Total Posts:27|Showing Posts:1-27
Jump to topic:

A Knowledgeable Loving God and Abortion

elvroin_vonn_trazem
Posts: 99
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/29/2012 2:07:57 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
In this discussion, posters are asked to accept the following constraints:
1. Personhood is associated with having a soul.
2. If an unborn human doesn't have a soul, it is not a person.
3. Biological organisms can in general exist just fine without souls.
4. "Murder" can be defined as deliberately killing an organism that has a soul.
5. God creates souls, they do not come into existence automatically.
6. God has Free Will, and therefore is not obligated to create a soul just because some particular organism begins to exist.
7. God is extremely knowledgeable. We don't really need to go farther than that here, and assume "omniscience" (the discussion should actually be more interesting without an omniscience factor).
8. God is Loving.

Regarding item 5, Science knows this: Anything that can begin to exist as a result of purely physical events can also be destroyed by other physical events. Logically, for a soul to be immortal, this means it cannot begin to exist as a direct consequence of the purely physical process of egg-fertilization (conception). A direct Act of God is required, to create something that is immortal with respect to physical events.

If you cannot accept the above constraints, please don't post to this discussion. Start another discussion about the constraints. Thank you.

I now begin the discussion with these statements/questions.
1. A woman already has a soul.
2. God loves her.
3. A just-fertilized ovum ("zygote") does not have a soul YET.
4. God will know that the zygote just began to exist.
5. God may or may not create a soul for it.
6. BEFORE God creates the soul, does God love the zygote as much as the woman?
7. If the woman becomes pregnant, God will know the exact probability regarding whether or not she will seek an abortion. If omniscient, God will know for certain whether or not she will seek an abortion.
8. If God creates a soul for the zygote, knowing that the later-associated pregnancy WILL be aborted, then God must condemn the woman for murder.
9. If God does not create a soul for the zygote, knowing that the later-associated pregnancy WILL be aborted, then God has no problem with the woman or the abortion, because no murder will have occurred.
10. If God is omniscient and Loving, then we can conclude that God will not create a soul for any zygote that God knows will be aborted. (And, incidentally, end of discussion. See?)
11. If God is not omniscient, then things become more interesting, because there is only the probability, not the certainty, regarding whether or not the woman will seek an abortion.
12. Since the unborn human is a biological organism, which generally can exist just fine without a soul, then why should God take the chance that the woman might need to be condemned for murder, if she actually gets an abortion? Why not wait until birth, before creating the soul?

Have fun, folks!
Don't tell me God is smart, and then describe to me the actions of a moron. A truly smart God is not going to do things that way!
mviorj
Posts: 8
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2012 12:05:24 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
6. God is loving per your constraints; there are no restrictions set forth to that love, therefore wouldn't he love all biological beings the same? --soul or no soul.

10. If god would not create a soul for a zygote because he knew that it would get aborted then why should he stop there. Why give any born man or woman a soul that he knows will be murdered by his fellow man later in life? Why give any person that he knows will commit a crime a soul? –then be forced to punish that person.

11. This cannot be answered as it violates constraint number 7, and per your request we must accept the above constraints, else not participate in the conversation. [nice try on trapping responders]

12. What constraint says that god doesn't wait until birth to give a person a soul?
phantom
Posts: 6,774
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2012 12:16:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
tl;dr: God only creates souls for zygotes that he knows won't get aborted.

Bare assertions. You'd also think a loving God would prevent 2,800 children dying of malaria every day, but he doesn't. There's nothing to suggest that the supposed God is that involved.
"Music is a zen-like ecstatic state where you become the new man of the future, the Nietzschean merger of Apollo and Dionysus." Ray Manzarek (The Doors)
elvroin_vonn_trazem
Posts: 99
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2012 2:10:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/4/2012 12:05:24 PM, mviorj wrote:
6. God is loving per your constraints; there are no restrictions set forth to that love, therefore wouldn't he love all biological beings the same? --soul or no soul.

Well, I'll start with the claim that God made Man in His Image--it is silly because God is nonphysical in nature (logically follows from claim that God created the physical universe), so God can't have a physical Image to copy. Souls also have to be nonphysical in nature, else they could not be immortal. Therefore it makes sense to think that nonphysical souls are made in God's nonphysical "image", and literally qualify as God's children. Meanwhile, the factor of Evolution means that physical bodies are not to any degree the sort of "God's children" that souls are. Physical bodies are mere vessels or vehicles; there is no huge reason why they should be Loved as much as souls. And, consider the choice between Loving a body (zygote) only, or Loving both a body and a soul --even if both body and soul are Loved equally, the combination still has the singleton outnumbered.

