- All Debates
- Popular Debates
- Active Debates
- New Debates
- Open Challenge Debates
- My Challenge Debates
- Accepted Challenges
- Debate Communities
- Argument Waterfall
- New People
- People by Points
Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
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.
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?
An overwhelming majority of the scientific community accepts evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological diversity. Nearly every scientific society, representing hundreds of thousands of scientists, have issued statements rejecting intelligent design and a petition supporting the teaching of evolutionary biology was endorsed by 72 US Nobel Prize winners. 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:
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. The scientific community rejects the extension of science to include supernatural explanations in favor of continued acceptance of methodological naturalism,[n 3][n 4] and has rejected both irreducible complexity and specified complexity for a wide range of conceptual and factual flaws. 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%.
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.