- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Yes, that was were the first excerpt you referenced was heading. Seems that point actually did stretch further than you understood.
It heading somewhere that can be agreed upon doesn't mean that it can stretch well enough.
Why is that what is good?
That's been by a method of reduction.
And how is that even attainable?
Desire is fundamentally subjective, which means there is no single desirability for good to organize around
Yes, it is subjective. No one said that there will be a universal Desire that is exhaustive and inclusive of everyone - that isn't a possibility.
which is requisite for your utilitarian assertion.
It isn't utilitarian, though. It's what you get if you mix Kantian and Utilitarian morals, and also somewhere between the absolutist and nihilist views. Just like it's always been.
-In what world is the entity of a human baby independent? Once the baby is born it becomes more of a dependent burden.
A financial burden for a while does not mean that it's existence is entirely dependent. It can now have independent experiences, and the sustainance of its life isn't then dependent.
Does medical technology that increases surviveability of premiture birth also decrease the time it takes to become human?
It prematurely actualises the potential.
But, if you understand that already, then yes, of course.
Catholicism teaches that you must earn the right to go to Heaven and you can never be sure that you have earned that right and must keep trying.
If it does, then it is certainly much more rational than whatever you follow.
You didn't reply there.
Why must God let you into heaven?
God isn't confined to such views.
Evil is that which goes against God.
That'd mean there are things which can exist against an omnipotent God.
The other things in it, where you judge questions as stupid, are logical tautologies by the LNC, so congratulations for that. But, your understanding is still incomplete.
You cannot show in the Bible that God is "purely" good. It is not there.
You, of course, had to demonstrate idiocy again. This should be a sufficient reply.
Why in the world would you as stupid questions like "Can God be an absence of Himself"? That is nonsense. That's like asking can a rock not be a rock. Why ask such a stupid question?
And why ask "Can God be a bit evil?" What in your warped mind leads you to a stupid question like that?
That's not parallel enough. I have something better.
Why do so many people love God ?
Is it because He allows their ice cream cone to stay frozen longer on a cold winters day?
Is it because He kisses their boo boos and makes the pain go away?
Is it because He did not take their favourite lolly pop away?
Or is it because he is with perverts?
Give not that which is rational unto the idiots, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.
- (used to be) Some random quote