Evidence for God from Science

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:
No, the wall is you confusing my disagreements, with me not knowing the difference between THAT something IS (Ontology) vs WHAT something is (Epistemology)

Ken

So, 1+1 = 2 even if there was no one around to count or anything to count?

Yes.

K

Really? because on the last thread we had this discussion you disagreed.
Something about math ( like forms and such) only existing because they were invented by man.

The system of Arithmetic works whether someone is around to use it or not. But if mankind never existed, the system would not have been invented.

So, if mankind never existed, 1+1 would not =2?

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:
No, the wall is you confusing my disagreements, with me not knowing the difference between THAT something IS (Ontology) vs WHAT something is (Epistemology)

Ken

So, 1+1 = 2 even if there was no one around to count or anything to count?

Yes.

K

Really? because on the last thread we had this discussion you disagreed.
Something about math ( like forms and such) only existing because they were invented by man.

The system of Arithmetic works whether someone is around to use it or not. But if mankind never existed, the system would not have been invented.

So it isn't objective but subjective to man.

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:
No, the wall is you confusing my disagreements, with me not knowing the difference between THAT something IS (Ontology) vs WHAT something is (Epistemology)

Ken

So, 1+1 = 2 even if there was no one around to count or anything to count?

Yes.

K

Really? because on the last thread we had this discussion you disagreed.
Something about math ( like forms and such) only existing because they were invented by man.

The system of Arithmetic works whether someone is around to use it or not. But if mankind never existed, the system would not have been invented.

How can something possibly work if it has not been invented?

Kenny wrote:

Nessa wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Nicki wrote:
I don't think it's as mathematically calculable as that.

So what do you mean when you say value? If it isn't how much you love the person or care about them, what does value mean?

Nicki wrote: Not every issue is addressed in black and white in the Bible, but based on the Old Testament I think it can be said that capital punishment is not necessarily wrong.

So though you don't agree with capital punishment, you don't think the Bible condemn it. Fair enough; I can understand that position.

Nessa wrote: To you love is just a feeling, right?

An emotional feeling; yes.

Nessa wrote: How can you place value on a life just by a mere feeling?

What other way is there?

Ken

Love is primarly a choice.

What if you find yourself hating your spouse oneday but love them the next?

Does their value temporarily decrease?

Their value only temporarily decrease with me. Their value in the eyes of everyone else remains the same.

Ken

So If I strongly dislike my kid today, then their value to me temporarily decreases?

Might as well base personal worth on the rolling of a dice or what way the wind blows

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote: So, 1+1 = 2 even if there was no one around to count or anything to count?

Yes.

K

Really? because on the last thread we had this discussion you disagreed.
Something about math ( like forms and such) only existing because they were invented by man.

The system of Arithmetic works whether someone is around to use it or not. But if mankind never existed, the system would not have been invented.

So, if mankind never existed, 1+1 would not =2?

If mankind never existed, the + and = signs would not exist.
If mankind never existed, the numbers 1 and 2 would not exist.

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote: So, 1+1 = 2 even if there was no one around to count or anything to count?

Yes.

K

Really? because on the last thread we had this discussion you disagreed.
Something about math ( like forms and such) only existing because they were invented by man.

The system of Arithmetic works whether someone is around to use it or not. But if mankind never existed, the system would not have been invented.

So it isn't objective but subjective to man.

No. Just because people invent something doesn’t make that thing subjective to the person who invented it. Mankind invented the system of math, and the way he invented it was so that the rules of math were objective.

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote: Yes.

K

Really? because on the last thread we had this discussion you disagreed.
Something about math ( like forms and such) only existing because they were invented by man.

The system of Arithmetic works whether someone is around to use it or not. But if mankind never existed, the system would not have been invented.

So, if mankind never existed, 1+1 would not =2?

If mankind never existed, the + and = signs would not exist.
If mankind never existed, the numbers 1 and 2 would not exist.

Nessa wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote: So, 1+1 = 2 even if there was no one around to count or anything to count?

Yes.

K

Really? because on the last thread we had this discussion you disagreed.
Something about math ( like forms and such) only existing because they were invented by man.

