In regards to your first question, it depends on the stage of development. I would personally say the first trimester is safe to abort, as for beyond that I genuinely don't know.
In regards to question 2, this question doesn't really make sense to me. It presupposes souls exist. There isn't any evidence for this though. I'd say "souls" are irrelevant here.
"Would it not be wise to simply abstain from guessing and let babies be born?"
I don't think so. What if the woman doesn't want to go through the ordeal of pregnancy? It's her right, and we shouldn't force them to go through a medical procedure they don't want to go through.
yeah, wtf is his problem?
I bet he's never said a joke in his life.
Another fallacy since the scientific method cannot varify the scientific method. Unless you are able to varify it, your worldview is reduced to absurdity.
This isn't the scientific method verifying the scientific method....
The scientific method is verified because it allows us to run experiments, these experiments let us make predictions, these predictions produce real things. They produce vehicles, space shuttles, air conditioners, cell phones, computers, etc. We use the scientific method because it works by produces things, this is how it is verified. If you want to reject this, then your worldview becomes absurdity.
Unless I trusted in a 2000 year old book my worldview would be absurd like yours. Because I believe in God, I have a reason to believe the scientific method because I have a reason believe in knowledge. To know anything you have to either know everything or know someone who does. If you don't, something you don't know could contradict what you do know, therefore you can't know anything. I do know someone who knows everything and you don't, therefore I have a reason for truth and you don't. You can't even logically prove your own existence, I can because of the 2000 year old book.
Have you been watching a lot of Eric Hovind? He uses an argument similar if not identical to yours.
Anyways, your premise is false. There are some things we can know for certain, without the two conditions you said. A priori statements are things we can know without having any experience.
Not counting things like that, we don't need 100% certainty to be able to go about our lives. We have a practical sense of certainty, in that our "assumptions of science" actually work as we intend them to.
My worldview is not absurd, but there are a few "i don't know's" in there. I'd rather have an "i don't know" than a fabricated and likely false explanation that makes me feel better. I can know things with a practical sense of certainty, or pretty much "99%" certainty.
All you're doing is pretending to know someone who claims to know everything in the universe. But I can do the same thing as you and say that Zeus is my god, and that he knows everything. Or is Zeus an invalid god and yours is the correct one?
Another fallacy, I can list several times in history where the people who were right were not famous, well regarded scientists. Yet I will give you an example: John Sanford, inventor of the 'gene gun' the first device able to change the molecular structure of plant cells.
Apparently he does reject evolution, but it says his position is rejected by most people in his field....
A good first step would be to define what you mean by 'Scientific Community'
Why not glance at this page?
Level of support for evolution - wiki
Relevant passages:
An overwhelming majority of the scientific community accepts evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological diversity.[1][2] Nearly every scientific society, representing hundreds of thousands of scientists, have issued statements rejecting intelligent design[2] and a petition supporting the teaching of evolutionary biology was endorsed by 72 US Nobel Prize winners.[3] Additionally, US courts have ruled in favor of teaching evolution in science classrooms, and against teaching creationism, in numerous cases such as Edwards v. Aguillard, Hendren v. Campbell, McLean v. Arkansas and Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.
That statement is way to broad and is in itself a falicy.
How? I was responding to his comment, which said that many scientists agree with intelligent design. His statement was false.
Even if what your saying is true (which I guess would only be if you get all of your information from Discovery Channel) scientists dont determine truth.
Of course scientists do not determine truth. Our best method so far for discovering truth is through the scientific method. It's not through faith, or whatever other method. Lots of scientists have used this method, and have come to similar conclusions in regards to the big bang or evolution or other fields of science. More evidence is more pieces to the puzzle, and everyone has the same puzzle. It's not like religion or faith where its completely subjective.
I can name several PhD scientists off the top of my head who have made great advances in recent science and who, not only reject atheism, but also evolution.
What famous, well regarded scientists rejects evolution?
My information doesn't come from the TV. Perhaps you shouldn't get all your information from a 2000 year old book.
The scientific community outright rejected the whole intelligent design idea!?
Yes, yes they did. There has been a court case or two in which intelligent design was trying to be taught in school and it went to a lawsuit, and both sides presented their evidence. They found that intelligent design is merely creationism in disguise. Further, there is no evidence that would support intelligent design, like there is with the big bang and the theory of evolution.
Here is a recent case from 2005:
Kitzmiller vs Dover School District
Relevant text:
After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID’s negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community.
