"This is an interesting topic but will probably be an arduous slog to vote for. Respect to whoever votes on this thing."
My feelings are that to capture the bias and thought process of pro-choice, and do it justice, is a tedious task, but worth the risk. Having said that, there is not enough space in a debate to document all the various aspects of the dehumanization comparison and examples. The pro-choice dehumanizing process can be compared via a number of different avenues, such as with slavery, women, and various political systems such as apartheid, but Nazi Germany is perhaps the most documented case of dehumanization available. IMO, to counter the pro-life argument, the pro-choice advocates (the majority outlook on debate forums) just claim reductio ad Hitlerum to end any comparison or stop the discussion and examination of the pro-choice position.
SKONE: "You provided a logical fallacy (circular argument) in defense. That is not logical. I'm not trying to beat you up, but I don't think you've really examined your position all that closely."
I stated a biblical truth. I believed you knew that teaching. It was not something I made up out of the blue. This is the teaching of Scripture, that there is a foundation that is right and true and noble, per the Bible, but,
Psalm 11:3
If the foundations are destroyed, What can the righteous do?
If you destroy or attempt to destroy this foundation then what will you use to replace it? Please answer this question.
Matthew 7:24[ The Two Foundations ] “Therefore everyone who hears these words of Mine and acts on them, may be compared to a wise man who built his house on the rock.
Jesus taught two foundations, one solid and reliable, the other built on sinking sand.
Isaiah 28:16 Therefore thus says the Lord God, “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a tested stone, A costly cornerstone for the foundation, firmly placed. He who believes in it will not be disturbed.
Matthew 21:42Jesus *said to them, “Did you never read in the Scriptures, ‘The stone which the builders rejected, This became the chief corner stone; This came about from the Lord, And it is marvelous in our eyes’?
The cornerstone was the first stone laid and a key to the structure of the building.
Ephesians 2:20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone,
There is a time when no greater authority can be appealed to, thus when you appeal to authority is your authority circular too? "Science proves science." "Logic proves logic." Is that circular? In the case of God, a Being who knows all things, how could there be a greater authority of appeal? Eventually, all things point to God as the Originator or Creator of them.
What is your foundation of epistemology? Is it yourself, perhaps, or science, or reason (whose)?
Post 207: "Jesus/god as a foundation of epistemology? I view this as a bald assertion. Why should I consider your view to be correct? Fair warning: I will not find circular arguments compelling."
Jesus is the foundation of epistemology per such biblical statements as John 14:6; John 16:30; John 21:17; or Colossians 2:3. Whether you choose to accept this is another matter. You know the Bible says those things. I do not see fit to explain to you something you already understand. It is not only me saying that He is the foundation of our understanding. It is not just one biblical author who spoke of such things, and many such authors said they were eyewitnesses of His resurrection.
1 John 1-3 (NASB)
Introduction, The Incarnate Word
1 What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have SEEN with our eyes, what we have LOOKED AT and TOUCHED with our hands, concerning the Word of Life— 2 and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us— 3 what we have SEEN and HEARD we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ.
There are only a few possibilities for origins:
1. Creation.
2. Chance happenstance.
3. Eternal existence.
4. Illusion.
Perhaps you can think of more (name them), but which makes sense to you? That brings me back to a statement I make often. I believe God is necessary to make sense of such things for such a God (the biblical One) has what is necessary for us to know - omniscience, immutability, and eternity.
SKONE: "I am not questioning Christianity specifically, but merely asking about an epistemological claim. Lashng out at me doesn't make your assertions true."
I have explained what my epistemology is based upon. I have explained it from a philosophical and logical perspective. I could have taken other aspects of proof but I based it upon your Post 207 query and charge.
SKONE: "This tangent can be summarized as such:
Person A: How do you logically support belief X [Christianity]?
Person B [a Christian] attempts to avoid scrutiny of said belief [Christianity] by questioning person A [an atheist/agnostic] on assumed belief Y [atheism]. Additionally, Person B [a Christain] suggests a book [the Bible], [1] which (alone) states it's own importance, substantiates his belief.
[2] Even if Person A [an atheist/agnostic] cannot substantiate belief Y [atheism/agnosticism], it does not follow belief X [Christianity] of person B [a Christian] is substantiated. [3] Also, the book can be a claim or evidence - not both. [4] Finally, the summary above is overly generous. [5] PGA is not merely relying on the Bible to substantiate his views, [6] but *his interpretation* of the Bible. [7] PGA accuses me of dodging his questions, [8] but his questions are a dodge in and of themselves. I simply refuse to follow the feint.
Please remember where this tangent came from. SKONE said,
Post 207: "Jesus/god as a foundation of epistemology? I view this as a bald assertion. Why should I consider your view to be correct? Fair warning: I will not find circular arguments compelling."
[1] Again, I questioned Person A [an atheist] on his ultimate authority and on the consistency of such said authority in regards to the surety and necessity of knowing. I questioned how his relativism and subjectivism is the necessary standard in understanding epistemology in such areas as origins of the universe, life from non-life, morality, and existence. I'm trying to get to the basics of his claims about my beliefs and his own as to which is more reasonable - the core or foundational starting points to there coherency and correspondency. S I L E N C E
[2] If Person A [an atheist/agnostic] cannot substantiate his own belief is reasonable nor can he prove Person B's [the Christian] beliefs are not why should his charges be taken seriously? I have given reasons for my belief system as to knowledge is reasonable from where I start and what is NECESSARY, yet SKONE has not.
[3] The either-or fallacy/false dilemma. The "claim" comes from those who do not believe what the Bible states as an ultimate authority from which there is no greater. Thus, it becomes a test of belief systems as to reason and verification of authority and to what is necessary to know. Two contrary authorities are not both right. Are we created or are we here by chance happenstance? Which is more reasonable? The biblical evidence comes from both the internal and external consistency of what is stated that can be related to human history to a large extent but it drives way deeper in answering the question of why are we here and how did we get here? It also comes from a revelation of necessary Being of which neither SKONE nor myself are. From basic questions, worldviews are framed. Thus, the basics are what we need to examine as to the logic and sense in such belief systems.
[4] You framed it.
[5] SKONE said, "PGA is not merely relying on the Bible to substantiate his views" but from the Christian standpoint I am created in the image and likeness of God and I am using what he has given me (reason and logic) to understand His creation. My point has been that neither of us is neutral in our belief system and yet from Person A's [the atheist/agnostic] starting points, his foundational beliefs, how can he make sense of any of this in his subjectivity of origins, morality, life from non-life, and existence? He is trying to convince the reader that his position is "better" and more "reliable" to believe than my framework to which I scoff. Let us peel away the veneer to see what lies beneath the surface. Does SKONE's belief system have what is necessary for knowledge, or is he using my Christian framework?
[6] Regarding interpretation, I have asked SKONE if a language has meaning in context? If not, then how can we understand anything? If so, then there is a correct interpretation. If SKONE wishes to question me on my interpretation I have given him some verses that support my position regarding knowledge. I have also questions his starting points or foundations as to validity. Do his core presuppositions have what is necessary?
[7] Most definitely.
[8] They get to the heart of the issue. SKONE is asking me to validate how I can know Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. I have explained the biblical REVELATION has what is necessary to know. I have also said that SKONE does not have what is necessary. Why should I believe his personal opinion or where he derives it from unless he can show it is necessary for truth and knowledge. S I L E N C E
Furthermore, you said you do not want to go down my rabbit holes (which I view as a simple dismissal of my points without a warrant). This still begs the question of if your knowledge is not comprehensive and all-encompassing and you can't point to any that meets this criterion that has been revealed to humanity, again, why should I have faith in your belief system as anything other than the blind leading the blind?
Again, you have not shown me why your worldview is consistent with the preconditions for knowledge. If you do not have a comprehensive knowledge of how all things are connected and holds together how can you have any certainty of the origins of the universe, life, morality, existence? Again, my worldview has the necessary preconditions - God, your does not.
Regarding morality, I have questioned your preconditions for morality in our first debate on abortion and I never saw your defence as plausible. I questioned your morality in regard to the law in this debate and I again never saw your defence as plausible but contradictory once again. It did not even meet the criterion of being self-evidently true. You argued for all humanity being equal then undermined the very concept of equality by not treating every human equally.
I would like to follow up on one of your statements to do with epistemology. Here it is:
SKONE: "If you don't want to talk about what you consider the basis of knowledge that's fine. I do find it ironic you suggest god is the basis of knowledge, but apparently can't say how you know that."
I find it ironic that you suggest God is not (and I speak of the Christian God).
What is your basis for knowledge? How can it be an absolute certainty?
What is the necessary precondition for your reasoning? Is it an omniscient being who has revealed themself? If not it is inconsistent. It begs the question of how it can be known to be the actual case if not. So point to this being. I question your subjective mind as the criteria for knowledge just as I question other subjective, relative human beings as the foundation for certainty of knowledge. I reason that your knowledge is not comprehensive and all-knowing, thus, it misses the mark. So, please explain why I can trust it? Mine, on the other hand, has what is necessary. Thus, it is internally consistent as the precondition for knowledge.
IOW's, I want to know why your authority is justifiable if it is not the absolute authority for reason and knowledge?
ME: "The biblical perspective is that knowledge is derived from God (e.g. I am the way, the truth, and the light). We, as human beings, are created in His image and likeness; thus, we are capable of knowing also provided we build upon a solid foundation."
SKONE: "So your explanation is simple as "my interpretation of the Bible". Why should we consider the Bible an authority in anything (besides "the Bible tells me so") or accept your interpretation of it? On the former, its circular, and on the latter, it's subjective."
I base my interpretation on many simply stated passages of Scripture. Would you like to dispute that, or are you merely saying that there is no correct interpretation of Scripture or no objective understanding of any sentence (i.e., words in context have no meaning)?
Regarding authority and reason, where does your ultimate authority derive from; for example, the standard in which truth is measured? There is no neutrality here. What standard do you commit to?
Now, what if the Bible (stated as God's word) is my ultimate authority? Why is your secular or religious authority "better?"
Is 'reason' your ultimate authority (circular and subjective - "My reason is that reason is necessary for understanding.")? Is it science (circular - "I believe in science because science gives sufficient reason for the truth.")?
SKONE: "And before you attempt to a Tu quoque fallacy (i.e. You too!!), I'm appealing to what can be observed by all rather than what I alone can 'witness'."
And you bet I'll question you along the lines in which you are examining me.
All can observe and examine the Bible. It claims knowledge of God is evident in it, but men suppress the truth of it.
KNOWLEDGE about God comes from it.
Romans 1:18-22
Unbelief and Its Consequences
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who SUPPRESS the TRUTH in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is KNOWN ABOUT God is EVIDENT WITHIN THEM; for God made it EVIDENT TO THEM. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been CLEARLY SEEN, being understood THROUGH WHAT HAS BEEN MADE, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became FUTILE IN THEIR SPECULATIONS, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Because of the unbeliever's suppression and rejection of God's knowledge the Word becomes foolish to them.
1 Corinthians 2:11-14 (NASB)
11 For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God, 13 which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words.
14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.
ULTIMATE AUTHORITY is derived through our relationship with Jesus Christ.
Matthew 28:18 (NASB)
18 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “ALL authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.
Colossians 2:3b-4
resulting in a true knowledge of God’s mystery, that is, Christ Himself, 3 in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.
SKONE: "I didn't see the point of copy/paste of previous posts. Was there new information there?"
You side-stepped engaging with my questions very nicely!
The biblical perspective is that knowledge is derived from God (eg. I am the way, the truth, and the light). We, as human beings are created in His image and likeness; thus we are capable of knowing also provided we build upon a solid foundation.
Sorry, I missed this last part, but it is already answered.
YOU: "If you don't want to talk about what you consider the basis of knowledge that's fine. I do find it ironic you suggest god is the basis of knowledge, but apparently can't say how you know that."
The necessary basis for true knowledge is God. That is because, as I stated, He has the criterion of omniscience, eternality, and immutability - the final reference point and measure. Can we discover that knowledge without His written revelation? When we think His thoughts after Him - yes.
YOU: "False dichotomy. Even if we discount materialism, there is still any number of theistic and deistic possibilities." (Post 218)
ME: "Okay, since you are defending some competing religious claims, what are your other alternatives, not just generic but specific? If you can't list them then you are speaking from ignorance. Why should I believe you? I defend a specific God and concept of God, the biblical God and no other, as stated many times before. Let us compare worldviews. Two absolute gods or plurality of gods that contradict each other cannot both be true. Thus, what is your plurality of gods, if that is the case?
First, what is your god or gods if that/those god/gods is/are not personal?
Second, either God is a personal being or God is impersonal. Which is it? God or gods? It cannot be both.
Third, if God or gods is/are not a person/persons God/gods is/are a thing/things, not a being (i.e., pantheism). You can't have it both ways. Either God/gods is/are personal being/beings or God/gods is ascribed to a thing or things. Which is it? It can't be both.
Fourth, how has this/these god/gods been revealed to us? The Christian God reveals Himself in language and by what He has made.
Fifth, if your god/gods is not a personal being how does your god/gods have the ability to do anything and how does your god/gods sustain anything because if not a personal being/beings there is no intent?
Sixth, if your God/gods are beyond rationality and human experience then they are arbitrary non-sense.
Seventh, what are the preconditions for intelligibility and how does this come about and/or how is this possible without personhood?
Eighth, is your god/gods visible or invisible, empirical or nonempirical?" (Post 219)
YOU: "I'm not running down the rabbit holes, buddy. Either you can back the assertion I questioned, or you cant. You're dodging the question." (Post 222)
I am willing to demonstrate why the biblical God makes sense if you are willing to discuss these gods or god in relation to the biblical God as to the reasonableness of the different positions? Give me a couple of what you consider the most reasonable scenarios. How do they fit into the eight questions of Post 222? Better yet, give me some detail of your own position so I can contrast it with the biblical position.
SKONE: "I've pointed out there are more options than materialism and Jesus. It stands to reason that even if you are correct about materialism, you view is not winner by default...there are other options. Thus, changing the subject to what you believe my views to be doesnt answer the question."
You've asserted (just like I have to the contrary) there are more options but IF the Bible is true (and I state it that way because of your doubts) it states something exclusively - the biblical God is the one and only true God. Now, if you believe Jesus (the Trinity) is not the true God but there are many gods then list your god or gods so we can compare and contrast our beliefs. In this way, I can demonstrate to you why my belief is reasonable in comparison to your belief. That is the best I can do other than to state that knowledge or true justified belief would require a revelation from an ultimate, omniscient, unchanging Being since we are not that being.
If you don't want to talk about what you consider the basis of knowledge that's fine. I do find it ironic you suggest god is the basis of knowledge, but apparently can't say how you know that.
YOU: "Jesus/god as a foundation of epistemology? I view this as a bald assertion. Why should I consider your view to be correct? Fair warning: I will not find circular arguments compelling." (Post 207)
YOU: "Let me clarify my question: why is belief in Jesus/god a valid epistemological foundation?" (Post 208)
ME: "The same can be applied to the opposite belief and foundation - matter, not personal being, as the foundation of epistemology.
Also, "Jesus is NOT the foundation of epistemology would also be a bald and bold assertion." Why should you consider your view to be correct?" (Response to Post 207)
"A system of beliefs requires verification. Christianity has many verifications that are reasonable to believe from its starting point." (NINE listed - Post 209 in response to Post 208)
ME: "The question is without God how do you tie it to personal beings as anything other than a mere preference? Then, how does preference make something "right?" (Post 210)
YOU: "I questioned your justifications for believing god is the basis for knowledge. You argued against materialism instead..." (Post 212)
ME: "Stating something (assertion) does not necessarily mean it cannot be evidenced, demonstrated, or proved." (Post 213)
YOU: "Can you justify your belief of 'god as the basis of knowledge'?" (Post 214)
ME: "See Post 209 for my justification and answer, for instance." (Post 215)
YOU: "1. You assumed I am a materialist. I do not hold that material is all there could be ...before you jump to another bad conclusion, I don't hold that there is more than material either. I consider myself to be an EMPIRICIST, so I will accept what can be demonstrated.
