PGA2.0

It is a given that I start there just like you start with the presupposition that the Christian God is not real. It is a given that if I start with Him I don't start with other gods. 

This effectively ends the discussion, because only one of us actually starts with a presumption of anything beyond what's immediately presentable existing, and it isn't me.

I start with no presumption, only the notion that I've not ever seen any convincing evidence that any god is real, or that any god is realer or less real than any other, and that since most things seem explicable through natural phenoman, adding a layer of magic on top of it is unnecessary.

I am open for convincing. You, on the other hand, admit freely that in order to prove your god is right, you have to start with the notion that your god is right, without that god having earned it. This is an inhibitor to honest debate. The rest of your post is moot. You start many of your sentences with "if a biblical god is true" and instead of answering the IF part (which is central!), you just proceed as if he IS true. That's not how it works, convincing other people. 

And your other problem tying yourself to the bible is that so much of your contortions seem supported extra-biblically (like the insane notion that 70 = 490ish years).

It's either the bible alone, or you have to take into account the scholarship (overwhelming in number) that contradicts your accounting as much as you take into account the ones that support it. For example, you can't point to the hebrews trekking across Egypt without also pointing out that god must have erased all the evidence supporting it for some reason, as modern archaelogists do not find any evidence of hebrews wandering around for 40 years. 

He made humanity in His image likeness thus they have the ability to make choices. 

HOw is "original sin" which you are born with, a "choice"?

Also, does this mean that the Jesus (and Mary) couldn't make choices?

What means does Vishnu provide in the writings that are supposedly from such a being? 

Spiritual TRUTH.

Give me some examples from these writings that have verifiability to them. 

Using modern scientific methods, such as satellite imagery and dating techniques, it can be shown that the ancient statements of the Vedas are factual, not mythical as erroneously propagated. High resolution satellite images have verified descriptions in The Rig Veda of the descent of the ancient Sarasvati River from it's source in the Himalayas to the Arabian Sea. [LINK]

What is Vishnu if not a personal being, since you refer to Vishnu as an "it."

Why would a god (like the "YHWH") need an identity defined by human sexual organs?

List some of the Bhagavad Gita that can be demonstrated by history. What kind of prophecies has come about exactly as written? 

Using modern scientific methods, such as satellite imagery and dating techniques, it can be shown that the ancient statements of the Vedas are factual, not mythical as erroneously propagated. High resolution satellite images have verified descriptions in The Rig Veda of the descent of the ancient Sarasvati River from it's source in the Himalayas to the Arabian Sea. [LINK]

Of course we both know what your are asking for is a red-herring.

We've already established the historical accuracy of the Epic of Gilgamesh, but that doesn't "prove" any of their gods were "real".

Historical accuracy is moot.  Accurate predictions are also moot.

How about you just start with why your god is real and the hundreds of other gods aren't.

You say yourself he's only revealed in the bible (which speaks again to the fact that the bible is claim, not evidence), so you don't need the bible for this argument.

All the other ridiculous tripe, like how I can't say something is wrong without borrowing from Christianity, is distraction from this. Keep it simple: what is the evidence that your god is real and, for example, the Greek pantheon isn't? Don't fixate on why the Greek Pantheon is wrong, please demonstrate, again without pointing to the claim as evidence, that your god is real. THat's all I'm asking.

those who don't want to believe will not believe

What I want to believe has no bearing on anything being true. It's either true or it isn't. Gravity doesn't care if I believe in it. 

I just have to wonder why god didn't "act" upon Adam and Eve's children to remove "original sin" from them, thus saving us and everyone else a whole lot of trouble.

I have to wonder which bible verse it was that said "and this original sin shall be commuted onto all people forever until the end of time through the pairs of human chromosomes that won't be discovered for thousands more years." I wonder if CRISPR tech can solve this problem if it exists!

Vishnu demonstrates to humanity that what is made pours forth reasons for it and humanity has understood this since the record of history began. That is why we find most cultures, if not every culture, has a concept of a higher being that they worship. The problem is that if you do not worship Vishnu as it is you worship an idol, a human construct. To avoid this happening the chosen ones believe Vishnu has demonstrated to humanity in its revelation who it is. Thus, as the Bhagavad Gita explains, we who reject Vishnu in our unrighteousness are without excuse. 

