I was listening to a debate about the problem of evil, and had a thought. The main answer to the problem of evil I hear is that God permits evils for some greater good that we may not be aware of. My question is this:
If I happen to come across a child being molested, would I be justified in not acting? God would have known I wouldn't act which leads me to think my not acting is necessary for the greater good to take place.
It seems like Dana creates quite a few debates attacking specific groups of people based on their personal opinions and beliefs. She also insults and bans anyone who has a different opinion or belief than her. Below is the definition of bigoted, do you think she fits?
Bigoted - Adjective
Obstinately convinced of the superiority or correctness of one's own opinions and prejudiced against those who hold different opinions.
Expressing or characterized by prejudice and intolerance.
I'm hoping to get people's opinion on this historians explaination of the myth of Jesus. Be sure to watch the video long enough to address something he said, but you should watch it all, interesting stuff if nothing else.
So I was on this one unnamed site and saw this guy post, and talked to him a bit, later he changed his profile picture from a default one, to one of him, and he is black. This really surprised me, I'm not sure why. Am I Racist?
If a grown man purchases a night at a hotel/motel with a child, should the hotel/motel take any steps to insure the safety of that child?
The above image is of a man, a little girl, and the inside of a hotel room. No accusation of sexual misconduct is being expressed against him.
I've already posted a debate about the ontological argument not being sound, now I would like to look at the Christian god, and discuss whether or not he qualifies as the maximal being that the ontological argument tries to demonstrate. Maximal just means the highest that can be realized, nothing more.
For this debate, use the following definition for a maximal being:
A maximal being is maximal in all attributes, non-contradictory, and if it exists it would exist in all possible worlds.
Here is a are the basics of the teachings of Ruazenith:http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/I_have_proof_god_exists#arg450561If you are arguing for the side of the Christian god, please include a proper description, or link to one. There are too many interpretations for me to included them all here.
Be sure when you are arguing for one, you also argue against the other.
There is not room to state the Ontological Arguement here. This is a link that that explains Modal Logic and the Ontological Arguement. If anyone can find a better one please message me with the link and I will consider it.
If you are of the position that the ontological argument is sound, please address the following objections.
This argument uses Modal logic which has built within it only three options, impossible, contingent(possible to exist in some worlds but not all), and necessary. This argument then defines a Maximal being as not being impossible and not contingent. Due to modal logic only having three options, if you define something as not impossible and not contingent, you are also asserting it is as necessary. If I define something as not-false, I would be asserting that it is true, as that is the only other option. This is something that has to demonstrate, it cannot be simply asserted as part of the definition of a thing.Objection two is with modal logic claiming that referencing something causes it to actually exist in some possible world. A maximal being would only exist if referencing it causes it to exist. That needs to be demonstrated not simply asserted. This assertion causes logical contradictions if two people try to reference contradictory things. If a form of "logic" results in contradictions then it isn't logical.
My last objection is that this argument cannot prove the existence of anything. Anything that anyone tries to demonstrate exists with this argument can be contradicted by someone else referencing a contradicting thing. Both can exist independent of the other, but the ontological argument cannot demonstrate which one exists, so it tells us nothing.
I've noticed that the people with the highest number of points seems to create many pointless debates as well as unsupported arguments. Due to the sheer volume of nonsense that some members put out, and the fact one is punished for down voting, these people have high efficiency percentages dispice not acctually being efficient. Now that they very high point totals, any one down vote doesn't have noticalbe effect on the overall ratio. Even if many people down vote these people for being terrible at presenting logical argument, it won't be enough as these people keep posting and keep getting upvotes from people who don't understand that an unsupported assertions adds nothing to a debate.
This is a general question, if someone is challenged to a debate, should there even be the option for them to be banned from that debate?
This question does stem from personal experience, and if you have any opinions on that feel free to add them in.
*Sitara invited me to a debate, one in which she slandars me in the title. I asked for was evidence that I abused her and when she realized she couldn't provide any, rather than be honest, she just banned me.*http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/You_need_to_leave_me_alone_I_am_tired_of_your_abuse
Christianity as a whole has countless different beliefs and interpretations of the Bible, for this debate I am defining a Christian as someone who believes the following:Hell is a real place where torture occurs.Children in general, or baptized children are granted into Heaven automatically.Sinners can repent their sin, and through faith in Christ can be redeemed.
My argument is that a parent, by killing their child, will guaranty that child entrance into heaven and avoid any risk of torture. The parent can then repent for their sin and live the rest of their life as a Christian redeemed through Christ's sacrifice, eventually reuniting with their child and live eternally in bliss, ever illuminated by the shinning glory of God.
I now regret this debate as I have surely lost. Atrag has made the very compelling argument that any Christian who believed strongly enough to kill their child would refuse to do so as it would break God's law.
Also those who have less conviction in their faith should logically kill their children to prevent the possibliity of Hell, but they don't really believe strongly enough to actually kill their child.
To ensure focus remains on the topic of bodily rights and parental obligation please structure your argument as if the following is true:
A fetus is considered a human after five months of pregnancy, but can't be safely removed until after six months of development.
Thesis:If as a result of a parent's actions the parental obligation cannot safely be abandoned or transferred, parental obligation is retained.
I am proposing that if a woman allows a pregnancy to reach five months, she has put her now child in a situation where parental obligation cannot safely be abandoned, and is obligated to continue reasonable care for the child.
"Reasonable care" is a difficult term to define, I'm still working on how to pin it down. So far I have come up with "reasonable care" being care that is common for any given situation, even if the situation isn't common.Example:If a parent takes their child camping, that parent has obligation to take care of that child until they can safely abandon or transfer that obligation, the parent can't simply stop taking care of a child in the woods. Reasonable care for this situation would be to feed and shelter the child to be best abilities of the parent. Reasonable care wouldn't be to wrestle a bear off your child.While no example will be a perfect analogy to pregnancy, my argument is that a pre-born child is put into it's situation by the mother, similarly to a parent taking a child out to the woods. Up until the point where the fetus is considered human, she has every opportunity to give up future parental obligation, similarly to how a parent can give a child to the state at any time before taking a child out to the woods. Reasonable care for the pre-born child would be that which is common for pregnancy, even if negative, but wouldn't extend to a clear threat to the mother's life, which while common in the past is no longer common due to medical advancement.
This is my first time starting a debate, so if my form is incorrect please send me a message, but keep all argument about the topic, not how it is presented.