2. If materialism is faulty, it does not follow that your position is correct - especially in regards to a specific diety. If your goal is to show your view correct, you'll need to talk about *your* view." (Post 216)
ME: "Either materialism or a personal God. Which is it?
An empiricist falls short in many respects. He/she cannot demonstrate empiricism is all there is because he/she has to delve into the abstract and intangible such as the laws of logic to clarify anything. If you still think you are an empiricist then I challenge you to prove the laws of logic are empirical...
As for a specific deity, there can be only the One who fits the bill, since belief in gods is all contradictory in crucial ways; thus, they cannot all be true. When someone truly investigates the teachings of the Bible they can find the Christian position has amazing verifiability to it; I claim like no other, and I am open to discuss some of these ways and have done so in the past." (Post 217)
ME: "A position of which you say it is a bald assertion. I wasn't trying to prove my point. I was just stating what I believed until you identified it as a "bald" assertion. Belief in the biblical God is nothing of the kind. My belief is reasonable, not unreasonable, not irrational, not blind faith, although to some it can be."
SKONE: "No need to get defensive, bud. You were asked about a very specific claim (not your overall belief in god). You stated something to the effect that nothing could be known without god, and I asked why I should consider this to be correct. If you can't provide evidence (regarding *your* view - not materialism), then "bald assertion" would be correct, but maybe a little harsh judging from your reaction. Apologies."
No reason to apologize. The Apostle Peter said to be ready to give a defence to everyone who asks the disciple to give account. I understand you are testing or challenging my truth claims to which I in turn challenge you to prove the possibility of the contrary in making sense of a truth claim without first presupposing God. To do so you will have to get specific about your own belief system of thought to its sensibility.
ME: "The biblical position has what is necessary to make sense of origins, meaning, purpose, etc. It is reasonable to believe."
SKONE: "Another assertion."
Yes, but I am willing to demonstrate it. How have you challenged it? A comment box does not give much space needed to do so. I am stating again what I believe and if necessary I am willing to justify my CLAIMS if challenged.
I do not see the challenge accepted by you in explaining Post 209 or elsewhere. We are trying to make sense of existence and in the case of abortion why the pro-choice argument is morally "right."
ME: "An empiricist falls short in many respects. He/she cannot demonstrate empiricism is all there is because he/she has to delve into the abstract and intangible such as the laws of logic to clarify anything. If you still think you are an empiricist then I challenge you to prove the laws of logic are empirical."
SKONE: "I think maybe you don't understand what empiricism is. It is not that empiricism is all that exists - whatever that means. It is basically 'demonstrate it, and I will accept it.' It doesn't discount the abstract because 'it can't be physically shown' - that would be a very strict interpretation."
You are contradicting the definition of empiricism and confuse it with rationalism. Here it is:
Definition of empiricism
1a: a former school of medical practice founded on experience without the aid of science or theory
b: quackery, charlatanry
2a: the practice of relying on observation and experiment especially in the natural sciences
b: a tenet arrived at empirically
3: a theory that all knowledge originates in experience
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/empiricism#other-words
2 and 3 apply here, especially 3.
"All knowledge originates in experience."
That is, the senses - seeing, touching, tasting, hearing, and smell.
"Empiricism is the theory that the origin of all knowledge is sense experience. It emphasizes the role of experience and evidence, especially sensory perception, in the formation of ideas, and argues that the only knowledge humans can have is a posteriori (i.e. based on experience)."
https://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_empiricism.html
"Empiricism, in philosophy, the view that all concepts originate in experience, that all concepts are about or applicable to things that can be experienced, or that all rationally acceptable beliefs or propositions are justifiable or knowable only through experience. This broad definition accords with the derivation of the term empiricism from the ancient Greek word empeiria, “experience.”"
https://www.britannica.com/topic/empiricism
How do you empirically verify things like the laws of logic through empiricism, since you state you are an empiricist?
POST 216: "I consider myself to be an empiricist, so I will accept what can be demonstrated." Demonstrate the laws of logic empirically.
ME: "Either materialism or a personal God. Which is it?"
SKONE: "False dichotomy. Even if we discount materialism, there is still any number of theistic and deistic possibilities."
Okay, since you are defending some competing religious claims, what are your other alternatives, not just generic but specific? If you can't list them then you are speaking from ignorance. Why should I believe you? I defend a specific God and concept of God, the biblical God and no other, as stated many times before. Let us compare worldviews. Two absolute gods or plurality of gods that contradict each other cannot both be true. Thus, what is your plurality of gods, if that is the case?
So, let's get specific. I'll borrow from some Bahnsen presuppositionalism (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2s1PwuvDGuY&list=PLFCE0E452DB4851A4).
First, what is your god or gods if that/those god/gods is/are not personal?
Second, either God is a personal being or God is impersonal. Which is it? God or gods? It cannot be both.
Third, if God or gods is/are not a person/persons God/gods is/are a thing/things, not a being (i.e., pantheism). You can't have it both ways. Either God/gods is/are personal being/beings or God/gods is ascribed to a thing or things. Which is it? It can't be both.
Fourth, how has this/these god/gods been revealed to us? The Christian God reveals Himself in language and by what He has made.
Fifth, if your god/gods is not a personal being how does your god/gods have the ability to do anything and how does your god/gods sustain anything because if not a personal being/beings there is no intent?
Sixth, if your God/gods are beyond rationality and human experience then they are arbitrary non-sense.
Seventh, what are the preconditions for intelligibility and how does this come about and/or how is this possible without personhood?
Eighth, is your god/gods visible or invisible, empirical or nonempirical?
SKONE: "I didn't assign a position to you - it is your stated position. I also gave you the opportunity to correct my understanding of your position: "Or is that not what you're saying?" You made two errors in your response."
A position of which you say it is a bald assertion. I wasn't trying to prove my point. I was just stating what I believed until you identified it as a "bald" assertion. Belief in the biblical God is nothing of the kind. My belief is reasonable, not unreasonable, not irrational, not blind faith, although to some it can be.
SKONE: "1. You assumed I am a materialist. I do not hold that material is all there could be ...before you jump to another bad conclusion, I don't hold that there is more than material either. I consider myself to be an empiricist, so I will accept what can be demonstrated."
Either materialism or a personal God. Which is it?
An empiricist falls short in many respects. He/she cannot demonstrate empiricism is all there is because he/she has to delve into the abstract and intangible such as the laws of logic to clarify anything. If you still think you are an empiricist then I challenge you to prove the laws of logic are empirical.
SKONE: "2. If materialism is faulty, it does not follow that your position is correct - especially in regards to a specific diety. If your goal is to show your view correct, you'll need to talk about *your* view."
The biblical position has what is necessary to make sense of origins, meaning, purpose, etc. It is reasonable to believe. A materialistic one does not. Just look into the core presuppositions of both and try to make sense of materialism. A position devoid of God that espouses abortion and woman's rights falls nicely into such a category, IMO. It borrows from relativism in foistering its ideas on the gullible, IMHO. (^8
As for a specific deity, there can be only the One who fits the bill, since belief in gods is all contradictory in crucial ways; thus, they cannot all be true. When someone truly investigates the teachings of the Bible they can find the Christian position has amazing verifiability to it; I claim like no other, and I am open to discuss some of these ways and have done so in the past.
SKONE: "Dad, I *should* ask Meredith to the prom.
Bob, we *should* paint the customer's car blue.
Mom, I *should* vacuum.
Here you are - explicit statements using *should* absent moral implication. My point stands."
ME: "I turned the tables on you and showed you that your charge can be equally applied to you"
SKONE: "No, you didn't. You assigned a position to me and then attacked it rather than answer a sincere question."
You assigned a 'bald assertion' to me in the following, so I showed you it can be framed either way, with my view or the contrary position.
Post 207: "Jesus/god as a foundation of epistemology? I view this as a bald assertion. Why should I consider your view to be correct?"
You said it was a bald assertion. (your statement)
Thus, I explained to you why I thought the assertion was reasonable from a philosophical standpoint. I did not touch on historical or archaeological evidence but I did on the aspects of scientism, explaining that these models of origins such as evolution and the universe are rife with problems.
Since you never delved into these issues further but continued with your own assertions there was no need to continue along these previously stated lines of reasoning and investigation. Your worldview is just as guilty. You continue to pass the buck to me neglecting the flaws of your own position. When you ask a question or make a statement I try to answer them to the best of my ability.
SKONE: "Can you justify your belief of 'god as the basis of knowledge'?"
See Post 209 for my justification and answer, for instance.
SKONE: "Dad, *should* I ask Meredith to the prom?
Bob, *should* we paint the customer's car blue?
Mom, *should* I vacuum?
By your reasoning, these questions are tied to morality merely by *should* being in the question. You're leaving out the role context plays. The proposition was about legality not morality, and what's legal and what's moral are not the same set."
You are confusing two different senses in which the word or sentence is understood. I have noticed this occurrence before on this forum.
"Abortion SHOULD be legal" is expressing an obligation or MORAL ought to do something, under the penalty of the law, a moral imperative. Should in the sense you are using it in those three examples is in the form of a question, a query on whether to do something or not to do it. It is not an explicit statement when used the one way but most definitely is the other way. (Try again)
***
PGA: "Jesus is NOT the foundation of epistemology would also be a bald and bold assertion."
SKONE: "I never said this. I questioned your justifications for believing god is the basis for knowledge. You argued against materialism instead...I'm still waiting on my answer."
I turned the tables on you and showed you that your charge can be equally applied to you if you want to frame something this way. Either Jesus is the foundation for epistemology (i.e., God) or He is not. It can't be both and either way you want to state it falls into this fallacious trap. Stating something (assertion) does not necessarily mean it cannot be evidenced, demonstrated, or proved.
I can assert 2+2=4 or 2+2=5. As it happens, one of those two assertions would be true to what is the case.
These things do not tie directly into the topic at hand, but indirectly they are relevant because of your word/term "should." "Should" is tied to morality and morality is tied to personal beings. The question is without God how do you tie it to personal beings as anything other than a mere preference? Then, how does preference make something "right?"
SKONE: "Jesus/god as a foundation of epistemology? I view this as a bald assertion. Why should I consider your view to be correct? Fair warning: I will not find circular arguments compelling."
It works both ways. The same can be applied to the opposite belief and foundation - matter, not personal being, as the foundation of epistemology.
Also, "Jesus is NOT the foundation of epistemology would also be a bald and bold assertion." Why should you consider your view to be correct?
Your view of things is very sketchy.
A system of beliefs requires verification. Christianity has many verifications that are reasonable to believe from its starting point. Materialism does not because of its starting points. Thus, belief in Jesus is reasonable on the extreme unlikelihood or impossibility of the contrary. Here are just a few of materialism starting points off the top of my head:
1) It has no reason or logic because it is not mindful.
2) It does not have a basis for morality since there is no final or fixed reference point.
3) It cannot explain consciousness. Somehow conscious is derived from the non-conscious.
4) There is no 'why' involved.
5) It has no agency or intentionality. There is no reason for the uniformity of nature. Uniformity somehow is derived from chance happenstance. Thus, it does not make sense. How does something that lacks intent (mindfulness) sustain anything constantly?
6) The worldview presupposes all these things witnessed are possible from mindless matter (while using consciousness and mindfulness in their comprehension).
7) The explanation for evolution, as with origins of the universe, is by mindful beings in the present interpreting things from the past. Thus, to an extent, we have to imagine that the conditions in the past are similar or the same as the conditions in the past, and the present is the key to the past.
8) There is no reason anything exists. It just is.
9) Such a worldview has no hope.
So, you are welcome to it but I will say no thanks, I think it is foolish to base existence on such beliefs.
SKONE: "Let me clarify my question: why is belief in Jesus/god a valid epistemological foundation? ..Or is that not what you're saying?
Instigator"
Without belief in God, we live in a state of relativism and subjectivity. Our minds are finite and limited in what we can know and how we know it regarding purpose, meaning, and value, as well as the certainty of origins, even though there are lots of clues. Without God, we cannot make sense of these things from such a materialistic and impersonal basis. A belief in God has what is necessary to know what is certain. The Bible claims to be a revelation from and of God. Jesus claimed to be God and did what God did. The Scriptures have many reasonable proofs that confirm what is said is true. Thus, belief in Jesus is a reasonable and rational belief. It has what is necessary for rationality and logic. Materialism does not.
SKONE: "I want to believe as many true things (and as few false things) as possible. If that means the world is not all rainbows and butterflies, so be it."
PGA: Speaking of origins, how can you know it is true unless God is real and has revealed as much? Do you really think scientists can confirm the truth of origins with certainty? No, this world is not all rainbows and butterflies."
SKONE: "Were we speaking of origins? ...and how would our origin one way or another inhibit our ability to learn what is true? It seems like a non-sequitor to me."
It does go back to your starting presuppositions, where and how things originate. When you build on the wrong foundation your data gets skewed. An error here and there can magnify the complexity and error of thought. While you and I are very capable of thinking true things, when one builds their worldview on a rotten foundation then error compiles upon error and the whole thing is in danger of collapsing. Such is the case when the foundation gets shaken, as Jesus taught in Matthew 7:24-29. Once it collapses you can check the rubble and analyze its inadequate materials, sometimes things you don't notice while the structure still stands and you are living in it. At other times you know the material is not good but you cut costs and invest in weaker materials that cause the fateful collapse.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew+7%3A24-29&version=NASB;NIV;ESV
SKONE: "You[r] beliefs can be shown internally consistent. They cannot be demonstrated to be manifest in the world beyond. In fact, the world beyond argues against specific aspects of strict literalism."
Some aspects of the Bible are literal, others are figurative, others speak of the spiritual realm; some speak of this world and others speak of the world to come. Our world is physical in nature. The heavenly realm is a spiritual realm. The two realms are not the same, but I can rely on God's word in understand there is a difference.
***
ME: "Not only that, but you also want to be in that sea."
SKONE: "I want to believe as many true things (and as few false things) as possible. If that means the world is not all rainbows and butterflies, so be it."
Speaking of origins, how can you know it is true unless God is real and has revealed as much? Do you really think scientists can confirm the truth of origins with certainty? No, this world is not all rainbows and butterflies.
ME: "The reason I don't discuss the subject much is that I do not like being ridiculed by those who are not open to considering their worldview is wrong. They are blind and deaf to God. They presuppose they know better from a subjective, relativistic framework. So, how can I argue with that? Their minds are already made up there is no God or any reasonable evidence for His existence (Hebrews 11:6), just as mine is set about God. The question is which is more reasonable? Do you really think it is yours?"
SKONE: "I don't intend to mock you, Peter. I consider us to be friends. Although, I cannot control what the audience says or does. If you'd rather not debate this subject, I understand."
***
No, it is not a question of whether I will debate. I will. It is a question of minds already are made up and so that bias is brought into the debate, any debate unless you are playing devil's advocate. Even then, I doubt the position is fairly argued or judged. There is no neutrality, which Jesus made very clear. He said to His disciples that they were either for Him or against Him. Jesus said that either you build your worldview on God - the solid rock - or your build it on the sand.
SKONE: "It seems you are irritated by close-mindedness in those who accept evolution while admitting your own close-mindedness to anything beyond your beliefs. Shouldn't you be open to changing your views if you expect your interlocutors to do the same?"
