PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Abortion Debates
     Looking at Abortion...

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
DrAtH

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Abortion has it's pros and cons.  It's right in the sense that some kid will live in a cardboard box in an alley somewhere with his mother and three other children, living off garbage for three months and then dying of one of eighty diseases that he'd picked up (I'm exaggerating a bit, but lets call this a worst case scenario).  And it's wrong in the sense that when an abortion has been performed you have definitely ended something; nobody can say for sure, but you have barred it from becoming anything greater.

The problem comes when you can't decide which is worse, and that is a matter of opinion.

Personally I have to say that the most important thing is the situation the child will be brought into; will it be a loving family?  Not likely.  If it's not put up for adoption, I'd say there's an eighty percent chance (personal estimation) that that kid will not have a good childhood and only add to the problems we have today.  And so, abortion is a sound option, despite the obvious moral implications it might have.


-------
ALL HAIL FOAMY!!! ALL HAIL FOAMY!!! ALL HAIL FOAMY!!!

So what, I'm a sociopath.
 


Posts: 13 | Posted: 6:59 PM on February 27, 2005 | IP
Sol

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Saying that being put up for adoption is worse than being aborted is ridiculous.

If that's the case, then technically wouldn't you have a moral obligation to sneak into adoption clinics and kill the kids there?  That's the same logic.

(Edited by Sol 3/6/2005 at 03:33 AM).
 


Posts: 60 | Posted: 01:09 AM on March 6, 2005 | IP
DrAtH

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

But that's why I said, "if it's not put up for adoption". For instance, the mother might keep the kid for religious reasons (which happens frequently), or they feel guilty for having it in the first place and feel they HAVE to support it.

My point is that despite having the choice of putting the kid up for adoption, many people would keep it; that's a problem, because that leads to single mothers, or it leads to an unhappy marriage that is held together by an "accident".

Now if someone made a law REQUIRING you put a baby up for adoption, if you didn't have the financial and/or "parental" support, all would, theoretically, be fine and dandy. But I'm pretty sure that violates some basic rights.

I'm not saying adoption is wrong, I'm saying that having a kid and forcing it into a life with no money/food/love is a very wrong thing to do. But, in truth, I also look at it as cutting down on the population; we haven't had a really good war in a while, and we need to start killing people somehow. Why not start before they're born, to avoid pain and suffering?

But that's just me...


-------
ALL HAIL FOAMY!!! ALL HAIL FOAMY!!! ALL HAIL FOAMY!!!

So what, I'm a sociopath.
 


Posts: 13 | Posted: 6:56 PM on March 7, 2005 | IP
Sol

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from DrAtH at 6:56 PM on March 7, 2005 :
...we need to start killing people somehow.


Please, oh please tell me you're joking.
 


Posts: 60 | Posted: 01:01 AM on March 8, 2005 | IP
DrAtH

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Humans are the same as every creature, they're population is "naturally" modified to fit it's environment.  When we don't have enough resources to support ourselves, we have wars.  We have wars, and inadvertantly have random people killed that we can't support with our resources (while trying to get resources from somewhere else).  It's somewhat like hyenas fighting with lions over food; the lion has the food, a hyena trys to take it, the hyena dies, population modified.  I'm sure you can find something wrong with that, but I tried to explain myself as best I could.

Well, as you know, noone really likes war; with all the death and the mayhem and such.  So we haven't had one for a good while.  But we can't  "afford" to have all these kids that noone wants anyway, abortion seems like a good answer to me.  From a logical standpoint, why would you bring something into the world that can't be supported?  Ignoring adoption and the "sanctity of life", why would you create something that can't be supported?  It's like planting a flower in the fall and expecting it to live a happy life through the winter.

Or at least, that's how I look at it.


-------
ALL HAIL FOAMY!!! ALL HAIL FOAMY!!! ALL HAIL FOAMY!!!

So what, I'm a sociopath.
 


Posts: 13 | Posted: 6:23 PM on March 8, 2005 | IP
Steeeeve

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If you are so pro-killing people...then why dont you kill yourself to help the cause out?  Seems like you probably don't want to die so why make others die?
 


Posts: 6 | Posted: 3:37 PM on March 13, 2005 | IP
DrAtH

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

That seems a little counterproductive, and besides, that's not my point.  So far noone has given me any reasoning against it; "From a logical standpoint, why would you bring something into the world that can't be supported?"  I guess I'm a bit radical, a little extreme, but that shouldn't matter.  If you bring something logical to the table, I'd probably accept it.  Only thing is, I don't believe in souls, the sanctity of life, or anything "spiritual" like that.


-------
ALL HAIL FOAMY!!! ALL HAIL FOAMY!!! ALL HAIL FOAMY!!!

So what, I'm a sociopath.
 


