On the thread entitled “Species Kinds”, commenter phoodoo asks:
What’s the definition of a species?
A simple question but hard to answer. Talking of populations of interbreeding individuals immediately creates problems when looking at asexual organisms, especially the prokaryotes: bacteria and archaea. How to delineate a species temporally is also problematic. Allan Miller links to an excellent basic resource on defining a species and the Wikipedia entry does not shy away from the difficulties.
In case phoodoo thought his question was being ignored, I thought I’d open this thread to allow discussion without derailing the thread on “kinds”.
Why? I would think there would be an infinite number ,every size of ideal circle.
Is it preexisting circle or the thought about a prexisting circle?
Much more eloquently expressed
newton,
The concept of size brings with it the concept of relativity. If you think of a circle as being relative to something independent of itself then you this cannot be the ideal circle. The ideal circle is absolute not relative.
Not at all, neither does imagining an ideal mother’s love exists.
newton: I wanted to know how you discovered ideal circles exist independently of human thought
I do not create my thoughts? Am I preprogrammed with all the abstract ideal versions of all the things I encounter?
So I discover an ideal circle in my thoughts? Maybe that is the same place the ideal God exists
peace
I’ll go with the singular ideal circle of diameter zero.
It’s what keiths needs me to be doing, and that’s all that matters. 🙂
You guys both seem to be enjoying yourself, carry on.
Every time they use a condom I guess.
LoL!
keiths is right again. There was absolutely no warning. And if there was a warning, it didn’t come soon enough, and if it did come soon enough it wasn’t loud enough, and if it was soon enough and loud enough God didn’t supply magic buses.
And this absolute circle exists?
Back to biology class if you think that.
You seems ok with miraculous biology, why not meteorology?
Mung,
He also didn’t build them an island. And make a bridge covered with purple fur for them to walk to it. And how many flying boats did he give them?
There was a cat that died in the flood. God didn’t make that cat immortal. Keiths is pissed. How hard would it be to make a cat that would live forever? A grey one. With white ears. And a gold one. Why won’t he?
newton,
Why does Keiths want to deny so many babies from being born? Is he some kind of monster?
Is it because God moves a mysterious way, his wonders to perform?
It’s clear, this world is the best of all possible worlds according to phoodoo.
Hey, phoodoo, remind me, are you white, middle aged, middle class and living in the western world by any chance?
Keiths never claimed to be omnipotent or omnibenevolent
Is God evil for not making more cats that are immortal Alan?
phoodoo,
You’re asking the wrong person. I strongly doubt gods exist and I don’t think evil exists (as a noun). just seems odd to me, if God could do anything, why not skip straight to heaven with sufficient souls for however much bliss and hallelujahs are needed for complete satisfaction. Why bother with a universe at all?
Right, this is also what keiths and Omagain demand, but they refuse to admit that. The only definition of a loving God is thus one who skips the Universe altogether, and just makes brains in a vat that eat whip cream all day. No loss, no striving, just whip cream orgasms 24 hours a day.
So the question becomes, how many brains in a vat would a loving God make, if one existed Alan? An infinite number right? Why not.
And how would the brains know what love is, if they could never experience not love? They couldn’t could they? Maybe even God can’t make logical impossibilities, like letting you experience good, without bad existing.
So the definition your side wants to make, for what a loving God would do, seems impossible to fulfill.
This book came out in 1963 and was an attempt to rethink the Anglican god. Robinson was a bit of a leftie though (as some like to suggest Jesus’ teachings were) so it may not interest you.
I take no sides on the US religious/political divide. I see it as a cultural aspect of the US. Fascinating but not my business to interfere.
When did I discuss this?
I thought we were talking about what a loving God would do, if one existed? So the atheists say a loving God would create no bad. But they can’t say how.
Hurricanes are miraculous too.
This book came out in 1976. Atheists hate it.
phoodoo,
They have, repeatedly. But there are none so blind etc…
Mung,
Why?
Do they? Why? If it contradicts what generations of biblical scholars have said then I would have imagined they’d be quite keen on it, regardless of what it actually says as it shows that you can interpret old books any way you fancy.
There you go, the miraculous wiping out of people’s homes, praise the lord
Mung says hurricanes are miracles, so that is one thing He does
1,600 people die as Titanic hits miraculous iceberg. Captain’s last words” The odds against hitting the berg were incredibly small, it was a double miracle! “
Right. Why didn’t God foresee Boat v. Iceberg and discourage boat building altogether? Why did he actually encourage Noah to build a boat!? Think of how much better southeast Texas would be without any boats.
