Evidence for God from Science

jlay wrote:Forgive my candor, but your continued comment that life is complicated is annoying and is NOT an answer.
When you say the practice SHOULD be left behind, (which I agree) by what basis do you judge it to be wrong?

Your candor is quite welcome and indeed, my comment about life being complicated is not an answer and was never meant to be such.

As for why Eugenics is wrong. I qualify it along with Phrenology...or the hypothesis of Phlogiston.

I suppose a thing can simply be wrong. Much like a car can be pink.

Very much cheers to all.

@jlay

I think you owe it to us to define what you mean by "truth."

I am not going to start another discussion about the definition of "truth" or objective morality. I have not changed my view since our last discussion. In the end it's still a matter of perspective.

Jac and others like him would gladly end these atrocities

I would gladly end the atrocities as well, but as I pointed out, it's not simple and it doesn't work using a simplistic approach.
You can't just end them without rethinking and changing other aspects of society first.

if it were not for the big $$ busniess of abortion and those like you who stand in the way.

I do not stand in the way, but that doesn't mean that I have to support a course of action which I consider to be not necessarily wrong, but inappropriate and which would lead to even more problems.


@Thadeus

I suppose a thing can simply be wrong. Much like a car can be pink.

Eugenics is simply wrong if you have democratic views, but it can be totally right you have an elitist view.

BryanH wrote:Eugenics is simply wrong if you have democratic views, but it can be totally right you have an elitist view.

Um....Nope, am missing the gist of this one.

Democracy, Capitalism, Socialism...these are political views/ideal/etc....People can hold multiple ideas/ideals at the same time. Do...being some one who held the idea/ideal of democracy could also hold the idea of eugenics.

Eugenics is as 'current' and 'correct' as phrenology. As in one can tell the 'worth of a person' simply by reading the shape of their skull ?

Very much cheers to all.

BryanH wrote: I am not going to start another discussion about the definition of "truth" or objective morality. I have not changed my view since our last discussion. In the end it's still a matter of perspective.

Yea, well, this statement is making an objective truth claim, that being it's all a matter of perspective. Of course you don't want to go down that road, because it's like going to a gun fight with a plastic knife.

I would gladly end the atrocities as well, but as I pointed out, it's not simple and it doesn't work using a simplistic approach.
You can't just end them without rethinking and changing other aspects of society first.

So, if there were a clinic that had licensed medical professionals killing new born babies, would this be your answer? It's not simple.

I do not stand in the way, but that doesn't mean that I have to support a course of action which I consider to be not necessarily wrong, but inappropriate and which would lead to even more problems.

[/quote]
Ummmm, you're in the way.


Well, Bryan, at least I can understand you. Once again Thad has answered nothing.

@jlay

Yea, well, this statement is making an objective truth claim, that being it's all a matter of perspective. Of course you don't want to go down that road, because it's like going to a gun fight with a plastic knife.

All theories start with an axiom.

When you claim the that I make an objective truth claim that implies that existence of objective truth.

You can take my statement as the starting axiom.

So, if there were a clinic that had licensed medical professionals killing new born babies, would this be your answer? It's not simple.

You are jumping to conclusions.

When I said what I said I was referring to abortion being an effect linked to a spider web of causes. If you don't eliminate the cause(s), you will just change one problem with another or even worse create more problems.

But coming back to your example, the issue is the same. You are talking about an effect. What would be the cause(s) for such a clinic to be licensed?

Ummmm, you're in the way.

Ok...That is your opinion. I don't mind.

So I've been reading this as its been evolving and I'm curious...

If there are so many possible scenarios out of the 'thousands upon thousands' of abortions to justify it being generally legal...
Could you tell me a couple? Not including the mothers life being at risk?
I'm trying to think of some and am failing to.

Also, If the majority of reasons for abortion being wrong outweigh it being the only possibility, wouldn't it make more sense to make it illegal?
Women come to ER departments for emergency abortions for this reason, we don't need abortion clinics and
I'd much rather have the hands and experience of specialist doctors who also engage the body system wide on a daily basis handle the operation.
As well as the resources and staff available for critical situations.

Thoughts?

@Mallz

If there are so many possible scenarios out of the 'thousands upon thousands' of abortions to justify it being generally legal...
Could you tell me a couple? Not including the mothers life being at risk?