Posts: 13 | Posted: 6:46 PM on March 14, 2005 | IP
got_dooie

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I guess I'm a bit radical, a little extreme, but that shouldn't matter.  If you bring something logical to the table, I'd probably accept it.  Only thing is, I don't believe in souls, the sanctity of life, or anything "spiritual" like that


It's a bit hard to be logical when you are being illogical.  But playing off of your ignorance and so called "logic," I'd like to ask you what the infinite number is.  Whether it is odd or even.  I'm pretty sure you cannot answer this question.  Since we DO KNOW that there is an infinite number yet do not know its nature, it makes sense to know that there is a God and not know His nature.  And since we know there is a God, we must also now conclude there are souls.  Therefore all you have said is a waste!


-------
I always live in the past, the present is not not, the future is not yet, therfore only the past.
 


Posts: 84 | Posted: 12:07 PM on March 15, 2005 | IP
Peter87

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Sorry but that has to be the dummist reasoning to prove the existance of god... there is an infinite number but we don't know its nature therefore there is a god but we don't know its nature. Thats like saying well there is an infinite numbers that we don't know the nature of therefore there must be a third gender but we don't know its nature!
Plus even if there was a god that doesn't mean we have souls, what is to say we are special in the eyes of a god, like you said we don't know its nature therefore it might not be all loving....


-------
Why should we bow to the will of anyone? Especialy a man who our country but another voted for?
 


Posts: 301 | Posted: 3:52 PM on March 15, 2005 | IP
got_dooie

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Sorry but that has to be the dummist reasoning to prove the existance of god... there is an infinite number but we don't know its nature therefore there is a god but we don't know its nature. Thats like saying well there is an infinite numbers that we don't know the nature of therefore there must be a third gender but we don't know its nature!
Plus even if there was a god that doesn't mean we have souls, what is to say we are special in the eyes of a god, like you said we don't know its nature therefore it might not be all loving....


You are kidding right?  How the hell did you come up with the line of logic of a third gender?  God is INFINITE, therefore infinity's nature cannot be known.  First of all gender is not a genus therefore you cannot say that it is finite or infinite.  Second of all even if you say there is a gender that is infinite, it would not be infinite anymore because you have limitted it by giving it a gender.  Now with that out of the way.  If you acknowledge there is a God, then God (the infinite being) must bea being, something that is immaterial.  Also by definition God is omni-benevolence.  Therefore it is by his Nature that he is all good and all loving.  You cannot have a hateful infinite being because it would contradict the very definition of God.  Since we acknowledge that there is something immaterial and loving, we can also come to a conclusion that there may be something immaterial called the soul that God has given us.  


(Edited by got_dooie 3/15/2005 at 5:04 PM).


-------
I always live in the past, the present is not not, the future is not yet, therfore only the past.
 


Posts: 84 | Posted: 4:57 PM on March 15, 2005 | IP
Peter87

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

oh definition of what a god is, is not fact of his nature, you say your self we don't know "his" nature so therefore we cannot presume him to be benevolent!
Our difinition of god is based upon the main religious beliefs, to presume god is benevolent is to presume part of his nature, which is impossible to know.
Oh and even if god is benevolent it doesn't mean we have souls. Even if god cared for all living things that doesn't mean that we have souls or eternal afterlife


-------
Why should we bow to the will of anyone? Especialy a man who our country but another voted for?
 


Posts: 301 | Posted: 6:45 PM on March 15, 2005 | IP
got_dooie

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

By definition God is defined by his essence.  What is meant here is that God'd divine simplicity is essence as existence.  So therefore it is not wrong in saying that if God exists, he is all good.  Insofar as presuming a soul if God exists, you're right the argument does not follow.  Yet one cannot help but wonder if there is a being that is immaterial and all loving that we somehow (as RATIONAL animals) have been created.  And in acknowledging that God exists, all things else fall into place, i.e. Jesus Christ, all old testatment traditions.  Therefore if Jesus was true, we HAVE souls.


-------
I always live in the past, the present is not not, the future is not yet, therfore only the past.
 


Posts: 84 | Posted: 7:33 PM on March 15, 2005 | IP
Peter87

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

no if we are to presume there is a good, and to presume that it is all loving then, not only does the bible make sense but so do most if not all of the mainstreme religous faiths, therefore to presume that christianity is correct from that is wrong. However if we first presume there is a god, then presume it is all good, then presume christianity is correct then yes you can say we have souls, but thats far to much presumption to base science or laws on.


-------
Why should we bow to the will of anyone? Especialy a man who our country but another voted for?
 


Posts: 301 | Posted: 1:51 PM on March 16, 2005 | IP
DrAtH

|     |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from got_dooie at 09:07 AM on March 15, 2005 :I'd like to ask you what the infinite number is.  Whether it is odd or even.  I'm pretty sure you cannot answer this question.


I've thought about the question, and infinity is not a number, it's a description.  Infinity cannot be used in most mathematical scenarios.  For instance, infinity cannot be multiplied and it can't be added to; any mathematical function that would make the number a higher value wouldn't make sense, if infinity truly is the highest value.  Infinity, as a description, doesn't require a fixed even or odd value, so it is neither and both.