We are all limited in our knowledge of things, apart from God - a necessary being for knowing the truth of origins, of which you include macroevolution. We only see in part. What irritates me is that you think your belief, apart from God, is true yet mine is the one scoffed at. I have challenged you to demonstrate this as the case, not just believed to be so. I have argued many times with many people that they can't with certainty. I have also argued that God is necessary for certainty in such things. Without Him, we are in a sea of relativism with no ultimate purpose or meaning.
ME: "You can't demonstrate that it is not a person"
SKONE: "This is not my burden. My burden is to show the standard I set for personhood is demonstrable at the time frame I suggest. I have done this. Those who hold that personhood start at conception must show their standard of personhood is applicable at conception (and doesn't apply to things which should not be a person). Also, I'm not aware of ever saying "the human at conception is not a person.". I've said the things you think define a person cannot be demonstrated at conception, and that I believe personhood can be attached to the capacity for consciousness. Please don't attribute things to me I haven't said."
The burden is abortion SHOULD be legal. That is not only a legal issue but a moral one. It involves many issues. Laws are built around right and wrong, what should and should not be done. Being a person comes into the discussion.
"Should" is a moral imperative. If you grant the life of the unborn is worth less than that of the woman based on Roe V. Wade, and that hinges, in part, on an interpretation of a what a person is, an interpretation of a law established in the 1800s, then you SHOULD demonstrate the unborn is not a person rather than just legislating its personhood out of existence. If you can't demonstrate this then you should give it the benefit of the doubt. If you don't give it the benefit of the doubt what else will you compromise on without knowing, such a "potential life?" Potential life diminishes the actuality of that life. It is living, not potentially so. You said you granted its personhood for the sake of the argument but continued to bring it up as if it mattered. I was arguing for both its humanity and its personhood and it seemed the personhood argument did not matter to you but you still built a rebuttal around it without establishing it was not a person. You failed to prove that what I said was false on this matter.
"The Constitution does not define "person" in so many words. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contains three references to "person." The first, in defining "citizens," speaks of "persons born or naturalized in the United States." The word also appears both in the Due Process Clause and in the Equal Protection Clause. "Person" is used in other places in the Constitution …. But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only postnatally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application...Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception. We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer." - http://historymuse.net/readings/RoevWade1973.htm
Your argument supported equal rights for all human beings yet you excluded the unborn based in part on personhood.
My whole argument was that it does matter when human life begins and you did not challenge that it began at conception but agreed. I argued that some laws are unjust and that it ties into what is a human being. That includes personhood. Human beings are people. You avoided the personhood argument to a large extent but Blackmun's interpretation of the Texas law is open to criticism. I have an online book that speaks largely on the issue of personhood in the 19th century, but you granted personhood so I did not have to go there as I did in our previous debate.
SKONE: "things that can be demonstrated are not always true"
You point to a few things which are demonstrated true and suggest they are false because they don't mess with your un-demonstrable beliefs. This is not a strong argument, Peter."
Can it be demonstrated? My belief can be demonstrated. Now whether that is to your satisfaction is another matter. Evolution can be demonstrated provided you work from a PARTICULAR framework. Whether that framework is true is debatable, as you well know. You rely just as much on faith for your core presuppositions as anyone else. I question those core presuppositions and I have challenged you on them many times.
The reason I don't discuss the subject much is that I do not like being ridiculed by those who are not open to considering their worldview is wrong. They are blind and deaf to God. They presuppose they know better from a subjective, relativistic framework. So, how can I argue with that? Their minds are already made up there is no God or any reasonable evidence for His existence (Hebrews 11:6), just as mine is set about God. The question is which is more reasonable? Do you really think it is yours?
SKONE: "Correct me if I'm wrong. You believe god made the Earth a short time ago with the appearance of old age?"
I believe that is the more plausible biblical explanation and just like you with origins, it starts with something presupposed. The reason I do presuppose a young or younger earth is because I believe God cannot lie and I also believe, judging from His word, that hermeneutically, it is what is taught in Scripture.
I believe it is better DEMONSTRATED via Scripture. (^8
ME: "Not observe does not necessarily mean not present. That is fallacious thinking."
SKONE: "This is not a fallacy I am committing. My view is that things which can be demonstrated are true and things which cannot be demonstrated are not necessarily false, but we have no reason to hold them as true. Your view that we should 'give the benefit of a doubt' holds things true which have not (to my knowledge) been demonstrated, and that is a fallacy."
First, you fail to demonstrate "the human at conception is not a person." Your view, "things which can be demonstrated," does not fit your own criterion regarding personhood. Yet you are willing to place your whole argument on something that is not demonstrated yet you may believe it is. How? Thus, you are killing something that you don't know what it is yet you believe it is permissible. That, as I pointed out, is infrahumanization. You can't demonstrate that it is not a person yet you are willing to make it a non-person, less than a person, and exclude it from the commonwealth of personhood.
Second, things that can be demonstrated are not always true. It is whether they are real to what is the case that makes them true, whether what you believe is demonstrated corresponds to what is the case. For instance, macroevolution is thought to be demonstrably true. I argue it is not. It relies on presuppositions I touched on in my last two posts, yet it is preached as true. Many call it proven science. They "demonstrate" the connection with fossils. With particular starting points (similarity of shared traits, or similarity of physiology), it builds from and off of those starting points. Off the top of my head, one of those is a common ancestor. It assumes a common ancestor is the best explanation and then proceeds to demonstrate this is fact by looking at it from a particular standpoint - usually a solely naturalistic one or a theistic evolutionary one. Another is that life originates from non-life. This is not demonstrated but believed. Another is that fossilization shows the links. The presupposition is that because we all share similarities we must have originally evolved from such an ancestor. Another explanation is that because we all share the same planet we would naturally share characteristics but that does not necessarily mean we all originated from a common ancestor, unless you include God in that equation.
Young Earthers are castigated to gullibility, naive and stupid, but the point is that none of us were they to witness. That is the current trend with the intellectual elites, the Mr. Worldlt Wise of our day. They profess to be wise. Thus without God, we build our worldview through interpretations of data that we look upon in the present concerning the past. Thus, there is a difference between science and scientism. I'm all for science, not scientism. I argue your worldview takes as much faith to believe as mine because of these two points, and others. Considering the number of 'origins' explanations there are vying for your support it depends on how well each fits the current scientific paradigm before they are replaced with a "better" model. Once too many anomalies are found in one then another that "better" answers the question becomes the "in." Better is always an interesting term. "Better in relation to what? Better requires a best to compare to otherwise it is relative and shifting. Granting God exists solves the problem since an omniscient Being has revealed, in the biblical case. A Christian can make sense of the problem of origins for he/she has the necessary reference point, the final reference point.
Sure. I lean towards a young universe but am open to explanations of how an old universe view can fit the bill. Regardless, God created, the question is how. Speaking it into existence would give the impression of an old universe/earth when it was young. Mature trees and animals already formed, conditions right, etc., before the pinnacle of God's creation - us. Reconciling the biblical texts would be much more difficult with an old universe view, IMO.
SKONE: "I'm considering a debate on which explains the diversity of life better - evolution or creationism. Maybe you'd be interested at some point in the near future?"
I only defend the Christian perspective when it comes to religion, but I would be glad to once my current debate is over. Thank you for your consideration!
SKONE: "It depends on which part: evolution goes in science, abiogenesis goes in science, epistemology would go in philosophy, personhood in politics/philosophy, rejection of science/Christianity in religion or science.. This debate is marked politics, so clearly the discussion has veered far from that.
I'm considering a debate on which explains the diversity of life better - evolution or creationism. Maybe you'd be interested at some point in the near future?"
Morality can fit all four of your categories - science, epistemology, philosophy, or politics. They are interlaced. Thus, if you don't know (epistemology) when a person begins existence (science, religion, philosophy, politics) the benefit should go to the unborn as a person. You don't know whether you are killing a person. There is also a moral responsibility to protect human life regardless of personhood. Once you start killing human beings of any group you lessen the worth of being human (intrinsic value) and open the floodgates, like Adolf Hitler, to possibly include many groups. The word 'should' in the title conveys an ought, a moral responsibility. Roe v. Wade touched on science, philosophy, epistemology, science, and politics. How do you propose separating morality from these categories when you evoke a moral ought?
If you grant human beings are created in the image and likeness of God (religion), that creation begins at conception, when you/they become a separate, individual human being. Religion, likewise, also focuses on morality, on right and wrong.
SKONE: "Yes, humans are animals, and I agree there is a worldview interpretation at play - in the denial. I don't see the relevance this tangent has to abortion though - at least not to my view. We are animals, yes, but we have something other animals do not - the ability to reason, problem-solve, creativity, etc. and this is what we honor with personhood."
Worldviews play a part not only in the denial but in the affirmation. The relevance is that you dismiss the Christian worldview when your own has no certainty. Your worldview constructs its outlook on a model they believe is true. It takes faith to believe it is true since it is built on Darwinian principles of macroevolution and materialism that a human being is an animal.
ME: "A personal being is synonymous with being a person."
SKONE: "You've provided a circular definition. I am no closer to understanding what it is you actually mean."
Yes, it is circular. A synonym is another word or words for the same thing. I'm giving another similar term used for what I mean when I say 'personal being.' We have discussed as to what it entails/means before. What do you understand by 'being a person' to mean? You have incorporated consciousness and self-awareness into the term. I have incorporated more than you.
SKONE: "People sleep, people get anesthetized, people fall into comas - all examples where people might be absent a personality but maintain their personhood by virtue of their capacity for consciousness. As for conception and early pregnancy - there is no personality there either. I get that you believe there's a personality at conception, but that has never been observed or demonstrated. In essence, what you hold up as a demonstration of personhood cannot be demonstrated at conception or early pregnancy. This is a problem for your contention of personhood at conception. You said " a person =/= process" I agree, but I would go further: a process =/= a person. In other words, it's not the process that is important, but the results. The fact that a developmental process has begun that could yield a person doesn't mean the process will be completed. ~ 50-80% of conceptions fail for various reasons - that would be a lot of rights attached to failed pregnancies."
You associate personhood with consciousness. I associate it with the nature of being human.
Not observe does not necessarily mean not present. That is fallacious thinking.
The key to people asleep or a coma is that they still have a personality. You don't lose it just because you sleep. You are still you when you wake up.
Your keyword here is "PEOPLE." People, sleep, people sometimes go into comas. You assume the unborn is not a person but also assume it is not developing as a person (as what it is) because you have never witnessed or observed that personality or personhood developing from dormant humans - those in a coma or asleep? But asleep or awake they are persons. Inside the womb or out I argue the unborn are persons.
The unborn have the "capacity" for consciousness as a personal being. So, if personhood is inherently in the nature of human beings and is a human quality, then in the unborn it is NOT YET developed to the EXTENT that we recognize or see it. The brain, the mind, the whole individual is not fully functional yet. Note: not fully functional as opposed to stopped functioning or never will function or never will function again. If it is the nature of being a person to have a personality, then the unborn has one developing too, just not as developed as in old human beings where we recognize it. Because our self-awareness, our consciousness, our personalities are not always witnessed or operational, such as with those in a coma or asleep, does that mean they lack those two things? You say it does not, per your example above. So, does that mean we are justified in killing every human being who is sleeping or in a coma since we do not see evidence of the personality in action? That seems to be your implication.
Processes occur in people. We are conceived, we are born, we age, we die. We classify our stages of development, as in pregnancy, in early childhood, in adolescents, in puberty, in adulthood.
A person =/= a process, but within the person, a process is taking place, a process of growth, development, and yes, dying. Nor is a process a person (process =/= person) although processes are functioning and taking place within people, so please quit trying to redefine a person since I am not arguing for a process being a person or a person being a process, nor have I.
People:
2 plural: human beings, persons —often used in compounds instead of persons
SKONE: "I see no reason to believe minds can exist independent of a physical substrate and a fair amount of evidence to confirm a link between the two to a reasonable certainty."
What does a physical substrate mean? No reason to believe the two are independent of each other. So, are our minds and brains the same thing to your reasoning? If so, then you think that there is nothing more to the universe than just physicality, which you examine purely from the physicality of it (i.e., naturalism or materialism). You examine everything inside the box FROM inside the box. But physicality alone cannot explain the non-physical or abstract that you find or witness within the box - i.e., the physical realm. The laws of logic are intangible and non-physical, yet without logic, you could make sense of nothing, no thing. Thus, there are glaring contradictions in what is real and your perception of it if you claim everything is material. I question such belief.
SKONE: "I don't think personhood is at natural at all. It is conceptual construct built by humans for humans. I consider "personal being by nature" to be equivalent to " natural personhood" - it's oxymoronic."
A conceptual construct used to describe what the thing is, the essence of what it is.
By the word natural, I mean inherent to that thing, that thing being a human being. So, what is "natural" to a human being is that it is a personal being.
Human nature:
"the nature of humans
especially : the fundamental dispositions and traits of humans"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/human%20nature
SKONE: "I'm not sure I can agree to "Personality is an attribute of personhood" either."
Attribute:
2a: to regard as a characteristic of a person or thing
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/attribute
Definition of personality
1a: the quality or state of being a person
b: personal existence
2a: the condition or fact of relating to a particular person
3a: the complex of characteristics that distinguishes an individual or a nation or group
especially : the totality of an individual's behavioral and emotional characteristics
b: a set of distinctive traits and characteristics
4a: distinction or excellence of personal and social traits
also : a person having such quality
b: a person of importance, prominence, renown, or notoriety
a TV personality
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/personality
Personhood:
1: human, individual —sometimes used in combination especially by those who prefer to avoid man in compounds applicable to both sexes
2: a character or part in or as if in a play : guise
3a: one of the three modes of being in the Trinitarian Godhead as understood by Christians
b: the unitary personality of Christ that unites the divine and human natures
4a
archaic : bodily appearance
b: the body of a human being
also : the body and clothing
unlawful search of the person
5: the personality of a human being: self
6: one (such as a human being, a partnership, or a corporation) that is recognized by law as the subject of rights and duties
7: reference of a segment of discourse to the speaker, to one spoken to, or to one spoken of as indicated by means of certain pronouns or in many languages by verb inflection
SKONE: "It seems like you're heading toward abiogenesis or evolution...How is this relevant to abortion?"
Only in the sense of where it all begins. How does consciousness begin? How does something living originate from something without life? I think you, presuming you take God out of the equation, are jumping multiple hurdles at once. If personhood is not built into our makeup, what we are as human beings, then you have to account for it as an external factor, not something coming from within. To do that you have to identify when it begins or you cannot justify whether you are killing a personal being (meaning one that has personhood) during pregnancy.
So now I must ask you, is consciousness (what you seem to attribute personhood to) built into (inherent, part of, our nature) being a human being or is it something external to being a human being?
SKONE: "Regardless of the origins of life or how it diversified, there can be no denial of the link between consciousness and a physical brain as well as the significance of consciousness to humanity."
There is a link between our physical brains and our minds, but are the two the same? Are you saying that all we are composed of is "physical matter"?
SKONE: "There is no dispute regarding a developmental process in which individual consciousness comes about. The point I was making is that your argument would functionally grant rights to a process rather than the product/subject."
No, the granting would be to a person who is developing through a process. The two are not the same. A person =/= process.
No dispute regarding the development process?
Then you are confirming that personhood which you attribute to consciousness is inherent in the individual from fertilization, from the moment a new and distinct living human being is formed. Thus, consciousness is a feature of human nature, something that develops as we grow. You are affirming the consciousness is inherent in the nature of what it means to be human and not something acquired from an outside source. Thus, to kill a human being is to kill a person or personal being.
SKONE: "Is the unborn an "it"? If someone asked me if they could kill "it" and I say yes - virtually no one would think I understood the question to be in regards to a person."
'It' in reference to either a male or female human being. I am referring to either.
