| If the material gives rise to consciousness, then it cannot, if that is true. If we don't share consciousness; and we don't, and those consciousnesses have arisen from the material seperately, then the logical conclusions and moral rules set forth are either A. Inherant in nature; or B. Subjective to the person.
They must abandon A because this is not the case; conscious animals such as dogs or cats are not bound to the same mores as humans; therefore B is the only viable conclusion. If B is the only viable conclusion, then if the original statement is true, and B is true, the original statement is false because it is an objective statement and only the subjective is allowed, according to option B.
Yet another self-defeating argument. Way to go blind of this world.
When these people put forth arguments to explain the objective and how it came into being, they will always offer an objective, universal rule that claims everything is not objective and universal, but subjective and particular. Every. single. time. Never fails. The contradiction inherant in espousing that though should be obvious. Reduce the argument to these terms and then dispose of it like the intellectual garbage that it is.
__________________
Andrew DeShazo, Deacon, Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church, Memphis, TN
"All of us stumble in many ways, but if anyone is never at fault in what he says, then he is mature, able to control his whole body."(James 3:2)
Last edited by Zenas; 03-06-2008 at 04:42 PM.
| 
Linear Mode