The system of Arithmetic works whether someone is around to use it or not. But if mankind never existed, the system would not have been invented.

How can something possibly work if it has not been invented?

Not what I said. Once the system has been invented, it will work whether someone is around to use it or not. But if mankind never existed, the system would have never been invented.
Sorta like asking if the combustion engine would work if there were nobody around to use it. The idea of using carefully timed explosions connected to a crankshaft to propel a machine foreword will work whether people are around or not. If mankind never existed, that idea would not have been invented in the first place.

Nessa wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Nessa wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Kenny wrote: So what do you mean when you say value? If it isn't how much you love the person or care about them, what does value mean?


So though you don't agree with capital punishment, you don't think the Bible condemn it. Fair enough; I can understand that position.

Nessa wrote: To you love is just a feeling, right?

An emotional feeling; yes.

Nessa wrote: How can you place value on a life just by a mere feeling?

What other way is there?

Ken

Love is primarly a choice.

What if you find yourself hating your spouse oneday but love them the next?

Does their value temporarily decrease?

Their value only temporarily decrease with me. Their value in the eyes of everyone else remains the same.

Ken

So If I strongly dislike my kid today, then their value to me temporarily decreases?

Can’t say how things work for you, but for me I don’t love my loved ones one minute, hate them the next, then go back to loving them later; it doesn't work for me that way. I may be angry at them one moment then happy the next, but when I am angry, I don’t hate them I still love them thus their value to me remains the same. How about you? Do you only love and value others because God instructs you to? Or are you capable of finding value in others on your own?

Ken

Kenny wrote:

Nessa wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Nessa wrote:

Kenny wrote:

An emotional feeling; yes.


What other way is there?

Ken

Love is primarly a choice.

What if you find yourself hating your spouse oneday but love them the next?

Does their value temporarily decrease?

Their value only temporarily decrease with me. Their value in the eyes of everyone else remains the same.

Ken

So If I strongly dislike my kid today, then their value to me temporarily decreases?

Can’t say how things work for you, but for me I don’t love my loved ones one minute, hate them the next, then go back to loving them later; it doesn't work for me that way. I may be angry at them one moment then happy the next, but when I am angry, I don’t hate them I still love them thus their value to me remains the same. How about you? Do you only love and value others because God instructs you to? Or are you capable of finding value in others on your own?

Ken

We are talking about feelings alone. No one can have feelings of love constantly for another all the time, in my opinion. We are human and humans always fall short. Not all the time though and some more than others.

I can find value in people on my own but it's subjective and like basing an opinion on shifting sands depending on how I feel that day. WHY do you think the divorce rate is so high? Sometimes because people fall out of love and don't necessarily care to find their way back

Kenny wrote:

Nessa wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:

Kenny wrote: Yes.

K

Really? because on the last thread we had this discussion you disagreed.
Something about math ( like forms and such) only existing because they were invented by man.

The system of Arithmetic works whether someone is around to use it or not. But if mankind never existed, the system would not have been invented.

How can something possibly work if it has not been invented?

Not what I said. Once the system has been invented, it will work whether someone is around to use it or not. But if mankind never existed, the system would have never been invented.
Sorta like asking if the combustion engine would work if there were nobody around to use it. The idea of using carefully timed explosions connected to a crankshaft to propel a machine foreword will work whether people are around or not. If mankind never existed, that idea would not have been invented in the first place.

How does an idea exist without someone first thinking it?

Kenny wrote:

Nessa wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Nessa wrote:
Love is primarly a choice.

What if you find yourself hating your spouse oneday but love them the next?

Does their value temporarily decrease?

Their value only temporarily decrease with me. Their value in the eyes of everyone else remains the same.

Ken

So If I strongly dislike my kid today, then their value to me temporarily decreases?

Can’t say how things work for you, but for me I don’t love my loved ones one minute, hate them the next, then go back to loving them later; it doesn't work for me that way. I may be angry at them one moment then happy the next, but when I am angry, I don’t hate them I still love them thus their value to me remains the same. How about you? Do you only love and value others because God instructs you to? Or are you capable of finding value in others on your own?

