DebateAllDaTings

It is objectively true that a perfect being (maximally great) would have ALL possible good-making qualities, not just SOME.

ALL is greater than SOME.

So my argument has nothing to do with relative subjective ideas of perfection, but we are talking about something objective.

For example, it is objectively true that a perfect circle is ALL round not just SOME round with some lines and edges.

This has nothing to do with preference.

It is a logical fact that in order for a being to perfect this being would have to have ALL possible good-making qualities, as ALL is greater than SOME and to be perfect is to be maximally great.

The idea is that the something starts itself, not that nothing is an agent that can do something.

Even one particle would do the trick

Clearly there is some good-making feature the universe has that God lacks, or else God would not create the universe at all. Basically, God would only create a universe if it instantiated some new good-making property.

However, if God is perfect, then God must have all good-making properties ***already*** in order to be perfect. If he lacks some good that only an additional creation can provided, then he cannot be perfect prior to the universe. 

The argument in formal form:

P1. If a “Perfect Creator” exists, This Perfect being created a new good-making property by creating the universe 

P2. If a “Perfect Creator” exists, God could not have created a new good-making property, as one must have all good-making properties already to be Perfect

C. A “Perfect Creator” entails a logical contradiction (God created a new good-making property, but God cannot create a new good-making property).

Thanks for clearing that up, it all makes sense now

Ahhh ok, you guys are trolling.

Nothing isn't a "thing",  and it is the absence of existence so obviously nothing cannot "exist".

I'm not sure how those two facts have anything to do with the idea of something coming from nothing. 

I don't think you fully understand the concept of "nothing" as you refer to "nothing" as "it".

Nothing is the lack of any "its".

That just seems like a bare-assertion. Why can't something come from nothing?

Is this a joke? His perfect example of irrelevant "Gobledygook" isn't even worth responding to. I hope he is trolling.

Of course there cannot be such “thing” as no-“thing”.

That’s trivially true. 

So just so we are clear, you are saying that if something were to pop into being, then this can only be the case if the potential for that something were to exist logically prior (that potential would be itself "something").

Is this correct?

Animals cannot rationally consent to sex, so any sex with them is immoral as it is rape. 

For sure it seems that way, the question is, is that necessarily so? If there is no existence at all, that would mean no restrictions. What would stop something from popping into existence?

What property do you mean? Do you mean "potential", like I alluded to in the OP?

Nothing could be defined as "a complete lack of any existence whatsoever". 

Also, why are you asking for an example? That seems like a bizarre request.

Science would certainly still be valid if Philosophical Idealism were true,  I agree.

It would just be false that Scientific Realism is true, and Scientific Instrumentalism would have to be assumed.

The issue I am simply acknowledging is that no experiment involving *seemingly physical* objects can actually demonstrate the *objective reality* of physical objects.

If there is nothing, that means there is no restrictions, thus, there is nothing stopping something from popping into existence.

However, if there is nothing, there is no potential, meaning no potential for something to pop into existence.

Can something come from nothing?

I just did *what seemed to be* subbing my toe on a wall, it hurt. 

Does that prove physical toes and physical walls exist objectively outside of mentality? Of course not, that's silly.

I can stub my toe on a wall in a dream too, that doesn't mean my dream toes and dream wall actually exist. 

Hallucinations and Dreams prove that the mind can trick you into thinking their are physical objects when there are none. No amount of apparent hammers  could ever prove objectively physical objects exist as they could be mental projections just like a dream hammer is.

It is called a Semantic Change, which is common in the English language. 

Again, nobody is denying the reality here of biology.

The point is that psychology is a whole different branch in and of itself. 

One can be a male biologically but that doesn't mean they aren't a woman psychologically.

One's psychological states are not a fiction, they are very real.

The term "mind" and "consciousness" are interchangeable to me.

Also, in a dream, if I were to bash my dream hand with a dream hammer and feel pain that would obviously not prove that the hammer objectively exists physically.

Physical objects could just be mental projections just like dreams, which is what the interaction problem suggests. Because if there were physical objects that existed they could not interact with the mind.

The term "mind" and "consciousness" are interchangeable to me.

Also, in a dream, if I were to bash my dream hand with a dream hammer and feel pain that would obviously not prove that the hammer objectively exists physically.

Physical objects could just be mental projections just like dreams, which is what the interaction problem suggests. Because if there were physical objects that existed they could not interact with the mind.

"Though, one still cant hide from the fact that the butch one with the cropped hair,  tattoos and boxer shorts is unable to produce male gametes."

This would only mean that their sex isn't that of a man, not that their gender isn't that of a man. The term "man" has two meanings; one in terms of biology, and one in terms of psychology. 

Maybe this hasn't always been the case, but sex and gender are not the same thing in 2022. Semantic changes over time are common in the English language so I don't see this as an issue.

I was only speaking in generalities, not absolutes. There are always exceptions to rules. 

How morally obligated I am to help depends on how many options this person has if I decline.