Quote from got_dooie at 09:07 AM on March 15, 2005 :Since we DO KNOW that there is an infinite number yet do not know its nature, it makes sense to know that there is a God and not know His nature.


Although I don't agree with the infinity thing, I'll agree it makes sense to know something is there without knowing why.

Quote from got_dooie at 09:07 AM on March 15, 2005 :And since we know there is a God, we must also now conclude there are souls.  Therefore all you have said is a waste!


We don't know there's a God, and the only proof is some famous book.  Look, history's been skewed before; look at Germany, some Germans deny there ever being a world war 2, there's a couple dozen sites on the internet I've seen that explains, in detail, why there was no holocaust.  So there's no reason to say that there is a God based on the existence of the Bible; Lilliputians don't exist because Gulliver's Travels was written.  And so, your reasoning for souls isn't based on FACT.

(As a disclaimer, I'm not comparing the Bible to the holocaust, just wanted to clear that up, it's just an example.)

Back to an abortion-related topic, can you honestly say you are born with a "soul".  It's not tangible, and although it's "observable" it's an extremely vague observation.  I'd say a "soul" is more accurately described with the word individuality.  And apart from physical differences, babies lack this.  Sure, a baby will think slightly differently than another, but that can be credited to the DNA of it's parents.  Your individuality grows as you get older, but at 2 weeks your aren't much different from any other baby.

If you disagree with my version of a "soul", give me a better description of yours; maybe I'll accept it.

(Edited by DrAtH 3/16/2005 at 10:14 PM).


-------
ALL HAIL FOAMY!!! ALL HAIL FOAMY!!! ALL HAIL FOAMY!!!

So what, I'm a sociopath.
 


Posts: 13 | Posted: 10:10 PM on March 16, 2005 | IP
got_dooie

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Replying to the two posts above.  

1.  There are no empirical evidence for God's existence, yet neither is there evidence for his non-existence.  Existence of a physical sense can be measured and be quantifiable but existence of being does not.  Again since there are no empirical evidence does not disprove of a being as non-existing.

The question becomes then, if God exists is He all good?  And the answer would be Yes!  Simply existing is good in itself.  Yet for one whose essence IS existence means one is ALL GOOD.

2.  As far as I'm concerned, one does not need to justify a person as having a soul in order to renounce abortion.  Take killing for example.  If one were to kill, one would be punished by law.  These laws aren't just made for Christians or other faith traditions, but for atheists as well.  So if atheists believe that killing an innocent human life is wrong, therefore one needs not proof a soul in a human being.  Since a soul is not needed, then we must now define when life begins.  A small portion of people would accept a new life at conception since it has its own set of DNA, and heart beat shows at day 20.   Most people would accept that life begins with brainwaves (if this doesn't show a sign of humanity, I don't know what else would).  So at day 40 brain waves are detected within an unborn child, meanwhile the average time a mother would have a abortion is when the conception is 3 months or older.

How do go about defining what human life is?  Who are we to define when a human is formed?  And since we can do neither one, should we not assume that human life has already taken place?


-------
I always live in the past, the present is not not, the future is not yet, therfore only the past.
 


Posts: 84 | Posted: 03:57 AM on March 17, 2005 | IP
Peter87

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

ok I don't want to carry on going off topic but, you keep saying we don't know gods nature, but then say that its essance is existing! We don't know anything about god (if one exists) so it is impossible to say that a god is all good.

However I agree that abortion in many if not most circumstances is wrong, personaly I don't see the problem or adoption. Apart from the obvious circumstances where the mothers life is in danger or if a woman has been raped, you cannot force a woman to give birth to the child of her rapeist.


-------
Why should we bow to the will of anyone? Especialy a man who our country but another voted for?
 


Posts: 301 | Posted: 06:50 AM on March 19, 2005 | IP
got_dooie

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

ok I don't want to carry on going off topic but, you keep saying we don't know gods nature, but then say that its essance is existing! We don't know anything about god (if one exists) so it is impossible to say that a god is all good.


You really need to start reading before you state your arguments.  I suggest Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica on God's Divine Simplicity.  You will have a better understanding why God's essence is existence and the most simple and therefore good.  

However I agree that abortion in many if not most circumstances is wrong, personaly I don't see the problem or adoption. Apart from the obvious circumstances where the mothers life is in danger or if a woman has been raped, you cannot force a woman to give birth to the child of her rapeist.


So you agree abortion should not happen.  Why? is it because it's done to an unborn human child?  If so then shouldn't all abortions be it rape, incest, or any other circumstances because it is obviously killing an unborn human child?

Now if you don't think that there is human life present in the unborn child, can you give me proof that there isn't?  Even philosophically speaking we can't help but think that because the unborn child is created from human parts, therefore should it not make them human from conception?  

And why not force the woman to do something that she doesn't want to?  The government does it everyday.



-------
I always live in the past, the present is not not, the future is not yet, therfore only the past.
 


