of light, that is straightforward and more than close enough to the relevant facts to be taken at face value.
It is "more than close enough to the relevant facts to be taken at face value"?!?
I really don't think you understand how a good hypothetical works. What you are trying to show, ultimately, is that God is the definitive standard of morality. You're attempting to show this through some hypothetical exercise wherein the sun stands in for God. So, here's how this all SHOULD work. You should be presenting a hypothetical where the sun stands in relation to earthly light sources in a way that aptly tracks the way in which God, as the divine source of morality, stands in relation to us human sources of morality. Then, using the information provided in the hypothetical, you ought to be able to show how it non-trivially follows that the sun is the definitive standard of light in your hypothetical universe through some sound line of reasoning. Then, because the relationship between the sun and the earthly sources of light tracks in some apt way the relationship between God and us humans, we would be able to transfer that hypothetical reasoning to lend inferential weight to the idea that God is the definitive standard of morality in our universe. Again, that's roughly how it SHOULD go.
However, what you are doing is just giving us a hypothetical where you basically just stipulate that the sun is the definitive standard of light, and you do this on the basis of nothing and, in fact, contrarily to how light description actually works. There is no source of light that is the definitive standard of light. What nonsense. And this does not somehow change just because you stipulate in your hypothetical universe that the sun is the only star. Again: some earthly source of light qualifies as a source of light because of its own emissive properties; not because there exists some source of light, as a definitive standard, to which this earthly thing stands in relation.
As I intimated already, the idea that the sun is the definitive standard of light should follow non-trivially from information in your hypothetical, not simply as a baseless stipulation that you claim is "more than close enough to the relevant facts to be taken at face value" when, in fact, it runs obviously contrary to actual facts regarding light description.
Again, the upshot to all this is that your hypothetical is profoundly unsuccessful.
The imitation of the sun's light is the issue here.
Nothing more than that, really.
No, I am afraid not. Even if, as you claim, man creates sources of light in order to imitate the sun (this is false, but...), that's not the actual issue. Please jog your own memory. The issue surrounds what makes the light from these earthly sources light. In case you cannot even keep track of your own arguments, here is what you stated before, in reference to man's candle:
"It is light because it imitates the real and ultimate light (the sun) albeit on a small scale"
And I'm sorry, but that is just false. It is light because it is electromagnetic radiation over specific wavelengths that happen to be visible to the human eye. The hypothetical fact that the sun is our only star would not somehow change this.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI recommend a career as a secretary. You have a decent vocabulary, and a good handle on grammar and typesetting.
[b]Either all of your opponents in this thread can't read, or you can't write.
It's entirely possible that I lack the gift of concision and/or clarity with respect to the written word.
I think your claim is crap-infested for a few reasons, however.
• You (and others) joined in the fray without actually reading the originating source of disagreem ...[text shortened]... their efforts on pettiness and distractions irrelevant to the topic.
Pretty typical, really.[/b]
Just make sure someone else provides the content.
13 Mar 14
Originally posted by wolfgang59Just for you, I am going to type this very, very s l o w l y.
"light of its kind"
What do you mean by that?
What is special about light from the sun?
If the solar system were the universe--- just these planets and that sun--- there is no light naturally available like the sun: nothing which emits its rays in such a powerful and complete fashion that every planet in its orbit is awash in its light inasmuch as it is facing the source.
The earth being one of those planets in that isolated universe has its share of days in the sun; every numbered day is split nearly evenly between light and then the absence of the same.
Man, on that earth, benefits from the light and warmth of those days in the sun's rays in various ways.
However, when the planet turns on its axis away from the warmth and light man faces a declination in heat as well as the assured pitch blackness of night.
To combat the cold--- but more importantly, the darkness--- man creates ways to extend the daylight into the night.
(this is the part where two or three have inserted the contention how there is plenty of light on the dark-side of the earth, all from just-as-natural-as-the-sun sources.
But let's be honest, wee ones: the snap light of the firefly is awfully hard to put the finishing touches on the Impression, soleil levant, especially if one is trying to make a good impression.)
In creating things which emit light, man is imitating the light he sees when the planet is facing the sun, which he rightfully sees as the ultimate source of light.
13 Mar 14
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI don't know why you typed this garbage?
The earth being one of those planets in that isolated universe has its share of days in the sun; every numbered day is split nearly evenly between light and then the absence of the same.
What is your point?
And it's nonsense anyway!