Evidence for God from Science

Jac3510 wrote:

Beanybag wrote:its helpful to think about when life ends, and that occurs at brain death

As a hospital chaplain who deals with this regularly, I can assure you while legally you are correct, the legality is simply a legal fiction. The history of the concept is as disturbing as the diagnosis itself. BD is a very inappropriate definition of death when you look at it objectively.

That was why I described it as tenuous, but I didn't have time to go into details. I think when you point out what people have come back from when they were supposedly dead, arguing where life begins becomes a pointless endevour.

This, to me, is a HUGE civil rights issue and demonstrates a DEEP discriminatory bias against the disabled. We now are literally murdering them for the greater good of another.

I've heard this argument before, and I don't find it all that persuasive without superior evidence. There is a lack of consideration for quality of life in medicine, and we're only just beginning to consider it. I know many feel it's up to God to choose when people die, but why isn't it up to him to choose when we live instead of so many machines keeping us alive? Sometimes, you just need to die, even if you could have some chance at a recovery, and I think people should give that more serious consideration. Doctors are much more likely to deny extreme life saving measures because they know the quality of life it leads to. But, there is a profit to be potentially made from organ donations, and after videos like this, I don't always trust doctors that much.

I wasn't making a theological point, BB, and my argument isn't based on people coming back from the dead or even surprise resuscitations. It's based on medical fact, legal history, and philosophical consideration. You are also mistaken about medicine just now considering quality of life. There is an entire field called palliative care that deals with this, and the notion of lebensunwertes leben goes to the heart of the matter as well and has been long been part of bioethical discussions. There's also Beckwith's Uncle Jed, which stands opposed to Thomson's Famous Violinist, which absolutely deals with quality of life issues (and other very important issues as well).

Again, BB, get the book I referenced. You say you are here to learn. So learn. I would also recommend Beckwith's Defending Life. If you think that the quality of life argument is strong, much less if you think that it is recent, or that it has anything to do with the notion of brain death as a proper criterion for death, then you simply are not aware of the current state of debate. I don't say that to be offensive. I am saying that to inform you and to provide you with information with which you can get yourself up to speed.

Okay Jac, I am always happy to learn new things. I have quite a book list racking up from you. :]

Beanybag wrote:Okay Jac, I am always happy to learn new things. I have quite a book list racking up from you. :]

Well, you do comment on quite a wide variety of issues.

PaulSacramento wrote:
When people say the morals are relative, what they mean is that YOUR morals (that they don't agree with) are relative but their morals are not.

I think my morals have changed relative to the times and the knowledge I have gained. Some things I once accepted I reject today on the basis of morality.

Even some certain moral acts commanded by God in the Old Testament, if taken out of context and placed into today’s world and time, I would consider as well to be immoral.