Stuff you're pleased with

[bluejatheist]

 

[nemesiss]

 

[Nom_de_Plume]

I'm pleased that it's winter -10c this morning and we've received about 6.5 cm of snow over the past few days.
Farming is definitely over until spring and now I get to spend more time expanding my knowledge or melting my brain (depending on what I'm doing) on the internet :lol:

 

[DepricatedZero]

In two days I got engaged and Obama won the presidency.

That first part is still sinking in.

YAAAAAAAAY! Cheers!

 

[nemesiss]

PIKA..... CHU~RIN !!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pikachurin

Pikachurin, also known as agrin-like protein (AGRINL) and EGF-like, fibronectin type-III and laminin G-like domain-containing protein (EGFLAM), is a protein that in humans is encoded by the EGFLAM gene. Pikachurin is a dystroglycan-interacting protein which has an essential role in the precise interactions between the photoreceptor ribbon synapse and the bipolar dendrites.

Pikachurin is an extracellular matrix-like retinal protein first described in 2008 in Japan by Shigeru Sato et al., and named after Pikachu, a character of the Pokémon franchise. The name of this "nimble" protein was inspired due to Pikachu's "lightning-fast moves and shocking electric effects".

 

[nemesiss]

i think im pleased for i think that i found the simplest way to debunk WLC's morality argument.

WLC argument;

premise1: if god does not exist, there are no absolute morals
premise2: there are absolute morals
conclusion: therefor god exist

first: the first premise has a term of no in it, so lets fix that, which gives us;
premise1: if god does exist, there are absolute morals
premise2: there are absolute morals
conclusion: therefor god exist

so basically what have, is indeed a very circular argument... although now it's much clearer to see.
with this circular argument, a much bigger flaw comes to light, namely that of logic.
Because of the rules of logic, in particular this argument, the existance of a god is solely dependent of absolute morals.
This means that the god WLC talks about can absolutely not be one who created these moral laws. at best it is merely a messenger.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

One could argue that WLC's Morality Argument fails for an even simpler reason: the second premise renders the first - or, indeed, any preceding premises - irrelevant.

His argument essentially is:

There are absolute morals, therefore god exists.

However, since there is no evidence for absolute morals...!

Kindest regards,

James

 

[Laurens]

i think im pleased for i think that i found the simplest way to debunk WLC's morality argument.

WLC argument;

premise1: if god does not exist, there are no absolute morals
premise2: there are absolute morals
conclusion: therefor god exist

first: the first premise has a term of no in it, so lets fix that, which gives us;
premise1: if god does exist, there are absolute morals
premise2: there are absolute morals
conclusion: therefor god exist

so basically what have, is indeed a very circular argument... although now it's much clearer to see.
with this circular argument, a much bigger flaw comes to light, namely that of logic.
Because of the rules of logic, in particular this argument, the existance of a god is solely dependent of absolute morals.
This means that the god WLC talks about can absolutely not be one who created these moral laws. at best it is merely a messenger.

My way of refuting WLC on morality is as follows:

WLC says we 'just know' when something is wrong.
WLC also says 'we cannot know if gratuitous evil exists' (in which case all evil is part of Gods plan and therefore ultimately good).
If all evil is ultimately good, and we don't know whether gratuitous evil exists then we can't 'just know' something is wrong.

Craig does a good job at refuting himself...