So yes, what I said was accurate and correct. It is you who does not know this. The number of scientists who believe in intelligent design vs something else is not 50/50.
Scientific acceptance of Intelligent Design would require redefining science to allow supernatural explanations of observed phenomena, an approach its proponents describe as theistic realism or theistic science. It puts forth a number of arguments in support of the existence of a designer, the most prominent of which are irreducible complexity and specified complexity.[5] The scientific community rejects the extension of science to include supernatural explanations in favor of continued acceptance of methodological naturalism,[n 3][n 4][6][7] and has rejected both irreducible complexity and specified complexity for a wide range of conceptual and factual flaws.[8][9][10][11] Intelligent design is viewed as a pseudoscience by the scientific community, because it lacks empirical support, offers no tenable hypotheses, and aims to describe natural history in terms of scientifically untestable supernatural causes.
And you continue to pretend that you actually know what you're talking about.
Intelligent Design is not science, nor is it accepted in the scientific community. Nor does it have widespread support among scientists individually, certainly not 50%.
Atheism is more rational. I have not seen enough evidence of deism or other religions to convince me to abandon the default position of non belief.
I most of it. The author clearly has something against all atheists, he generalizes all atheists as essentially no different than dogmatic fundamentalist christians. The people who will curse you to hell for not believing their religion.
Dogmatic atheists peddling this slogan open themselves up to a simple question that exposes their ignorance and presumptions: What scientific research going on now is specifically looking for evidence of a Creator? (The answer is none.)
Specifically, none. But it's missing the point. There must be some initial trigger in order to cause research to be done. No one has been able to put forth evidence for god's existence, or when they did it turned out to be fraudulent or something else.
Perhaps I missed it but...how does the article then prove that the belief in deism is rational and evidence supported? I don't see how it overcame the default position of non belief.
I brought it up in reference to the person I was responding to. They said "many scientists agree with this", when in fact most scientists do not.
I agree with your statement that a majority can be wrong sometimes. I would like to use the world's religions as an example, many of which have conflicting beliefs, yet large followings. Most if not all of them are likely to be wrong.
Intelligent design has been debunked extensively though. The argument boils down to "the universe is so perfect, therefore god". This line of reasoning is absurd, for it eliminates all other possibilities.
I don't think so. The scientific community has outright rejected the whole intelligent design idea.
let's think of it as if we are robots not software
This makes no difference. Robots are ran on software...
he created us and he certainly knows how we think ,and react but he is not inputting us with choices
He's not directly inputting the choices for us. He is creating us in such a way, that the initial conditions force us to make certain choices that we believe are our own, but it is actually an illusion of choice.
Do you think the programmer will allow you to think that you are a software and that you have no free will ?! If God is like a programmer then he wouldn't want his people to rebel against him wouldn't he ? for you to think like this is a proof that you have the free will to think and therefore act !
This is somewhat difficult to understand. Could you rephrase it?
there's a great difference between God knowing what's your choices are going to be ,and between God determining what's your choices are going to be .. He knows but he does not force you too !
But God is the one who supposedly created each of us. Because he created us in this certain way, he basically dictated our choices from then on out. If he created me or you slightly differently, we would make different choices.
How did lucifer sin? He wanted to be God. His decided not to obey or worship God and Satan made an eternal choice.
Then why can't this same thing happen to the people currently in heaven if free will does in fact exist in heaven?
That was Earth buddy. Heaven and Earth is all that existed. Also 7 billion? That many people wont make it into heaven.
How did satan become evil? free will? He would have been in heaven. How did he turn evil? What "temptation" did he have if he was also created perfect by God?
The thing is that if God is in exiatence cant he do anything?
Yes. But this is like saying that God can make 2+2=4, and at the same time make 2+2=5.
Cant he make an animal more suitable for existence and spawn all sorts of animals?
What do you mean?
Yes. I know that. Thats why I am saying that it should just be evolution and not just a theory. We dont have the theory of Atoms or the Theory of Photons.
You're not using the scientific definition of the word theory. You're using the every day common person's definition of the word.
Theory (in every day conversation) - mere conjecture, speculation, hypothesis, etc
Theory (what it means in science) - A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of knowledge that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.
This is what they mean when they call it the "theory of evolution". It doesn't mean it's "just a theory", as if it's likely to be wrong or that its untested or unproven. It means quite the opposite. The theory of evolution is one of the most tested and proven theories in all of science actually.
