Evidence for God from Science

Philip wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2019 2:37 pm

Rick: Murder is illegal. There's no exception where if someone is inconvenienced by another person, that one can murder them.

Absolutely! And a whole lot of murders have been self-justified by people who found their victim to be inconvenient. Oh, you might say, but the woman "owns" the baby / controls it / it can't survive without her. And yet, many of the excuses made for the supposed necessity of abortion can likewise be applied children after birth, or old, senile parents.

Nils, ever had your own children, who "inconveniently" took tons of your time and money? Ever had a parent like I have that suffered from Alzheimer's for over 10 years??? Ever had to clean your own mom up after the bathroom, or spoon feed her - and for YEARS, while also holding down a job, a spouse, and caring for you own little kids? I have. And I count those years as allowing me to show love to a person that is helpless and needed me. And yet, when you love your own child, you are willing to make sacrifices.

Go to these pro-abortion rallies - ever see women marching that look like they are incapable of sacrificing for their own child? Ever see a bunch of really poor women at such rallies? Next to NEVER!!! Because the people screaming the loudest to keep abortion legal are middle class and upwards - people who certainly have the ability to take care of a child. And people all over want to adopt. And of people careful with birth control, the percentage of pregnancies is extremely low - which tells me most women who abort are using are irresponsible and desire it as a birth control backup, because they were haphazard about having sex, and who they were having it with. Or they feel the timing will crimp their lifestyle. It's just evil and sad!

Kurieuo wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2019 3:47 pm

Nils wrote: ↑Wed Mar 13, 2019 1:00 pm

Kurieuo wrote: ↑Tue Mar 12, 2019 2:42 am

Nils wrote: ↑Mon Mar 11, 2019 1:47 amKurieus, you say that this view in inconsistent but you don’t explain why. It is is not a clear cut black and white rule but very few rules are and that doesn’t make them inconsistent.
....
Besides, is which way is my view above a world view?

You would call yourself a Materialist would you not? More specifically, you believe that only what is physical exists.

And yet, you'd draw some immaterial distinction called "personhood", which ultimately boils down to some soulish attribute, to say that an unborn physical human life (less than 22 weeks) doesn't deserve the most basic HUMAN right -- the right to live and not be killed by someone else. All because it doesn't possess this soulish attribute aka "personhood".

Such is very inconsistent to a physical worldview. You must surely therefore not believe that only the physical world exists, right?

If you doubt that such materialism exists is one thing (and I can of course argue for that), but don’t say that it is inconsistent. And the obvious answer to your question in #7 “As an aside, I wonder where this invisible attribute called "personhood" exists in the body” is in the mind which is a property of the brain.

I don’t know what kind of materialism you think of but that is certainly not my version. To me, the material is all that exist basically, but on that psyche is formed. As Wikipedia says “Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all things, including mental aspects and consciousness, are results of material interactions.” Thus all mental things like feelings, consciousness, love, creativity, personhood, morality etc exist. You may call such things “soulish” but there is no need to have a soul to have such properties.

Yes, Materialism is the position that all things are reducible to the material world. So then, all those seemingly qualitatively and immaterial attributes you describe (feelings, consciousness, love, creativity, etc), which don't appear to have properties of mass, weight, shape, colour, taste, etc -- where are they? And you give a response to this question:

Nils wrote:If you doubt that such materialism exists is one thing (and I can of course argue for that), but don’t say that it is inconsistent. And the obvious answer to your question in #7 “As an aside, I wonder where this invisible attribute called "personhood" exists in the body” is in the mind which is a property of the brain.

So then, your response is personhood is reduced to a property of the brain. Which or what property is this? Now of course it is here you might say "ahh, it's all much more complex than that." While you can't give a 1 for 1 correlation in the brain, that is, point to this part of the brain and say there's the person right there... as it is a process or state in which neurons are firing in the brain -- that they fire in this way, rather than that way (right??), which at least gives us some scientific objective grounding.

So then, regardless of what anyone perceives of another person, if a person's brain is firing off signals in a certain way, then they're a person... well, it'd make sense to use that consistently when it comes to human life in the womb.

But, do you Nils? You say you'll support a woman's right to have an abortion up until 22 weeks. Did you base your 22 week judgement based upon an analysis of brain development? Based upon some personhood argument, which now I've prodded you as being inconsistent to your worldview, you claim you're not as you based personhood upon the brain. So then, let's see how consistent this 22 week cutoff point is.