Posts: 84 | Posted: 3:27 PM on March 21, 2005 | IP
Peter87

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I don't know how old you are but, lets say you have a 13 year old daughter, she is raped by her uncle iether your wifes brother or your own, she is pregant, if she goes through with the birth there is a high percentage chance that she will die. Would you still think that abortion is unaceptable in all circumstances?

Plus you say the government is forceing the woamn to do things she doesn't want to do every day, but thats for the benefit of society as a whole, plus none of these can be physicaly harmful to her.


-------
Why should we bow to the will of anyone? Especialy a man who our country but another voted for?
 


Posts: 301 | Posted: 8:55 PM on March 21, 2005 | IP
got_dooie

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I don't know how old you are but, lets say you have a 13 year old daughter, she is raped by her uncle iether your wifes brother or your own, she is pregant, if she goes through with the birth there is a high percentage chance that she will die. Would you still think that abortion is unaceptable in all circumstances?


Let's not forget what we're debating about here.  When do you acknowledge that human life exists?  If it is at conception, and I have stated quite a bit of arguments for it, then it should be illegal no matter what because it is killing a HUMAN PERSON.  Now if you don't think that it begins at conception, give me proof for it not being a human person.  

Again, in the example you mentioned above, you notice that there is a POSSIBILITY of being killed, not DEFINITELY!  In our judicial system, possibilities are not enough to convict a person, only definite evidences.  Hence possibility does not constitute definite death and therefore not a very good argument.  Another thing--Let's bring out the facts here.  Most abortions are NOT because the mother's life is in danger but rather because it is an unwanted child.  Also if the mother's life is in danger, i.e. cancer in the uterus, the rule of double effect would come into play.

So the bottom line is this:  When do you accept a human being is being present in the conception?  And if it is at conception, you would have to agree that any abortion is illegal because it is MURDER.  And if not at conception, then when? and why not?


(Edited by got_dooie 3/22/2005 at 12:17 PM).


-------
I always live in the past, the present is not not, the future is not yet, therfore only the past.
 


Posts: 84 | Posted: 12:16 PM on March 22, 2005 | IP
Peter87

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

ok I'm not going to search the internet for actual numbers and figures but you can your self, but the majority of medical opinion is that life doesn't start at conceptio. A new set of DNA does not constitute human life, a dog has its own DNA but its not a human. However I do agree with you that abortion is wrong in most circumstances, however if abortion was to be made ilegal tomorrow, women would go out and have ilegal abortion, with somthing like abortion you don't change the law you change opinions, and convince people not to have abortions and leave it as a final option.
I'm nopt going to get into a discussion on when life begins, because I would say it is when consciousness starts and nobody fully understands conciousnous.

So instead of forceing women to have children they don't want, they should be taught of contreception, abstinance, adoption, child welfare and care. Change atitude not law.


-------
Why should we bow to the will of anyone? Especialy a man who our country but another voted for?
 


Posts: 301 | Posted: 4:18 PM on March 22, 2005 | IP
got_dooie

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

A new set of DNA does not constitute human life, a dog has its own DNA but its not a human.


Uhmm...let's for second just imagine that you did not just said what you said.  Dogs have dog DNA and Humans have human DNA.  Again it all comes down to potentiality (both metaphysical and reality sense).  Unborn human babies have HUMAN DNA NOT dog DNA.  And Human unborns' potentials WILL be actualized as they are born and grow.  Unborn babies are not different from the babies that are born.  In it they are both dependable on their parents.  Now to say that if a mother is no longer able to raise her two months old baby and she is clearly in a die (if she keeps taking care of her child she no longer has money or food to keep herself alive) or kill her baby situation.  If she KILLS her baby she WILL BE charged for murder.  Yet just because the baby is not born, she can?  Is there some kind of magic secretion in the birth canal that makes unborn babies non-human to human?  NO...

I do agree with you that abortion is wrong in most circumstances

WHY?

however if abortion was to be made ilegal tomorrow, women would go out and have ilegal abortion, with somthing like abortion you don't change the law you change opinions, and convince people not to have abortions and leave it as a final option.

We've had this discussion somewhere else before.  And again I will say NO!  Why? because morality is not subjective but rather objective.  It does NOT depend on what a person feels about it, but rather if something is wrong, it is wrong no matter how anyone feels about it.

Oh and if we should change attitudes for such important ethical decisions as abortion...why not just eliminate laws for seat belts since it is really up to me if I want to save my life or not therefore it's really subjective and the government should not impinge on my rights...


-------
I always live in the past, the present is not not, the future is not yet, therfore only the past.
 


Posts: 84 | Posted: 6:21 PM on March 22, 2005 | IP
Peter87

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

At contreception, a "baby" consists of two half cells, yes it is potentialy a human but it isn't a human. Working on that basis should condoms be ilegal becuase your sperm is potentialy part of a child.
I bleive most abortion is wrong in that I don't agree with killing a potential life, but I don't have the right to tell people what there rights are.
Someone else said it best, you wont save babys you would kill mothers.
Seatbelt laws have nothing to do with abortion, there is so little relavance your clutching at straws here.
I know my arguements are lame, but do some reasearch into child development in the womb and you'll see the huge differance between a fetus and a baby.