The universe demonstrates the majesty and glory of God and teaches us that the reason for it (and us) is that we might know God who has purposed our existence. 

But you've made not one step toward showing why your version of god is correct and all others are wrong.

This is the point of the whole idea: you just say "God created the universe for the sole purpose of creating people who would say how awesome he is all the time," you have skipped many, many steps and only created more questions. Remember, the bible is the CLAIM, not the evidence.

This is where your god comes from, the bible, it's where his character and all of the quotes you are taking come from.

Of course the bible says god's real, otherwise who cares about the bible. Please feel free, at any point, to demonstrate EVIDENCE that your god's real and your assessments of its purpose are in any way accurate. 

For clarity: the bible is not evidence of itself or anything in it. Otherwise, I will start claiming that this world used to be Westeros and you better figure out which of the seven gods of Westeros you worship, because they're real because they're in a book!

You can give reasons for things in the universe but not the universe itself. 

I'll skip that you're using two different definitions of reason in the same sentence here so that I can ask you, since you seem to know, what is the reason for the universe, exactly?

So, through Adam's seed, we are reckoned. It was through Adam's seed that our natures changed in that we no longer maintained that relationship with God.   

I guess women are not born with "original sin".

It sounds like women should be in charge of everything related to Christian churches.

I could ask the why or how, but it is interesting that your worldview cannot make sense of the "why" which is why I say a necessary being is necessary for understanding the how and why with certainty. Otherwise, we are always at the mercy of the next paradigm shift in understanding.

I think I do 'make sense of the Why"' - However I don't think there is a 'why'.  That is I don't  think a god decided 'I want man to exist, therefore I must create a universe for him to exist within'.  

Why does ice float?  It's because ice is less dense than water and because that is so we get icebergs.  But 'to make icebergs' is not 'why' of ice being less dense than water.  There is no plan or objective behind it; it just so happens that ice is less dense than water and that accident of nature  has consquences - icebergs being one.  In the same way we are a consequence of the accidental details of the physics that arose out of the big bang. 

The evidence for that is better than the evidence for anything in the bible!

That is why the question becomes, If God, who is God? What are the reasons for the different gods?

I not sure you ever asked that question before!  But as you have asked it, I'd say the answer lies in human psychology.

For a perfect human being, the corruptible seed of Adam was not used. What other human being is this claim said of that has good corroborating evidence?

I guess women are not born with "original sin".

Then answer the reason why the universe came to be. Why would "chance" give sufficient reason?

It's interesting that you asked 'why' not 'how'.  I'm guessing that means you're not asking about the mechanics of the origin but about its purpose; you are asking why is there a universe at all.

In my worldview there is no teleological reason for the universe.  It did not come about in order to achieve some future goal - it just came about.   I think that's very nihiistic! I accept its truth because it's where the logic takes me, not because I like it.

if you insist the universe must have a 'teleological why' then we must disagree.

"[The entity that gave moses 10 commandments] provides a sufficient and neccessary reason for the universe" is just not true!  YHWH creating the universe might be sufficient for the world to exist, but its not neccessary it was Him.  It could have been zeus, or brahma - either would be sufficient, but it ain't necessarily any of them! 

What are you talking about, Keith? Why would The Ten Commandments give a reason for the universe? What reason would be sufficient for the universe from a human perspective? We still have various views that compete with each other. 

Not 'the ten commanments' - 'the entity that gave moses the ten commandments'.  What I am pointing out is: that earlier you claimed God (ie the Christian god) was a 'sufficient and neccessary' reason for the universe to exist.   That is to say 'The entity that gave moses 10 commandments provides a sufficient and neccessary reason for the universe'.  Clearly (to me anyway) that while YHWH provides  sufficient explanation of the universe, it does not follow that was neccessaily Him that did it!

The evidence for Zeus or Brahma is nowhere near as detailed as the biblical evidence for God. What historical evidence can you offer for Zeus interacting with humans?

There are myths and legends about the gods interating with humans in every religion. 

Prophecy provides a reasonable and logical example that is not easily rI am at a loss to know how to prove a piece of writing is not genuine prophecy.  It's not hard to show a 'prophecy' isn't neccessarily miraculous, but completely proving it?- Not possible.  

