To say that it is not moral for man to do it but then say it is moral for god to do the same (or even more extreme action) means that you believe in divine command theory (look it up) which is
a very dangerous concept and the argument is full of holes.
Not exact matches
We have seen that the
concept of «atom of time» requires that of instant — the
very same
concept which Whitehead always rejected as early as in 19.19 (PNK 2f, 6 - 8; SMW 54, 172).2 Both
concepts — «atom of time» and «instant» — presuppose the notion of simple location in time which Whitehead denounced as the most
dangerous fallacy (SMW 84f, 98, 132).3 His whole doctrine of prehensions is incompatible with the doctrine of external relations which the atomization of time implies.
Just don't glare at me when I say the
very concept of a big Magic guy in the sky pre-determining every action within the universe seem highly unlikely; and I would go on to say, and could prove, also a
very dangerous idea.
I mean it when I say I'm not one for the cookie butter
concept — I'm
very careful with my calories, and it just seems like turning cookies into a condiment is wading into
very dangerous waters.
The whole
concept that drugs are always and inevitably «
dangerous», while anything «natural» [whatever that is] is safe and benign while having as good an effect as the «unnatural» and
dangerous «drug» [a word with connotations of narcotics and addiction, btw] is a
very subtle and pervasive
concept indeed.
«It's not
dangerous, but it's a bloody nuisance, and it has destabilised an already fractious and not
very well disciplined party, with a lot of new people to whom the
concept of loyalty and sticking with it under fire appears to be in its infancy...
The
very concept that one has to manhandle a dog to gain his respect is just plain wrong — and as potentially
dangerous as it is ludicrous.
This discussion of tipping points is
very timely, as you point out, the press seems to be quite keen on it as people seem to be able to relate particularly well to this
concept compared with some others such as «
dangerous anthropogenic influence» or «catastrophic change».
One of the
concepts I discuss in my talks is the carbon budget, or the remaining carbon dioxide humanity can emit before
very dangerous warming occurs by the year 2100.