10. If god would not create a soul for a zygote because he knew that it would get aborted then why should he stop there. Why give any born man or woman a soul that he knows will be murdered by his fellow man later in life? Why give any person that he knows will commit a crime a soul? –then be forced to punish that person.

Both of your surrounding remarks assume God is omniscient, which is not specified as required in constraint #7. All it requires is that it be accepted that God be extremely knowledgeable. (And, per Gödel's Proof, omniscience is mathematically impossible, anyway.) Your argument about #10 also has the problem in that all humans eventually die, some by really horrible ways, like slow starvation, so why give souls to any of them? So now we need to consider why any human should have a soul. It is claimed that the soul is the source of human Free Will. Well, after birth there are interactions between humans such that Free Will could be an important factor. Babies cry a lot, and some cry louder than others --perhaps Free Will is involved there? But before birth there is nothing that an unborn human needs Free Will for....

11. This cannot be answered as it violates constraint number 7, and per your request we must accept the above constraints, else not participate in the conversation. [nice try on trapping responders]

Having clarified constraint #7, #11 can indeed be discussed. You might note that lack of omniscience, and the randomness of Free Will, means that God can't be 100% certain that anyone will be murdered, so your issue with #10 is not so problematic. Sure, being "extremely knowledgeable" could mean knowing lots and lots about probabilities, so God could be 99.999% positive that someone will be murdered, but the chance that the murder might be avoided could make it all worthwhile --and since souls are immortal, they aren't really affected by mere murder, anyway!

12. What constraint says that god doesn't wait until birth to give a person a soul?

There is no such constraint. And, if God does indeed wait, then it doesn't matter whether God is Loving or not, as far as the abortion issue is concerned, because no abortion would ever kill a soul-possessing human.
Don't tell me God is smart, and then describe to me the actions of a moron. A truly smart God is not going to do things that way!
Clash
Posts: 220
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2012 3:01:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/29/2012 2:07:57 PM, elvroin_vonn_trazem wrote:
In this discussion, posters are asked to accept the following constraints:
1. Personhood is associated with having a soul.
2. If an unborn human doesn't have a soul, it is not a person.
3. Biological organisms can in general exist just fine without souls.
4. "Murder" can be defined as deliberately killing an organism that has a soul.
5. God creates souls, they do not come into existence automatically.
6. God has Free Will, and therefore is not obligated to create a soul just because some particular organism begins to exist.
7. God is extremely knowledgeable. We don't really need to go farther than that here, and assume "omniscience" (the discussion should actually be more interesting without an omniscience factor).
8. God is Loving.

Regarding item 5, Science knows this: Anything that can begin to exist as a result of purely physical events can also be destroyed by other physical events. Logically, for a soul to be immortal, this means it cannot begin to exist as a direct consequence of the purely physical process of egg-fertilization (conception). A direct Act of God is required, to create something that is immortal with respect to physical events.

If you cannot accept the above constraints, please don't post to this discussion. Start another discussion about the constraints. Thank you.

I now begin the discussion with these statements/questions.
1. A woman already has a soul.
2. God loves her.
3. A just-fertilized ovum ("zygote") does not have a soul YET.
4. God will know that the zygote just began to exist.
5. God may or may not create a soul for it.
6. BEFORE God creates the soul, does God love the zygote as much as the woman?
7. If the woman becomes pregnant, God will know the exact probability regarding whether or not she will seek an abortion. If omniscient, God will know for certain whether or not she will seek an abortion.
8. If God creates a soul for the zygote, knowing that the later-associated pregnancy WILL be aborted, then God must condemn the woman for murder.
9. If God does not create a soul for the zygote, knowing that the later-associated pregnancy WILL be aborted, then God has no problem with the woman or the abortion, because no murder will have occurred.
10. If God is omniscient and Loving, then we can conclude that God will not create a soul for any zygote that God knows will be aborted. (And, incidentally, end of discussion. See?)
11. If God is not omniscient, then things become more interesting, because there is only the probability, not the certainty, regarding whether or not the woman will seek an abortion.
12. Since the unborn human is a biological organism, which generally can exist just fine without a soul, then why should God take the chance that the woman might need to be condemned for murder, if she actually gets an abortion? Why not wait until birth, before creating the soul?