What is the reasonableness for your view as opposed to the historical and biblical view I can present is the question?

I know that people are superstitious and make up stories that aren't true.   What is more reasonble - a virgin gave birth or someone made the story up?  

If the time, space, matter continuum had a beginning then what is the reason for it since somehow it came to be. God provides sufficient and necessary reason

Possible reason, but not a 'sufficient and neccessary' one! 

"[The entity that gave moses 10 commandments] provides a sufficient and neccessary reason for the universe" is just not true!  YHWH creating the universe might be sufficient for the world to exist, but its not neccessary it was Him.  It could have been zeus, or brahma - either would be sufficient, but it ain't necessarily any of them! 

Prophecy provides a reasonable and logical example that is not easily refuted.

I am at a loss to know how to prove a piece of writing is not genuine prophecy.  It's not hard to show a 'prophecy' isn't neccessarily miraculous, but completely proving it?- Not possible.    

When someone uses ad homs instead of laying out their case there is something wrong with their argument, IMO. 

Citation please.

I am not asserting. I have given you what scientists say. Not only this, it is obvious that a new human being starts to grow from conception/fertilization. 

May I ask what you have read in this field of debate?

Why is it obvious that a new human being starts to grow from conception/fertilization? What is the rationale?

This is my problem with your references to scientists. When it comes to global warming, people are able to point to scientists, who are then able to point to specific facts and figures that show abnormal temperatures. And that's all fine and dandy. Your examples merely describe characteristics and then assert their opinion as truth. You then carry over that opinion and then exclaim "These opinions come from scientists. Obviously this must be objective truth!". But if you don't have the rationale, and the scientists you link don't have the rationale, what am I supposed to do with this? Take it as blind gospel? It's the blind leading the blind.

It is obvious to most scientists that a new human life begins at conception or the process of fertilization. It is not extraordinary, it is common sense. An egg contains 23 chromosomes and so does a sperm. When the sperm penetrates the egg the two sets of chromosomes unite to form a distinct human being, different from either parent. These are facts.

If it is obvious as you claim, then you can make a perfectly reasoned argument as to why a newly fertilized egg is indeed a human being without resorting to "it's obvious", "it's common sense" and "most scientists".

Would you like a formal debate on this subject?

Now listen to what you are saying: "a beginning of a human being is not equivalent to being a new human being itself." 

What do you mean? This makes no sense to me. Explain it, please. 

I can state that a germinated seed is the beginning of a new tree. Which is perfectly true. Given time, a seed may become a tree and a germinated seed marks this beginning. However a germinated seed is not a new tree in itself. Does this make sense?

The links give specific embryologists and scientists. I listed a couple.

I'm not going to bother until you give me a list of credible scientist who is experts in the field of embryology that state from conception onwards the unborn is not a human being. 

Which is perfectly reasonable for a scientific argument. My argument is philosophical, so here are some resources for that view.

https://www.fertstert.org/article/S0015-0282(17)30036-5/fulltext

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5499222/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19076123

You are a master of the Gish Gallop.

Truth  and facts do not change because their repeated.

Read my lips/text again. Umpteen times Ive stated yes, fetus/baby is human and of course it is alive. Ive never ever stated otherwise.

#313--You are okay with killing them (condoning murdering another human being). 

Read my lips/text:I'm ok with pregnant woman deciding what  she does with a non-breathing human being that,

1} is inside her as a non-independent/individual human fetus/baby,

2} is an organism of that woman via her body inherenlty directing all nutritional sustinence to that non-breathing, non-independent/individual, non-breating human fetus/baby,

3} non-independent/individual,  human fetus/baby,  that, exists in many/multiple and rapid transistional phases that have not yet lead to,

....3a} not being born-out,

.....3b}  not taken its first IN-spiration of oxygen,

So, why not apply that standard to yourself? 

1} I asked you to behave as a rational, logical common sense adult, and you keep refusing to do so ergo I cannot repeatedly keep this line immature, irrational illogical lack of common sense with youas the info I give you;

....1a} It goes in one ear and gets lost in a black hole, or,

.....1b} goes out the other  ear with no reading compreehension along the way through.

Are you okay with those who make laws and legislate the unborns death determining you are unfit to live because the elite does not see you are as advanced in some manner as they are?

