Joremarid

'Cism

Any of you boys tried paleo? Looking to lose the stuff that won't go away with exercise.

Pp was on a roll in the crook thread.

was the officer justified in his actions?

That's ridiculous. He knew exactly what I was asking when he said God is the ultimate good two pages back. Either way you don't know my intentions, haven't been in this discussion between us, and have no right to judge me publicly. Should have been a pm to Dave.

The next few sentences: These and other questions need to be answered through research resources before a true and comprehensive picture of the disease called preeclampsia can be revealed.

False representation of my argument. I never assumed God was the giver of morality. Only that he has a moral code. If you assume the conclusion that he is the giver of morality then there is no argument. You equate having a moral code with being the giver of morality without proving it other then saying he it the ultimate good, which is circular.I haven't seen you prove he is the giver of morality. Could be my fault so make it easy for me by filling in the blank: Premise 1: god has a moral code Premise 2 through x: (blank) Conclusion: God is the giver of morality.

Let me break it down. A.Assumed premise: god has a moral code. B. Your conclusion: that moral code is the ultimate one How do you get from a to b? Show your work. You claimed it's logical. A logical argument takes the form of at least 2 premises leading to a conclusion. Without the other premise, this particular argument begs the question.

You did. I said assume he has one, you made the jump to that his is the ultimate one without establishing that. That would be like me saying I have a moral code and it's the ultimate one without proving why.

No I said assuming we have a moral code from a creator. Having a moral code doesn't mean its an objective one. What makes his moral code any less subjective then anyone else's? To which all you have said is that because he is the ultimate good without establishing that in any way.

Begs the question the god is the giver of morality.

I work in the medical field and I've never heard that... Do you have a source on that? Specifically regarding risk in relation to pregnancy, and in different fathers.

If you are asking on an individual level then that's personal for everyone. I tend to follow b.o.'s idea from earlier about treating other people with respect to their dignity and the inherent desire to seek happiness with respect for the sanctity of life sprinkled in. Not unlike Jesus, but also not unlike the Buddha. You are free to disagree and we can then debate and perhaps I, or you, will grow as a person. There is no punishment for intellectually curiosity, no one is dying for peeking into the ark.

You can say no it isn't but that doesn't change the fact that it is. God is the ultimate good because Gods moral code is good begs the question and is circular. As for your follow up question? For civil law, society decides. For some objective moral code that transcends time and space you have failed to demonstrate one exists outside of a circular argument. Later man.

It most certainly is. God is the ultimate good therefore Gods morality is good because God is the ultimate good therefore God's morality is good. The follow up question you are asking for also begs the question that morality must be objective.