1) Only women can be pregnant and that is your first problem, but it takes a woman and man to have a baby. This is a biological fact, but try to analyze the social implications.
2) Being pregnant is a unique situation, because we are taking about a person inside another person, but the main problem is the unborn child who is DEPENDENT on the mother/woman to survive. An unborn child won't survive on his/her own if it is taken out the mother's/woman's womb.
3) Men/Fathers can opt-out of actually taking care of the baby. They are forced to pay financial compensation only and they are not forced to put any TIME into creating and nurturing a genuine relationship with their baby. The mother is forced to put the money in and also the TIME as well.

Let's take these as core issues.


Now you were asking about scenarios. Let me give you a few.

1) A woman is raped and she doesn't want to keep the UNWANTED and FORCED pregnancy. The psychological trauma is too much for her to handle. At the moment we don't have the medical technology to transfer babies from one woman's womb to another woman's womb. That would get rid of so many abortions.

2) A woman already has 2 children. She gets pregnant with a 3rd (this was not planned). She has a supportive husband. They both have average paying jobs. They can barely keep up with bills and mortgage and child expenses they already have.

Here comes the problem: the majority of the countries around the Globe do not protect women from getting fired when they get pregnant (I know there are laws saying that they do that but please spare me of that; laws are not applied as they should be). Basically they become a liability for the company. She could lose her job and then she couldn't provide for her 2 children. They could end up being thrown out of their house in the street. Why would a mother voluntarily choose to expose her 2 children to such dangers?

Now you might say that this wasn't a problem in the past. Well, it wasn't because the role of women has changed dramatically in the past 50 years. Today women and men have access to same jobs and house wives are a shadow of the past. Society has changed exponentially in the past 50 years.

This is just a simple scenario and it's the best case scenario, but you can create others of your own where you can add more problems to the equation.

****The main issue is MONEY as I have said in my previous posts. Let me give you a simple example so you can understand what I'm talking about.

A family (Husband+Wife) both have a $35,000/year job. Both make $70,000/year.

Let's say we have a CEO(woman or man) who earns $210,000/year.

Let's also think about a business owner who makes $5,000,000/year.

Usually people work for about 40 years before they can retire.

Let's do a little bit of math.

Family after 40 years: 2,800,000
CEO: 8,400,000
Businessman: 200,000, 000

The family would have work close to 2800 years to get to the same level as the businessman.

The family in my example represent the majority of population living on this planet and some of them are even worse than my example.

You still think that abortion is the biggest problem people have right now? I don't see it that way. Fix the gap and the abortion problem will fix itself.

Here, let me go ahead pound this nail in.

BryanH wrote:I am not going to start another discussion about the definition of "truth" or objective morality. I have not changed my view since our last discussion. In the end it's still a matter of perspective.

You are begging the question here. You've simply assumed that objective truth is wrong without anything other then saying that its wrong.
Second, you've made a contradiction as jlay has already pointed out. One has to simply ask if what you are saying is objectively true.

Heres a tip. Your perspective does not matter even a tiny bit on what is true. Want the demonstration?

You are what we call an Alethic skeptic, which is the belief that universal objective truth does not exist

So if objective truth does not exist.

How would you KNOW about such a statement?

Lets go ahead and cut to the chase because I already know you're an Epistemological skeptic now, which is the belief that objective truth cannot be known.

To which we say "How do you KNOW that?"

Here is your options
1. Say you don't know anything (Argument from ignorance)
2. Say you know something which leads us to......You cannot deny it without affirming it!

BryanH wrote:All theories start with an axiom.

Sure, we can all accept that you have a theory, and sure it starts with an axiom. However, at this point we can go ahead and describe your theory as.... True in theory, not in practice

BryanH wrote:When you claim the that I make an objective truth claim that implies that existence of objective truth.

No Bryan. You seem lost here. When we claim that you have made an objective truth claim, we are only pointing out that you have proven the existence of objective truth ON YOUR OWN ACCORD. We didn't do it. YOU DID.
Its basically like if you wrote "This sentence cannot be read". Its an irrational and inconsistent position.

BryanH wrote:You can take my statement as the starting axiom.

We'll take it as irrational and inconsistent. Thats pretty much all you're going to get out of it.