I'm ok with mature adults who use rational, logical common sense and exhibit moral integrity. This is not you or any radical religious etremist and/or Trumpanzee. 

If you recognize they are alive and they are human beings (I believe I could find many posts that you argue against them being such

BS and you have not nor will you ever find such posts by me.

Do not speak to me about moral integrity until you examine your own position. 

Do not speak to me about moral integrity until you stop virutal rape{?} of all prenant woman by sticking your immoral nose *v* into their bodily business.  Do you understand that? No? I didnt think so. Take a hike. I cannot repeatedly keep responding to your lack of moral integrity, immature irrational, illogical lack of common sense.

Logically, only one God can be true for they all contradict each other. I do not see other views of "gods" as logically consistent whereas I see the biblical view of God as logically consistent. 

This raises the yet to see you answer directly. Just so we don't get off track on minutia, let's say that humanity has only been around for 10,000 years. In those 10,000 years, there have been countless cultures and groups, each with many superstitious beliefs and, in almost every case, a belief in unseen gods using their influence to do things like cause cataclysmic earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, droughts, mental illnesses, inexplicable diseases, etc. because we didn't understand the natural causes of these events until the last 500 years (so 95% of human history, VERY generously again, we basically knew nothing about how anything worked). For sake of round numbers, let's say 1000 cultures developed over 10000 years around the world with completely unique views of these forces. Greek gods weren't Egyptian gods, weren't Hindu gods, weren't Norse gods, weren't Navajo gods, weren't Aztec gods. So far good? You're saying these gods can't ALL be the correct ones. I agree!

Except...you don't explain how you separated, through logic, not through your birth into a Christian family, or your indoctrination into a Christian culture, that YOUR god is the one that's right.

You've already said you're a presuppositionalist: by this alone, you make an error that screws up your logic.

You start with the assumption that among all of these hundreds of gods, ONE MUST BE RIGHT. I'm never sure why people make this mistake, except that it serves their desired outcome. The correct starting position has to include the possibility that ALL OF THEM MIGHT BE WRONG. You have to start from zero gods and then figure out why there would be A god in the first place. Almost every time I've seen this argued, the pro-god person basically goes to argue from ignorance or incredulity. 

The NEXT question is "How did you figure out this god was the one?" But you can't really answer that one at all (much less with logic) until you've answered the first one.

I know you rely on the biblical texts pretty heavily. You're trying to answer how did you decide this book is right, the Hindu books are wrong is not the FIRST question in your logical argument.

Once upon a time, many many billions of years ago, our universe exploded into existence from a singularity for no reason, no intention, no purpose...

It is not a matter of a feel-good religion but what is true

The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed. Keith L. Moore, Ph.D. & T.V.N. Persaud, Md., (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998),

This is the same Keith Moore who believes that Muhammad is a messenger of God. Do you give credence to all of his beliefs

 

I don't believe the temple prophecy is all that impressive, I know that's your big one.

First of all, it's not accurate, until you add some weird multipliers that make a month or a week or a day into a year or a decade or an hour, and there's no reason to do it. 70 days = 70 days. 490 years =/= 70 days without gymnastics, first of all, and second of all, is it even that impressive to imagine that the ruling Romans would tear down the Jewish temple if they continued to misbehave?

it seems the sort of thing that a lot of people could predict, and that's granting it was a prediction at all. Again, those books are of questionable authorship. Try it again, as I said, without bothering with the bible, because god would have had to be there before the book (the bible isn't older than 2000 years.

Maybe books in it are, but the ones you care about, the NT, aren't close to that). Why is your god the one who must have created the universe? That's the whole question. 

Are we not even going to get to hear your interpretation of the "meaning in" the Bootes void? Or the "rationale" of colliding two galaxies together when humanity will be long gone? The 99% extinction rate predates the existence of mankind by literally hundreds of millions of years. Your answer seems to somehow say "well, only if all the evidence is true! If It isn't, then Jesus!" Please tell me you don't think dinosaurs went extinct because someone ate a magic apple.    

You are a master of the Gish Gallop.

If you were eternal, how could you have a beginning? Answer that question.  

Can you demonstrate that this being is eternal?