Have fun, folks!

http://www.google.no...
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2012 8:00:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
So what you're saying is you'll only have a discussion if we accept your narrow parameters? I reject a few of your premises. If you hope to convince Christians of your point of view, why not meet us where we're at? Because I don't accept some of your premises, you won't have a discussion with me. This doesn't prove you right, it just proves that you're trying to stack the deck.
elvroin_vonn_trazem
Posts: 99
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2012 8:32:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/4/2012 8:00:33 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
So what you're saying is you'll only have a discussion if we accept your narrow parameters? I reject a few of your premises. If you hope to convince Christians of your point of view, why not meet us where we're at? Because I don't accept some of your premises, you won't have a discussion with me. This doesn't prove you right, it just proves that you're trying to stack the deck.

Reread the paragraph that requests certain parameters be accepted in this discussion. It plainly invites another separate discussion about those constraints. So far, I haven't seen one get started. What's stopping you from doing that?
Don't tell me God is smart, and then describe to me the actions of a moron. A truly smart God is not going to do things that way!
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2012 10:19:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I'm not sure where you get the premises for your argument but required acceptance of them is probably why this discussion isn't taking off.
elvroin_vonn_trazem
Posts: 99
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/4/2012 11:41:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/4/2012 10:19:56 PM, medic0506 wrote:
I'm not sure where you get the premises for your argument but required acceptance of them is probably why this discussion isn't taking off.

Simple. Any Religion makes certain premises that it expects people to accept. What makes those premises superior to these? NOT the fact that people have been told from birth to accept them! So, why not have a discussion about that? --in a different Thread from this one!
Don't tell me God is smart, and then describe to me the actions of a moron. A truly smart God is not going to do things that way!
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2012 9:54:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/4/2012 11:41:07 PM, elvroin_vonn_trazem wrote:
At 7/4/2012 10:19:56 PM, medic0506 wrote:
I'm not sure where you get the premises for your argument but required acceptance of them is probably why this discussion isn't taking off.

Simple. Any Religion makes certain premises that it expects people to accept. What makes those premises superior to these? NOT the fact that people have been told from birth to accept them! So, why not have a discussion about that? --in a different Thread from this one!

Why clutter up the forum with more threads about the same subject?? Why is it important that people accept the premises that you list??
elvroin_vonn_trazem
Posts: 99
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/5/2012 12:35:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/5/2012 9:54:46 AM, medic0506 wrote:

Why clutter up the forum with more threads about the same subject?? Why is it important that people accept the premises that you list??

A discussion about the premises is a different subject than a discussion that starts-with/accepts the premises. Why isn't that obvious?
Don't tell me God is smart, and then describe to me the actions of a moron. A truly smart God is not going to do things that way!
mviorj
Posts: 8
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2012 1:24:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
6. You seem to forget that your constraints state that god is merely loving—again, no parameters to that love, whether it be love for a soul or not. If you want to discuss "assumptions" then I would argue the existence of a soul altogether—how you know humans have one and animals do not. You seemed to have brought science into it earlier regarding this…yet you cannot scientifically quantify the existence of a soul, therefore science has no validity in this argument.
As per claiming that god cannot make a creature in his physical image, how do you know? Have you personally come into contact with god. What if he were simply not physically present on this planet, yet existed in a physical being somewhere in the cosmos? Though societal standards would deem this very unlikely, you cannot make these assumptions.
10. You, YOURSELF, stated to—and I quote—"assume omniscience" in constraint number 7. Therefore, I did as told and assumed that god is omniscient. Where have I gone wrong in assuming this? And I never made an argument for this question; I just produced a couple of probing questions.
Having said that, do you think that it is free will for an innocent person to be murdered? –just like an innocent zygote is aborted? If an infant were to be one year old and drowned by its mother, how is that any different. Should we suppose that this baby had more free will than the zygote because it was born and maybe cried too much? The baby probably doesn't even know why it is crying, just that something doesn't feel right. I would say that this crying is instinctual at this point in the baby's life to warn the mother of something that is wrong, not free will. At what age would the boundary begin with this argument of innocent victims? Where would it end?
11. Again, you were quoted as writing assume omniscience, unless the first part of the constraint is the only part you want people to follow. I don't know how to proceed with this.
elvroin_vonn_trazem
Posts: 99
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2012 2:50:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/6/2012 1:24:21 PM, mviorj wrote:
6. You seem to forget that your constraints state that god is merely loving—again, no parameters to that love, whether it be love for a soul or not. If you want to discuss "assumptions" then I would argue the existence of a soul altogether—how you know humans have one and animals do not. You seemed to have brought science into it earlier regarding this…yet you cannot scientifically quantify the existence of a soul, therefore science has no validity in this argument.

