I find some aspects of KevinSim's postings quite strange. This is at least the third time in just a couple of pages where he either has totally ignored what is being said to him, or has misquoted or incompletely quoted someone to the extent that what he did quote completely distorts the quotee's point.
Malkie, I responded to that post of Marcus'. Did you see my response?
malkie wrote:I think that, as I now do with MG, I should not bother to try to engage with him. It's a waste of time and mental energy.
This forum is for discussing Mormonism. Malkie, are you saying that you are only willing to discuss Mormonism with Latter-day Saints who think the same way as you do? And are you saying that you find it impossible to reason with MG, and therefore it would be impossible to reason with me?
Meadowchik, do you think the human race is going to last forever? If not, then there will be a last generation of that race. What is your conscientious obligation to that last generation of humans?
Hopefully they will not spend time answering questions as stupid as this.
Fence Sitter, why do you think my questions are stupid?
I find some aspects of KevinSim's postings quite strange. This is at least the third time in just a couple of pages where he either has totally ignored what is being said to him, or has misquoted or incompletely quoted someone to the extent that what he did quote completely distorts the quotee's point.
Malkie, I responded to that post of Marcus'. Did you see my response?
Kevin Sim offers an unusual argument for the existence of God. I have not heard it before and my first reaction is puzzlement. Why would a hope for some good to last for ever create an obligation incumbent upon us and the universe? An obligation establishing a real instantiation is rather a large leap from what a person would like to be to something which must be.
A second thought is that in a way this is an unusual approach to the ontological argument but basically is that argument The greatest thing is the order in the universe. Order implies moral obligation to continue order. Thus what maintains that order , God, surely exists.
For me the ontological argument is interesting and has some but incomplete persuasive power. KevinSims is pointing to a reason to consider that the greatest source of order would be concerned with humans. It does not require humans to be the greatest good only that they are an aspect or participant in that possibility.
Kevin Sim offers an unusual argument for the existence of God. I have not heard it before and my first reaction is puzzlement. Why would a hope for some good to last for ever create an obligation incumbent upon us and the universe? An obligation establishing a real instantiation is rather a large leap from what a person would like to be.
A second thought is that in a way this is an unusual approach to the ontological argument but basically is that argument The greatest thing is the order in the universe. Order implies moral obligation to continue order. Thus what maintains that order , God, surely exists.
For me the ontological argument is interesting and has some but incomplete persuasive power. KevinSims is pointing to a reason to consider that the greatest source of order would be concerned with humans. It does not require humans to be the greatest good only that they are an aspect or participant in that possibility.
Has MG/KS actually laid out 1) what exactly is the “good” that’s objectively good and 2) as such is good enough to preserve beyond the Heat Death of the observable universe?
- Doc
Donald Trump doesn’t know who is third in line for the Presidency.
Why does anything good about the human race need to be preserved at all after humans are gone?
Dr. Shades, in one sense there is no need; I can't prove that anyone is going to suffer and die because humans are no longer around. But in another sense I think humans have a need to make a difference in the universe, in the short term and the long term. And there's also the matter of conscience. I think humans need to satisfy their consciences, and their consciences can't ignore the generation of real people, with hopes and dreams like you and I have, whose hopes and dreams are not going to be fulfilled because we chose to not work towards them.
And are you saying that you find it impossible to reason with MG, and therefore it would be impossible to reason with me?
And MG wonders why he’s been labeled a liar, a deceiver, and a troll. Mods, would you please hold MG to one handle, please?
- Doc
There is no reliable evidence at this point that the same person is posting on both accounts.
Even if they were, both accounts pre-date the sock puppet rule, and so are grandfathered as "legal" sock puppets. There is no rule that requires a person with more than one "legal" account to stick to one or the other.
he/him When a Religion is good, I conceive that it will support itself; and when it cannot support itself, and God does not take care to support, so that its Professors are oblig’d to call for the help of the Civil Power, ’tis a Sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.