Failing that, can you demonstrate that the universe in one form or another itself isn't eternal? No one says a word about god until about 5000 years ago. Up until then, he wasn't there, other gods were. 

No, they were not. They do not have the right to take innocent life because they can't restore it. Not only this, what they did was complete and utter evil. There was no mercy or compassion in so many of their actions. God's righteous standard is to live righteously and act justly. They killed many people unjustly, without sufficient cause. 

Please give the sufficient cause to kill all of the Egyptian first born sons (many of which were presumably not involved in enslaving the hebrews but were just kids), directly by a celestial agent.

After that one, can you explain why god didn't just delete the Canaanites or the Amalekites, and instead commanded the hebrews to do it?

Or how about the time he told the hebrews to take the women for themselves?

What's the sufficient and just cause for allowing them to be kidnapped and repeatedly raped? 

Are you a divine command theory person in addition to being a presuppositionalist?

What would you expect from a living, thinking, rational, logical Being? You would expect to find reasons for the creation. You find laws of nature that are expressed by mathematical formula and principles that are DISCOVERED, not put there by us thinking it. You would expect to find life coming from life, not from the non-living, as living beings producing other living beings is all you ever witness. You would expect morality to originate from a moral Being. That is just the drop in the bucket. 

If this were a rational, living, thinking, logical being that created the universe, you mean? I guess I'd expect to find evidence of any of the adjectives you've used. What's the "rationale" in the idea that eventually, and without question, the Andromeda galaxy will collide with ours is tens of millions of years and literally rip everything in BOTH galaxies to shreds?

What's the "thinking" behind extinctions happening at a 99% rate for all species?

What's the "thinking" behind extinctions happening at a 99% rate for all species?  What's the "living" bing you're describing doing creating giagnitc and insurmountable distances between us and our nearest neighbors? Or the logic is perhaps not having neighbors at all? The fact that all of these natural phenomena are present directly contradicts the description you provide. Wait, let me guess, we know not his holy purpose. EXCEPT YOU ARE SAYING YOU DO, and it's Earth. Why I'm even engaging you on science is questionable, maybe I'll quit it, because if you believe in a literal Adam and Eve, you clearly do not care about evidence or science or really anything that isn't what you already think. 

No, we don't put NATURAL LAWS in nature, yes, we derive them, but I'm pretty sure what I said we put there is meaning.

Why, exactly, would I expect morality to originate from a moral being?

And more to the point and the topic, why is that moral being the character in a book that's less than 2000 years old?

Logically, only one God can be true for they all contradict each other. I do not see other views of "gods" as logically consistent whereas I see the biblical view of God as logically consistent. 

Bull shit. Why would you?

You might have to accept your god might be lying to see other gods as real.

Christianity is not special in the religions department.

You need it to seem that way to feel good about yourself. 

For a theist to tell a theist they have an illogical view on gods is the dumbest shit I have every read. 

Your choice but what is it based upon?

....Once upon a time, many many billions of years ago, our universe exploded into existence from a singularity for no reason, no intention, no purpose...

That other gods exist. 

Just because your god claims to have created the universe doesn't make it so. 

Yes, thank God Mustardness does not run the country!

I'll be surprised if mustardness even runs a job.  If her employer finds out about this, she'll be fired.  She should stop digging her own grave.

The book can say what it wants. Adam and Eve are not my ancestors, your god did not create me, your heaven and hell have nothing to do with me.

Thanks. 

where theres a will, theres a way.

Apart from the fact that this proposal is communist and tyrannical, the only way I can think of will be extremely expensive.  If you lock 150 million people (including myself) away for political views, this will cost about $6 trillion to maintain annually.  This new program alone will raise taxes by 2.5x the current tax rate.  Keep in mind that Trump supporters tend to pay taxes so by locking them up, you forfeit about half of your tax revenue.  This would mean that for the renaming Trump haters, they would have to pay 5x as much in taxes.  By proposing this tax raise on nothing but locking Trump supporters up, your forfeiting all of the other causes that tax revenue goes towards.  By proposing this tax increase, your aren't minding the business of taxpayers because you are demanding that they pay you money.  You are forcing them to pay money towards this insane idea that you have; and if someone can be called a rapist for being pro life(it's about saving the unborn baby), then you should be called a thief for supporting taxes at all, let alone raising taxes by the mot I've ever seen on all of America.  You also would have to cut various social programs to make room for locking all Trump supporters(maybe like me?) 