By six weeks of development there is neural activity. Perhaps maybe that's too primitive for your liking, such activity is only firing in a way that isn't really a way that'd be a person. What about feeling pain? Do persons or non-persons feel pain? Maureen Condic, Ph.D. is an Associate Professor of Neurobiology and Anatomy at the University of Utah. She stated to congress that the neural circuitry responsible for the most primitive response to pain, the spinal reflex, is in place by 8 weeks of development... This is the earliest point at which the fetus experiences pain in any capacity."

Now you might debate or disagree with 8 weeks. I've just quoted an expert in the field. But, I'm wondering. Did you come to your 22 week conclusion by consistently applying your belief that personhood is had as an attribute of our brain? Did you come to the conclusion that 22 weeks is the time a person exists based upon your study, understanding and knowledge of brain development?

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Thu Mar 14, 2019 4:28 am Nils does NOT believe in potential it seems.

Nils doesn't understand the difference between subjective and objective it seems.

As such, this debate is pointless.

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2019 6:43 am Nils,
Can the subjective exist without the objective?

Nils wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2019 3:28 pm

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2019 6:43 am Nils,
Can the subjective exist without the objective?

Yes, why not? I don't think that there is any objective moral. Do you think that the lack of an objective moral precludes a subjective moral? If so, why?
Nils

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2019 8:41 am

Nils wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2019 3:28 pm

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2019 6:43 am Nils,
Can the subjective exist without the objective?

Yes, why not? I don't think that there is any objective moral. Do you think that the lack of an objective moral precludes a subjective moral? If so, why?
Nils

Explain how the subjective ( what a thing is) can exits apart from the objective ( that it is).

EX: How can you express WHAT is Good ( subjective) without there being such a things AS GOOD ?

Nils wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2019 3:14 pm

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Tue Mar 19, 2019 8:41 am

Nils wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2019 3:28 pm

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2019 6:43 am Nils,
Can the subjective exist without the objective?

Yes, why not? I don't think that there is any objective moral. Do you think that the lack of an objective moral precludes a subjective moral? If so, why?
Nils

Explain how the subjective ( what a thing is) can exits apart from the objective ( that it is).

EX: How can you express WHAT is Good ( subjective) without there being such a things AS GOOD ?

Paul, I am puzzled.
You think that it is possible to say that X exists without saying what X is? I think this is a deep philosophical question and I am uncertain about how a philosopher would address this but I don’t think it is possible to express any thoughts about the existence of a concept without defining it (i.e. saying what it is).

Besides, how does this discussion relate to the question about abortion that is the subject of this thread?

Nils

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2019 5:22 am In regards to abortion, the debate is actually quite simple:
What is the JUSTIFICATION for taking a life.

To be terminate a pregnancy means to take a life ( if it wasn't alive then you wouldn't need to terminate it, i.e. kill it).

So, putting aside right and wrong since we can justify a wrong act ( stealing to feed is wrong, but justified, killing someone to save a life is wrong, but justified).

What is the justification for taking a life?

Kenny wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2019 5:53 am

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2019 5:22 am In regards to abortion, the debate is actually quite simple:
What is the JUSTIFICATION for taking a life.

To be terminate a pregnancy means to take a life ( if it wasn't alive then you wouldn't need to terminate it, i.e. kill it).

So, putting aside right and wrong since we can justify a wrong act ( stealing to feed is wrong, but justified, killing someone to save a life is wrong, but justified).

What is the justification for taking a life?

I think as people we take lives all the time without thought; if there are pests in your garden you put down insecticide thus taking lives, if your home is infested with pests, you call the exterminator; taking those lives. The justification for taking a life all depends on the type of life you are taking. I think with abortion the question becomes when does the human sperm and egg combination becomes a person.

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2019 6:48 am

Kenny wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2019 5:53 am

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2019 5:22 am In regards to abortion, the debate is actually quite simple:
What is the JUSTIFICATION for taking a life.

To be terminate a pregnancy means to take a life ( if it wasn't alive then you wouldn't need to terminate it, i.e. kill it).

So, putting aside right and wrong since we can justify a wrong act ( stealing to feed is wrong, but justified, killing someone to save a life is wrong, but justified).

What is the justification for taking a life?

I think as people we take lives all the time without thought; if there are pests in your garden you put down insecticide thus taking lives, if your home is infested with pests, you call the exterminator; taking those lives. The justification for taking a life all depends on the type of life you are taking. I think with abortion the question becomes when does the human sperm and egg combination becomes a person.

Sure, at a greater scale, the taking of any life should be justified.