You are missing the point. In the Relgion Forum there are several ways to go about a discussion. One is to deny certain Religious claims, such as "God exists" or "souls exist". Another, what I chose to do here, is to take various Religious claims and show how they conflict with each other. So, I am allowed to assume God and souls exist, for the purpose of this discussion. The list of constraints was written to specify exactly what notions I intended to work with in this discussion.

The thing about bringing science into constraint #5 was simply that the concept of "immortal soul" needs to be defined clearly. If Religions want to claim it is immune to physical harm, fine --but there are logical consequences, related to what science knows about the physical world!

As per claiming that god cannot make a creature in his physical image, how do you know? Have you personally come into contact with god. What if he were simply not physically present on this planet, yet existed in a physical being somewhere in the cosmos? Though societal standards would deem this very unlikely, you cannot make these assumptions.

Again, logic rules over all claims. If Religions claim that God created the entire physical universe, then God cannot be of the physical universe. That leaves God existing in some sort of nonphysical or metaphysical way --and that in turn means God cannot have a physical form (or image). It is just that simple.

10. You, YOURSELF, stated to—and I quote—"assume omniscience" in constraint number 7. Therefore, I did as told and assumed that god is omniscient. Where have I gone wrong in assuming this? And I never made an argument for this question; I just produced a couple of probing questions.

I quote from constraint #7:
7. God is extremely knowledgeable. We don't really need to go farther than that here, and assume "omniscience" ...
Do you see the part that says, "We don't really need to ... assume omniscience" ? Can you read?

Having said that, do you think that it is free will for an innocent person to be murdered?

You are not making sense. Most murders involve someone exercising free will. (That's one reason why they call it "murder" instead of "manslaughter".)

–just like an innocent zygote is aborted?

Zygotes don't get aborted as a result of someone exercising free will. Study the growth process in more detail, please. A zygote spends a few days inside the egg dividing into multiple cells. Then it cracks open the egg and is no longer called a "zygote"; it is now called a "blastocyst". The blastocyst attempts to implant into a womb --and doesn't always succeed. One reason it might not succeed is the "morning after pill" (but that is not the only reason, not at all). If it succeeds, it is now called an "embryo". Normal abortion procedures affect either embryos or, after about two months of growth, fetuses. Zygotes, never.

As for "innocent", don't be stupid. When a blastocyst implants into a womb, it becomes as bloodsuckingly guilty of assault as a mosquito. We buy mosquito repellant to prevent it; women use morning-after pills to prevent blastocyst assault. And we swat mosquitos when they do bite; we abort assaulting embryos and fetuses. Any appeal involving the "human-ness" of the blastocyst or embryo or fetus is worthless prejudice.

(out of time, to be continued later)
Don't tell me God is smart, and then describe to me the actions of a moron. A truly smart God is not going to do things that way!
mviorj
Posts: 8
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/6/2012 8:32:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
1. You missed the whole part about god's love having no parameters or restrictions [the actual important part of that statement].

2. You're hilarious! You conveniently cut out words to make the sentence mean something entirely different! Again this is the REAL quote:

Constraint 7. God is extremely knowledgeable. We don't really need to go farther than that here, and assume "omniscience" (the discussion should actually be more interesting without an omniscience factor).

Can you not see how that is different than:

Do you see the part that says, "We don't really need to ... assume omniscience" ? Can you read?

Do you not see the difference? Let's see what else I could claim that constraint 7 says:

"God is extremely...interesting…"

"God…should…be…interesting…"

But wait, they say two completely different things. Do you see the difference? I hate when people pervert context [this is why there are mistranslations in the bible]. It leads to unnecessary arguments, anger and ignorance.

3. Manslaughter can be voluntary and with malice. But let's not make this about semantics as well. The act of one person killing another [call it whatever you'd like] does not necessarily involve two guilty parties. People have been killed by an act of mistaken identity, being completely innocent and unaware of the events about to take place. That is my point. People get killed by accident all the time [one party not exercising free will, while the other does by committing murder]. I don't even know what you're trying to argue here.

I was just trying to have a discussion based on your constraints but you cannot even follow them. What good comes from calling me an idiot. If this is how you conduct yourself, then I will not be continuing.

The physiology of pregnancy is irrelevant for the purposes of this conversation.

Guilt implies a conscious act or committed offense. Blastocysts have no conscious and only perform inoffensive physiological actions.

