Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by peacegirl
This comes after the fact, not before. THERE WERE NO PRESUPPOSITIONS, WHY DON'T YOU GET THIS?
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by peacegirl
[conscience]is infallible under different environmental conditions.
|
This is the presupposition, or assumption, or assertion (pick one). There is no "after the fact" possible with this claim because the "no blame" environment has not yet existed. |
His claim that we have no free will is not a presupposition. The way conscience works is not a presupposition. These are observations that he saw directly. He made no assumptions. Sorry but you're wrong. If I calculate the distance from my home to Florida, this is not a presupposition, even though I haven't arrived in Florida yet.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LadyShea
You even demonstrate that you are aware of this here:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by peacegirl
The only way you will know that this is an infallible standard created by God (or this law of our nature) is to see what happens when we remove blame and punishment from the environment
|
|
That doesn't make it a presupposition. The factors that will catapult us into this new world are not assumed, they are known (i.e., conscience and no free will), even though the results of these claims haven't been manifested yet.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LadyShea
That's an inference of future events if the presupposition "conscience is infallible under specific environmental conditions" is true.
|
But he proves this. It is not assumed. I feel like I'm talking to myself.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LadyShea
So, to summarize- Lessans presupposes that conscience works a certain way when not corrupted by the free will environment that includes blame and punishment.
What are you misunderstanding here?
|
Lessans presupposed nothing. He had facts. Presuppositions are not facts, they are assumptions.