- Joined
- Jan 27, 2013
- Messages
- 2,798
- Reaction score
- 531
- Location
- racial boogie man land
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
Your anecdotal evidence is meaningless. Facts remain and countless children not fetuses are left at the whims of selfish ignorant people who can only see as far as their nose extends.
Good for you now stop speaking for others.
I am not trying to take care of you, I really do not give a crap, but I do wish to make real and meaningful opportunity available to those who otherwise would be deprived of it. Now go back to your ignorant talking points about socialists since that is all you can muster while clearly not even understanding the word.
Actually I am not but you are that of others.
No you won'tI am a bit busy now, but I might,
No, not everwhen I have some time, point some things out.
No you won't
No, not ever
*I don't like to waste my time with folks unprepared for listening. We'll see.
Whatever your excuse may be, the bottom line is that you never will point out any flaws in his argument.
GENERIC UNSUPPORTED DENUNCIATION --worthless blather, therefore.You do a pretty good job of laying things out in your papers, but the flaws are fundamental.
I ONLY ASKED FOR ONE FLAW, and you didn't even present that much. Why should I (or sangha, who might simply be trying to goad you) think you could possibly point out more than one flaw?I am a bit busy now, but I might, when I have some time, point some things out.
MERE CLAIMS ARE WORTHLESS WITHOUT EVIDENCE. Which reminds me of yet-another paradigm. Have you ever read the book "Illusions", by Richard Bach?We aren't here to live luxurious lives without consequence. That just isn't the deal.
Do you get results with this stuff?
MERE CLAIMS ARE WORTHLESS WITHOUT EVIDENCE. Which reminds me of yet-another paradigm. Have you ever read the book "Illusions", by Richard Bach?
GENERIC UNSUPPORTED DENUNCIATION --worthless blather, therefore.
I ONLY ASKED FOR ONE FLAW, and you didn't even present that much. Why should I (or sangha, who might simply be trying to goad you) think you could possibly point out more than one flaw?
And you came up with that all by yourself. Is that why you wish to make it as challenging as possible for everyone else?Life is challenging.
How put you in charge to make that determination? Clearly you are the type that considers health and education a luxury.We aren't here to live luxurious lives without consequence.
Not your deal but again, stop speaking for others.That just isn't the deal.
You are the one trying to take opportunity away from others.Stop trying to take consequences away from people.
And you came up with that all by yourself. Is that why you wish to make it as challenging as possible for everyone else?
How put you in charge to make that determination? Clearly you are the type that considers health and education a luxury.
Not your deal but again, stop speaking for others.
You are the one trying to take opportunity away from others.
And you pretend to speak for Him.God is in charge. That's all.
I QUIT READING THE BIBLE AFTER REACHING DEUTERONOMY 17:9-12, which clearly reveals the true purpose of the Bible, and has nothing to do with God. Remember, not even Religions claim God literally sat down somewhere and wrote the Bible. Humans wrote it, and humans are well-known to tell lies for their own benefit. Therefore, why should any Biblical claims about God be believed?OK. I don't see that you searched scripture for information about Gods nature.
SEE ABOVE. I'm not unwilling to accept the notion God might exist, because all by itself, that is not incompatible with known data about the Physical Universe. But keep in mind a classic saying, "All gods have feet of clay", which basically means that humans have rarely if ever imagined a God that was truly superior to humans. Even the Old Testament declares the Biblical God to be "jealous", which is a human failing! How does that square with claims that "God is perfect"? LOGICALLY, it simply cannot. Since my personal core belief starts with the notion that "Everything that is True makes logical sense", it follows that mutually-inconsistent claims about God cannot all be true.You don't appear to support that either way.
ACTUALLY, NO. For God to be a logically consistent believable entity, three Biblical claims about God can be sensible. God is superhumanly Smart; God is superhumanly Knowledgeable, and God is superhumanly Loving. I'm not sure that any other characteristics are necessary ("Powerful"? Ah, but Knowledge is Power!).Your argument is as a man having an opinion about Gods nature, based on observation of the created.
I KNOW MORE THAN YOU THINK.You are analyzing God based on your meager understanding of His creation.
FORTUNATELY, IT IS MATHEMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO BE ALL-KNOWING. To see why, combine Cantor's "transfinity" with Gödel's Proof of Incompleteness. No matter how-infinitely-much God knows, there will always be infinitely more that can be learned. (Ordinary "infinity" is the smallest type of "transfinity"....)You seem to be concerned that God might get bored if he really were all-knowing and infinitely powerful.