Welfare gone.  Food stamps gone.  Funding for planned parenthood gone.  It sounds at first something that only the far left would back, but when analyzing the economic implications of it, how could anyone back this idea?  It means striping the left of their favorite company in the world; planned parenthood.  It means no more birth control.  All that money that you invested in Birth control would have to go towards imprisoning Trump supporters.

This idea is both expensive and immoral.  Thank God you don't run this country.

The egg is not the same thing as part of the mother once fertilization happens

False.  Read my lips text and do not come back to tale to me until you can stop making False staments/commnets/etc.  This is third time youve done this. Please learn how to use rational, logical common sense along with truth - facts and stop sticking your nose *v* { virtural rape? } into a pregnant womans body business.

The egg or fertilized egg are both part{ attached to the mother } except for brief time{ 24hrs? } the fertilized egg falls through the fallopian tube yet  is stillintimiate{  inside woman } part of the pregnant womans body  business and you as a  Trunpanzee,

1} keep trying to stick your immoral nose *v* { virtual rape? is immoral } into the pregnant womans body business as is immoral Trumpanzee behaviour of the following,

2} just as grabbing womens _____y { vagina } without their consent--- as idio-ump likes to do-- and his Trumpanzees support and encouraged this immoral behaviour. Sad :--( lack of moral integrity at best, at worst.........{ ? }

This is just two of the reaons  why Trumpanzees need to be Locked Away!

Lock Trumpanzees Away! from moral civilized humanity

Lock Trumpanzees Away! from moral civilized humnanity

The Ten Commandments are nothing to Christians. Jesus only had two.

Your go doesn't own my soul.

Thanks though. He only has say over Jews and Christians. Maybe Muslims.  

Just because it [slavery] is not normalized or legalized doesn't make it any more right to do.

I don't think slavery is right either.  It really feels that slavery must be 'objectively wrong'.  But I can imagine that if I was an ancient Roman my feelings about slavery might be just as strong in the other direction.  That is I would consider 'slavery is fine' to be an objective truth. 

My guess is that what we take to be objective moral truths match very closely with what we would like to be moral truths!  Is that co-incidence?

If two people live the exact same life with one being a Christian and one not then both should go to heaven. Since neither is wicked. But they don't.

Fortunately hell is only for Christians and many will be surprised.

Slavery - of various sorts - certainly exists in our society but slavery is not  normalised as it was in ancient rome or the old deep south.   It's a bit like murder - it goes on, but we don't live a society where murder is a commonplace element of our everyday experience.

These days we tend to be more considerate towards animals than was the case 100 or 200 years ago, but we still eat them.  Maybe in another 100 years eating animals will be viewd as immoral as eating people!   How can we know that what we think is moral today will always be thought of as moral?

The difference is in speaking about someone that has a beginning as opposed to Someone who does not. He is the necessary Being that all other beings derive their existence from. He is self-sustaining. We are not. 

That distinction is never mentioned in your claims regarding life, your god does not fit any of definitions you give for living and yet you claim it is living.

Again, you FAILED to answer the question because you can't hear or understand what people are asking you. Your worldview stops you from understanding. Being eternal and the Creator then all life that begins comes from Him.

What question did I fail to answer? Prove your claim of a creator is factual and not just a figment of the IPSS imagination.

If you were eternal, how could you have a beginning? Answer that question.  

You have never seen life come from non life and from this you conclude that it cannot happen. You have never seen eternal life so to be consistent you must conclude that eternal life cannot exist.

BS. My life is built on the credible testimony of the Bible with transcends the ANE and still applies in its message today; that is there is one way for a person to experience a right relationship with God and humanity without that relationship the person is answerable to God by their merit - what they do. 

There is nothing credible written by the IPSS, in fact they lie regularly when they "quote" their god. You've been at great pains to tell me how the OT no longer applies so the above statement must be just another godist lie. To have a relationship with any god only requires the exercise of a persons imagination just like you do. 

Because it is reasonable to believe based on the biblical revelation and what we see

So you don't know you just imagine it to be so, have you ever counted up the explanations you give because you imagine that is the answer?