SKONE: "I really don't understand why you devote your time to personality if we're talking about the unborn in general. There is no demonstration of personality at conception or in early pregnancy. Personality is something that emerges from the brain. I'm sure someone more knowledgeable on this subject might also point to how environment shapes it. Regardless, I'd think it would be fairly safe to say personality is not built into cells and DNA which seems to be what you're implying. I'm open to evidence to the contrary - if you can provide.
Personality reflect on the person. You can't have a personality unless you are a person or a personal being. Personality is an attribute of personhood. I'm saying that from day one the person and personality are developing. If you were to look back at a microscopic development of your being from the first cell dividing you would identify and say that that one cell is you in your earliest form, not someone else or something else. You are recognizing you regardless of how underdeveloped you are.
SKONE: "Humans ARE animals whether you believe it or not (genetics, among other things, shows our relatedness), and every one of the traits you listed is derived from the brain. No brain = no imagination, love, empathy, communication, creativity, etc., and thus my view regarding personhood being connected with consciousness (or the capacity for it)."
Humans are animals?
I argue this is a matter of worldview interpretation, not science. Just because humans and animals have similar genetic makeup does NOT necessarily follow we are from one common ancestor (excluding God our Creator, of course, since we derive our being from Him) and thus, the closer you get in genetic similarity the closer we are related. It is an inference. It could just be that since we share the same environment, the world, we have structures that complement and compete with each other. Your worldview, which does not look to the biblical and personal God (granting He is the only God through a process of logical deduction) as the explanation must then look strictly to a naturalistic process as the answer. The problem is that the data needs interpretation since no human being was present to witness the transitional links from one kind to another. A second problem in interpreting data, as in the case of origins, is that the condition is assumed that the "present" is the key to the past. That is to say, we look at things in the present for our interpretation of the things of the past. That leads to a lot of assumptions that are weighed in a particular model or framework. Once too many assumptions and contradictions happen within that model or framework (in which you or a scientist looks at the world through) a new and "better" explanation is sought after. Then the paradigm shifts to a new model that does not have as many glaring holes in it. And the process of examination goes on until the anomalies build up once again.
***
SKONE: "If you are not referring to "personhood is natural" when you say things like "personal being by nature", then I don't know what you mean. Humans come from humans. I'll need you to define "personal beings" before I agree to more. Please don't use the words you're defining in your explanation."
If I don't reference the words there is no connection that can be made, no relationship that can be established.
A personal being is synonymous with being a person.
Is a human being a person/personal being? Yes or no? What is your answer?
If you grant a human being is a person, and thus personal being, when does a person being to exist? Is being a person inherent in the nature of being a human being? If you say being a person is inherent to being a human being then being a person is something that all human beings are (discounting abnormalities in the human beings genetic makeup). Another way of saying this is the nature of the being (i.e., bird, fish, human) determines what we are, whether we can fly, or live underwater, or have human personhood which is distinct from other beings.
So you take the life of the unborn (kill it) without knowing whether or not it is a person. You want to give it personhood only at the point of consciousness or awareness. How do you pinpoint that this is not through a process of growth and development that starts the moment a new being begins to exist, and that this process is due to the nature of the begin that this happens, has not been demonstrated by you? If consciousness and personality are built into the intrinsic nature of the human being, the kind of being it is, that nature determines this. If you disagree then until you can explain how and why consciousness begins all of a sudden (because you say it is not a process) you have no evidence what you say actually takes place, nor is it reasonable to believe.
SKEPTICAL: "This question regarding killing something without knowing what it is - it is not wrong by default to kill without knowing what it is. Have you never heard of someone shooting through a door when something or someone was attempting to get in? Do you really think this is wrong? If not, then you should retire this question."
If your employee asks you if he can kill 'it,' do you not ask what 'it' is before you give him the okay? If you do give him the okay without knowing what 'it' is you may well be charged with accessory to murder as the accomplice when he says you gave him permission.
SKEPTICAL: "The ability to reason, plan, think abstractly, etc., is the thing that makes us unique from other animals - do you disagree. If so, please tell me of another animal which does this?"
I'll accept that summation, with some slight modifications. I do not believe we are animals. Our genetic sequencing is different also, plus our ability to imagine, love, empathize, create and communicate are other reasons, but as you know I believe the main reason is that we are created in the image and likeness of our Maker. He is a personal Being so are we in our likeness of Him.
SKEPTICAL: "People have rights - not processes. How absurd would it be if we gave rights to the process of building a boat? Also, I do not accept consciousness comes about at viability or birth. I think I've been pretty clear on this."
So, how do you acquire consciousness? How do you first become aware? Is there a process you go through to become aware or does it just magically happen? Why do you differ from inorganic matter?
My witness is from personal beings come other personal beings so if we all come from a common ancestor what is prior to that is inorganic chemical mixtures and reactions unless you grant the personal God. How does consciousness originally occur from such inorganic conditions? Since you deal strictly in science, no longer believing in the God of the Bible, what is your answer since we are discussing personhood and consciousness and you don't like my answer which I believe is self-evident and logically necessary for understanding?
SKEPTICAL: "Human conception yields a single cell with human DNA. Its nature is human. It can't have a nature of personhood, because personhood is NOT natural - it comes from us. BTW, I understand "human being" to mean "person". If you'd like to argue for the personhood of something then perhaps you can make your questions clearer (and less equivocate-y) if you can use terms without this connotation.
I'm not arguing for a "nature of personhood." What does that mean? Does it mean the same as persona beings by nature? If not, you are twisting my words. Let me be clear, what I am arguing for is human beings are personal beings by nature, by what kind of beings they are. Are you saying humans can't have a personal nature? Personhood is not natural for human beings? Are you a personal being? Is your wife? How about your kids, your neighbours, your workmates, your doctor, the mailman, and every other human being I can reference? Show me a human being who is not a personal being. You can't. All you can do is assert the unborn is not but we are at a stalemate here.
SKEPTICAL: "This question regarding killing something without knowing what it is - it is not wrong by default to kill without knowing what it is. Have you never heard of someone shooting through a door when something or someone was attempting to get in? Do you really think this is wrong? If not, then you should retire this question."
ME: "And as I have said multiple times, if you can't produce facts you SHOULD give the unborn the benefit of the doubt, especially because all you ever witness is human beings as personal beings."
SKEPTICAL: "That's backward. You're assuming something is true in the absence of facts and evidence."
And you are assuming that it doesn't matter what we do with the unborn even if it is a person and regardless of facts and evidence.
Backwards? Do you kill something without knowing what it is, other than in the case of the unborn? That is the issue. If you can't determine whether it is factually a person or factually a human being what license do you have to kill it, especially since you state that every human being should be treated with equality and dignity. Are you doing that?
SKEPTICAL: "Human consciousness is what separates humans from other animals - wouldn't you agree?"
One of the things that separate us, yes.
But I think you are missing the bigger picture. When does human consciousness begin? Is it a PROCESS of DEVELOPMENT that starts with the beginning of the life of the human being, or does consciousness suddenly burst into existence at viability or at birth, AND WHAT MAKES IT DO THIS? (Please answer this question) If the organs start to grow at fertilization when a separate, unique human being begins to develop one cell at a time (and we have factual proof they do as determined by the genetic code and makeup) until the organs are formed, then why isn't consciousness part of the process too? Is consciousness external to the human being, some trait that does not come from within? And why isn't personhood part of the process of development and maturity too? We see in small children their development of personality. It differs from our level of development and maturity but it is a process that is taking place. You deny the unborn that process.
Can you answer these questions? If not, then why not give the unborn the benefit of the doubt? Is it because your worldview will not let you, it would compromise what you believe too much? You would have to admit you are consenting to kill a person and a personal being. You would also have to consent that you do not believe what you quoted about all human beings having equal rights.
We are speaking of the difference between function and substance. On a GM production line not having a particular part changes the function of the car. With a substance, the whole essence of the thing is contained in its inner structure, and it is a complete entity in itself.
SKEPTICAL: "The fact is this does not exist early in the pregnancy."
Does it not exist or is it not developed enough to notice? A zygote has not developed lungs or legs or a heart to a noticeable degree yet its internal structure is designed to develop them from its human blueprint.
Even if it was not apparent, it will be if given the chance to develop further, since this is the nature of human beings to have consciousness and providing it is internally generated it will happen. Can you prove it is not the nature for this to take place?
SKEPTICAL: "Your arguments rely strongly on equivocation."
How so? Equivocation uses a word or sentence in two different ways and two different meanings.
You are a human being. You are a person.
I am a human being. I am a person.
A woman is a human being. She is a person.
Her child is a human being. It is a person.
The unborn is a human being. Why is it not a person? Because it is not as developed? Are you making the level of development the pivotal issue, once again? Do you want to go there? We can have that discussion.
SKEPTICAL: "Why is the unborn a human being? Certainly it is human, but is it a being...is there agency? If so, how do you figure? I can agree later in the pregnancy when the defining characteristic of humanity is most likely existent that the unborn is indeed a human being, but I see no reason to accept this early in the pregnancy. Possibilities and potentials are not facts.
It is a human being because that is its nature. When two human beings mate and fertilization takes place they produce another human being, not some other type of being.
It is a being because it, 1) exists, and, 2) it is a particular and specific kind of entity or organism, living and growing. To be is to exist. Not to be is not to exist. A rock, on the other hand, is an inanimate object with no agency or ability to do what human beings do. The unborn do have the agency and ability but it is still developing.
ME: "I never said we OBSERVE personalities at conception"
SKEPTICAL: "...and yet, it seems you want to act as though one exists at conception. I'm of the opinion we need facts and evidence before we accept something as true, and you do not seem to share this view. I seriously doubt we will be able to agree on any of the other points until we find common epistemological ground."
And as I have said multiple times, if you can't produce facts you SHOULD give the unborn the benefit of the doubt, especially because all you ever witness is human beings as personal beings. That suggests personality for humans is part of their very nature, just like it is the nature of birds to have the ability to fly or fish to swim and live underwater. It is just common sense which is not too common anymore.
As I have also said, you don't kill something until you know what it is. Since you don't seem to know when personhood begins how do you justify killing it? 1) You justify killing it be unjust laws passed by fallible opinionated people, as was the case with Roe v. Wade. 2) You justify killing it by saying we don't know when personality begins, thus it is okay to kill it, or personality begins when consciousness, reason, and awareness begins without sufficient proof this is the case, yet the woman is still killing it after viability.
ME: "3. That is where you are wrong if it can be established "the others" have done something wrong. Thus, is it wrong to kill innocent human beings, human beings that have not committed a crime?"
SKEPTICAL: "My point is that if the unborn has no consciousness, then holding others accountable is not just something that it lacks the ability to do, but that their is no existent subjectivity. You'll need to show otherwise before I can follow your reasoning that the unborn should be seen as a moral agent.
It lacks the ability but not everyone does. All humanity should be treated equally under the law. The unborn is not.
I may not have the ability to hold you accountable for you doing something illegally, but the officer of the law SHOULD if it can be proved you are guilty of an offence. And when the officer of the law does not hold you accountable for a wrong then he/she is negligent in their duty, it is not being enforced, or the rule of law could be unjust because it does not address the wrongful killing.
ME: "4. But she did not. She allowed her body to be used by another, the result being the pregnancy in those cases where pregnancy occurs."
SKEPTICAL: "Again, choosing to share your body for a sexual encounter is not blanket consent to anything that might come from it. This is a misunderstanding of the conditional nature of consent."
"ME: "Only one has the choice to kill the unborn - the woman."
SKEPTICAL: "No, everyone has the right to choose the use of their body."
ME: "You are switching the subject to another topic. The woman chooses whether the unborn lives or dies. She makes that determination in most cases. Thus, the statement stands. She chooses whether it lives or dies."
SKEPTICAL: "The subject here is equality - and I am explaining how a woman can refuse for her body to be used as life support - just like everyone else."
I'm not following. The topic of bodily rights should not be equated to the topic of killing the unborn. The right to life is paramount. If that right is denied no other rights can follow. If you want to tie the two together then how is the unborn guilty of a wrong and how is it being treated equally to the woman? The unborns body is irreconcilable harmed in degree. The degree is the difference between life and death, between a future and an end. Add to this, the way the unborn is killed is inhumane, let alone unjust. Where else do you chemically burn, poison, or pull apart human beings?
SKEPTICAL: "The definition you provided in our first debates...
...is irrelevant to the definitions, arguments, and positions laid out in *this* debate. Focus."
ME: "Only if you are playing devil's advocate and do not believe what you are supporting, the pro-choice position."
I believe you knew your argument would self-combust if you tried to prove personhood started at a specific point of development."
SKEPTICAL: "Just as there are many opening to chess, there are many approaches to debate. If I happen to choose the Scotch over the queen's gambit - it doesn't mean I think the queen's gambit is weak. Perhaps, I don't want to go down the Queen's gambit declined path...again. The route I've chosen and your unwillingness to adjust your strategy accordingly is most definitely to my advantage."
The opening and defence often depend on who is White and who is Black as to tempo, and the opening by White (gained tempo) can result in defence until weakness is created and exploited. I saw a weakness in your argument and I exploited it.
As a footnote, in my playing days, I preferred the Roy Lopez attack, Alekhine's Defence, the Indian Opening, the Sicilian Defence, and the Queen's, never the King's Gambit (yuk), as my more common openings and replies.
***
ME: "As I already stated, I believe unless the unborn can be proven not to be a person [...]"
SKEPTICAL: "Shifting the burden. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof"
The abortion SHOULD be LEGAL debate centers on personhood and human rights. Since the pro-choice position is taking a life they claim is not yet a person they need to justify such a position. If you are going to claim it is alright to kill the unborn you should determine what it is. Personhood is central to Roe V. Wade and killing the unborn. Once personhood is invoked the argument takes on this aspect. My claim works on the premise that before you kill something you should first know what it is you are killing. Is that reasonable or not? SHOULD I just be able to walk around shooting and killing whatever I like without identifying what it is?
SKEPTIC: "Haha! That's how all this started. I thought a debate would be the end of it, but I was wrong. Peter has a problem integrating new data, and I have a problem letting statements I don't agree with alone. 😅"
What is the new data you speak of?
I think we both have the problem of letting statements we disagree with go. (^8
Abortion debates are negatively charged environments. Usually, both debtors come to the table with an invested position, then there are the biases of those who read the debates that come into play in the Comment section also.
Ragnar: "You two should probably just have another debate..."
(^8
Do you think the issues would be resolved without an elongated discussion? The debate brought issues to light, now we can delve deep into those issues. My feeling is that judging from the votes, SkepticalOne has probably won the vote and I would concede the vote for the sake of exploring the underlining presuppositions. Winning a vote is quite often different from winning the argument of such an important issue - the life and death of the unborn.
For some, the debate outcome is nothing more than a stoke of the ego. For me, it is more. I genuinely care about what is done to the unborn because I see what is done to it as unjust. Some just play devil's advocate because the sole objective is a win. The debate offers an opportunity to go behind the scenes, so to speak. I definitely believe the pro-choice position is not morally justifiable once it is stated the unborn is a human being. It boils down to the concept of equality and dignity as stated in the US Declaration of Independence, as one example, the UN Declaration on Human Rights, as another, the principle of doing unto others as you would have them do unto you, as a third.
***
USA
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the LAWS OF NATURE and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."
Preamble."
"We hold these truths to be SELF-EVIDENT, that ALL MEN are created EQUAL, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain UNALIENABLE RIGHTS, that among these are LIFE, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--"
***
UN
"Preamble
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,
Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,
Article 1.
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Article 2.
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status...
Article 3.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Article 7.
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination."
"This is an interesting topic but will probably be an arduous slog to vote for. Respect to whoever votes on this thing."