(Edited by Peter87 3/22/2005 at 8:17 PM).


-------
Why should we bow to the will of anyone? Especialy a man who our country but another voted for?
 


Posts: 301 | Posted: 8:15 PM on March 22, 2005 | IP
dreadon

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

1.  There are no empirical evidence for God's existence, yet neither is there evidence for his non-existence.  Existence of a physical sense can be measured and be quantifiable but existence of being does not.  Again since there are no empirical evidence does not disprove of a being as non-existing.

The question becomes then, if God exists is He all good?  And the answer would be Yes!  Simply existing is good in itself.  Yet for one whose essence IS existence means one is ALL GOOD.


Your statement about god being good doesn't make sense to me. Obviously I'm not schooled in the art of God or any religion for that matter but I heard back in the day God wiped out the human race only leaving 2 of every animal and a family on a boat. Sounds like a form of genocide to me. To me genocide is evil. Sounds to me like god DID create man in his reflection, imperfections and all. Ever think it's our imperfections that make us perfect?

Please don’t think I am anti-God, faith or religion. I have a very good Christian friend whom is a brother to me. I just think that faith is a personal pursuit and religion shouldn’t be brought within the realm of our societal structure. It has held to much power in the past because of the wealth and power it brought governments.

 


Posts: 7 | Posted: 9:24 PM on March 29, 2005 | IP
got_dooie

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I know my arguements are lame, but do some reasearch into child development in the womb and you'll see the huge differance between a fetus and a baby.


Here's the deal.  When you do research biologically, you WILL see a HUGE difference between a borned child and an unborned child.  The problem here is that the difference is only PHYSICAL and not that of immaterial.  What constitutes human being?  This is the oldest question in the philosophical realm.  Yet the question has never been answered, and yet it cannot be answered.  So is it not better to make mistakes towards life rather than killing life in the mistake?

Your statement about god being good doesn't make sense to me. Obviously I'm not schooled in the art of God or any religion for that matter but I heard back in the day God wiped out the human race only leaving 2 of every animal and a family on a boat. Sounds like a form of genocide to me. To me genocide is evil. Sounds to me like god DID create man in his reflection, imperfections and all. Ever think it's our imperfections that make us perfect?


Here's the problem.  Killing in itself is NOT evil.  The objective intention of the killing would be evil.  Yet the God of the Old Testament that killed many did it out of love of them.  For if they continued to live that way, he knows that they will forever be condemned.  This is a matter of systematic theology, which is too much to explain.  And again.  You mention of being imperfect.  If imperfections make us perfect, then why not be perfect in the first place?  Why imperfect?  You realize there's a contradiction in terms and nature.

Not to accuse you of anything here, but the problem with many people debating about God is that they have very little idea of what they are talking about.  Speaking of a personal relationship with God and not know what God is, is to speak of him very subjectively.  This tends to be a problem in debating philosophically about God because of the ignorance.


-------
I always live in the past, the present is not not, the future is not yet, therfore only the past.
 


Posts: 84 | Posted: 10:22 PM on April 1, 2005 | IP
K8

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from got_dooie at 10:22 PM on April 1, 2005 :
I know my arguements are lame, but do some reasearch into child development in the womb and you'll see the huge differance between a fetus and a baby.


Here's the deal.  When you do research biologically, you WILL see a HUGE difference between a borned child and an unborned child.  The problem here is that the difference is only PHYSICAL and not that of immaterial.  What constitutes human being?  This is the oldest question in the philosophical realm.  Yet the question has never been answered, and yet it cannot be answered.  So is it not better to make mistakes towards life rather than killing life in the mistake?

Your statement about god being good doesn't make sense to me. Obviously I'm not schooled in the art of God or any religion for that matter but I heard back in the day God wiped out the human race only leaving 2 of every animal and a family on a boat. Sounds like a form of genocide to me. To me genocide is evil. Sounds to me like god DID create man in his reflection, imperfections and all. Ever think it's our imperfections that make us perfect?


Here's the problem.  Killing in itself is NOT evil.  The objective intention of the killing would be evil.  Yet the God of the Old Testament that killed many did it out of love of them.  For if they continued to live that way, he knows that they will forever be condemned.  This is a matter of systematic theology, which is too much to explain.  And again.  You mention of being imperfect.  If imperfections make us perfect, then why not be perfect in the first place?  Why imperfect?  You realize there's a contradiction in terms and nature.

Not to accuse you of anything here, but the problem with many people debating about God is that they have very little idea of what they are talking about.  Speaking of a personal relationship with God and not know what God is, is to speak of him very subjectively.  This tends to be a problem in debating philosophically about God because of the ignorance.