Here again, you treat physical death as if it is the end of our existence - your choice. That is not the way I see life. I believe you have convinced yourself that all you have is here and now based on your limited knowledge and a specific worldview belief. Your belief system denies God. Thus, you are not open to God and afterlife. I think you feel it is in your best interest to deny God. 

Death is the end, placing a meaningless descriptor before the word is the result of your abject fear of death, it's pathetic to see a grownup do that and it's not a choice it's inevitable. You are so afraid of death that you have almost convinced yourself that it won't happen to you, that is gargantuan fear. All gods are the creation of men, they don't exist for me to deny them. The hubris of someone who believes in an afterlife is unbelievable. Keep pretending.

Why do you continue to present the yabberings of the IPSS?

When two human beings mate the result can only be a human being [if fertilization takes place].

Here is the godist lie writ large, the bolded is not a part of that alleged quote, but the truth is not somewhere a godist dare approach.

I have constantly made the distinction but because I may not have put it in here you jump all over it to mislead. What is more, you do not supply any more of the actual context. It is very easy to misrepresent someone by not supplying the full context or ignoring other contexts where the rest of the subject has been included. 

You have never made the distinction and the context is that billions of humans mate with billions of humans everyday and what you claim happens is an outright lie, but de rigeur for a godist.

No, you are wrong. I apply the same standard to all human beings. It is wrong to kill (murder) an innocent human being regardless of whether you are male or female. I believe ALL human beings should be treated with dignity and respect. I believe that moral wrong should be fought against, regardless of whether you are male or female. 

You deny all women's right to their bodily autonomy you don't do that to men, you are hypocritically lying.

"Homo sapiens, (Latin: “wise man”) ~

Was this definition supposed to refute what I said?

Where do they state that? You made the charge, now support it with well-researched facts which all your posts have been devoid of to date. 

They don't, which is what you were claiming.

You are wrong. By nature, a new individual human being starts at fertilization. You cannot change your nature and become a dog. You are at fertilization the type of being you will grow into, just less developed. Development does not affect what you are. 

You will always be a member of homo sapiens certainly. The rest of what you've said is crud in terms of my argument

Your analogy is fallacious once again. A wooden post is not a house and it has no ability in itself or by anyone else to make it into a house. You would need all kinds of other inputs besides the post to make a house. It does not become a house of its own accord. The unborn from fertilization onward grow into what it is. 

I assume you understand that a zygote does not autonomously turn into a baby and requires different inputs from the mother, whether waste disposal of provision of energy

What kind of confused reasoning is this? Listen to your words. To be LIVING is not equivalent to have LIVED?

If it is not living it can't be alive. 

I'm not sure what you're so confused about. It's the difference between living a life and having lived a life. A zygote certainly hasn't lived a life

Again, you are wrong. It may not have developed its personality or expressed its personhood yet but that does not mean that it will not because its very nature is a personal nature. 

By its nature that governs what it is, it is both human and a personal being. 

"will". Future tense. I'm not advocating for abortions once a zygote has expressed its personhood. I'm advocating for abortions when it hasn't.

And I have shown repeatedly that your argument is fallacious and that you are ill-informed.

No, you seem to keep telling me a human can't change into a dog. Which is cute, but ultimately irrelevant.

Experience does not govern what type of being you are by nature. Within the unborn genetic makeup is everything needed for it to develop what it is by its very nature. 

This is ultimately irrelevant to whether it is a human being or not, for simple genetic make up is not my criteria.

They are people. Their nature is a personal nature. They are growing into what they are, persons. Have you ever seen a human being when left to develop into what it is is not a personal being? You deny the unborn its natural development by ending its life. 

Appeal to emotion.

When you give me a factual argument I will counter it. 

A women, unless intentionally becoming pregnant will be unaware of the pregnancy for several weeks.

Accordingly, a zygote has no discernible impact on the world whatsoever for several weeks.

A human being on a philosophical level is defined by more than just biological components.

One way of defining a human being is through the sum of experiences, whether personal or effected to surroundings

Hence a Zygote has no experiences and is not a human being

I backed it up with common sense and scientific facts. Through a microscope we see this fertilized egg start to change and follow the new living human being grow through the stages of pregnancy.  