@domokunrox

One has to simply ask if what you are saying is objectively true.

If there is no objective truth what is the point of asking me that?

BryanH wrote:

If there is no objective truth what is the point of asking me that?

And I already preemptively calculated this response. Did you bother reading?

How do you KNOW that?

Key word being KNOW. Go back and read my whole post slowly and carefully.

Your question does not change the fact that you are begging the question AND made a contradiction.

@domokunrox

Your question does not change the fact that you are begging the question AND made a contradiction.

The objective truth concept is a contradiction as well. In order for you to prove that objective truth exists in the first place, you must make an objective truth claim.

How do you solve this contradiction without actually forwarding an axiom?

BryanH wrote:@domokunrox

The objective truth concept is a contradiction as well. In order for you to prove that objective truth exists in the first place, you must make an objective truth claim.

How do you solve this contradiction without actually forwarding an axiom?

No sir. You are getting worse at your objection here.

If I claim as follows

Objective truth exists <--------- This statement is simply affirming itself. No contradictions here. Its like saying 1 equals 1 or 2 equals 2 or all triangles have 3 sides.

Lets take the example I have given you

You cannot read this sentence <------This is a contradiction because you can read it
You can read this sentence <-------- This not a contradiction because it confirms itself in a consistent manner

Again, let me hit this point again.

How do YOU KNOW that objective truth does not exist?

I already have your response mapped out. it does not end well for you. Lets man up and get it over with.

@domokunrox

This is my last comment on this specific matter here because the topic is totally different. If you wish we can continue.

Objective truth exists <--------- This statement is simply affirming itself. No contradictions here. Its like saying 1 equals 1 or 2 equals 2 or all triangles have 3 sides.

It might be simply affirming itself from your point of view. And your analogy with abstract concepts is quite inappropriate because abstract concepts do not hold a true or false value.

Anyways I keep telling you the same thing again and again: you can't simply forward your theory as self-affirming and then ask others to PROVE their theories based on your theory being allegedly true.

BryanH wrote:It might be simply affirming itself from your point of view.

Its not simply affirming itself from my point of view. I never claimed that my perspective mattered in regard to the truth value of such statements because it simply doesn't. Your perspective doesn't matter, either. Because its OBJECTIVE, smart guy.

BryanH wrote:And your analogy with abstract concepts is quite inappropriate because abstract concepts do not hold a true or false value.

Ok, so you've made a claim here and you need evidence for your claim (never mind the fact that you won't back that up with any evidence because you're an intellectual coward). You say that "abstract concepts do not hold a true or false value". <-----This sentence is abstract. Does it not hold a true or false value? Is it TRUE AND FALSE at the SAME TIME AND THE SAME SENSE?

You immediately invalidated your own statements and prove that mine are correct by pretty much ANYTHING you say in response. You cannot deny it, without affirming it. Hence, when I deny your premises, I affirm my own. The problem with your denial of my premises is that it doesn't affirm your theory at all. It affirms MY THEORY to be true.

BryanH wrote:Anyways I keep telling you the same thing again and again: you can't simply forward your theory as self-affirming and then ask others to PROVE their theories based on your theory being allegedly true.

And I keep telling you the same thing again and again: You can't simply deny the existence of something and then present no evidence for your claim other then the fact that you claimed so. Thats called BEGGING THE QUESTION.

There is only 3 things you can do, Bryan.

Say YES, objective truth exists.
Say NO, and here is why (You cannot deny it without affirming it)
or Say I DON'T KNOW (Argument from ignorance)

In case you haven't figured it out yet, Bryan. My theory on truth is confirmed true on the basis that BOTH of the ONLY 2 remaining theories (relativism and pluralism) is irrational, inconsistent, and impossible in theory and practice.

Unless you can prove to me these statements are true. You lost this argument.

1 ≠ 1
2 ≠ 2
2 + 2 ≠ ONLY 4
Triangles do NOT have 3 sides
Godandscience.org ≠ Godandscience.org

I like your strategic choice for thread location, Kurieuo! I agree that it is important to recognize the large-scale moral and social implications of abortion legislation, and I hope the links you provided remind people that the pro-life movement is not exclusively driven by religious motivations. However, I don't agree that the pro-life position is necessarily the "logical" solution to this ethics debate. I really do think I've considered this issue with an open mind, so I'd like to explain where I get stuck when arguing for the criminalization of abortion--maybe someone around here can set me straight.

