Why not?
If you believe in morals then there is no problem with that.
Of course you are right using that limited credo. In reality of course we are always balancing things out and i think I mentioned that already. We are balancing between the evils and good that we do.
For example if Sally...
Generally i have a strong dislike for people that as reply only state "it is as i say" without any evidence.
Even if you take the gravitational forces (which I mentioned myself by the way) that include the mass of both objects initially this wont help you.
I showed you the calculations for a 2...
The moon gets way from us each year by some 3-4 cm (3.8 actually at the moment). Thats why in some 500 million years your decendents wont see any solar eclipse.
:facepalm:
Well, maybe you should for once just shut up ?
We most DEFINETLY dont have mirrors as to measure the orbit with lasers...
We do punish people that behave criminally with or without a god.
Any country has laws about crimes.
I claim however that people that only behave morally because they fear God (or the law) are not actually moral.
In any case however the real question is a different one:
"Does it come from God...
I am wondering a bit now because in my definition of morals the examples you gave would not be present (like reading torah, following the sabbath etc.).
But lets continue..
I think these are two different things.
Lets start with the second.
Of course there are conflicts when it is not clear...
Ok so you state it is impossible that a teapot orbits the sun yes ?
Ok let me make this short. Here is a picture of all known asteroids orbiting the sun.
Quite a lot hmmm ?
Now you might think you have told us something very very superextraintelligent by stating the rather obvious fact that...
I think the last sentence is perhaps one of the most fundamental that i have seen lately here.:yes:
Of course you are right.
And of course if you defined morality as the teachings of ones religion then the argument that morality comes from religion and cant be archieved differently would be a...
With see i guess you mean observe?
We do of course observe love (in a very technical sense even), so this might not be so good an example. And i do not "believe" in love. At least i dont know what this would mean.
I guess you mean things like Gods, fairies, unicorns and so on, which are not...
Actually NONE of the two are logical in the form you presented them.
But i think I understand what you want to say.
As I said already logic deals with formal sentences and their conclusiveness.
I think we are not so far apart as you might believe but the difference nontheless is crucial...
You can't even imagine how funny that remark is coming from you and adressing me.
Looking foolish in your eyes is a compliment i must conclude after several pages of debate concerning a topic where you seem to be the only one who doesn't get the point and insists on dogmatic faith in an...
There are no "laws" of nature strictly speaking.
What we call "laws" is a description of empirically observable behaviour in nature. Its the try to formulate how we see it.
Laws of nature cant be suspended because they dont exist.
You might gain the knowledge that your description was not...
You DONT know!
You believe without a doubt that the things in question do not exist.
You believe that because of total lack of evidence.
And so far i would agree.
Note that i never claimed to believe in God or ( to use your all time favorite again) in
Pixies. I simply claimed that you didn'...
I do say that i dont believe in Pixies.
And of course this also means that for me they do not exist until proven otherwise.
However i do not make the step to claim that i would have disprooven their existence.
And thats the trouble with Richard.
He doesn't simply state "I, Richard, do not...
Voltaire already understood that if you cant talk reasonbly with someone, ridicule is the best way to deal with him.
Or the intelligence of those that even after such a long "dialog" still didnt get the very simple fact that nobody here supports such notions.
Very good summary.
Unfortunately richard doesn't seem to be able to agree with words like "probability" as you do. He insists on having "proved" or "disprooved" God, teapots, pixies and so on which of course he also lists as being equal (which they are not).
In my view formal logic doesnt allow...