The abortion question is, really, one of CHOICE.
Is choice the right justification for taking a life and the answer to that should be NO.
Simply CHOOSING to take a life is wrong, for obvious reasons.

Kenny wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2019 8:48 am

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2019 6:48 am

Kenny wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2019 5:53 am

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2019 5:22 am In regards to abortion, the debate is actually quite simple:
What is the JUSTIFICATION for taking a life.

To be terminate a pregnancy means to take a life ( if it wasn't alive then you wouldn't need to terminate it, i.e. kill it).

So, putting aside right and wrong since we can justify a wrong act ( stealing to feed is wrong, but justified, killing someone to save a life is wrong, but justified).

What is the justification for taking a life?

I think as people we take lives all the time without thought; if there are pests in your garden you put down insecticide thus taking lives, if your home is infested with pests, you call the exterminator; taking those lives. The justification for taking a life all depends on the type of life you are taking. I think with abortion the question becomes when does the human sperm and egg combination becomes a person.

Sure, at a greater scale, the taking of any life should be justified.

The abortion question is, really, one of CHOICE.
Is choice the right justification for taking a life and the answer to that should be NO.
Simply CHOOSING to take a life is wrong, for obvious reasons.

So according to you, no matter what type of life we are talking about, choice is never a justification to taking a life?

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2019 9:11 am

Kenny wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2019 8:48 am

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2019 6:48 am

Kenny wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2019 5:53 am

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2019 5:22 am In regards to abortion, the debate is actually quite simple:
What is the JUSTIFICATION for taking a life.

To be terminate a pregnancy means to take a life ( if it wasn't alive then you wouldn't need to terminate it, i.e. kill it).

So, putting aside right and wrong since we can justify a wrong act ( stealing to feed is wrong, but justified, killing someone to save a life is wrong, but justified).

What is the justification for taking a life?

I think as people we take lives all the time without thought; if there are pests in your garden you put down insecticide thus taking lives, if your home is infested with pests, you call the exterminator; taking those lives. The justification for taking a life all depends on the type of life you are taking. I think with abortion the question becomes when does the human sperm and egg combination becomes a person.

Sure, at a greater scale, the taking of any life should be justified.

The abortion question is, really, one of CHOICE.
Is choice the right justification for taking a life and the answer to that should be NO.
Simply CHOOSING to take a life is wrong, for obvious reasons.

So according to you, no matter what type of life we are talking about, choice is never a justification to taking a life?

Yes, justifying the taking of a life because one CHOOSES to take a life is NO justification.

Abortion debate is not about CHOICE, as much as pro-choices want to make it. It is about justification for taking a life.
I don't know of ANY pro-lifers that are against abortion to save the mothers life, for example.

The issue is saying:
Abortion should be legal because it is a woman's body and she can CHOOSE to take a life inside her with NO JUSTIFICATION other than it is her choice.

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2019 9:11 am

Kenny wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2019 8:48 am

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2019 6:48 am

Kenny wrote: ↑Wed Mar 27, 2019 5:53 am

PaulSacramento wrote: ↑Mon Mar 25, 2019 5:22 am In regards to abortion, the debate is actually quite simple:
What is the JUSTIFICATION for taking a life.

To be terminate a pregnancy means to take a life ( if it wasn't alive then you wouldn't need to terminate it, i.e. kill it).

So, putting aside right and wrong since we can justify a wrong act ( stealing to feed is wrong, but justified, killing someone to save a life is wrong, but justified).

What is the justification for taking a life?

I think as people we take lives all the time without thought; if there are pests in your garden you put down insecticide thus taking lives, if your home is infested with pests, you call the exterminator; taking those lives. The justification for taking a life all depends on the type of life you are taking. I think with abortion the question becomes when does the human sperm and egg combination becomes a person.

Sure, at a greater scale, the taking of any life should be justified.

The abortion question is, really, one of CHOICE.
Is choice the right justification for taking a life and the answer to that should be NO.
Simply CHOOSING to take a life is wrong, for obvious reasons.

So according to you, no matter what type of life we are talking about, choice is never a justification to taking a life?

Yes, justifying the taking of a life because one CHOOSES to take a life is NO justification.

Abortion debate is not about CHOICE, as much as pro-choices want to make it. It is about justification for taking a life.
I don't know of ANY pro-lifers that are against abortion to save the mothers life, for example.

The issue is saying:
Abortion should be legal because it is a woman's body and she can CHOOSE to take a life inside her with NO JUSTIFICATION other than it is her choice.