My feelings are that to capture the bias and thought process of pro-choice, and do it justice, is a tedious task, but worth the risk. Having said that, there is not enough space in a debate to document all the various aspects of the dehumanization comparison and examples. The pro-choice dehumanizing process can be compared via a number of different avenues, such as with slavery, women, and various political systems such as apartheid, but Nazi Germany is perhaps the most documented case of dehumanization available. IMO, to counter the pro-life argument, the pro-choice advocates (the majority outlook on debate forums) just claim reductio ad Hitlerum to end any comparison or stop the discussion and examination of the pro-choice position.
That was easy!
I wonder how that happened, SkepticalOne? (^8
SKONE: "You provided a logical fallacy (circular argument) in defense. That is not logical. I'm not trying to beat you up, but I don't think you've really examined your position all that closely."
I stated a biblical truth. I believed you knew that teaching. It was not something I made up out of the blue. This is the teaching of Scripture, that there is a foundation that is right and true and noble, per the Bible, but,
Psalm 11:3
If the foundations are destroyed, What can the righteous do?
If you destroy or attempt to destroy this foundation then what will you use to replace it? Please answer this question.
Matthew 7:24[ The Two Foundations ] “Therefore everyone who hears these words of Mine and acts on them, may be compared to a wise man who built his house on the rock.
Jesus taught two foundations, one solid and reliable, the other built on sinking sand.
Isaiah 28:16 Therefore thus says the Lord God, “Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a tested stone, A costly cornerstone for the foundation, firmly placed. He who believes in it will not be disturbed.
Matthew 21:42Jesus *said to them, “Did you never read in the Scriptures, ‘The stone which the builders rejected, This became the chief corner stone; This came about from the Lord, And it is marvelous in our eyes’?
The cornerstone was the first stone laid and a key to the structure of the building.
Ephesians 2:20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone,
There is a time when no greater authority can be appealed to, thus when you appeal to authority is your authority circular too? "Science proves science." "Logic proves logic." Is that circular? In the case of God, a Being who knows all things, how could there be a greater authority of appeal? Eventually, all things point to God as the Originator or Creator of them.
What is your foundation of epistemology? Is it yourself, perhaps, or science, or reason (whose)?
Post 207: "Jesus/god as a foundation of epistemology? I view this as a bald assertion. Why should I consider your view to be correct? Fair warning: I will not find circular arguments compelling."
Jesus is the foundation of epistemology per such biblical statements as John 14:6; John 16:30; John 21:17; or Colossians 2:3. Whether you choose to accept this is another matter. You know the Bible says those things. I do not see fit to explain to you something you already understand. It is not only me saying that He is the foundation of our understanding. It is not just one biblical author who spoke of such things, and many such authors said they were eyewitnesses of His resurrection.
1 John 1-3 (NASB)
Introduction, The Incarnate Word
1 What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have SEEN with our eyes, what we have LOOKED AT and TOUCHED with our hands, concerning the Word of Life— 2 and the life was manifested, and we have seen and testify and proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and was manifested to us— 3 what we have SEEN and HEARD we proclaim to you also, so that you too may have fellowship with us; and indeed our fellowship is with the Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ.
There are only a few possibilities for origins:
1. Creation.
2. Chance happenstance.
3. Eternal existence.
4. Illusion.
Perhaps you can think of more (name them), but which makes sense to you? That brings me back to a statement I make often. I believe God is necessary to make sense of such things for such a God (the biblical One) has what is necessary for us to know - omniscience, immutability, and eternity.
SKONE: "I am not questioning Christianity specifically, but merely asking about an epistemological claim. Lashng out at me doesn't make your assertions true."
I have explained what my epistemology is based upon. I have explained it from a philosophical and logical perspective. I could have taken other aspects of proof but I based it upon your Post 207 query and charge.
SKONE: "This tangent can be summarized as such:
Person A: How do you logically support belief X [Christianity]?
Person B [a Christian] attempts to avoid scrutiny of said belief [Christianity] by questioning person A [an atheist/agnostic] on assumed belief Y [atheism]. Additionally, Person B [a Christain] suggests a book [the Bible], [1] which (alone) states it's own importance, substantiates his belief.
[2] Even if Person A [an atheist/agnostic] cannot substantiate belief Y [atheism/agnosticism], it does not follow belief X [Christianity] of person B [a Christian] is substantiated. [3] Also, the book can be a claim or evidence - not both. [4] Finally, the summary above is overly generous. [5] PGA is not merely relying on the Bible to substantiate his views, [6] but *his interpretation* of the Bible. [7] PGA accuses me of dodging his questions, [8] but his questions are a dodge in and of themselves. I simply refuse to follow the feint.
Please remember where this tangent came from. SKONE said,
Post 207: "Jesus/god as a foundation of epistemology? I view this as a bald assertion. Why should I consider your view to be correct? Fair warning: I will not find circular arguments compelling."
[1] Again, I questioned Person A [an atheist] on his ultimate authority and on the consistency of such said authority in regards to the surety and necessity of knowing. I questioned how his relativism and subjectivism is the necessary standard in understanding epistemology in such areas as origins of the universe, life from non-life, morality, and existence. I'm trying to get to the basics of his claims about my beliefs and his own as to which is more reasonable - the core or foundational starting points to there coherency and correspondency. S I L E N C E
[2] If Person A [an atheist/agnostic] cannot substantiate his own belief is reasonable nor can he prove Person B's [the Christian] beliefs are not why should his charges be taken seriously? I have given reasons for my belief system as to knowledge is reasonable from where I start and what is NECESSARY, yet SKONE has not.
[3] The either-or fallacy/false dilemma. The "claim" comes from those who do not believe what the Bible states as an ultimate authority from which there is no greater. Thus, it becomes a test of belief systems as to reason and verification of authority and to what is necessary to know. Two contrary authorities are not both right. Are we created or are we here by chance happenstance? Which is more reasonable? The biblical evidence comes from both the internal and external consistency of what is stated that can be related to human history to a large extent but it drives way deeper in answering the question of why are we here and how did we get here? It also comes from a revelation of necessary Being of which neither SKONE nor myself are. From basic questions, worldviews are framed. Thus, the basics are what we need to examine as to the logic and sense in such belief systems.
[4] You framed it.
[5] SKONE said, "PGA is not merely relying on the Bible to substantiate his views" but from the Christian standpoint I am created in the image and likeness of God and I am using what he has given me (reason and logic) to understand His creation. My point has been that neither of us is neutral in our belief system and yet from Person A's [the atheist/agnostic] starting points, his foundational beliefs, how can he make sense of any of this in his subjectivity of origins, morality, life from non-life, and existence? He is trying to convince the reader that his position is "better" and more "reliable" to believe than my framework to which I scoff. Let us peel away the veneer to see what lies beneath the surface. Does SKONE's belief system have what is necessary for knowledge, or is he using my Christian framework?
[6] Regarding interpretation, I have asked SKONE if a language has meaning in context? If not, then how can we understand anything? If so, then there is a correct interpretation. If SKONE wishes to question me on my interpretation I have given him some verses that support my position regarding knowledge. I have also questions his starting points or foundations as to validity. Do his core presuppositions have what is necessary?
[7] Most definitely.
[8] They get to the heart of the issue. SKONE is asking me to validate how I can know Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life. I have explained the biblical REVELATION has what is necessary to know. I have also said that SKONE does not have what is necessary. Why should I believe his personal opinion or where he derives it from unless he can show it is necessary for truth and knowledge. S I L E N C E
Furthermore, you said you do not want to go down my rabbit holes (which I view as a simple dismissal of my points without a warrant). This still begs the question of if your knowledge is not comprehensive and all-encompassing and you can't point to any that meets this criterion that has been revealed to humanity, again, why should I have faith in your belief system as anything other than the blind leading the blind?
Again, you have not shown me why your worldview is consistent with the preconditions for knowledge. If you do not have a comprehensive knowledge of how all things are connected and holds together how can you have any certainty of the origins of the universe, life, morality, existence? Again, my worldview has the necessary preconditions - God, your does not.
Regarding morality, I have questioned your preconditions for morality in our first debate on abortion and I never saw your defence as plausible. I questioned your morality in regard to the law in this debate and I again never saw your defence as plausible but contradictory once again. It did not even meet the criterion of being self-evidently true. You argued for all humanity being equal then undermined the very concept of equality by not treating every human equally.
I would like to follow up on one of your statements to do with epistemology. Here it is:
SKONE: "If you don't want to talk about what you consider the basis of knowledge that's fine. I do find it ironic you suggest god is the basis of knowledge, but apparently can't say how you know that."
I find it ironic that you suggest God is not (and I speak of the Christian God).
What is your basis for knowledge? How can it be an absolute certainty?
What is the necessary precondition for your reasoning? Is it an omniscient being who has revealed themself? If not it is inconsistent. It begs the question of how it can be known to be the actual case if not. So point to this being. I question your subjective mind as the criteria for knowledge just as I question other subjective, relative human beings as the foundation for certainty of knowledge. I reason that your knowledge is not comprehensive and all-knowing, thus, it misses the mark. So, please explain why I can trust it? Mine, on the other hand, has what is necessary. Thus, it is internally consistent as the precondition for knowledge.
IOW's, I want to know why your authority is justifiable if it is not the absolute authority for reason and knowledge?
ME: "The biblical perspective is that knowledge is derived from God (e.g. I am the way, the truth, and the light). We, as human beings, are created in His image and likeness; thus, we are capable of knowing also provided we build upon a solid foundation."
SKONE: "So your explanation is simple as "my interpretation of the Bible". Why should we consider the Bible an authority in anything (besides "the Bible tells me so") or accept your interpretation of it? On the former, its circular, and on the latter, it's subjective."
I base my interpretation on many simply stated passages of Scripture. Would you like to dispute that, or are you merely saying that there is no correct interpretation of Scripture or no objective understanding of any sentence (i.e., words in context have no meaning)?
Regarding authority and reason, where does your ultimate authority derive from; for example, the standard in which truth is measured? There is no neutrality here. What standard do you commit to?
Now, what if the Bible (stated as God's word) is my ultimate authority? Why is your secular or religious authority "better?"
Is 'reason' your ultimate authority (circular and subjective - "My reason is that reason is necessary for understanding.")? Is it science (circular - "I believe in science because science gives sufficient reason for the truth.")?
SKONE: "And before you attempt to a Tu quoque fallacy (i.e. You too!!), I'm appealing to what can be observed by all rather than what I alone can 'witness'."
And you bet I'll question you along the lines in which you are examining me.
All can observe and examine the Bible. It claims knowledge of God is evident in it, but men suppress the truth of it.
KNOWLEDGE about God comes from it.
Romans 1:18-22
Unbelief and Its Consequences
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who SUPPRESS the TRUTH in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is KNOWN ABOUT God is EVIDENT WITHIN THEM; for God made it EVIDENT TO THEM. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been CLEARLY SEEN, being understood THROUGH WHAT HAS BEEN MADE, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became FUTILE IN THEIR SPECULATIONS, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Because of the unbeliever's suppression and rejection of God's knowledge the Word becomes foolish to them.
1 Corinthians 2:11-14 (NASB)
11 For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God. 12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may know the things freely given to us by God, 13 which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words.
14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.
ULTIMATE AUTHORITY is derived through our relationship with Jesus Christ.
Matthew 28:18 (NASB)
18 And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “ALL authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth.
Colossians 2:3b-4
resulting in a true knowledge of God’s mystery, that is, Christ Himself, 3 in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.
SKONE: "I didn't see the point of copy/paste of previous posts. Was there new information there?"
You side-stepped engaging with my questions very nicely!
The biblical perspective is that knowledge is derived from God (eg. I am the way, the truth, and the light). We, as human beings are created in His image and likeness; thus we are capable of knowing also provided we build upon a solid foundation.
Sorry, I missed this last part, but it is already answered.
YOU: "If you don't want to talk about what you consider the basis of knowledge that's fine. I do find it ironic you suggest god is the basis of knowledge, but apparently can't say how you know that."
The necessary basis for true knowledge is God. That is because, as I stated, He has the criterion of omniscience, eternality, and immutability - the final reference point and measure. Can we discover that knowledge without His written revelation? When we think His thoughts after Him - yes.
YOU: "False dichotomy. Even if we discount materialism, there is still any number of theistic and deistic possibilities." (Post 218)
ME: "Okay, since you are defending some competing religious claims, what are your other alternatives, not just generic but specific? If you can't list them then you are speaking from ignorance. Why should I believe you? I defend a specific God and concept of God, the biblical God and no other, as stated many times before. Let us compare worldviews. Two absolute gods or plurality of gods that contradict each other cannot both be true. Thus, what is your plurality of gods, if that is the case?
First, what is your god or gods if that/those god/gods is/are not personal?
Second, either God is a personal being or God is impersonal. Which is it? God or gods? It cannot be both.
Third, if God or gods is/are not a person/persons God/gods is/are a thing/things, not a being (i.e., pantheism). You can't have it both ways. Either God/gods is/are personal being/beings or God/gods is ascribed to a thing or things. Which is it? It can't be both.
Fourth, how has this/these god/gods been revealed to us? The Christian God reveals Himself in language and by what He has made.
Fifth, if your god/gods is not a personal being how does your god/gods have the ability to do anything and how does your god/gods sustain anything because if not a personal being/beings there is no intent?
Sixth, if your God/gods are beyond rationality and human experience then they are arbitrary non-sense.
Seventh, what are the preconditions for intelligibility and how does this come about and/or how is this possible without personhood?
Eighth, is your god/gods visible or invisible, empirical or nonempirical?" (Post 219)
YOU: "I'm not running down the rabbit holes, buddy. Either you can back the assertion I questioned, or you cant. You're dodging the question." (Post 222)
I am willing to demonstrate why the biblical God makes sense if you are willing to discuss these gods or god in relation to the biblical God as to the reasonableness of the different positions? Give me a couple of what you consider the most reasonable scenarios. How do they fit into the eight questions of Post 222? Better yet, give me some detail of your own position so I can contrast it with the biblical position.
SKONE: "I've pointed out there are more options than materialism and Jesus. It stands to reason that even if you are correct about materialism, you view is not winner by default...there are other options. Thus, changing the subject to what you believe my views to be doesnt answer the question."
You've asserted (just like I have to the contrary) there are more options but IF the Bible is true (and I state it that way because of your doubts) it states something exclusively - the biblical God is the one and only true God. Now, if you believe Jesus (the Trinity) is not the true God but there are many gods then list your god or gods so we can compare and contrast our beliefs. In this way, I can demonstrate to you why my belief is reasonable in comparison to your belief. That is the best I can do other than to state that knowledge or true justified belief would require a revelation from an ultimate, omniscient, unchanging Being since we are not that being.
If you don't want to talk about what you consider the basis of knowledge that's fine. I do find it ironic you suggest god is the basis of knowledge, but apparently can't say how you know that.
SKONE: "We're not on the same street! 😂"
That is for sure. (^8
YOU: "Jesus/god as a foundation of epistemology? I view this as a bald assertion. Why should I consider your view to be correct? Fair warning: I will not find circular arguments compelling." (Post 207)
YOU: "Let me clarify my question: why is belief in Jesus/god a valid epistemological foundation?" (Post 208)
ME: "The same can be applied to the opposite belief and foundation - matter, not personal being, as the foundation of epistemology.
Also, "Jesus is NOT the foundation of epistemology would also be a bald and bold assertion." Why should you consider your view to be correct?" (Response to Post 207)
"A system of beliefs requires verification. Christianity has many verifications that are reasonable to believe from its starting point." (NINE listed - Post 209 in response to Post 208)
ME: "The question is without God how do you tie it to personal beings as anything other than a mere preference? Then, how does preference make something "right?" (Post 210)
YOU: "I questioned your justifications for believing god is the basis for knowledge. You argued against materialism instead..." (Post 212)
ME: "Stating something (assertion) does not necessarily mean it cannot be evidenced, demonstrated, or proved." (Post 213)
YOU: "Can you justify your belief of 'god as the basis of knowledge'?" (Post 214)
ME: "See Post 209 for my justification and answer, for instance." (Post 215)
YOU: "1. You assumed I am a materialist. I do not hold that material is all there could be ...before you jump to another bad conclusion, I don't hold that there is more than material either. I consider myself to be an EMPIRICIST, so I will accept what can be demonstrated.
