Recent content by SkullKrusher

Thanks for the feedback -- I certainly see your point. I would also certainly agree that moral fallibility could simply be included in the broader category of a general fallibility. The '3 Fs' mnemonic originated in a different context, and I am kind of used to thinking in those categories &...

Maybe the fact that I haven't even said I'm certain there *is* an argument to be made? If I'm not even sure the argument can be made, then I certainly haven't made that argument. If I haven't made the argument, it is impossible to have begged the question. In fact, the three traits I brought up...

Thanks

*If* my hunch is correct, these three traits of human experience *may* point in a generally theistic direction -- so, probably the second option you listed. That said, I don't find it particularly difficult to get from there to the God of the Bible -- but that's a separate matter. At present...

Can't really say. Very early on, I said I *think* there is an argument to be made. Maybe I'm wrong - in which case, the answer would be 'never' Maybe I'm right, but it will take me years to figure it out. Or maybe the solution will come to me tomorrow ?‍♂️ I do know that I'm not on anyone's...

Well, I think you may have misinterpreted something I said, perhaps because I may have been unclear. But I'm not going to argue about it. I'm well aware of what question begging is, and how to avoid it.

TBH, it's a bit comical to suggest someone is question begging before they even articulate an argument ? I'd love for you to show how any of the three statements is premised on the conclusion -- especially given that the whole point of the discussion at this point has been to fine tune #3...

Okay -- seems we took a rabbit trail, but it helped clear some things up ?

I'm saying that in an evolutionary framework, transcendent morals can't be claimed. In a previous reply, 5wize had stated a belief in transcendent morals (though perhaps the meaning was different than what I took it to be).

They can't. My point here is that because they can't, they aren't and cannot be transcendent in the normal, philosophical sense of the word -- i.e., a truth that transcends time and space. Perhaps some clarification is needed. This seems like an equivocation with regard to the meaning of...

That's not the sense in which the word was being used.

Agreed. IMO, sentient will is implied by 'intent'. It is also implies by 'objective' is the sense used here, just as it is in 'teleological'. Maybe. That's the question of the day. Another POV on the same question -- though it would take the argument on the scenic route, I think it would be a...

True. False.

Thanks -- that rings a bell. Don't know yet if this will work into my argument, but 'objective' in this sense sounds strikingly similar to 'teleological'; both imply some sort of original intent.

IMO, we tend to have a skewed understanding of what type of pride is addressed in Scripture. E.g., being content/thoroughly satisfied & pleased by some result or goal we attained is pride, but it pretty clear that the word translated as 'pride' in most biblical passages would be rendered better...