3RU7AL

But killing an innocent human being...

Do you think Chairman Xi cares if you survive?

...and his concern for corruption was a distant second, if present at all.

Adding a deistic, "intelligent designer" does absolutely nothing to inform the concept of human-morality (which preoccupies religion).

I think it is just philosophical asking unanswerable questions like whether god exists.

People only care about morality in so far as how much certain morality benefits them. Usually the weak wanting to place rules on the strong

Even in Deism, the change should be dramatic, the difference lies in application.

Because DEISTIC gods are functionally indistinguishable from no-god(s).

No not at all, this is where you fail over and over.

Because beliefs are everything, they form the very foundation of what you can actually experience. It's not just about beliefs but application.

So the experiences differ dramatically from atheism, this should be obvious.

What you believe in is a reflection of your own experience.

If you want transcendent experiences you have to apply that reality to yourself.

Why do you think Jesus distinguished great faith from little faith?? because one produces more than the other.

The "logically necessary" prime-mover/sustainer is another.

No it isn't. It can be, but we have yet to establish that. God would be necessary for a created environment. That would be the first step. Then we could argue about which God interpreted is the most accurate, however not necessary.

Try instead maybe to describe what you think the other person is saying to the point that they are satisfied with your explanation. Simply working towards that will bring about good discussion that fleshes out the subject. More importantly, it brings people together in understanding.

I have a hard time seeing how it matters if they are functionally the same if you are debating for a God. Either he exists or does not is what matters in that argument, even if he does exist as how deists imagine

It emphasizes our epistemological limits (AND) it "answers" idiotic questions claimed to be the exclusive domain of religion.

Does it emphasize or answer? Or is it a mere and unavoidable logical statement (much like p and not p?) The meaning is contingent upon one's acceptance of logic.

Is there knowledge beyond us?

It's a mere negation which cannot provide any sort of information.

Logically fallacious reasoning (red herring, ad hominem, etc.) prove that there are objectively more rational approaches to your beliefs. The parameters that define rationality are objective.

Is it simply "that's the law" or is there some utility (political/economic) it serves?

Then what meaning is there in conceptualizing that which is beyond our ability to comprehend? How do we even conceptualize that which is beyond our capacity to comprehend in the first place?

Is there "knowledge" beyond us? (And I'm not talking about the yet to be known.)

We'll use your princess and the pea story. You said that "Clearly there is something under the bed," suggesting ontological objectivity; now this is independent (does not rely) of detection. But does this infer separation or isolation? The detection is fundamentally tied to the something under the bed (otherwise what are you attempting to detect) but it's being something under the bed is not informed by one's detection.

That question wholly depends on the law-of-the-land.

What ought to be the law of the land?

Human instinct.  Some people have it and some don't.  There is no intrinsic or universal "obligation".

Legal obligation?

Once the umbilical is cut (and or other direct nutrient connection), depending on the law-of-the-land, that mass of cells may qualify for citizenship (and associated rights) of that land.

And if it doesn't qualify?

But why is there an obligation to begin with?

Why can't she just leave it there?

And if she has a home-birth, does the infant automatically become a citizen once it leaves her body?

Anything living inside my body, and feeding off the nutrients I consume is part of me.

This would include any tumors and or parasites, regardless of how unique (or distinct) their DNA coding is.

Then explain how this rationale creates an obligation to that which is outside your body, not (necessarily) feeding off the nutrients you consume?

I just don't conflate "independent" with "isolated"...

I think we can all agree that belief in the existence of God/gods is not the same as lack of belief in God/gods, and even the opposite of outright denial of the existence of God/gods.

Genuine? Does the following exchange seem genuine to you?

Thus, we either concede that all knowledge is subjective--or to go even further "created"

--or that there is such a thing as the objective, and logic is our bridge.

This is not to be confused with what we've yet to know which will involve either the creation of new abstracts or the re-rationalization of old ones.

By assuming a limit to what we can know, we are necessarily positing the existence of that which we can't know.

This DNA standard is impractical.

I am proposing a more practical standard.

Please feel free to modify and or paraphrase and or criticize the logic of this proposal and or propose an entirely new standard of personhood.

Your substantiating your biomass standard will suffice.

I haven't once mentioned unique. I did however mention distinct.

(IFF) your cancerous tumor is granted human rights (THEN) it has the right to an attorney.

In the same way, a landlord is not allowed to cut power and water for tenants who fail to pay their rent.

Now the dispute is "what are human rights"?

If the cancer threatens its host, and it does, then the host can defend itself by effectively ending the threat.

No one disputes this. But it's still not part of the inception of human development. Much like boiling an egg, I need the egg, but selecting the egg doesn't mean that I'm actually boiling it.

You proposed that personhood is determined by unique DNA.

No, I didn't. I answered affirmatively to this question of yours:

Are you suggesting that DNA determines personhood? Y/N

(IFF) we adopt a DNA standard of personhood (AND) a cancerous tumor grows by making copies of its own distinct DNA code (THEN) the cancerous tumor must be considered a person.

And if we do, how would that undermine my argument that its host bears it no obligation?

I don't disagree with you that understanding the factors contributes to the understanding of human development. But we're not discussing the comprehension of human development; we're discussion its inception. And merely selecting an egg and selecting a sperm is not a part of it.

But that's exactly the point.

The cancerous tumor has no legal recourse, no voice, no advocate to protect its existence from being extinguished by the tyrannical human it lives inside.

And what argument does this point serve?

Every necessary event that led to the moment of your birth is integral to your existence.

I am not disputing this. However, human development isn't concerned with the plethora of choices and experiences that shapes one's existence. It's concerned with the processes that create, change, and end the human body.

If the food that I eat is converted into fuel for a mass of cells in my body, then those cells are part of my person

Substantiate how this relates to constituting personhood.

I'll accept your preferred definitions and or common dictionary references.

I'm asking you for your definitions because I'd rather not presume that you're conflating commesurate with determine, especially when your argument operates on "tiered" rights standard.

Seem is not an argument; and it doesn't contradict my argument at all. If we were to entertain that personhood is commensurate with DNA similarity, they are still apart of one's person. If one cell has a dispute with another, then let them take it to court or preferably hire a private mediator.

And your (counter-factual) position is that you do know everything?

No, my counterfactual is that i know what I know,

I know what I can know,

and I don't know what I can't know,

making it meaningless.

I don't need to quantify it by presuming everything.

Human Development beginning at fertilization is tautological.

Gene expression is interesting, but I fail to see how it's relevant to this discussion.

Then once again, what would be a more practical standard in determining personhood?

While all your cells may not be identical, they are part of your person. And if one wants to excise any of them with impunity, my arguments wouldn't reject it.