The way you're phrasing stuff, I feel as if you are actually trying to debate a specific angle instead of having a discussion. My views? Zygotes don't have souls. God probably doesn't exist--definitely not the one in the qur'an, the holy bible, nor the tanakh, as the religious view on god has been perverted over time.
elvroin_vonn_trazem
Posts: 99
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2012 1:55:24 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/6/2012 1:24:21 PM, mviorj wrote:
If an infant were to be one year old and drowned by its mother, how is that any different.
Different with respect to what? Abortion? The one-year-old (or even a newborn) is not commiting assault like an unborn human does (right up until the moment the umbilical cord is cut). That is the difference.

Should we suppose that this baby had more free will than the zygote because it was born and maybe cried too much? The baby probably doesn't even know why it is crying, just that something doesn't feel right. I would say that this crying is instinctual at this point in the baby's life to warn the mother of something that is wrong, not free will.

Then, apparently, you assume that the baby does not have a soul. Because Religions claim that the soul is the source of human free will. So, no soul, no free will, not a person (as far as Religion and your assumptions are concerned).

At what age would the boundary begin with this argument of innocent victims? Where would it end?

I indicated that the unborn human is far from innocent, since it commits assault. And a newborn human is innocent, because it is not committing assault.

11. Again, you were quoted as writing assume omniscience, unless the first part of the constraint is the only part you want people to follow. I don't know how to proceed with this.

Again, you don't know how to read.
Don't tell me God is smart, and then describe to me the actions of a moron. A truly smart God is not going to do things that way!
elvroin_vonn_trazem
Posts: 99
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2012 2:32:31 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/6/2012 8:32:02 PM, mviorj wrote:
1. You missed the whole part about god's love having no parameters or restrictions [the actual important part of that statement].

God has free will. That means God is not an automaton that automatically loves everything mindlessly. Remember the Biblical Flood?

2. You're hilarious! You conveniently cut out words to make the sentence mean something entirely different! Again this is the REAL quote:

Constraint 7. God is extremely knowledgeable. We don't really need to go farther than that here, and assume "omniscience" (the discussion should actually be more interesting without an omniscience factor).

Can you not see how that is different than:

Do you see the part that says, "We don't really need to ... assume omniscience" ? Can you read?

Do you not see the difference? Let's see what else I could claim that constraint 7 says:

There is NO aspect of either the original sentence, or the way I simplified it in a prior message, that tells you to assume that God is omniscient. All you are doing now is making yourself look stupid.

I hate when people pervert context [this is why there are mistranslations in the bible]. It leads to unnecessary arguments, anger and ignorance.

You are welcome to hate yourself as much as you choose.

3. Manslaughter can be voluntary and with malice. But let's not make this about semantics as well. The act of one person killing another [call it whatever you'd like] does not necessarily involve two guilty parties. People have been killed by an act of mistaken identity, being completely innocent and unaware of the events about to take place. That is my point. People get killed by accident all the time [one party not exercising free will, while the other does by committing murder]. I don't even know what you're trying to argue here.

Then re-read Constraint #4. In a Religious context, why shouldn't that definition of "murder" suffice?

I was just trying to have a discussion based on your constraints but you cannot even follow them. What good comes from calling me an idiot. If this is how you conduct yourself, then I will not be continuing.

You will not find the word "idiot" in any of my prior posts in this discussion. Therefore you are lying, about me calling you an idiot. If this is how you conduct yourself, then I will be happy that you will not be continuing.

The physiology of pregnancy is irrelevant for the purposes of this conversation.

If you don't know what you are talking about, then nobody need pay attention to what you say.

Guilt implies a conscious act or committed offense.

WRONG. Get a dictionary. Guilt is associated with actions much more than with conscience. You are guilty of reading this, for example. Guilty, I say! Guilty! And so am I! And it doesn't matter, because reading is not a crime. But assault is indeed a crime. And unborn humans are absolutely guilty of committing that act, that crime.

Blastocysts have no conscious and only perform inoffensive physiological actions.

Who decides what is "inoffensive"? Read #27 on this list:
htt.....ww.debate.org/forums/society/topic/22469/
for more details about exactly what sorts of assaults an unborn human commits. One of them is the cause of "morning sickness".

So, again, who decides what is "inoffensive"? And why is that person's opinion superior to everyone else's? I've read fiction in which a bad guy claims to be offended because someone else is merely breathing too heavily --and then murder is committed. In the case of abortion, though, murder is not committed, since the unborn human cannot qualify as a person, not even just before birth.

The way you're phrasing stuff, I feel as if you are actually trying to debate a specific angle instead of having a discussion. My views? Zygotes don't have souls. God probably doesn't exist--definitely not the one in the qur'an, the holy bible, nor the tanakh, as the religious view on god has been perverted over time.