Sorry, are you saying that it is possible to debate about God OBjectively? Because i can tell you now it is not - God is a matter of faith, and faith is subjective.

---
Being 17 doesn't = naive...i think 'open-minded' is the term your looking for.

 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 09:39 AM on April 15, 2005 | IP
got_dooie

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Sorry, are you saying that it is possible to debate about God OBjectively? Because i can tell you now it is not - God is a matter of faith, and faith is subjective.


Not objectively, but it requires a background in philosophy and theology.  People cannot discuss God if they don't even have the slightest clue what could be the nature of God or a comprehension of what past philosophers say about God.  Disprove Aquinas' 5 reasons for God's existence then you can have my attention.

Another point.  Faith is a matter of subjectivity, yet arguing on a subjective level would take away any kind of sense (even making sense)  from the syllogism.

(Edited by got_dooie 4/15/2005 at 10:39 AM).


-------
I always live in the past, the present is not not, the future is not yet, therfore only the past.
 


Posts: 84 | Posted: 10:26 AM on April 15, 2005 | IP
Peter87

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ok, I'm currently sudying for exams, and simply don't have the time to research theology, however no one can prove the existance of god and therefore no on can prove the nature of god. Anyway I have to go to work, but quickly....
God is based on faith, faith is subjective, there is no emprical evidence for god, therefore there is no emprical evidence for gods nature, therefore it is impossible to say that his esence is existense and his nature is good. If god is all powerful then it is impossible for him to be all good, becuase bad things happen thus he allows them to happen and thus he cannot be all good.


-------
Why should we bow to the will of anyone? Especialy a man who our country but another voted for?
 


Posts: 301 | Posted: 10:43 AM on April 15, 2005 | IP
got_dooie

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ok, I'm currently sudying for exams, and simply don't have the time to research theology, however no one can prove the existance of god and therefore no on can prove the nature of god. Anyway I have to go to work, but quickly....
God is based on faith, faith is subjective, there is no emprical evidence for god, therefore there is no emprical evidence for gods nature, therefore it is impossible to say that his esence is existense and his nature is good. If god is all powerful then it is impossible for him to be all good, becuase bad things happen thus he allows them to happen and thus he cannot be all good.


Do more reading before you post.  It would only make sense to argue what you know you arguing about.  Yet you do NOT have the background of philosophy or theology (as it seems) to debate about this.  There is something called theodicy...you should maybe look into that too.

Please know all the details of what you are debating about before debating.  Other wise you are just regurgitating arguments that have already be responded by brilliant philosophers of the past...i.e. Aquinas


-------
I always live in the past, the present is not not, the future is not yet, therfore only the past.
 


Posts: 84 | Posted: 11:20 AM on April 15, 2005 | IP
Peter87

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ok, all I'm asking for is some brief emperical evidence for why god is all good.


-------
Why should we bow to the will of anyone? Especialy a man who our country but another voted for?
 


Posts: 301 | Posted: 8:12 PM on April 15, 2005 | IP
K8

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from got_dooie at 10:26 AM on April 15, 2005 :
Sorry, are you saying that it is possible to debate about God OBjectively? Because i can tell you now it is not - God is a matter of faith, and faith is subjective.


Not objectively, but it requires a background in philosophy and theology.  People cannot discuss God if they don't even have the slightest clue what could be the nature of God or a comprehension of what past philosophers say about God.  Disprove Aquinas' 5 reasons for God's existence then you can have my attention.

Another point.  Faith is a matter of subjectivity, yet arguing on a subjective level would take away any kind of sense (even making sense)  from the syllogism.

(Edited by got_dooie 4/15/2005 at 10:39 AM).


WHOA!!! SLOOOW DOOOWN there...who ever said i DIDN'T believe in the existence of God? BTW, those philosophers of the past would still have subjective views on the issue...what makes these people right about such an issue?

 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 02:11 AM on April 16, 2005 | IP
got_dooie

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Ok, all I'm asking for is some brief emperical evidence for why god is all good.

WHOA!!! SLOOOW DOOOWN there...who ever said i DIDN'T believe in the existence of God? BTW, those philosophers of the past would still have subjective views on the issue...what makes these people right about such an issue?


I never accused you of not believing in a god or God for that matter.  What I have noted towards is the ignorance of argumentation that has been posted.  So far I have seen no valid arguments that God cannot be, yet you have pointed out that God is subjective.  Here's the problem.  God simply IS.  Subjectivism does not make God disappear.  Faith is the only (or comes close to) way to make sense of a God who is infinite, but having no faith does not make God cease to exist.  He IS wheter anyone acknowledges or not.