If there are other houses around that might help him, homeless shelters, or a Walmart near by where he can buy a coat then I am not nearly as morally obligated compared to if I was his ONLY route to not suffering horribly or dying.

It all depends on whether I am the *only* option or not.

A mother is morally obligated to not kill her child because she is the *only* option this child has to survive.

I don’t know how this conversation got shifted to my relationship to someone else’s child.

The whole point is that the mother is morally obligated not have an abortion. Period.

Chromosomes are about sex not gender though. A “man” or “woman” could mean different things depending on whether we are discussing a “man” or “woman” biologically (in terms of sex) or a “man” or “woman” psychologically (In terms of gender).

Also, all a 5 year old can go off of are “signs” (a deep voice, facial fair, certain facial definitions etc.) to determine if one is a man.

However, it is a completely absurd to think a proper definition of a man should be able to be understood by a 5 year old.

So because a 5 year old can't understand it, it is not a good definition?

That's not a very good argument. 

Your argument begs the question by assuming there is a physical body that actually interact with the mental substance.

Your argument actually shows there cannot be.

This argument against Dualism supports Idealism, that there cannot be an objectively physical body. The "body" would just be a mental projection (not a physical object), like the body you have when you dream. It would all be mental.

“so, there is no moral obligation to prevent human suffering and hypothermia”

That’s not what I said, that is yet another assumptive straw-man from you.

"how is this materially different from the snow-storm example ?"

A snow storm isn't close to a guaranteed death. Far from it, I've been outside in snow storms as have everyone I know, we are all still alive.

"what are you personally going to do to stop me seeking an abortion ?"

I can't stop people from seeking anything, but I can try to stop abortions from being easily available by advocating for certain laws.

Yes I do have a personal responsibility.

If a cannon ball shoots a stranger with no arms and no legs into a river and there is nobody else who can save him from guaranteed drowning, and I am standing by the river and could dive in and save him, then I do have have a moral obligation to save this person.

There's a difference between "considering" an abortion, and having one actually carried out.

We are discussing the unborn being saved from an abortion actually carried out.

If an abortion is actually carried out, then yes, it is an almost certain guaranteed death as failed abortions where the unborn child survives are extremely rare.

You tried to shift the goal posts there, and failed.

"the fetus inside me is a stranger to you"

But their death IS almost guaranteed if I don't save them from abortion.

I said "I don't have a personal responsibility to a stranger if their death ISN'T almost guaranteed if I don't save them"

Is reading an issue for you? I don't mean to be rude, that is a serious question....

I said *if the abortion is done properly* It guarantees death. Those "survivors of abortion" were survivors of a botched abortion.

....Please read my comments thoroughly or I will stop responding.

"you can apply this caveat to almost any neglect of personal-responsibility"

If anybody has a personal responsibility, it's a mother to their child. Abortion clearly violates that personal responsibility.

I don't have a personal responsibility to a stranger if their death isn't almost guaranteed if I don't save them. Even if it was guaranteed, that wouldn't be nearly as strong as a responsibility as a mother to her child. 

With abortion death is almost guaranteed, as less than 0.1% of abortions are not successful in killing the child. You are mentioning extremely rare circumstances.

"Failed abortion is extremely rare." - https://www.deveber.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Chap10.pdf

It is not extremely rare for someone to help someone who I failed to help. If one car can go by (mine) and not save a person, its likely another car will go by, and then another etc.

I will only be responding to one of your comments from now on, as your multiple comment replies are horribly annoying...

I chose to respond to this one:

"the exact same PRINCIPLES apply to driving past a person dying of thirst in the desert

I am not justifying anything with ad populum reasoning that is a straw-man. I am saying the claim I made was self-evident and the complete lack of controversy reflects that.

Also, the difference with doctors is they have a *responsibility* to take care of a patient, it is their job. We are discussing people like you and me housing homeless people or donating livers to strangers. You are shifting the goal posts.

With regards to mother's they have a *responsibility* to take care of their child, so them not housing their children in their womb could arguably be the same as actively killing them. Your point there actually supports my case.

Also, I am not suggesting we only pass laws 100% of the people agree with. I am saying 28% is significantly controversial. The idea that rape for example should be legal is not significantly controversial.

"If all 30 of those women have decided that they do not wish for their body to be used to carry the pregnancy to terms, I’d rather perform 30 1st trimester abortions."

Why are their wishes relevant? When should anyone have their "wish" granted to kill innocent human life? 

That still shows controversy, what about that 28%?

0% of people believe not donating your liver to save someone when you can is JUST as morally wrong and criminal as pushing someone into a woodchipper.

Show me one politician or ANYONE who feels that everyone who didn't donate a liver last year when they could deserves the same punishment as murder. That would mean the majority of the population should be in jail right now.

That's absurd.