There is indeed a specific angle, associated with the constraints here. Many opponents of abortion use Religious claims as a foundation for maintaining their insistence that abortion is wrong, even though, in our secular Government system, they have to try to find secular arguments. This discussion is about showing that even the Religious claims don't add up to a worthwhile argument against abortion.
Don't tell me God is smart, and then describe to me the actions of a moron. A truly smart God is not going to do things that way!
mviorj
Posts: 8
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2012 10:01:47 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Look, I don't know what to tell you. The words "assume omniscience" used next to each other in the original constraint literally mean to assume omniscience. Next time write "don't assume omniscience" if that is the message you want to send.

This discussion isn't so much of a discussion anymore and is becoming a waste of time.

Tip for the future: don't spell out constraints then go against them in your arguments. Call them something else if you don't have to follow them. Constraint = restriction.
elvroin_vonn_trazem
Posts: 99
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2012 2:12:30 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/7/2012 10:01:47 AM, mviorj wrote:
Look, I don't know what to tell you. The words "assume omniscience" used next to each other in the original constraint literally mean to assume omniscience. Next time write "don't assume omniscience" if that is the message you want to send.

Your feeble excuse for failing to read the whole sentence, and taking part of it out of context, is worthless.
Don't tell me God is smart, and then describe to me the actions of a moron. A truly smart God is not going to do things that way!
mviorj
Posts: 8
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2012 6:53:52 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Let's try this one more time since analyzing language is fun for me.

"Constraint 7. God is extremely knowledgeable. We don't really need to go farther than that here, and assume 'omniscience' (the discussion should actually be more interesting without an omniscience factor)."

The first part "God is extremely knowledgeable." indicates that god is with knowledge. Though it doesn't specify what kind of knowledge he possesses, one can guess that it deals with the subject laid out in the other constraints.

"We don't really need to go farther than that here," means that its not really worth discussing how knowledgeable he is and has set forth the precedence of simplicity.

"and assume 'omniscience'" is something that tells the reader to assume god is omniscient for purposes of the simplicity of the discussion, as the earlier part of the sentence specifies that to what degree his knowledge exists is not important.

"(the discussion should actually be more interesting without an omniscience factor)."

This really has no meaning and doesn't influence the previous statement at all. The idea of "should" tells the reader that without an omniscience factor, the conversation could be more interesting than the actual constraint set forth. Because the word "should" was used, there was no command that tells the reader to follow this statement, therefore it does not influence the preceding command of "assume ['omniscience']."

Having said that, there may be a difference with what you wrote and what your intentions were when writing it, but your intentions cannot be assumed, nor understood by the reader. Therefore, one can only go off of what you have written.
elvroin_vonn_trazem
Posts: 99
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2012 1:12:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/8/2012 6:53:52 AM, mviorj wrote:

"We don't really need to go farther than that here," means that its not really worth discussing how knowledgeable he is and has set forth the precedence of simplicity.

WRONG.
7. God is extremely knowledgeable. We don't really need to go farther than that here, and assume "omniscience"

The word "that" refers to "extremely knowledgeable". The first part of second sentence means "We don't really need to go farther than the idea of extreme knowledge, in this discussion." Assuming omniscience is an example of going farther than assuming extreme knowledge. The crucial word "and" in that second sentence is followed by an incomplete sentence. To make it into a complete sentence, one needs to borrow something from the first part, which preceded "and". The result is:
We don't really need to go farther than that here."
We don't really need to assume "omniscience".
The operative verbs are "go" and "assume", and these two sentences are consistent with each other. Your interpretation leads to inconsistency, and that is why it is wrong.
Don't tell me God is smart, and then describe to me the actions of a moron. A truly smart God is not going to do things that way!
mviorj
Posts: 8
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2012 4:08:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Hmmm, I'm beginning to see what you are trying to say now, but the way that you worded it is very poor. The part in parenthesis leads me to think that the first part was talking about his omniscience since the parenthesis following it talked about it being interesting without omniscience. Also, the comma before "and" leads me to think that you were joining two independent clauses together (which is the only appropriate time to use a comma before and/but/or). You're actually wrong. "Assume omniscience" is an independent clause or a complete sentence (as you phrased it) on its own. Assume indicates that "we" or "you" is the understood subject of the clause. I would assume that "you" would be the subject based off of common practice.

As in:

We don't really need to go farther than that here, and you assume omniscience.