Now with that out of the way, empirically there are no evidences for God's existence, yet there are no empirical evidences to disprove of God's existence.  The question, then, becomes that if Godcannot be proved scientifically, is it then intellectually irresponsible to accept it? Only if you assume that it is intellectually irresponsible to accept anything that cannot be proved scientifically. But that premise is self-contradictory (and therefore intellectually irresponsible)! You cannot scientifically prove that the only acceptable proofs are scientific proofs. You cannot prove logically or empirically that only logical or empirical proofs are acceptable as proofs. You cannot prove it logically because its contradiction does not entail a contradiction, and you cannot prove it empirically because neither a proof nor the criterion of acceptability are empirical entities. Thus scientism (the premise that only scientific proofs count as proofs) is not scientific; it is a dogma of faith, a religion.  The demand that non-empirical entities submit to empirical verification is a self-contradictory demand. The belief that something exists outside a system cannot be disproved by observing the behavior of that system. Goldfish cannot disprove the existence of their human owners by observing water currents in the bowl.


(Edited by got_dooie 4/18/2005 at 11:00 PM).


-------
I always live in the past, the present is not not, the future is not yet, therfore only the past.
 


Posts: 84 | Posted: 10:59 PM on April 18, 2005 | IP
Peter87

|      |       Report Post




Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Finaly he explains...
Plus I don't think I posted anywhere that god doesn't exist, I don't know if a god or multiple gods for that matter exist or not. However becuase it is impossible to say that there is a god then we cannot judges its esence, such that using your example, we cannot tell how many people look after the goldfish and what they are like.
However becuase all evidence is subjective that involves god we cannot base rules/laws on whether there is a god, becuase we are then pre-judgeing what a god would find "evil" or moral.


-------
Why should we bow to the will of anyone? Especialy a man who our country but another voted for?
 


Posts: 301 | Posted: 10:06 AM on April 19, 2005 | IP
got_dooie

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

However becuase all evidence is subjective that involves god we cannot base rules/laws on whether there is a god, becuase we are then pre-judgeing what a god would find "evil" or moral.


Again the question isn't if God exists or not.  But the question is when does human life begin?  And what constitutes human life?  No definite answers can be given, yet evidences undoubtedly point towards life at conception.  And still we kill the unborn because people can't agree when life begins, yet overlook the fact that it could (scientific evidence points us) begin at conception.  Since we DO NOT know for certain when it begins...why are we still killing?  If a police officer is uncertain if the man is a crook or a normal citizen, he does not shoot for fear of mistaking the good for bad, why should it be argued philosophically different when speaking of abortion?


-------
I always live in the past, the present is not not, the future is not yet, therfore only the past.
 


Posts: 84 | Posted: 10:54 AM on April 19, 2005 | IP
K8

|      |       Report Post




Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

We're 'still killing' because women should be able to exercise their reproductive rights.


 


Posts: 292 | Posted: 04:34 AM on April 28, 2005 | IP
Smoked Wolf

|      |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

You want Aquinas' 5 ways disproved? Don't know all of them that well, but those I'm not sure of weren't taught to me as they had already been disproved by Science (such as in Mover, in which it is God and not gravity that moves the planets)

The Cause Arguement:
The arguement - Everything has a cause. If you trace everything back, you either find an infinte regress of causes, or find a FIRST cause. Now Aquinas disregards infinite regress, as it gives him no answers. He then claims, that in looking at all the evidence, the FIRST cause, must be God.

The Counterarguement(s) -

Why should the first cause be God?

Why should there be a first cause?

Hume or Kant or some other enlightment philosopher (not sure who it was if your can't tell) asked what is Cause? You cannot order cause at a shop. It is just an illusion that our mind creates to link 2 thing occuring.

The Contingency Arguement:
The arguement - Everything we can hold and can touch is contingent. That is that at one time, it did not exist, and in the future, it will once again not exist. What then is making sure it exists right now? How did the universe, made up of contingent things, and therefore contingent, come into being? Surely something that isn't contigent (incontingent?) must have created it. That answer must surely be God. (may have got this slightly wrong, as some of you appear to be experts, please tell me, as I'm sure you will anyway)

The Counterarguement(s) -

Why does something have to have started the universe?

No actual proof that Universe is contingent. It is possible for the Universe to be incontingent, and made up of contingent things (possibly)

Why does have to be God?

The Teleological Arguement:
The arguement - Very basically, the world is so neatly in sync that it must have been planned, or desgned. That designer must have been God.

The Counterarguement(s) -

Why does the designer have to be God?

Why does the universe have to have been designed? Surely it could have occurred by coincidence.


-------
Don't Worry... Just Be.
 


Posts: 2 | Posted: 4:34 PM on June 8, 2005 | IP
got_dooie

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

What you have stated are not "counter-arguments" per se; rather they are assertions and questions which you do not seem to have the answer to.

Hume or Kant or some other enlightment philosopher (not sure who it was if your can't tell) asked what is Cause? You cannot order cause at a shop. It is just an illusion that our mind creates to link 2 thing occuring.