2. If materialism is faulty, it does not follow that your position is correct - especially in regards to a specific diety. If your goal is to show your view correct, you'll need to talk about *your* view." (Post 216)
ME: "Either materialism or a personal God. Which is it?
An empiricist falls short in many respects. He/she cannot demonstrate empiricism is all there is because he/she has to delve into the abstract and intangible such as the laws of logic to clarify anything. If you still think you are an empiricist then I challenge you to prove the laws of logic are empirical...
As for a specific deity, there can be only the One who fits the bill, since belief in gods is all contradictory in crucial ways; thus, they cannot all be true. When someone truly investigates the teachings of the Bible they can find the Christian position has amazing verifiability to it; I claim like no other, and I am open to discuss some of these ways and have done so in the past." (Post 217)
Two-way street.
ME: "A position of which you say it is a bald assertion. I wasn't trying to prove my point. I was just stating what I believed until you identified it as a "bald" assertion. Belief in the biblical God is nothing of the kind. My belief is reasonable, not unreasonable, not irrational, not blind faith, although to some it can be."
SKONE: "No need to get defensive, bud. You were asked about a very specific claim (not your overall belief in god). You stated something to the effect that nothing could be known without god, and I asked why I should consider this to be correct. If you can't provide evidence (regarding *your* view - not materialism), then "bald assertion" would be correct, but maybe a little harsh judging from your reaction. Apologies."
No reason to apologize. The Apostle Peter said to be ready to give a defence to everyone who asks the disciple to give account. I understand you are testing or challenging my truth claims to which I in turn challenge you to prove the possibility of the contrary in making sense of a truth claim without first presupposing God. To do so you will have to get specific about your own belief system of thought to its sensibility.
ME: "The biblical position has what is necessary to make sense of origins, meaning, purpose, etc. It is reasonable to believe."
SKONE: "Another assertion."
Yes, but I am willing to demonstrate it. How have you challenged it? A comment box does not give much space needed to do so. I am stating again what I believe and if necessary I am willing to justify my CLAIMS if challenged.
I do not see the challenge accepted by you in explaining Post 209 or elsewhere. We are trying to make sense of existence and in the case of abortion why the pro-choice argument is morally "right."
ME: "An empiricist falls short in many respects. He/she cannot demonstrate empiricism is all there is because he/she has to delve into the abstract and intangible such as the laws of logic to clarify anything. If you still think you are an empiricist then I challenge you to prove the laws of logic are empirical."
SKONE: "I think maybe you don't understand what empiricism is. It is not that empiricism is all that exists - whatever that means. It is basically 'demonstrate it, and I will accept it.' It doesn't discount the abstract because 'it can't be physically shown' - that would be a very strict interpretation."
You are contradicting the definition of empiricism and confuse it with rationalism. Here it is:
Definition of empiricism
1a: a former school of medical practice founded on experience without the aid of science or theory
b: quackery, charlatanry
2a: the practice of relying on observation and experiment especially in the natural sciences
b: a tenet arrived at empirically
3: a theory that all knowledge originates in experience
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/empiricism#other-words
2 and 3 apply here, especially 3.
"All knowledge originates in experience."
That is, the senses - seeing, touching, tasting, hearing, and smell.
"Empiricism is the theory that the origin of all knowledge is sense experience. It emphasizes the role of experience and evidence, especially sensory perception, in the formation of ideas, and argues that the only knowledge humans can have is a posteriori (i.e. based on experience)."
https://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_empiricism.html
"Empiricism, in philosophy, the view that all concepts originate in experience, that all concepts are about or applicable to things that can be experienced, or that all rationally acceptable beliefs or propositions are justifiable or knowable only through experience. This broad definition accords with the derivation of the term empiricism from the ancient Greek word empeiria, “experience.”"
https://www.britannica.com/topic/empiricism
How do you empirically verify things like the laws of logic through empiricism, since you state you are an empiricist?
POST 216: "I consider myself to be an empiricist, so I will accept what can be demonstrated." Demonstrate the laws of logic empirically.
ME: "Either materialism or a personal God. Which is it?"
SKONE: "False dichotomy. Even if we discount materialism, there is still any number of theistic and deistic possibilities."
Okay, since you are defending some competing religious claims, what are your other alternatives, not just generic but specific? If you can't list them then you are speaking from ignorance. Why should I believe you? I defend a specific God and concept of God, the biblical God and no other, as stated many times before. Let us compare worldviews. Two absolute gods or plurality of gods that contradict each other cannot both be true. Thus, what is your plurality of gods, if that is the case?
So, let's get specific. I'll borrow from some Bahnsen presuppositionalism (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2s1PwuvDGuY&list=PLFCE0E452DB4851A4).
First, what is your god or gods if that/those god/gods is/are not personal?
Second, either God is a personal being or God is impersonal. Which is it? God or gods? It cannot be both.
Third, if God or gods is/are not a person/persons God/gods is/are a thing/things, not a being (i.e., pantheism). You can't have it both ways. Either God/gods is/are personal being/beings or God/gods is ascribed to a thing or things. Which is it? It can't be both.
Fourth, how has this/these god/gods been revealed to us? The Christian God reveals Himself in language and by what He has made.
Fifth, if your god/gods is not a personal being how does your god/gods have the ability to do anything and how does your god/gods sustain anything because if not a personal being/beings there is no intent?
Sixth, if your God/gods are beyond rationality and human experience then they are arbitrary non-sense.
Seventh, what are the preconditions for intelligibility and how does this come about and/or how is this possible without personhood?
Eighth, is your god/gods visible or invisible, empirical or nonempirical?
SKONE: "I didn't assign a position to you - it is your stated position. I also gave you the opportunity to correct my understanding of your position: "Or is that not what you're saying?" You made two errors in your response."
A position of which you say it is a bald assertion. I wasn't trying to prove my point. I was just stating what I believed until you identified it as a "bald" assertion. Belief in the biblical God is nothing of the kind. My belief is reasonable, not unreasonable, not irrational, not blind faith, although to some it can be.
SKONE: "1. You assumed I am a materialist. I do not hold that material is all there could be ...before you jump to another bad conclusion, I don't hold that there is more than material either. I consider myself to be an empiricist, so I will accept what can be demonstrated."
Either materialism or a personal God. Which is it?
An empiricist falls short in many respects. He/she cannot demonstrate empiricism is all there is because he/she has to delve into the abstract and intangible such as the laws of logic to clarify anything. If you still think you are an empiricist then I challenge you to prove the laws of logic are empirical.
SKONE: "2. If materialism is faulty, it does not follow that your position is correct - especially in regards to a specific diety. If your goal is to show your view correct, you'll need to talk about *your* view."
The biblical position has what is necessary to make sense of origins, meaning, purpose, etc. It is reasonable to believe. A materialistic one does not. Just look into the core presuppositions of both and try to make sense of materialism. A position devoid of God that espouses abortion and woman's rights falls nicely into such a category, IMO. It borrows from relativism in foistering its ideas on the gullible, IMHO. (^8
As for a specific deity, there can be only the One who fits the bill, since belief in gods is all contradictory in crucial ways; thus, they cannot all be true. When someone truly investigates the teachings of the Bible they can find the Christian position has amazing verifiability to it; I claim like no other, and I am open to discuss some of these ways and have done so in the past.
SKONE: "Dad, I *should* ask Meredith to the prom.
Bob, we *should* paint the customer's car blue.
Mom, I *should* vacuum.
Here you are - explicit statements using *should* absent moral implication. My point stands."
ME: "I turned the tables on you and showed you that your charge can be equally applied to you"
SKONE: "No, you didn't. You assigned a position to me and then attacked it rather than answer a sincere question."
You assigned a 'bald assertion' to me in the following, so I showed you it can be framed either way, with my view or the contrary position.
Post 207: "Jesus/god as a foundation of epistemology? I view this as a bald assertion. Why should I consider your view to be correct?"
You said it was a bald assertion. (your statement)
Thus, I explained to you why I thought the assertion was reasonable from a philosophical standpoint. I did not touch on historical or archaeological evidence but I did on the aspects of scientism, explaining that these models of origins such as evolution and the universe are rife with problems.
Since you never delved into these issues further but continued with your own assertions there was no need to continue along these previously stated lines of reasoning and investigation. Your worldview is just as guilty. You continue to pass the buck to me neglecting the flaws of your own position. When you ask a question or make a statement I try to answer them to the best of my ability.
SKONE: "Can you justify your belief of 'god as the basis of knowledge'?"
See Post 209 for my justification and answer, for instance.
SKONE: "Dad, *should* I ask Meredith to the prom?
Bob, *should* we paint the customer's car blue?
Mom, *should* I vacuum?
By your reasoning, these questions are tied to morality merely by *should* being in the question. You're leaving out the role context plays. The proposition was about legality not morality, and what's legal and what's moral are not the same set."
You are confusing two different senses in which the word or sentence is understood. I have noticed this occurrence before on this forum.
"Abortion SHOULD be legal" is expressing an obligation or MORAL ought to do something, under the penalty of the law, a moral imperative. Should in the sense you are using it in those three examples is in the form of a question, a query on whether to do something or not to do it. It is not an explicit statement when used the one way but most definitely is the other way. (Try again)
***
PGA: "Jesus is NOT the foundation of epistemology would also be a bald and bold assertion."
SKONE: "I never said this. I questioned your justifications for believing god is the basis for knowledge. You argued against materialism instead...I'm still waiting on my answer."
I turned the tables on you and showed you that your charge can be equally applied to you if you want to frame something this way. Either Jesus is the foundation for epistemology (i.e., God) or He is not. It can't be both and either way you want to state it falls into this fallacious trap. Stating something (assertion) does not necessarily mean it cannot be evidenced, demonstrated, or proved.
I can assert 2+2=4 or 2+2=5. As it happens, one of those two assertions would be true to what is the case.
These things do not tie directly into the topic at hand, but indirectly they are relevant because of your word/term "should." "Should" is tied to morality and morality is tied to personal beings. The question is without God how do you tie it to personal beings as anything other than a mere preference? Then, how does preference make something "right?"
SKONE: "Jesus/god as a foundation of epistemology? I view this as a bald assertion. Why should I consider your view to be correct? Fair warning: I will not find circular arguments compelling."
It works both ways. The same can be applied to the opposite belief and foundation - matter, not personal being, as the foundation of epistemology.
Also, "Jesus is NOT the foundation of epistemology would also be a bald and bold assertion." Why should you consider your view to be correct?
Your view of things is very sketchy.
A system of beliefs requires verification. Christianity has many verifications that are reasonable to believe from its starting point. Materialism does not because of its starting points. Thus, belief in Jesus is reasonable on the extreme unlikelihood or impossibility of the contrary. Here are just a few of materialism starting points off the top of my head:
1) It has no reason or logic because it is not mindful.
2) It does not have a basis for morality since there is no final or fixed reference point.
3) It cannot explain consciousness. Somehow conscious is derived from the non-conscious.
4) There is no 'why' involved.
5) It has no agency or intentionality. There is no reason for the uniformity of nature. Uniformity somehow is derived from chance happenstance. Thus, it does not make sense. How does something that lacks intent (mindfulness) sustain anything constantly?
6) The worldview presupposes all these things witnessed are possible from mindless matter (while using consciousness and mindfulness in their comprehension).
7) The explanation for evolution, as with origins of the universe, is by mindful beings in the present interpreting things from the past. Thus, to an extent, we have to imagine that the conditions in the past are similar or the same as the conditions in the past, and the present is the key to the past.
8) There is no reason anything exists. It just is.
9) Such a worldview has no hope.
So, you are welcome to it but I will say no thanks, I think it is foolish to base existence on such beliefs.
SKONE: "Let me clarify my question: why is belief in Jesus/god a valid epistemological foundation? ..Or is that not what you're saying?
Instigator"
Without belief in God, we live in a state of relativism and subjectivity. Our minds are finite and limited in what we can know and how we know it regarding purpose, meaning, and value, as well as the certainty of origins, even though there are lots of clues. Without God, we cannot make sense of these things from such a materialistic and impersonal basis. A belief in God has what is necessary to know what is certain. The Bible claims to be a revelation from and of God. Jesus claimed to be God and did what God did. The Scriptures have many reasonable proofs that confirm what is said is true. Thus, belief in Jesus is a reasonable and rational belief. It has what is necessary for rationality and logic. Materialism does not.
SKONE: "I want to believe as many true things (and as few false things) as possible. If that means the world is not all rainbows and butterflies, so be it."
PGA: Speaking of origins, how can you know it is true unless God is real and has revealed as much? Do you really think scientists can confirm the truth of origins with certainty? No, this world is not all rainbows and butterflies."
SKONE: "Were we speaking of origins? ...and how would our origin one way or another inhibit our ability to learn what is true? It seems like a non-sequitor to me."
It does go back to your starting presuppositions, where and how things originate. When you build on the wrong foundation your data gets skewed. An error here and there can magnify the complexity and error of thought. While you and I are very capable of thinking true things, when one builds their worldview on a rotten foundation then error compiles upon error and the whole thing is in danger of collapsing. Such is the case when the foundation gets shaken, as Jesus taught in Matthew 7:24-29. Once it collapses you can check the rubble and analyze its inadequate materials, sometimes things you don't notice while the structure still stands and you are living in it. At other times you know the material is not good but you cut costs and invest in weaker materials that cause the fateful collapse.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew+7%3A24-29&version=NASB;NIV;ESV
ME: "My belief can be demonstrated."
SKONE: "You[r] beliefs can be shown internally consistent. They cannot be demonstrated to be manifest in the world beyond. In fact, the world beyond argues against specific aspects of strict literalism."
Some aspects of the Bible are literal, others are figurative, others speak of the spiritual realm; some speak of this world and others speak of the world to come. Our world is physical in nature. The heavenly realm is a spiritual realm. The two realms are not the same, but I can rely on God's word in understand there is a difference.
***
ME: "Not only that, but you also want to be in that sea."
SKONE: "I want to believe as many true things (and as few false things) as possible. If that means the world is not all rainbows and butterflies, so be it."
Speaking of origins, how can you know it is true unless God is real and has revealed as much? Do you really think scientists can confirm the truth of origins with certainty? No, this world is not all rainbows and butterflies.
Not only that, but you also want to be in that sea.
ME: "The reason I don't discuss the subject much is that I do not like being ridiculed by those who are not open to considering their worldview is wrong. They are blind and deaf to God. They presuppose they know better from a subjective, relativistic framework. So, how can I argue with that? Their minds are already made up there is no God or any reasonable evidence for His existence (Hebrews 11:6), just as mine is set about God. The question is which is more reasonable? Do you really think it is yours?"
SKONE: "I don't intend to mock you, Peter. I consider us to be friends. Although, I cannot control what the audience says or does. If you'd rather not debate this subject, I understand."
***
No, it is not a question of whether I will debate. I will. It is a question of minds already are made up and so that bias is brought into the debate, any debate unless you are playing devil's advocate. Even then, I doubt the position is fairly argued or judged. There is no neutrality, which Jesus made very clear. He said to His disciples that they were either for Him or against Him. Jesus said that either you build your worldview on God - the solid rock - or your build it on the sand.
SKONE: "It seems you are irritated by close-mindedness in those who accept evolution while admitting your own close-mindedness to anything beyond your beliefs. Shouldn't you be open to changing your views if you expect your interlocutors to do the same?"