This is still very poorly phrased in my opinion and leads to misconceptions. Usually and/but/or joins two ideas together. You don't really borrow from other parts of the sentence. I think what you wanted to say was simply:

God is extremely knowledgeable. We don't really need to go farther than that here, nor should we assume omniscience.

or

God is extremely knowledgeable. We don't really need to go farther than that here. (Don't assume omniscience.)

or

God is extremely knowledgeable. We don't really need to go farther than that here and should not assume omniscience.

I will gladly concede victory if you are right. But please, please, please learn basic grammar before calling me wrong. Also, I noticed that unless they are part of the quote, you put commas and periods outside of the closing quotations. Which country (aside from the U.S., obviously, because of this practice) are you from? --if you don't mind me asking.

I know it's hard to tell from text, but there is no malice intended with my comments.
mviorj
Posts: 8
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2012 4:27:28 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Let's also try and salvage this discussion.

Do you think that babies/zygotes/fetuses have souls? I've been thinking lately that if mankind has a soul, is it something that develops as we get older? All physical things in the body do, so why not souls as well? Or what if the soul is already established, yet as we mature, we are able to access it with more and more ease.

Why is this important?

Well, I would think that if our soul is established at a set point in time, then divinity would have to intervene. If it matures over time, such as our organs, then this could happen outside of divine intervention.

I don't really think that one sperm cell and one egg each have a have of a soul and when combined, a soul is established. Otherwise, each time a woman had her menses or a man masturbated, they'd be killing half a soul.

Another idea is that what says animals don't have souls? Is it only because we have the intellectual capacity to quantify thoughts as part of a "soul" that we have one? Meaning, animals cannot recognize the existence of their souls, therefore they cannot possess one. And obviously we can't communicate with them, telling them that they may or may not have one. It doesn't seem logical that all animals were put on this earth for the sole purpose of man. Each animal exists out of a need for balance in the ecosystem.

Thoughts?
elvroin_vonn_trazem
Posts: 99
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2012 12:11:38 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/8/2012 4:08:13 PM, mviorj wrote:
Hmmm, I'm beginning to see what you are trying to say now, but the way that you worded it is very poor. The part in parenthesis leads me to think that the first part was talking about his omniscience since the parenthesis following it talked about it being interesting without omniscience. Also, the comma before "and" leads me to think that you were joining two independent clauses together (which is the only appropriate time to use a comma before and/but/or). You're actually wrong. "Assume omniscience" is an independent clause or a complete sentence (as you phrased it) on its own. Assume indicates that "we" or "you" is the understood subject of the clause. I would assume that "you" would be the subject based off of common practice.

I will admit that I probably use too many commas in what I write, so constraint #7 probably shouldn't have had that comma in it. Nevertheless, the way you interpreted it makes #7 self-contradictory (the second part contradicts the first). That alone should be a "red flag" to someone reading it that way. If you scan the other comments in this discussion, you will notice that nobody complained that #7 was self-contradictory. I will assume they interpreted it the way it was intended, as detailed in my last post here.


I noticed that unless they are part of the quote, you put commas and periods outside of the closing quotations. Which country (aside from the U.S., obviously, because of this practice) are you from? --if you don't mind me asking.

I'm fully American and this is a personal preference, due to logic. When you QUOTE something, the implication is that you are quoting it exactly, including punctuation. So, when the quotation is part of a larger sentence, it makes sense to keep the punctuation of the larger sentence out of the quoted material. Which is what I've been doing for a long long time, in spite of convention.
Don't tell me God is smart, and then describe to me the actions of a moron. A truly smart God is not going to do things that way!
elvroin_vonn_trazem
Posts: 99
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2012 1:09:47 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/8/2012 4:27:28 PM, mviorj wrote:
Let's also try and salvage this discussion.

Do you think that babies/zygotes/fetuses have souls?

For this discussion the existence of God and souls is assumed, so casually were they mentioned in the constraints. But there are still logical aspects to consider, as specified with respect to #5 (see the paragraph following the list of constraints, in the first post of the discussion).

The last section of that same first post uses the constraints to deduce that it is unlikely that unborn humans (at any stage) will have souls. And in this other forum discussion:
htt.....ww.debate.org/forums/society/topic/22469/
items #8, #23, #27, and #29 (and, differently, #30 and #32) offer several reasons why unborn humans should not be expected to have souls. But this discussion only needs to focus on the consequences of the standard claims (by Religions) that God has Free Will and is Loving --and that souls won't spontaneously begin to exist.

I've been thinking lately that if mankind has a soul, is it something that develops as we get older? All physical things in the body do, so why not souls as well?

There are a few Religions that take that view, but most don't. So far as I've been able to determine in my studies, most Religions have a view in which all souls are equal to each other, except with respect to their levels of education. They don't need to grow in the same way that a physical body grows.

