Those were your words, not mine. When did I say that?
You could try presenting a reasoned and valid argument, free of fallacies and then justify it. Why not give it a try? It's more effective than the threat of something I don't believe in or asserting that to not agree with you is tantamount to a mental disability.
A dictionary definition does not constitute an argument. But if we accept the definition then we arrive at an irreducible reality without further properties, as per the source you sited. It mentions nothing of an entity capable of creation, thought or influencing anything at all. Is this your God?
Oh now I see your point of view, if only you had made this reasoned case backed up with clear justification from the very beginning we wouldn't have had to have this back and forth for so long.
You're desperate. You are right though, your arguments were a waste of time. Baseless, asinine, fallacious and vapid. Educate yourself, and then perhaps next time you'll be in a better position to engage in an actual discussion.
I've wasted enough time with a deceptive person. I have been constantly talking about no restriction abortions of viable babies up to birth that do feel pain, but as always you deceive and change the subject.
No, you want no abortions except for in situations where the mothers life is at risk, it is you who are being deceitful.
We have millions of unwanted children, foster children, etc. and your answer is to kill them.
Don't straw man me. It's an entirely different situation with an unborn child for the reasons I have already explained to you. Your solution seems to be to add to those numbers of unwanted children. Good idea.
IGNORE
How very droll. How old are you?
No, your questions are absurd.
You do realize that your proclamation that a dichotomy is absurd is a testament to the fact they are not absurd.
Allow me to demonstrate:
A dichotomy is absurd, or it is not absurd.
Whichever side you come down on proves a dichotomy works just by answering it.
Do you understand what that means? Understanding what that means, how can you ask what you are asking?
The questions are designed to establish exactly what it is we are talking about. You're evasion of them indicates to me that you don't even know what you mean.
You follow the letter of the law, but the spirit of the law is absent. If you had the spirit of your technique, you'd realize that to battle what I'm saying is absolute vanity. What I'm saying goes beyond what I'm saying.
If it goes beyond what you are saying then it follows you could be wrong about everything your saying since the implication is that it is beyond your mind to grasp fully.
If you can't even answer a simple question then your argument is dead in the water before we've even really begun. You have toppled it yourself.
No they're not, they make perfect sense regardless of what we're talking about. Let me try another proposition and see if it helps you understand.
For breakfast either I had toast, or I did not have toast.
Do you agree that one of those two options MUST be true? There's no middle ground.
Either God exists, or he does not exist.
One of those must also be ultimately true.
The offering of a true dichotomy is applicable to all entities, you cannot get round it via special pleading.
Of course I do not believe that a human life is expendable unless the life of the mother is at risk.
What if the woman was raped?
THE LIFE!
THE LIFE!
THE LIFE OF THE MOTHER!
Your shrill tautology is unbecoming.
Inconvienence or health issues that are not life threatening are a far cry from an exucse for killing an innocent human being.
It's not quite the same though is it? If you take the life of a person in normal circumstances you may have caused that individual to suffer along with any friends or family they may have had who now have to deal with the loss of that person. An unborn child would not cause the same level of suffering and cannot feel pain until 27 weeks, so it's not comparable in that sense.
I think you need to ask yourself what is it that's morally wrong about taking a human life. Is it just the removal of that persons experience from reality, or is the level of suffering caused as a result of their passing? The thing is, neither are applicable in the case of an unborn child.
She chose to have unprotected sex and created a human life. She is now liable, as is all of society, to do all in her power to protect that life from harm.
Firstly, it wasn't necessarily a choice. Secondly why should somebody receive the sentence of a life long commitment for making a mistake? Do you think the child will have a good life being brought up by a mother who did not want it?
The propositions I made were dichotomous. Either the proposition or its negation MUST be true and I'm asking you to point out which it is. You evade at every possible turn. It's a set of yes/no questions that I've already clarified for you.
Answer the questions please. I've clarified what I meant.
Does your god have sovereignty over his nature or does he not? It's a dichotomy.
Does god follow the law of self identity or does he not? It's a dichotomy.
Does god follow the law of noncontradiction or does he not? Another dichotomy.
The Supreme and Ultimate Reality requires nothing to exist, everything else requires The Supreme and Ultimate Reality to exist.
Fine.
God is not like creation. Created things have "natures" and "properties".