Ken

Nessa wrote: We are talking about feelings alone. No one can have feelings of love constantly for another all the time, in my opinion. We are human and humans always fall short. Not all the time though and some more than others.

Are you confusing the feeling of love for someone with the feeling of happiness with them, and the feeling of hatred towards someone with being angry at them?

Nessa wrote: I can find value in people on my own but it's subjective and like basing an opinion on shifting sands depending on how I feel that day. WHY do you think the divorce rate is so high? Sometimes because people fall out of love and don't necessarily care to find their way back

So is it fair to say the only reason you value and love some people is because God tells you to?

Nessa wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Nessa wrote:

Kenny wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:
Really? because on the last thread we had this discussion you disagreed.
Something about math ( like forms and such) only existing because they were invented by man.

The system of Arithmetic works whether someone is around to use it or not. But if mankind never existed, the system would not have been invented.

How can something possibly work if it has not been invented?

Not what I said. Once the system has been invented, it will work whether someone is around to use it or not. But if mankind never existed, the system would have never been invented.
Sorta like asking if the combustion engine would work if there were nobody around to use it. The idea of using carefully timed explosions connected to a crankshaft to propel a machine foreword will work whether people are around or not. If mankind never existed, that idea would not have been invented in the first place.

How does an idea exist without someone first thinking it?

It can't. thats the point I was making.

Kenny wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Nessa wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Nessa wrote:
Love is primarly a choice.

What if you find yourself hating your spouse oneday but love them the next?

Does their value temporarily decrease?

Their value only temporarily decrease with me. Their value in the eyes of everyone else remains the same.

Ken

So If I strongly dislike my kid today, then their value to me temporarily decreases?

Can’t say how things work for you, but for me I don’t love my loved ones one minute, hate them the next, then go back to loving them later; it doesn't work for me that way. I may be angry at them one moment then happy the next, but when I am angry, I don’t hate them I still love them thus their value to me remains the same. How about you? Do you only love and value others because God instructs you to? Or are you capable of finding value in others on your own?

Ken

Nessa wrote: We are talking about feelings alone. No one can have feelings of love constantly for another all the time, in my opinion. We are human and humans always fall short. Not all the time though and some more than others.

Are you confusing the feeling of love for someone with the feeling of happiness with them, and the feeling of hatred towards someone with being angry at them?

Nessa wrote: I can find value in people on my own but it's subjective and like basing an opinion on shifting sands depending on how I feel that day. WHY do you think the divorce rate is so high? Sometimes because people fall out of love and don't necessarily care to find their way back

So is it fair to say the only reason you value and love some people is because God tells you to?

Ultimately love is a choice I make. Which is grounded on substance and not just whims

Are you confusing the knowledge of love as being the same as a feeling?

Kenny wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Nessa wrote:

Kenny wrote: Their value only temporarily decrease with me. Their value in the eyes of everyone else remains the same.

Ken

So If I strongly dislike my kid today, then their value to me temporarily decreases?

Can’t say how things work for you, but for me I don’t love my loved ones one minute, hate them the next, then go back to loving them later; it doesn't work for me that way. I may be angry at them one moment then happy the next, but when I am angry, I don’t hate them I still love them thus their value to me remains the same. How about you? Do you only love and value others because God instructs you to? Or are you capable of finding value in others on your own?

Ken

Nessa wrote: We are talking about feelings alone. No one can have feelings of love constantly for another all the time, in my opinion. We are human and humans always fall short. Not all the time though and some more than others.

Are you confusing the feeling of love for someone with the feeling of happiness with them, and the feeling of hatred towards someone with being angry at them?

Nessa wrote: I can find value in people on my own but it's subjective and like basing an opinion on shifting sands depending on how I feel that day. WHY do you think the divorce rate is so high? Sometimes because people fall out of love and don't necessarily care to find their way back

So is it fair to say the only reason you value and love some people is because God tells you to?

Nessa wrote: Ultimately love is a choice I make. Which is grounded on substance and not just whims

Feelings aren't based on whims; at least for me they are not.

Nessa wrote: Are you confusing the knowledge of love as being the same as a feeling?

I've never heard of love described as a knowledge. Please explain.

K