Or what if the soul is already established, yet as we mature, we are able to access it with more and more ease.

Why is this important?

Well, I would think that if our soul is established at a set point in time, then divinity would have to intervene. If it matures over time, such as our organs, then this could happen outside of divine intervention.

I don't really think that one sperm cell and one egg each have a have of a soul and when combined, a soul is established. Otherwise, each time a woman had her menses or a man masturbated, they'd be killing half a soul.

Per the explanation of constraint #5, souls aren't affected by physical events; they are independent of the physical body.

Another idea is that what says animals don't have souls? Is it only because we have the intellectual capacity to quantify thoughts as part of a "soul" that we have one? Meaning, animals cannot recognize the existence of their souls, therefore they cannot possess one.

There are a few Religions out there that assume animals have souls, and still there are some differing views regarding the idea. One view will have a soul growing like a physical body, and re-incarnating in different animal bodies until it grows enough to qualify for taking on a human body. Another view will have human souls reincarnating into animal bodies as punishment (consequence of bad karma). After "serving time" in that way, they once again qualify for human bodies.

And obviously we can't communicate with them, telling them that they may or may not have one.

That's not entirely true.
htt.....ww.koko.org
Koko is a gorilla that understands basic sign language. Her skills are toddler-level, mostly because her brainpower is toddler-level; human toddler brains are equal to adult gorilla brains, and human toddler brains have lots more growing to do. I would expect Koko to pass most generic/non-species-specific "personhood" tests. But wild gorillas mostly won't.

In late infancy there is a special "state of plasticity" and "window of opportunity" for a growing brain, where it can become accustomed to absorbing a lot of cultural information. The gorilla brain has the potential to do that, but so far only Koko has had the experience of it --and the consequences. (By the way, this implies that ancient hominids at least as far back as Homo Habilis also had that potential.)

The rare humans who miss out on that info-absorbing stage (raised in the wild by animals) are known as "feral children". After the window-of-opportunity closes, it can be almost impossible for a feral human child to become acculturated. I suspect the child will fail some (not all) generic/non-species-specific personhood tests, which ordinary acculturated children will easily pass. Feral children are like animals in that "we can't communicate with them, telling them that they may or may not have [a soul]".

It doesn't seem logical that all animals were put on this earth for the sole purpose of man.

I agree, completely. The Bible may claim that we were given dominion over the animals, but the fossil record indicates that we simply took it.

Each animal exists out of a need for balance in the ecosystem.

I don't agree with that so much. They exist simply because they can; there didn't happen to be anything in Evolutionary History to prevent them from occupying various ecological niches.
Don't tell me God is smart, and then describe to me the actions of a moron. A truly smart God is not going to do things that way!
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2012 1:32:33 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/4/2012 8:32:35 PM, elvroin_vonn_trazem wrote:
At 7/4/2012 8:00:33 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
So what you're saying is you'll only have a discussion if we accept your narrow parameters? I reject a few of your premises. If you hope to convince Christians of your point of view, why not meet us where we're at? Because I don't accept some of your premises, you won't have a discussion with me. This doesn't prove you right, it just proves that you're trying to stack the deck.

Reread the paragraph that requests certain parameters be accepted in this discussion. It plainly invites another separate discussion about those constraints. So far, I haven't seen one get started. What's stopping you from doing that?

Nothing's stopping me, but I don't set narrow parameters for a discussion because I don't want to limit someone from using a particular argument. If my position is strong, I should be able to defend it from multiple angles.
elvroin_vonn_trazem
Posts: 99
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2012 11:55:37 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 7/9/2012 1:32:33 AM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 7/4/2012 8:32:35 PM, elvroin_vonn_trazem wrote:
At 7/4/2012 8:00:33 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
So what you're saying is you'll only have a discussion if we accept your narrow parameters? I reject a few of your premises. If you hope to convince Christians of your point of view, why not meet us where we're at? Because I don't accept some of your premises, you won't have a discussion with me. This doesn't prove you right, it just proves that you're trying to stack the deck.

Reread the paragraph that requests certain parameters be accepted in this discussion. It plainly invites another separate discussion about those constraints. So far, I haven't seen one get started. What's stopping you from doing that?

Nothing's stopping me, but I don't set narrow parameters for a discussion because I don't want to limit someone from using a particular argument. If my position is strong, I should be able to defend it from multiple angles.

I ended up starting one.
Don't tell me God is smart, and then describe to me the actions of a moron. A truly smart God is not going to do things that way!