We are all limited in our knowledge of things, apart from God - a necessary being for knowing the truth of origins, of which you include macroevolution. We only see in part. What irritates me is that you think your belief, apart from God, is true yet mine is the one scoffed at. I have challenged you to demonstrate this as the case, not just believed to be so. I have argued many times with many people that they can't with certainty. I have also argued that God is necessary for certainty in such things. Without Him, we are in a sea of relativism with no ultimate purpose or meaning.
ME: "You can't demonstrate that it is not a person"
SKONE: "This is not my burden. My burden is to show the standard I set for personhood is demonstrable at the time frame I suggest. I have done this. Those who hold that personhood start at conception must show their standard of personhood is applicable at conception (and doesn't apply to things which should not be a person). Also, I'm not aware of ever saying "the human at conception is not a person.". I've said the things you think define a person cannot be demonstrated at conception, and that I believe personhood can be attached to the capacity for consciousness. Please don't attribute things to me I haven't said."
The burden is abortion SHOULD be legal. That is not only a legal issue but a moral one. It involves many issues. Laws are built around right and wrong, what should and should not be done. Being a person comes into the discussion.
"Should" is a moral imperative. If you grant the life of the unborn is worth less than that of the woman based on Roe V. Wade, and that hinges, in part, on an interpretation of a what a person is, an interpretation of a law established in the 1800s, then you SHOULD demonstrate the unborn is not a person rather than just legislating its personhood out of existence. If you can't demonstrate this then you should give it the benefit of the doubt. If you don't give it the benefit of the doubt what else will you compromise on without knowing, such a "potential life?" Potential life diminishes the actuality of that life. It is living, not potentially so. You said you granted its personhood for the sake of the argument but continued to bring it up as if it mattered. I was arguing for both its humanity and its personhood and it seemed the personhood argument did not matter to you but you still built a rebuttal around it without establishing it was not a person. You failed to prove that what I said was false on this matter.
"The Constitution does not define "person" in so many words. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contains three references to "person." The first, in defining "citizens," speaks of "persons born or naturalized in the United States." The word also appears both in the Due Process Clause and in the Equal Protection Clause. "Person" is used in other places in the Constitution …. But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only postnatally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application...Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception. We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer." - http://historymuse.net/readings/RoevWade1973.htm
Your argument supported equal rights for all human beings yet you excluded the unborn based in part on personhood.
My whole argument was that it does matter when human life begins and you did not challenge that it began at conception but agreed. I argued that some laws are unjust and that it ties into what is a human being. That includes personhood. Human beings are people. You avoided the personhood argument to a large extent but Blackmun's interpretation of the Texas law is open to criticism. I have an online book that speaks largely on the issue of personhood in the 19th century, but you granted personhood so I did not have to go there as I did in our previous debate.
SKONE: "things that can be demonstrated are not always true"
You point to a few things which are demonstrated true and suggest they are false because they don't mess with your un-demonstrable beliefs. This is not a strong argument, Peter."
Can it be demonstrated? My belief can be demonstrated. Now whether that is to your satisfaction is another matter. Evolution can be demonstrated provided you work from a PARTICULAR framework. Whether that framework is true is debatable, as you well know. You rely just as much on faith for your core presuppositions as anyone else. I question those core presuppositions and I have challenged you on them many times.
It seems so. (^8
The reason I don't discuss the subject much is that I do not like being ridiculed by those who are not open to considering their worldview is wrong. They are blind and deaf to God. They presuppose they know better from a subjective, relativistic framework. So, how can I argue with that? Their minds are already made up there is no God or any reasonable evidence for His existence (Hebrews 11:6), just as mine is set about God. The question is which is more reasonable? Do you really think it is yours?
SKONE: "Correct me if I'm wrong. You believe god made the Earth a short time ago with the appearance of old age?"
I believe that is the more plausible biblical explanation and just like you with origins, it starts with something presupposed. The reason I do presuppose a young or younger earth is because I believe God cannot lie and I also believe, judging from His word, that hermeneutically, it is what is taught in Scripture.
I believe it is better DEMONSTRATED via Scripture. (^8
ME: "Not observe does not necessarily mean not present. That is fallacious thinking."
SKONE: "This is not a fallacy I am committing. My view is that things which can be demonstrated are true and things which cannot be demonstrated are not necessarily false, but we have no reason to hold them as true. Your view that we should 'give the benefit of a doubt' holds things true which have not (to my knowledge) been demonstrated, and that is a fallacy."
First, you fail to demonstrate "the human at conception is not a person." Your view, "things which can be demonstrated," does not fit your own criterion regarding personhood. Yet you are willing to place your whole argument on something that is not demonstrated yet you may believe it is. How? Thus, you are killing something that you don't know what it is yet you believe it is permissible. That, as I pointed out, is infrahumanization. You can't demonstrate that it is not a person yet you are willing to make it a non-person, less than a person, and exclude it from the commonwealth of personhood.
Second, things that can be demonstrated are not always true. It is whether they are real to what is the case that makes them true, whether what you believe is demonstrated corresponds to what is the case. For instance, macroevolution is thought to be demonstrably true. I argue it is not. It relies on presuppositions I touched on in my last two posts, yet it is preached as true. Many call it proven science. They "demonstrate" the connection with fossils. With particular starting points (similarity of shared traits, or similarity of physiology), it builds from and off of those starting points. Off the top of my head, one of those is a common ancestor. It assumes a common ancestor is the best explanation and then proceeds to demonstrate this is fact by looking at it from a particular standpoint - usually a solely naturalistic one or a theistic evolutionary one. Another is that life originates from non-life. This is not demonstrated but believed. Another is that fossilization shows the links. The presupposition is that because we all share similarities we must have originally evolved from such an ancestor. Another explanation is that because we all share the same planet we would naturally share characteristics but that does not necessarily mean we all originated from a common ancestor, unless you include God in that equation.
Young Earthers are castigated to gullibility, naive and stupid, but the point is that none of us were they to witness. That is the current trend with the intellectual elites, the Mr. Worldlt Wise of our day. They profess to be wise. Thus without God, we build our worldview through interpretations of data that we look upon in the present concerning the past. Thus, there is a difference between science and scientism. I'm all for science, not scientism. I argue your worldview takes as much faith to believe as mine because of these two points, and others. Considering the number of 'origins' explanations there are vying for your support it depends on how well each fits the current scientific paradigm before they are replaced with a "better" model. Once too many anomalies are found in one then another that "better" answers the question becomes the "in." Better is always an interesting term. "Better in relation to what? Better requires a best to compare to otherwise it is relative and shifting. Granting God exists solves the problem since an omniscient Being has revealed, in the biblical case. A Christian can make sense of the problem of origins for he/she has the necessary reference point, the final reference point.
Sure. I lean towards a young universe but am open to explanations of how an old universe view can fit the bill. Regardless, God created, the question is how. Speaking it into existence would give the impression of an old universe/earth when it was young. Mature trees and animals already formed, conditions right, etc., before the pinnacle of God's creation - us. Reconciling the biblical texts would be much more difficult with an old universe view, IMO.
SKONE: "I'm considering a debate on which explains the diversity of life better - evolution or creationism. Maybe you'd be interested at some point in the near future?"
I only defend the Christian perspective when it comes to religion, but I would be glad to once my current debate is over. Thank you for your consideration!
SKONE: "It depends on which part: evolution goes in science, abiogenesis goes in science, epistemology would go in philosophy, personhood in politics/philosophy, rejection of science/Christianity in religion or science.. This debate is marked politics, so clearly the discussion has veered far from that.
I'm considering a debate on which explains the diversity of life better - evolution or creationism. Maybe you'd be interested at some point in the near future?"
Morality can fit all four of your categories - science, epistemology, philosophy, or politics. They are interlaced. Thus, if you don't know (epistemology) when a person begins existence (science, religion, philosophy, politics) the benefit should go to the unborn as a person. You don't know whether you are killing a person. There is also a moral responsibility to protect human life regardless of personhood. Once you start killing human beings of any group you lessen the worth of being human (intrinsic value) and open the floodgates, like Adolf Hitler, to possibly include many groups. The word 'should' in the title conveys an ought, a moral responsibility. Roe v. Wade touched on science, philosophy, epistemology, science, and politics. How do you propose separating morality from these categories when you evoke a moral ought?
If you grant human beings are created in the image and likeness of God (religion), that creation begins at conception, when you/they become a separate, individual human being. Religion, likewise, also focuses on morality, on right and wrong.
Same as the debate?
What do you propose we label it?
SKONE: "Yes, humans are animals, and I agree there is a worldview interpretation at play - in the denial. I don't see the relevance this tangent has to abortion though - at least not to my view. We are animals, yes, but we have something other animals do not - the ability to reason, problem-solve, creativity, etc. and this is what we honor with personhood."
Worldviews play a part not only in the denial but in the affirmation. The relevance is that you dismiss the Christian worldview when your own has no certainty. Your worldview constructs its outlook on a model they believe is true. It takes faith to believe it is true since it is built on Darwinian principles of macroevolution and materialism that a human being is an animal.
ME: "A personal being is synonymous with being a person."
SKONE: "You've provided a circular definition. I am no closer to understanding what it is you actually mean."
Yes, it is circular. A synonym is another word or words for the same thing. I'm giving another similar term used for what I mean when I say 'personal being.' We have discussed as to what it entails/means before. What do you understand by 'being a person' to mean? You have incorporated consciousness and self-awareness into the term. I have incorporated more than you.
SKONE: "People sleep, people get anesthetized, people fall into comas - all examples where people might be absent a personality but maintain their personhood by virtue of their capacity for consciousness. As for conception and early pregnancy - there is no personality there either. I get that you believe there's a personality at conception, but that has never been observed or demonstrated. In essence, what you hold up as a demonstration of personhood cannot be demonstrated at conception or early pregnancy. This is a problem for your contention of personhood at conception. You said " a person =/= process" I agree, but I would go further: a process =/= a person. In other words, it's not the process that is important, but the results. The fact that a developmental process has begun that could yield a person doesn't mean the process will be completed. ~ 50-80% of conceptions fail for various reasons - that would be a lot of rights attached to failed pregnancies."
You associate personhood with consciousness. I associate it with the nature of being human.
Not observe does not necessarily mean not present. That is fallacious thinking.
The key to people asleep or a coma is that they still have a personality. You don't lose it just because you sleep. You are still you when you wake up.
Your keyword here is "PEOPLE." People, sleep, people sometimes go into comas. You assume the unborn is not a person but also assume it is not developing as a person (as what it is) because you have never witnessed or observed that personality or personhood developing from dormant humans - those in a coma or asleep? But asleep or awake they are persons. Inside the womb or out I argue the unborn are persons.
The unborn have the "capacity" for consciousness as a personal being. So, if personhood is inherently in the nature of human beings and is a human quality, then in the unborn it is NOT YET developed to the EXTENT that we recognize or see it. The brain, the mind, the whole individual is not fully functional yet. Note: not fully functional as opposed to stopped functioning or never will function or never will function again. If it is the nature of being a person to have a personality, then the unborn has one developing too, just not as developed as in old human beings where we recognize it. Because our self-awareness, our consciousness, our personalities are not always witnessed or operational, such as with those in a coma or asleep, does that mean they lack those two things? You say it does not, per your example above. So, does that mean we are justified in killing every human being who is sleeping or in a coma since we do not see evidence of the personality in action? That seems to be your implication.
Processes occur in people. We are conceived, we are born, we age, we die. We classify our stages of development, as in pregnancy, in early childhood, in adolescents, in puberty, in adulthood.
A person =/= a process, but within the person, a process is taking place, a process of growth, development, and yes, dying. Nor is a process a person (process =/= person) although processes are functioning and taking place within people, so please quit trying to redefine a person since I am not arguing for a process being a person or a person being a process, nor have I.
People:
2 plural: human beings, persons —often used in compounds instead of persons
SKONE: "I see no reason to believe minds can exist independent of a physical substrate and a fair amount of evidence to confirm a link between the two to a reasonable certainty."
What does a physical substrate mean? No reason to believe the two are independent of each other. So, are our minds and brains the same thing to your reasoning? If so, then you think that there is nothing more to the universe than just physicality, which you examine purely from the physicality of it (i.e., naturalism or materialism). You examine everything inside the box FROM inside the box. But physicality alone cannot explain the non-physical or abstract that you find or witness within the box - i.e., the physical realm. The laws of logic are intangible and non-physical, yet without logic, you could make sense of nothing, no thing. Thus, there are glaring contradictions in what is real and your perception of it if you claim everything is material. I question such belief.
SKONE: "I don't think personhood is at natural at all. It is conceptual construct built by humans for humans. I consider "personal being by nature" to be equivalent to " natural personhood" - it's oxymoronic."
A conceptual construct used to describe what the thing is, the essence of what it is.
By the word natural, I mean inherent to that thing, that thing being a human being. So, what is "natural" to a human being is that it is a personal being.
Human nature:
"the nature of humans
especially : the fundamental dispositions and traits of humans"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/human%20nature
SKONE: "I'm not sure I can agree to "Personality is an attribute of personhood" either."
Attribute:
2a: to regard as a characteristic of a person or thing
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/attribute
Definition of personality
1a: the quality or state of being a person
b: personal existence
2a: the condition or fact of relating to a particular person
3a: the complex of characteristics that distinguishes an individual or a nation or group
especially : the totality of an individual's behavioral and emotional characteristics
b: a set of distinctive traits and characteristics
4a: distinction or excellence of personal and social traits
also : a person having such quality
b: a person of importance, prominence, renown, or notoriety
a TV personality
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/personality
Personhood:
1: human, individual —sometimes used in combination especially by those who prefer to avoid man in compounds applicable to both sexes
2: a character or part in or as if in a play : guise
3a: one of the three modes of being in the Trinitarian Godhead as understood by Christians
b: the unitary personality of Christ that unites the divine and human natures
4a
archaic : bodily appearance
b: the body of a human being
also : the body and clothing
unlawful search of the person
5: the personality of a human being: self
6: one (such as a human being, a partnership, or a corporation) that is recognized by law as the subject of rights and duties
7: reference of a segment of discourse to the speaker, to one spoken to, or to one spoken of as indicated by means of certain pronouns or in many languages by verb inflection
SKONE: "It seems like you're heading toward abiogenesis or evolution...How is this relevant to abortion?"
Only in the sense of where it all begins. How does consciousness begin? How does something living originate from something without life? I think you, presuming you take God out of the equation, are jumping multiple hurdles at once. If personhood is not built into our makeup, what we are as human beings, then you have to account for it as an external factor, not something coming from within. To do that you have to identify when it begins or you cannot justify whether you are killing a personal being (meaning one that has personhood) during pregnancy.
So now I must ask you, is consciousness (what you seem to attribute personhood to) built into (inherent, part of, our nature) being a human being or is it something external to being a human being?
SKONE: "Regardless of the origins of life or how it diversified, there can be no denial of the link between consciousness and a physical brain as well as the significance of consciousness to humanity."
There is a link between our physical brains and our minds, but are the two the same? Are you saying that all we are composed of is "physical matter"?
SKONE: "There is no dispute regarding a developmental process in which individual consciousness comes about. The point I was making is that your argument would functionally grant rights to a process rather than the product/subject."
No, the granting would be to a person who is developing through a process. The two are not the same. A person =/= process.
No dispute regarding the development process?
Then you are confirming that personhood which you attribute to consciousness is inherent in the individual from fertilization, from the moment a new and distinct living human being is formed. Thus, consciousness is a feature of human nature, something that develops as we grow. You are affirming the consciousness is inherent in the nature of what it means to be human and not something acquired from an outside source. Thus, to kill a human being is to kill a person or personal being.
SKONE: "Is the unborn an "it"? If someone asked me if they could kill "it" and I say yes - virtually no one would think I understood the question to be in regards to a person."
