Comments for Evening Person

Comment on Debating God: part one by eveningperson

eveningperson — Tue, 19 Mar 2013 10:24:41 +0000

I look forward to seeing the recording, either online or on DVD.

Comment on Debating God: part zero by eveningperson

eveningperson — Tue, 19 Mar 2013 10:13:50 +0000

I plan to write a full item on this when I have time.

Personally, I don’t believe that there is such a thing as an ‘objective morality’, and certainly no god or scripture has ever offered such a thing.

However, I do think that a case can be made that it is possible to say that one moral code is objectively better than another, and I’d like to explore that idea.

Comment on Debating God: part zero by eveningperson

eveningperson — Tue, 19 Mar 2013 10:09:43 +0000

Richard, there is something wrong with your logic here – you’re confusing ‘most’ with ‘all’.

Comment on Debating God: part one by Richard Lucas

Richard Lucas — Mon, 11 Mar 2013 13:57:15 +0000

” if you are going to debate whether god exists, we need to know in advance exactly what claims are being made about this god.” – I addressed this issue clearly in the debate.

Comment on Debating God: part zero by Richard Lucas

Richard Lucas — Mon, 11 Mar 2013 13:55:49 +0000

“he certainly didn’t demonstrate that the Bible offers ‘objective morality’ ” – correct – because that was not part of my argument.

Comment on Debating God: part zero by Richard Lucas

Richard Lucas — Mon, 11 Mar 2013 13:55:09 +0000

“Richard Lucas, leading in his Edinburgh debate, used a variant of this argument in talking of ‘objective morality’, which he didn’t define” – I defined it very clearly. – have another watch!

Comment on Debating God: part zero by Richard Lucas

Richard Lucas — Mon, 11 Mar 2013 13:54:10 +0000

“most things people believe are false” – I guess that statement is probably false then. So most of what people belive is true. But then its probably true that most beliefs are false. So its not true. But……..

Comment on Debating God: part one by Shropshire Humanist Group - News and Articles

Shropshire Humanist Group - News and Articles — Mon, 11 Mar 2013 11:46:36 +0000

[...] I wasn’t there but I am interested to learn that Richard Lucas never mentioned the Bible. Since Christianity is based on the Bible, this means that he could not have argued for a christian god. I wrote some comments on this before the debate. [...]

Comment on Blogger’s site taken down by quacks by All about Maloney and Moritz « Without Apology

All about Maloney and Moritz « Without Apology — Sat, 20 Feb 2010 01:57:39 +0000

[...] Blogger’s site taken down by quacks [...]

Comment on More about Stephen Meyer’s lecture on Intelligent Design by krisnesh

krisnesh — Thu, 14 Jan 2010 12:18:18 +0000

Life is hard to be explained. But , we can understand that all kind of forms of life have some kind of adjustment to the universe principles. But this evolution is essentially an adaptation to something that exists first…for example, the development of eyes are according to the physicals rules of light, always following all the rules pre existing. Mitochondrial function , for example, uses all “basics concepts” of physicals laws of liberating and capitation of energy….nothing is created new…all biological systems are functioning according physicals rules and evolution also according all rules…
So, thinking in this way, we can ask , what kind of adaptation is the development of sense? If every adaptation of any change of the biological body is an adaptation to laws pre existents , and nothing is created (as we know) from nothing, where comes from the sensation of the biological creatures? May be the answer be that not only physicals pre laws exists, may be exists sense pre laws that exists before the existence of biological beings, because if there is not, something is wrong with the evolution theory.