In which case you’ve confused the concept “circle” with the concept “point”.
It is not physically real but it is objectively real.
But isn’t a point a circle with radius 0? Why do you reject it? Are not all points of the circle equidistant from the center?
Explain.
No, I’m not confused. I was illustrating your confusion.
Not me. I struggle with such hypotheticals. Gods were created by humans who have limited imagination. So what gods can do tends to end up with something like “anything” but with a frisson of advantage to the human acting as god’s mouthpiece.
I think this argument seems to be used by some ex-theists, who seem more exercised on the issue. Seeing it in action, it doesn’t look that persuasive to me but maybe it’s a long-term thing and how could I judge really from my point of view.
The essential nature of a circle is that the ratio of its diameter to its circumference is always pi. It is a constant. This does not hold for Neil’s proposition that a circle can have zero diameter, therefore the entity you speak of Neil cannot be a circle.
As I’ve already pointed out more than once.
You will never understand that God is loving given the very limited information you have about him.
Looking at hurricanes won’t help you.
On the other hand Christians know for certain God is loving because he has convincingly demonstrated that he loves us at Calvary.
For Christians hurricanes are not evidence that God is unloving.
Natural disasters can’t even come close to making Christians doubt God’s love.
quote:
Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or danger, or sword?As it is written,“For your sake we are being killed all the day long;we are regarded as sheep to be slaughtered.”No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us.For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers,nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Romans 8:36-39
end quote:
We are literally talking past one another.
There is simply no earthly way to bridge the gap between what you know about God’s love and what we Christians do.
So can we please move on.
peace
Why is that the essential nature of a circle rather than some other quality? I could give a circle a completely different definition and essential nature, for example the intersection of a sphere and a plane, and then a point is a circle. I suppose you’re the person who decides what a circle is, because you’re the platonic ideal of a decider.
I don’t think I can offer any arguments for why physical reality corresponds to the mental world. It just does.
It is a profound mystery.
When I look at biological organisms for some reason I see categories and groupings and patterns just as I do when I look at geometric objects.
There is no physical reason that I know of that this should be the case but I see them none the less and when I take the time to study organisms I find that the patterns I spontaneously see can be cashed out in all kinds of practical ways.
It is in my opinion nothing short of a connection with the divine
The darwinian definition of species smothers all of that into an inelegant nonworking box for no reason whatsoever that I can tell except to prop up what ought to be able to stand on it’s own
peace
fifthmonarchyman,
OK, so this is all just your own personal psychology, with no relevance to anyone else. Understood.
I don’t know any Christian who believes God directly causes all things. Most confessions are explicit in that God is not the author of evil.
I certainly don’t think that God “monkeyed with the knobs” when it comes to biology.
If Christians were promoting some sort of good-time banana god who promised a world of sunshine and lollipops then you could charge us with inconsistency when bad things happen. But that is simply not the case Christianity proclaims a God who is experienced in suffering as well as pleasure.
God is not the tooth fairy……….life is hard……and God is good.
quote:
I have said these things to you, that in me you may have peace. In the world you will have tribulation. But take heart; I have overcome the world.
John 16:33
end quote:
peace
I’m not demanding anyone use my definition.
I’m just pointing out the obvious fact that yours is insufficient and causes harm and holding out one that works without the negative side effects in case you are interested.
The only reason I do that is because of the “what’s your alternative” complaint.
The relevance comes from your own experience that I’d be willing to bet is similar to mine. If it wasn’t then my definition would have never been the standard that it was for thousands of years.
peace
Well the fact that no physical representation of the circle can completely attain the nature of the ideal circle demonstrates that the ideal circle is not a physical object.
And if you tell me that only physical entities can be objectively real then you will have to explain what you mean by physical. Is it the macro world of everyday objects? Or is it the world of fundamental particles which in truth are not particles?
The ideal circle is perfect and enduring throughout time whereas any physical circle is transient and is only an approximation of a circle. That is why I consider the ideal circle more real than any physical circle.
How do you know they aren’t the same thing?
I’d say ideal versions are often revealed to you when you encounter physical things. As far as I know there is no physical reason this should happen but it does. Such is the mystery of revelation
I find it to be profoundly cool.
peace
All these things that keiths hates, that God takes credit for. Poor keiths.
Hey, quoting Scripture is my bit.
no fair stealing my thunder
peace