'It' in reference to either a male or female human being. I am referring to either.
SKONE: "I really don't understand why you devote your time to personality if we're talking about the unborn in general. There is no demonstration of personality at conception or in early pregnancy. Personality is something that emerges from the brain. I'm sure someone more knowledgeable on this subject might also point to how environment shapes it. Regardless, I'd think it would be fairly safe to say personality is not built into cells and DNA which seems to be what you're implying. I'm open to evidence to the contrary - if you can provide.
Personality reflect on the person. You can't have a personality unless you are a person or a personal being. Personality is an attribute of personhood. I'm saying that from day one the person and personality are developing. If you were to look back at a microscopic development of your being from the first cell dividing you would identify and say that that one cell is you in your earliest form, not someone else or something else. You are recognizing you regardless of how underdeveloped you are.
SKONE: "Humans ARE animals whether you believe it or not (genetics, among other things, shows our relatedness), and every one of the traits you listed is derived from the brain. No brain = no imagination, love, empathy, communication, creativity, etc., and thus my view regarding personhood being connected with consciousness (or the capacity for it)."
Humans are animals?
I argue this is a matter of worldview interpretation, not science. Just because humans and animals have similar genetic makeup does NOT necessarily follow we are from one common ancestor (excluding God our Creator, of course, since we derive our being from Him) and thus, the closer you get in genetic similarity the closer we are related. It is an inference. It could just be that since we share the same environment, the world, we have structures that complement and compete with each other. Your worldview, which does not look to the biblical and personal God (granting He is the only God through a process of logical deduction) as the explanation must then look strictly to a naturalistic process as the answer. The problem is that the data needs interpretation since no human being was present to witness the transitional links from one kind to another. A second problem in interpreting data, as in the case of origins, is that the condition is assumed that the "present" is the key to the past. That is to say, we look at things in the present for our interpretation of the things of the past. That leads to a lot of assumptions that are weighed in a particular model or framework. Once too many assumptions and contradictions happen within that model or framework (in which you or a scientist looks at the world through) a new and "better" explanation is sought after. Then the paradigm shifts to a new model that does not have as many glaring holes in it. And the process of examination goes on until the anomalies build up once again.
***
SKONE: "If you are not referring to "personhood is natural" when you say things like "personal being by nature", then I don't know what you mean. Humans come from humans. I'll need you to define "personal beings" before I agree to more. Please don't use the words you're defining in your explanation."
If I don't reference the words there is no connection that can be made, no relationship that can be established.
A personal being is synonymous with being a person.
Is a human being a person/personal being? Yes or no? What is your answer?
If you grant a human being is a person, and thus personal being, when does a person being to exist? Is being a person inherent in the nature of being a human being? If you say being a person is inherent to being a human being then being a person is something that all human beings are (discounting abnormalities in the human beings genetic makeup). Another way of saying this is the nature of the being (i.e., bird, fish, human) determines what we are, whether we can fly, or live underwater, or have human personhood which is distinct from other beings.
So you take the life of the unborn (kill it) without knowing whether or not it is a person. You want to give it personhood only at the point of consciousness or awareness. How do you pinpoint that this is not through a process of growth and development that starts the moment a new being begins to exist, and that this process is due to the nature of the begin that this happens, has not been demonstrated by you? If consciousness and personality are built into the intrinsic nature of the human being, the kind of being it is, that nature determines this. If you disagree then until you can explain how and why consciousness begins all of a sudden (because you say it is not a process) you have no evidence what you say actually takes place, nor is it reasonable to believe.
SKEPTICAL: "This question regarding killing something without knowing what it is - it is not wrong by default to kill without knowing what it is. Have you never heard of someone shooting through a door when something or someone was attempting to get in? Do you really think this is wrong? If not, then you should retire this question."
If your employee asks you if he can kill 'it,' do you not ask what 'it' is before you give him the okay? If you do give him the okay without knowing what 'it' is you may well be charged with accessory to murder as the accomplice when he says you gave him permission.
SKEPTICAL: "The ability to reason, plan, think abstractly, etc., is the thing that makes us unique from other animals - do you disagree. If so, please tell me of another animal which does this?"
I'll accept that summation, with some slight modifications. I do not believe we are animals. Our genetic sequencing is different also, plus our ability to imagine, love, empathize, create and communicate are other reasons, but as you know I believe the main reason is that we are created in the image and likeness of our Maker. He is a personal Being so are we in our likeness of Him.
SKEPTICAL: "People have rights - not processes. How absurd would it be if we gave rights to the process of building a boat? Also, I do not accept consciousness comes about at viability or birth. I think I've been pretty clear on this."
So, how do you acquire consciousness? How do you first become aware? Is there a process you go through to become aware or does it just magically happen? Why do you differ from inorganic matter?
My witness is from personal beings come other personal beings so if we all come from a common ancestor what is prior to that is inorganic chemical mixtures and reactions unless you grant the personal God. How does consciousness originally occur from such inorganic conditions? Since you deal strictly in science, no longer believing in the God of the Bible, what is your answer since we are discussing personhood and consciousness and you don't like my answer which I believe is self-evident and logically necessary for understanding?
SKEPTICAL: "Human conception yields a single cell with human DNA. Its nature is human. It can't have a nature of personhood, because personhood is NOT natural - it comes from us. BTW, I understand "human being" to mean "person". If you'd like to argue for the personhood of something then perhaps you can make your questions clearer (and less equivocate-y) if you can use terms without this connotation.
I'm not arguing for a "nature of personhood." What does that mean? Does it mean the same as persona beings by nature? If not, you are twisting my words. Let me be clear, what I am arguing for is human beings are personal beings by nature, by what kind of beings they are. Are you saying humans can't have a personal nature? Personhood is not natural for human beings? Are you a personal being? Is your wife? How about your kids, your neighbours, your workmates, your doctor, the mailman, and every other human being I can reference? Show me a human being who is not a personal being. You can't. All you can do is assert the unborn is not but we are at a stalemate here.
SKEPTICAL: "This question regarding killing something without knowing what it is - it is not wrong by default to kill without knowing what it is. Have you never heard of someone shooting through a door when something or someone was attempting to get in? Do you really think this is wrong? If not, then you should retire this question."
ME: "And as I have said multiple times, if you can't produce facts you SHOULD give the unborn the benefit of the doubt, especially because all you ever witness is human beings as personal beings."
SKEPTICAL: "That's backward. You're assuming something is true in the absence of facts and evidence."
And you are assuming that it doesn't matter what we do with the unborn even if it is a person and regardless of facts and evidence.
Backwards? Do you kill something without knowing what it is, other than in the case of the unborn? That is the issue. If you can't determine whether it is factually a person or factually a human being what license do you have to kill it, especially since you state that every human being should be treated with equality and dignity. Are you doing that?
SKEPTICAL: "Human consciousness is what separates humans from other animals - wouldn't you agree?"
One of the things that separate us, yes.
But I think you are missing the bigger picture. When does human consciousness begin? Is it a PROCESS of DEVELOPMENT that starts with the beginning of the life of the human being, or does consciousness suddenly burst into existence at viability or at birth, AND WHAT MAKES IT DO THIS? (Please answer this question) If the organs start to grow at fertilization when a separate, unique human being begins to develop one cell at a time (and we have factual proof they do as determined by the genetic code and makeup) until the organs are formed, then why isn't consciousness part of the process too? Is consciousness external to the human being, some trait that does not come from within? And why isn't personhood part of the process of development and maturity too? We see in small children their development of personality. It differs from our level of development and maturity but it is a process that is taking place. You deny the unborn that process.
Can you answer these questions? If not, then why not give the unborn the benefit of the doubt? Is it because your worldview will not let you, it would compromise what you believe too much? You would have to admit you are consenting to kill a person and a personal being. You would also have to consent that you do not believe what you quoted about all human beings having equal rights.
We are speaking of the difference between function and substance. On a GM production line not having a particular part changes the function of the car. With a substance, the whole essence of the thing is contained in its inner structure, and it is a complete entity in itself.
SKEPTICAL: "The fact is this does not exist early in the pregnancy."
Does it not exist or is it not developed enough to notice? A zygote has not developed lungs or legs or a heart to a noticeable degree yet its internal structure is designed to develop them from its human blueprint.
Even if it was not apparent, it will be if given the chance to develop further, since this is the nature of human beings to have consciousness and providing it is internally generated it will happen. Can you prove it is not the nature for this to take place?
SKEPTICAL: "Your arguments rely strongly on equivocation."
How so? Equivocation uses a word or sentence in two different ways and two different meanings.
You are a human being. You are a person.
I am a human being. I am a person.
A woman is a human being. She is a person.
Her child is a human being. It is a person.
The unborn is a human being. Why is it not a person? Because it is not as developed? Are you making the level of development the pivotal issue, once again? Do you want to go there? We can have that discussion.
SKEPTICAL: "Why is the unborn a human being? Certainly it is human, but is it a being...is there agency? If so, how do you figure? I can agree later in the pregnancy when the defining characteristic of humanity is most likely existent that the unborn is indeed a human being, but I see no reason to accept this early in the pregnancy. Possibilities and potentials are not facts.
It is a human being because that is its nature. When two human beings mate and fertilization takes place they produce another human being, not some other type of being.
It is a being because it, 1) exists, and, 2) it is a particular and specific kind of entity or organism, living and growing. To be is to exist. Not to be is not to exist. A rock, on the other hand, is an inanimate object with no agency or ability to do what human beings do. The unborn do have the agency and ability but it is still developing.
ME: "I never said we OBSERVE personalities at conception"
SKEPTICAL: "...and yet, it seems you want to act as though one exists at conception. I'm of the opinion we need facts and evidence before we accept something as true, and you do not seem to share this view. I seriously doubt we will be able to agree on any of the other points until we find common epistemological ground."
And as I have said multiple times, if you can't produce facts you SHOULD give the unborn the benefit of the doubt, especially because all you ever witness is human beings as personal beings. That suggests personality for humans is part of their very nature, just like it is the nature of birds to have the ability to fly or fish to swim and live underwater. It is just common sense which is not too common anymore.
As I have also said, you don't kill something until you know what it is. Since you don't seem to know when personhood begins how do you justify killing it? 1) You justify killing it be unjust laws passed by fallible opinionated people, as was the case with Roe v. Wade. 2) You justify killing it by saying we don't know when personality begins, thus it is okay to kill it, or personality begins when consciousness, reason, and awareness begins without sufficient proof this is the case, yet the woman is still killing it after viability.
ME: "3. That is where you are wrong if it can be established "the others" have done something wrong. Thus, is it wrong to kill innocent human beings, human beings that have not committed a crime?"
SKEPTICAL: "My point is that if the unborn has no consciousness, then holding others accountable is not just something that it lacks the ability to do, but that their is no existent subjectivity. You'll need to show otherwise before I can follow your reasoning that the unborn should be seen as a moral agent.
It lacks the ability but not everyone does. All humanity should be treated equally under the law. The unborn is not.
I may not have the ability to hold you accountable for you doing something illegally, but the officer of the law SHOULD if it can be proved you are guilty of an offence. And when the officer of the law does not hold you accountable for a wrong then he/she is negligent in their duty, it is not being enforced, or the rule of law could be unjust because it does not address the wrongful killing.
ME: "4. But she did not. She allowed her body to be used by another, the result being the pregnancy in those cases where pregnancy occurs."
SKEPTICAL: "Again, choosing to share your body for a sexual encounter is not blanket consent to anything that might come from it. This is a misunderstanding of the conditional nature of consent."
"ME: "Only one has the choice to kill the unborn - the woman."
SKEPTICAL: "No, everyone has the right to choose the use of their body."
ME: "You are switching the subject to another topic. The woman chooses whether the unborn lives or dies. She makes that determination in most cases. Thus, the statement stands. She chooses whether it lives or dies."
SKEPTICAL: "The subject here is equality - and I am explaining how a woman can refuse for her body to be used as life support - just like everyone else."
I'm not following. The topic of bodily rights should not be equated to the topic of killing the unborn. The right to life is paramount. If that right is denied no other rights can follow. If you want to tie the two together then how is the unborn guilty of a wrong and how is it being treated equally to the woman? The unborns body is irreconcilable harmed in degree. The degree is the difference between life and death, between a future and an end. Add to this, the way the unborn is killed is inhumane, let alone unjust. Where else do you chemically burn, poison, or pull apart human beings?
https://www.lifenews.com/2013/01/02/abortion-methods-and-abortion-procedures-used-to-kill-unborn-babies/
SKEPTICAL: "The definition you provided in our first debates...
...is irrelevant to the definitions, arguments, and positions laid out in *this* debate. Focus."
ME: "Only if you are playing devil's advocate and do not believe what you are supporting, the pro-choice position."
I believe you knew your argument would self-combust if you tried to prove personhood started at a specific point of development."
SKEPTICAL: "Just as there are many opening to chess, there are many approaches to debate. If I happen to choose the Scotch over the queen's gambit - it doesn't mean I think the queen's gambit is weak. Perhaps, I don't want to go down the Queen's gambit declined path...again. The route I've chosen and your unwillingness to adjust your strategy accordingly is most definitely to my advantage."
The opening and defence often depend on who is White and who is Black as to tempo, and the opening by White (gained tempo) can result in defence until weakness is created and exploited. I saw a weakness in your argument and I exploited it.
As a footnote, in my playing days, I preferred the Roy Lopez attack, Alekhine's Defence, the Indian Opening, the Sicilian Defence, and the Queen's, never the King's Gambit (yuk), as my more common openings and replies.
***
ME: "As I already stated, I believe unless the unborn can be proven not to be a person [...]"
SKEPTICAL: "Shifting the burden. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof"
The abortion SHOULD be LEGAL debate centers on personhood and human rights. Since the pro-choice position is taking a life they claim is not yet a person they need to justify such a position. If you are going to claim it is alright to kill the unborn you should determine what it is. Personhood is central to Roe V. Wade and killing the unborn. Once personhood is invoked the argument takes on this aspect. My claim works on the premise that before you kill something you should first know what it is you are killing. Is that reasonable or not? SHOULD I just be able to walk around shooting and killing whatever I like without identifying what it is?
SKEPTIC: "Haha! That's how all this started. I thought a debate would be the end of it, but I was wrong. Peter has a problem integrating new data, and I have a problem letting statements I don't agree with alone. 😅"
What is the new data you speak of?
I think we both have the problem of letting statements we disagree with go. (^8
Abortion debates are negatively charged environments. Usually, both debtors come to the table with an invested position, then there are the biases of those who read the debates that come into play in the Comment section also.
Ragnar: "You two should probably just have another debate..."
(^8
Do you think the issues would be resolved without an elongated discussion? The debate brought issues to light, now we can delve deep into those issues. My feeling is that judging from the votes, SkepticalOne has probably won the vote and I would concede the vote for the sake of exploring the underlining presuppositions. Winning a vote is quite often different from winning the argument of such an important issue - the life and death of the unborn.
For some, the debate outcome is nothing more than a stoke of the ego. For me, it is more. I genuinely care about what is done to the unborn because I see what is done to it as unjust. Some just play devil's advocate because the sole objective is a win. The debate offers an opportunity to go behind the scenes, so to speak. I definitely believe the pro-choice position is not morally justifiable once it is stated the unborn is a human being. It boils down to the concept of equality and dignity as stated in the US Declaration of Independence, as one example, the UN Declaration on Human Rights, as another, the principle of doing unto others as you would have them do unto you, as a third.
***
USA
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the LAWS OF NATURE and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."
Preamble."
"We hold these truths to be SELF-EVIDENT, that ALL MEN are created EQUAL, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain UNALIENABLE RIGHTS, that among these are LIFE, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--"
***
UN
"Preamble
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,
Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,
Article 1.
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Article 2.
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status...
Article 3.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Article 7.
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination."
***