You need to read much more on causality before you attempt to demolish it.  Hume declares that the causal principle is in effect only as a cognitive form that we, as humans, come up with as a means of recognizing and interpreting the world.  And there are others that would agree with this.  In this claim, not only by Hume but also by other philosophers as well, the existents are sufficiently caused.  This is to say that the presently existing things are the cause of their existence.  This theory becomes problematic when it is dealt with by the principles of identity and non-contradiction.  The principle of identity declares that what is is, and the principle of non-contradiction states that a thing cannot both be and not be at the same time and in the same respect.  To apply these two principles to disprove the notion of such sufficient existence one would approach this as such:  A thing is insofar as it exists. If a thing sufficiently exists, it is sufficient only through and by its essence.  Yet, one comes to realize that there is existence that is beyond the actual existents, and these are beings.  In order for these beings to come into actual existence it cannot be because of themselves but because of something else.  This also requires that the existents that cause these beings into existence to be extrinsically possible to bring about the beings’ existence.  So to sufficiently exist and to be existing as an effect of a cause are two different things.  As quoted on p.254 of the Leo Sweeny text -- Metaphysics in an Age of Unreality, to “begin to be” and to “be without a cause,” are evidently contradictory.  Since we realize that all that is, is caused by another.  Therefore we need a self-cause cause and this is God.  God is self-caused because only things that have a beginning are cause, and because God always was, so his nature is existence, hence self-cause.  Since God is the self-caused, He causes all else that comes into being with the co-operation of already existents.  A human baby is instrumentally caused by the parents through the principal cause, God.  God causes the baby to exist, and the parents cause the baby to be what he/she is.  This is to say that the baby’s existence is caused by God, but the limitations on how the baby looks, what features he/she has is caused by the parents.  In all causes the former, the existence, is more perfect than the latter, the form or essence that the existent takes.  So God causes the more perfect, the bringing about to existence, and the instrumental cause, the parents, brings about the less perfect cause in the effect.

I would write more counter arguments to what you have asked, but this is not an online philosophy class.  I think you should really do some reading before trying to "counter-argue" (as you seem to think that you have done) Aquinas' proofs.



(Edited by got_dooie 6/9/2005 at 9:26 PM).


-------
I always live in the past, the present is not not, the future is not yet, therfore only the past.
 


Posts: 84 | Posted: 10:44 PM on June 8, 2005 | IP
Lord Iorek

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

A counter argument can be anything from ranting to Cross Examinations are included in the list. Smoked Wolf not looking for the answers but is exposing the cracks in the theory. These are also called rhetorical questions.


-------
"At the age of six I wanted to be a cook. At seven I wanted to be Napoleon. And my ambition has been growing steadily ever since." - Salvador Dali

Guide the future by the past, long ago the mould was cast. - Rush
 


Posts: 121 | Posted: 10:33 PM on June 20, 2005 | IP
got_dooie

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

A counter argument can be anything from ranting to Cross Examinations are included in the list. Smoked Wolf not looking for the answers but is exposing the cracks in the theory. These are also called rhetorical questions.


Philosophically speaking, counter arguments are arguments written in a form of a syllogism with the dismissal of the orginal claim by stating premises which leads to a conclusion.  What Smoked Wolf has done is asked a bunch of questions, which, according to philosophical understanding, needs to be addressed and for which there are already answers.  The bottom line is that one needs to learn what has already been addressed before one attempts to abolish a claim, e.g., Aquinas' proofs.


-------
I always live in the past, the present is not not, the future is not yet, therfore only the past.
 


Posts: 84 | Posted: 11:19 PM on June 20, 2005 | IP
Lord Iorek

|     |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Really? All of Smoked Wolfs questions have been answered? Even the one about why it has to be god? That's funny I could have sworn that these questions have no definitive answers (except for a few that really just seem obvious)


-------
"At the age of six I wanted to be a cook. At seven I wanted to be Napoleon. And my ambition has been growing steadily ever since." - Salvador Dali

Guide the future by the past, long ago the mould was cast. - Rush
 


Posts: 121 | Posted: 7:39 PM on June 21, 2005 | IP
got_dooie

|      |       Report Post




Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Really? All of Smoked Wolfs questions have been answered? Even the one about why it has to be god? That's funny I could have sworn that these questions have no definitive answers (except for a few that really just seem obvious)


Uhmm...let's suppose you didn't really say that.  All of his questions have already been answered by Aquinas' 5 ways.  The problem with him asking "why does it have to be God?" is that it supposes Aquinas' premises to be true but asks for a different conclusion.  Well, if you read Aquinas' 5 ways, which Smoked Wold did not present very well (for example: the teleological argument has to do with final causality and not "being in sync"), you will find that all his premises would allow  for the argument to ONLY lead to such conclusions.  So in asnwering your question, YES! Aquinas did address ALL of the problems that Smoked Wolf presented.  And unless I see a better counter argument, which by the way should not just be assertions, then I will reconsider.

(Edited by got_dooie 6/21/2005 at 8:13 PM).


-------
I always live in the past, the present is not not, the future is not yet, therfore only the past.
 


Posts: 84 | Posted: 7:55 PM on June 21, 2005 | IP
    
[ Single page for this topic ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
[ Single page for this topic ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by: ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.