Refer me to anybody, law maker, social warrior, ANYBODY who feels not donating a liver to someone to save their life should receive decades/ life in prison or the death penalty like pushing someone into a wood chipper would. That would mean most of us should all go to jail, probably even that person.

Just ONE person and I will believe it is "controversial" lol

I'm convinced you are a troll at this point and not serious. 

Not all claims require justification.

Some claims are self-evident.

If someone asked me to justify the claim that touching someone on the shoulder isn't as bad as sodomizing them forcibly, I would think they were a troll.

I didn't use social norms or laws as justification, I used them to show how uncontroversial and self-evident the claim I was making was.

I don't need to justify the claim that stealing a paper clip from my office isn't as wrong as robbing a senior's life savings. Certain claims are self-evident and don't require justification. 

Not donating a liver compared to pushing someone into a wood chipper is another example. The former is obviously less wrong than the latter.... This is uncontroversial as it is self-evident.

Viability being relevant IS controversial and not a social norm. Hence the whole pro-life movement.

Thus, your comparison failed.

Why would viability be relevant to the moral right of an innocent human to not be killed? I fail to see how viability has any relevance.

If it does, you have to justify such relevance as you brought it up to begin with.

With the overturning of Roe v Wade I'm not sure laws and social norms do support your position. 

Why would someone being non-viable magically erase that human's right to not be killed? What do you support that statement with?

Viability is irrelevant. Abortion is the intentional act of killing an innocent human and thus should be considered murder even if it is not legally. Not being viable shouldn't magically take away that human's basic right to life in my view.

I also never once claimed to be a legalist. 

Just because something is legal doesn't make it right, as slavery and the holocaust were once legal. I only said there was a general correlation; not a direct 1 to 1 correspondance.

I was a legend on that website years ago.

Sad to see it not exist anymore.

I am not a legalist in totality, although, as I said, there is a correlation when it comes to the most severe moral atrocities. Also, I thought it was common sense that not donating your liver to save someone is far less of a moral atrocity then pushing someone into a wood chipper. However, if you wish to shift the debate to moral realism vs moral relativism then that's a rabbit hole I would rather not go down. It has been fun however. 

What evidence? The fact that killing an innocent human carries with it a sentence of multiple years in prison, if not life, or even the death penalty and is regarded as one of the worst crimes one can commit.

Such punishment's are not had for not donating your liver; it is not even considered a crime (let alone a bad one).

This shows that us that society view actively killing someone as far worse morally than merely refraining to save someone from death if you can. If this was not the case, we would not have such consequences for the former in comparison to the latter.

There is not always a 1 to 1 comparison, but the law does tightly correlate with morality. This is why stealing and rape are illegal; they are morally repulsive (just like murder), while failing to donate organs even though people need them to live is not illegal.

"the sewage systems could be monitored to alert authorities of unreported pregnancies (as well as unauthorized drug use)"

There is no way to practically regulate killing the unborn by self-induced abortion. It is not like there is a big body that police could find or anything... I guess many would simply get away with it. Either way, your following comment seems to imply that morality is the main issue not legality anyway.

"the end result is the same for the person who dies, we're speaking about morality and not just criminality"

Morally it is worse to take an action that kills someone (like pushing someone into a woodchipper) than it is to merely refrain from taking an action that saves them (like refusing to donate a liver).

***I asked you to respond with one comment and one comment only, so please do that it is getting annoying***

"they are indistinguishable without MANDATORY "tests and scans" (for all miscarriages, including unreported miscarriages) AND some investigation to determine MOTIVE"

That makes no sense, if it is unreported how could anyone know about it? 

"not really any MATERIAL difference if both result in THE DEATH OF A PRECIOUS HUMAN LIFE"

Just because the end result is the same doesn't mean the path is the same, that is an absurd argument.

Should you be locked up because you didn't donate your liver to someone? No. You should be locked up if you push someone into a woodchipper.

The path to a result matters when determining criminality. 

***It is really annoying you responded to me in multiple comments, just respond in one***

"an induced miscarriage (home abortion) and a "natural" miscarriage are indistinguishable without an autopsy and a police investigation"

They are not indistinguishable at all, simple blood tests and scans can determine the cause of the miscarriage.

"it would be like refusing to feed a guest that has overstayed their welcome"

False. Refusing to take action is not the same as taking an action. Abortion is an act in it's own right, it takes instruments, and doctors poking around. It is not a refraining from an action like *not* donating my liver. Thus, this analogy fails. There is a difference between not feeding you, and slicing your throat.

"Self-ownership is about a very specific location and what actions happen in that location. There are no rights another person might have which negate this."

I disagree. Someone's property being used and the inconvenience that comes with that is a small price to pay for not taking a human life. Why? Because pregnancy is only 9 months; death is forever. Thus, it is really no contest in my eyes.

"As long as you insist on weaponizing rights (which is inappropriate) we are going to disagree.  I've enjoyed the discussion though."

I believe weaponizing rights is exactly what you are doing. After all, the right to not be killed is the most basic right a human can have...