Kurieuo wrote: And so, if the unborn human really is human life and there is no valid reason to kill them anymore than a baby, child or adult, then should not the unborn be afforded the same human rights?

I recognize that a newly-conceived embryo is fully alive, 100% human and completely unique, and I consistently and shamelessly refer to the 6 month-old fetus I'm currently carrying as my "baby" or my "son" even though he's still a bit too rare to safely handle birth just yet. Even though this tiny unborn person has got me head-over-heels in love, I recognize that for the first several months of my pregnancy my baby had not yet developed the physical attributes that are necessary for any type of conscious thought. Personally, I think that there is a major difference between a human with the capacity for consciousness and a human who does not have that capacity--and I honestly think that this is a critical consideration when discussing the intrinsic value of human life. Most people I know have said that they would prefer to die rather than be sustained in a vegetative state, so it seems that Im not the only one who recognizes that an active brain absolutely impacts the overall value of life. People usually respond to this argument by saying that the potential/probability of the human baby for achieving consciousness in the future is sufficient to dismiss this difference, and for the sake of argument I will yield to this line of thinking even though I'm not sure I really consider the situations to be equal.

If we assume that the life of the embryo/fetus/baby is equal in value to the life of the mother, then the pro-life/pro-choice debate boils down to a woman's right to bodily autonomy, and how this right compares to the baby's right to life. This is because pregnancy is a dangerous, physically demanding process that introduces MANY health risks to the woman, including both temporary issues and lasting issues. Whether or not it is a "natural" process does not mitigate the damage that it does to your body, and the sliding scale of chaos that it imposes is pretty impossible to predict. Legally requiring a woman to carry a pregnancy to term, particularly when the pregnant woman did not consent to the circumstances that led to the pregnancy, is legally requiring a woman to sacrifice aspects of her own health for the life of another human being, and this is dangerous territory. It could be argued that the right to life supercedes the right to bodily autonomy, and at first glance that seems like a reasonable statement, but the implications of that argument are really severe. There are many laws describing the specific responsibilities that humans have to each other, designed to maximize the protection of each individual's own rights. Once someone has committed to parenthood and accepts the rights that accompany legal guardianship of a child, that person becomes subject to other legal responsibilities associated with parenting, and this is usually considered a pretty fair trade. Nonetheless, I do not know of any laws except for abortion regulations that require a parent to sacrifice his or her health to sustain the life of the child. Whether or not a parent has a moral obligation to risk personal injury to save a child's life is a separate issue--but should it really be considered a CRIME to protect your own body? If we decide that the right to life is greater than the right to protect your own health, then you could rightfully be punished for refusing to donate your kidney when your child needs a transplant, or for refusing to let a strange homeless person take shelter in your home during a terrible blizzard. I think that these kinds of ethical dilemmas are outside the scope of the court, even if the protection I provide myself comes at the expense of another human life.

Until the time that medicine can reliably remove and sustain a pre-term baby outside of the woman's body, killing the baby through abortion will remain a woman's only option for self-defense in this situation. To hold her criminally liable for protecting her own health is to say that the value of another human life is GREATER than the value of her life, which simply makes the woman a slave to her child. As unpleasant as it is to describe should-be loving relationships in these kinds of terms, I am only talking about the law right now--and laws about this specific scenario require comparing two human lives and determining the extent to which one individual's rights can impose upon the rights of another. Unless the rights of the baby are ranked higher than the rights of the mother, abortion should remain a legal option.

Honestly, I think that just plain sucks...especially because the "pro-choice" movement has painted this image of a "strong woman taking control of her life and her body" like the triumph over a baby's rights is something to be proud of. The efforts that are made to downplay the baby's right to anything has been so successful that many people feel comfortable using abortion as a means of evading the consequences of their own actions, which is tragic. I believe that more regulations should exist to avoid the abuse of this procedure, but I honestly dont have specific suggestions. Still, as tragic as it is, I support a woman's right to evict her baby from her belly...

Ok...tired of typing on this phone! I look forward to criticism of my arguments!

Best,

E