We're talking about intrinsic properties, features or abilities. Does God not have any power or knowledge? I assume he must if he is the creator. If he does then I would like to know if he had any choice in the matter.
I don't know what this means. There is no law over God.
The law itself it just a concept. It what it refers to that's pertinent here. The law of identity, simply stated, is that an entity is what is and not what it isn't. It can also be extended to an entity is what it is even in the absence of minds. Does that make sense?
God is what God is. There is nothing contradictory about "The Supreme and Ultimate Reality". God is what determines any law or reality, there is no law above God.
Again the law is just a concept. What it refers to is that no entity can have contradictory properties. For example a married bachelor cannot exist, or a square circle. To put it another way, the proposition that A is A and A is not A cannot both be true at the same time. I hope I've explained that coherently.
I await your reply.
You repeat deceptive rhetoric as always.
MOST OF THOSE VIABLE UNBORN BABIES ARE KILLED FOR MERELY BEING INCONVIENENCES.
They do not need their mother's organs yet you spew the same hogwash! Life of mother abortions are already allowed and accepted.
I don't think you quite get the concept of an analogy, it's not meant to be taken literally. The point was to highlight the unethical nature of a state enforcing the right of an individuals life over anothers bodily rights. You haven't answered whether you feel this is ethical.
They want No Restriction abortions for any reason up to birth, and fools will use the same old deceptive rhetoric as you just did.
What's deceptive about it?
The Democrat Party is tied to the feminsit pro abortion lobby and will never compromise with GOP on late term abortions.
I'm not interested in your politics. I'm talking fundamental ethics.
You waste your own time by not addressing the question i put forward, yet again.
Now, in my view, I would say that by the formula listed I would still go with Newton's Laws of Motion over Darwin's Evolutionary Theory as it was still lacking the explanation for which random mutations occurs
I agree to a point, the only thing I would say is that while Newton did provide the framework he didn't give a full accounting for gravity. For him it was this mysterious force that had no explanation as to its source. We also know that his laws only work up to a point, that's why Einstein came up with GR. This doesn't detract from the amazing work he did, it's just to say that both Darwin and Newton didn't deliver the fully fleshed out theories we know today.
Newton provided the entire Framework/basis for Physics/modern science to grow out from
As did the theory of evolution by natural selection. Sure he didn't have an accounting for random mutation, but the framework was there just as with Newton's laws. I'd still put Newton first for practical reasons.
but it is not difficult to get your mind around or see how someone discovered/thought it up
I would disagree. In an age where the widely accepted explanation for living things was religion, for someone to have the courage and intellect to see outside of this and come up with a better explanation is truly remarkable. He broke a paradigm, that's no easy thing to do.
I disagree. Whenever my 5-year-old nephew asked a difficult question, the default answers were always "god", "magic", or "Ask your mom."
Let's not forget "because I say so". That's always a good one.
Could you ever seriously suggest that a 5-year-old's credulity is not the standard yardstick with which to measure explanatory power of answers proposed by educated and thinking adults? :)
I only picked my jaw up from my desk after I read this last part. Don't do that to me mate, I was having palpitations.
Yes, I did. You chose not to answer the analogy because doing so would reveal the folly of your position.
If I bore you when showing your inhumanity, please ignore my debates. The truth is that I shine a light on the phoney so called compassion and tolerance from the Left for those who can't help themselves, and you don't like how it feels.
I don't like how it feels? I would have to believe your held a rational, well thought out position in order for me to respect your opinion before I could feel anything towards your rhetoric. I don't.
You want to place the right to life of an unborn child above the bodily integrity rights of the woman involved. Nobody has the right to life at the expense of somebody else's rights, this is what you do not understand. Why should we afford special rights to unborn children?
I'll put the analogy here again and see if you avoid addressing it again.
If I require a kidney and there are no donors available, should the state be able to legislate that somebody must give me one against there wishes? It won't kill them, they might have to change their diet slightly to accommodate, but I have a right to life and that takes precedence over their bodily rights.
Does the above scenario seem ethical to you?
No. Wrong. There's no "battery of the brain", you don't understand neuroscience. There's no such thing as black, brown and purple matter. You've just made those terms up.
The two areas of the brain it's associated with are involved in reward, movement, stress and panic. That's it.