60-80% just drop it because they never really followed it. The number of kids that actually read, study, preach, or even share the word of God is low.
But if someone claims the title of christian, can you really deny them that title? They could just as easily do the same to you (whatever you label yourself as). Christian to you may mean reading, studying, preaching, etc. But to them maybe they just think they have to occasionally pray and genuinely believe in god.
I would encourage you to look at religious statistics in the US. 60-80% leaving christianity is certainly a vastly exaggerated number.
He did. There names were Adam and Eve. If nothing is there to tempt you with there mindset you wont sin or do bad. They didnt even know they were naked.
I don't think that was earth. This was in "paradise", wherever that was. I believe they were banished to earth afterwards. Not to mention, this is only two people. Not 7 billion.
The whole idea of god changing everybody to be perfect sounds really strange. You'll never think any bad thoughts ever, it won't even be possible by your nature. Sounds like a completely different person.
Given the numbers of perfection? 0. Who would do it? The people that go to heaven would have made that critical choice and be saved from sin. They cant be affected by negative emotions amd only joy and happiness so grieving would not occur. You will no become your true self. The sinless you which is unimaginable because sin is blinding you according to le bible.
But then are they really themselves? I don't think so. If my brother were burning in hell, I would definitely be affected by it. And if I was not, then that wouldn't be me in heaven. It would be some "other" me.
If a god exist then everything is possible alon with evolution starting qith the animals god made.
Not a literal interpretation and evolution. They are both contradictory. God created adam out of dust, and then took Adam's rib and made a female human. Evolution is the way that one organism changes into another, and we have lots of evidence that shows how every single species on earth has a common ancestor if you go back far enough.
Why is it still a theory? I see the evidence amd I actually believe in it. But by what you are saying why is it still titled a theory?
What do you expect it to change into? It'll remain a theory probably forever. That doesn't mean it's false or that there's any reasonable chance of it being wrong.
Most wont really question it. They are pre-occupied. It rarely comes up. Most kids drop religion because the question the existence of the god itself.
Not in the United States. Most kids are christians, although with varying degrees of dedication, but christian nonetheless.
Then why didn't God just do this in the first place on earth? Give everybody free will, and make everybody perfect.
Intentionally yes. It would be like sticking your face in poop though because you would not even want to. It would be highly revolting.
Given the numbers, somebody would do it eventually. Unless you assume God changed everybody to be perfect, which changes the very nature of who you are rather drastically. Not to mention, what if you have a family member or close friend who got sent to hell? That would torment a lot of people, unless God had changed you to where you wouldn't feel any discomfort that your friends or family are burning in hell (regardless of whether they deserve it or not). At this point, are you even yourself anymore?
Therefore you will be like Adam and Eve before Eve ate the fruit. Completely sinless and perfect. Therefore you would, with past knowledge of good and evil, not want to sin or do bad. You would use your free will for benevolence.
But would I be capable of sin? Either intentionally or accidentally?
Yep. You are right. But it is a theory.
You say this as if it somehow is "unproven". We know evolution happens, the theory is merely the explanation backed by mountains and mountains of evidence.
A theory that may conflict with religion and I am sure a student wouldn't really care.'
If the theory of evolution is true, then a literal story of adam and even is not possible.
The theory of evolution is true, so the literal interpretation of adam and eve is not possible.
I think most people, and even a significant number of students (in highschool), are aware that there is a religious controversy regarding the theory of evolution.
I'll be impressed when you pass Joe.
At your current rate, you'll be there in perhaps 2 months.
It's not exactly rare for a student to protest the teaching of the theory of evolution, in public school or college.
My teacher had to give us a little speech before the class began stating that you didn't have to believe in evolution, only that you had to know the material for the final. It wasn't that she didn't believe in evolution (she knew it was real), it was that she didn't want to cause any controversy by trying to refute the whole adam and even story. Because the theory of evolution flat out refutes adam and eve.
Our clocks are based on one earth rotation. Time won't stop simply because the earth stops rotating. We'll still age the same (disregarding any changes due to relativity, if any).
Our clocks don't know if the earth is rotating or not. They're still calibrated to keep ticking every second.
They're not my beliefs. It's what I've seen christians argue.
"The reason evil exists is because of free will."
Heaven exists, and it supposedly has free will. Why isn't evil present here then?
I'm curious how they reconcile this.
It is unjust to me and you and most other members of society, but in the bible it would appear it is "just".
