Reply To: Theological Conundrum (read at your own risk)

It seems to me that you are rejecting your own definition of the way I explain things, not mine. I hold that benefit has value even if it is not personal. You reject this.

The reason I reject that is that we haven’t come up with an explanation for why a person should care about something that doesn’t benefit him personally.

What are your arbitrary definitions of good and bad for the purposes of this debate? Because it would seem that according to your rules, good and bad shouldn’t exist at all.

Correct, the concepts of good and bad should not exist according to me. Which leads to:

You have a closed set of assumptions in this discussion that preclude any explanations for established human behaviors, and by your own admission they do not reflect the reality of the world. So what is the purpose of this debate?

I don’t think it’s a closed set of assumptions. All I’m saying is that no one has demonstrated that good and bad do exist. If someone does demonstrate it, I will be more than happy to accept it. And that is the purpose of this debate. But if you don’t want to debate it that’s fine.