You are asserting that this fertilized egg is a new living human being. You have continuously asserted this. You have asserted this again in this very post. It is not common sense, nor is it predicated upon scientific fact. It is pure opinion.

An appeal to authority would be using an authority to appeal to something because they were an expert without factual evidence supporting that claim but just by stating their name and charging the expert believes this is a fact. 

You missed this part. "Of course, the reasonableness is moderated by the claim being made (i.e., how extraordinary, how important) and the authority (how credible, how relevant to the claim).". 

Unambiguously claiming that human life begins at fertilization is both extraordinary and important to your argument. Especially because such a statement is obviously contentious. While you may be content to accept this without further thought or supporting evidence or reasoning, I do not. This is mostly directed to the Moore quote as Ertelt isn't even a authoritative source, and the use of "Medical Science" is obviously equally unconvincing.

Continuing from that..

Are you claiming that there's a consensus among medical scientists that your statement is correct? What are the specific characteristics of a "human being" that allows for this consensus that a newly fertilized embryo is indeed a "human being"?

It tells you that in its very first stage of growth it is a new human being by a medical expert. Check the source out:

No, it tells me that this person thinks that it's the beginning of a new human being. Note "think" and "beginning". As clearly this is an opinion, and clearly a beginning of a new human being is not equivalent to being a new human being itself

It is based on experts in the field of embryology that make a living investigating the unborn from its beginning, thus the evidence is credible. It is not as if we can't understand and document when a new life begins. 

"Some experts say so, therefore I say so". Come back to me when you have the actual basis, reasoning and evidence. Because handwaving "experts say so" on an issue like this is completely insufficient on a contentious issue like this.

I don't have Wilberforce's autobiography but it's not in dispute that he was a great philanthropist and humanitarian.   Nor do I deny that he found justifications for his humanitarianism in Scripture.  The question is whether scripture changed his personal morality or if his innate humanitarianism affected his interpretation of Christianity. 

Why SHOULD slavery be abolished?  If there is no absolute, objective, unchanging standard then why is one standard better than another?  

Tell me, how hard do you have to think before you conclude freedom is better than slavery, or that kindness better than cruelty? 

My guess is you don't have to think about it at all.   You may require a moment or two to think up a logical-sounding reason why freedom trumps slavery, but making the judgement 'freedom is better than slavery' takes no time at all - it is built into you.

If you - or I - had been born in ancient Rome or the antebellum deep south we'd probably think slavery was part of the natural order and not question it.   You say you oppose slavery becuse freedom is intrinsically or objectively better than slavery;  I say we oppose slavery becuase we are the products of a non-slaving culture.

 

#290....M-tard3b} most "dependant offspring" breath in-out on their own, a fetus/baby does not breath at all, ergo,

That does not make it any less a human being than you are.

And umpteen times Ive stated they are both alive. You seem to have a lack of reading comprehension skills.

You want to deny this human being the right to experience its first breath for you don't recognize it until it is born.

More lies by you. You repeately insinuate these lies that Ive never ever stated. Sad :--( lack of moral integrity but we know that is your primary problem in this whole issue of womans rights to her body and your attempts to immorally keep sticking your friggin nose *v* in their bodily business without there consent.

Occasionally you admit your doing exactly, that using differrent words but refuse to acknowledge any distinction in the degree of immoral integrity you lack in doing so.

Why are you in denial? Because of religious extremism and basically just a narccistic ego based Hybrid-Franken-Trumpanzee.

It is not about live and dead, and ive  been clear event tho you keep repeating lies in these regards. You dont get this because or your radical  religous extremism. Scary when people like keep trying to stick your immorally stick your nose inside other peoples bodys. Sad :--( lack of moral integrity.

1} It is about degrees viable existence as independant/individual aka born-out from pregnant woman,

2} it is about getting your nose *v* out of womens body business where you have not legal or moral rights to do so.

Until you grasp the distinction between fetus/baby and baby that has been born-out, you will remain and immoral, radical, religious extremist sticking your nose *v* into womens bodies where you have not been given consent by the woman. Sad :--( lack of moral integrity.

You need to be Locked Away!, along with all the other immoral Hybrid-Franken-Trumpanzees, away from the moral civilized socieity.