IT IS A FACT THAT THE FOUNDATIONS OF THE UNIVERSE INCLUDE TOTAL RANDOMNESS (in Quantum Mechanics). If you want to claim God Created the Universe, then you might ask "why include randomness?" And do note that it is a Fact that randomness=unpredictable....You don't seem to realize that this is coming from a human perspective.
IRRELEVANT. I'm liberally defining "idiot" as one who claims God has certain characteristics, and also claims God acts inconsistently with those characteristics.By your liberal use of the word idiot there is a strong indication that you think highly of yourself.
THEY SAY HUMAN SOULS ARE GOD'S CHILDREN. Guess what children Naturally grow up to become?Wanting to be gods ourselves
FALSE, simply because unborn humans are soulless animals, potential vehicles --vehicles under construction, that is-- for souls. Humans are smart enough to not install a "driver" into a vehicle before the vehicle is ready to be driven. And God is supposed to be smarter than humans....is the very evil that sanctions abortion in the first place.
YOUR MERE CLAIMS ARE WORTHLESS WITHOUT EVIDENCE. First is the claim we set ourselves in God's seat, and second is the claim of making decisions we ought not make. You cannot support either claim with evidence.Setting ourselves in Gods seat and making decisions we ought not make....
GOOD. The world has a lot of competing paradigms about God and souls. Every Religion claims that the believers of other Religions have misplaced their faith. But none of them can prove it is the One True Religion, so why should any of them be believed?Yes, I've read it.
God is in charge. That's all.
Which god?
Here's another opportunity for the so-called "pro-lifers" to demonstrate their belief in the sanctity of life by ignoring human suffering
GOOD. The world has a lot of competing paradigms about God and souls. Every Religion claims that the believers of other Religions have misplaced their faith. But none of them can prove it is the One True Religion, so why should any of them be believed?
If you read The Cuticle Cell Argument, then that means you should be aware of how both "twinning" and "chimerism" happen. The first starts with a single conception event, and leads to multiple separate human bodies. The second starts with two conception events, yielding two separate living entities, and leads to a single human body, even though neither of the original entities dies during the chimerism process. Therefore, if a human soul is associated with a conception event, then, about four days after conception, (A) where do the extra souls come from, when twinning happens, and (B), where does one soul go, when chimerism happens?
The Fact Is, the notion that souls are associated with conception is a notion that ultimately stems from an ancient hypothesis called "vitalism", which has been proved false. Living things have no more "life force" than a fuel-powered toy (such as a model airplane). Scientists know that anything that can begin to exist as a consequence of some purely physical event (like the biological merging of sperm and egg), can also be destroyed by some other purely physical event. It is Logically Impossible for a new-formed zygote to have an immortal soul, something that is immune to physical events like twinning and chimerism. Only a non-physical event (like an Act of God) can cause something to exist that is immune to the phenomena of the Physical Universe.
THEREFORE, when a zygote begins to exist, it does not have a soul. It might be given one at any time afterward, BUT....
God knows that about 2/3 of all new-formed zygotes will fail to yield live births. God can probably read the DNA and know at a glance which zygotes are doomed to fail.
"In the end, only souls matter". That is a rather common claim of many Religions; it might even be true. But if it is....
God Loves the fully-ensouled pregnant woman. She has a soul, while the unborn human doesn't, unless God gives it one.
God Knows the exact probability that a pregnant woman might choose to abort her pregnancy.
God Smartly is aware of the Facts and Logic that if killing an ensouled entity is "murder", then abortion can be "murder" only if the unborn human has a God-given soul.
God Smartly Knows Love is not expressed by giving an unborn human a soul, while aware that the woman would abort, and thereby making her condemnable for murder.
GOOD. The world has a lot of competing paradigms about God and souls. Every Religion claims that the believers of other Religions have misplaced their faith. But none of them can prove it is the One True Religion, so why should any of them be believed?....
SO? That seems to be saying at least one soul existed before its body existed --but it still doesn't say when a soul becomes associated with a body --and it certainly doesn't say the soul began to exist when ovum-fertilization happened. If you ever heard about "reincarnation" philosophy, then that verse is entirely consistent with it (proponents of that philosophy say souls associate at birth, or shortly after birth).“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”
FINE. But so far as I'm aware, Christ didn't say anything against abortion. He did supposedly tell someone "You shall be born again", which kind-of sounds like reincarnation philosophy, except we all know Christianity chooses to interpret those words as meaning something else.Christ. He knows. Or he is a liar. I believe he knows. He doesn't know religion, he knows God.
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you; I appointed you a prophet to the nations.”
Which god?
FINE. But so far as I'm aware, Christ didn't say anything against abortion. He did supposedly tell someone "You shall be born again", which kind-of sounds like reincarnation philosophy, except we all know Christianity chooses to interpret those words as meaning something else.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?