Total posts: 4,363
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Finite = integrity ergo wholenessInfinite = lack of integrity ergo anti-wholeness
So, strictly considered mathematically, a ray is integrity and wholeness, whereas a line lacks integrity and wholeness?
That conclusion, is, itself, illogical. Please refer to the definition of both mathematic terms.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
Now, do you have any arguments against my conclusion?
Pease remind me again what that is? I've lost track.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
therefore various flaws like cancer, birth defects, etc.
Are such things really just a matter of random chance? The CDC says the 60% of cancer and diabetes cases could be prevented in the first place, and 80% of heart disease as well. Prevention by our choice of applying the notion of Genesis 2: 16, 17, wherein we are told that Adam could eat of every tree in the Garden, but that the choice to eat of the tree of knowledge would have a dire consequence; the only choice among all the fruit that had such a consequence. Add further Doctrine & Covenants 89: 1-21; a suggestion of healthy eating from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Compare these scriptures to CDC's warning that prevention of the maladies noted could actually be prevented, just by making proper consumption choices. Smoking, drinking, drugs, fast food, prepared, manufactured food. All the food that is in the middle of virtually every grocery store. Their layouts are identical. All the fresh food, the food most full of nutrients, is around the outside rim. Al the processed foods are in the middle. Choose to eat from just the outside rim, and ignore the middle. Our choice. Who but us chooses to stuff what down the pie hole? Who knew that grocery stores could be as insidious as the tree of knowledge only because it is a matter of personal choice? I personally grow about 30% of the food I eat. A matter of choice.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ludofl3x
i completely concur with EtrnlVw in #127, 128. No need to reiterate, except to add that faith and belief are two separate concepts. Faith is a hope for things which are not seen, but which are true. It demands our active participation to achieve eventual knowledge of truth so that faith is no longer required. Belief, on the other hand makes no such demands of participation. We can believe and do nothing about it. Nothing will come of it, either, but that is the choice between exercising faith and mere belief. Belief has no exercise to it. A baby, and even a young child is not capable of such distinction.
Created:
Posted in:
So we force people to wear the proper safety equipment to save lives.
It is still a matter of choice, isn't it? Just as the choice is there to use a weapon properly, or by our own whim. What's the difference? Our choice is the difference.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Yes, so who was cause of Darwin's loss of faith? God? Nope. His daughter? Nope. Darwin, alone, by his choice. Faith requires its exercise; jst like all other senses. Stop exercising, that skill is lost, just like refusing to see. We do, you know.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
proof: Do we have the sense of echo location? Do we have the sense of earth's magnetic field? Do we have the sense of exact location of blood vessels without seeing or touching them through skin? Do we have the sense of see beyond our limited spectrum of light, or hearing beyond our limited scope of sound? Touch of matter so gossamer-like, it has too delicate nature to touch? Yet other animals among us have these senses. Why not us? Do we merely lack the knowledge of how to apply them? Is itmerely a matter of lack of exercise in them. We are, after all, the paragon of animals, yet we fail in so many ways that are second nature to other animals.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
No, it is we who cannot think of how to properly choose our way through life. Gd has already been through this experience. It is why he is God, and we are just beginning the process of becoming like him. We're not there by a long shot, but it is a process we must endure.
Created:
Posted in:
he knows which designs are good and which are not.
Yes, but it's not as easy as that.The flaws of mortality are because of mortality, a process we must go through in order to become perfect. perfection is not an immediate, nor even an interim goal. Reaching perfection is the whole design conclusion of mortality, not its initiation. And, it is a mater of personal choice, not divine compulsion. If we are designed with perfection already intact, what is the purpose of mortality? If perfection is our state from the beginning of mortality, what purpose is there in having free agency; the God-given right to choose? After Adam is created at the conclusion of Genesis 1, and before he creates Eve, Adam is given charge to tend the Garden, and he is told by God that he may eat of every tree in Eden [Genesis 2: 16]. However, of one tree, that of the Tree of Knowledge, he may not freely eat; he is given the choice to do so, or not. It is the only tree in the garden that carries a condition on eating from it: "...for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." Adam is given a choice. There will be a dire consequence to eat of that tree before he has experienced mortality. Experience first, mortality. Experience first, dominion over the earth [Gen. 1: 26]. Then, only then, in that proper order, comes perfection. It is a goal to be accomplished, not a skill to be had immediately. IOt is accomplished by making correct choices. It is hindered by making poor choices. The Tree of Knowledge is the figurative representation of the proper order of mortal tasks toward perfection, not to be had all at once and from the beginning.
That's... "Why would God create flawed beings and then a subsequent process that goes through many iterations (some of which were defective) when he already knows what the end state — "perfection" as you put it — looks like?" Because God knows what that end state looks like and is, but man does not yet know. He must learn it, step by step, having both success and failure along the way. Hopefully, more and more success rather than more and more failure as we progress. It is a matter of our choice by free agency.
We complain that because God gave us free agency, there is misery in the world. But what misery is there that we, collectively, do not cause ourselves? War is our doing. God commanded us to love. Pestilence is our doing, God commanded us to be clean. Disease is our doing, by introducing things to our bodies we should not when God commanded a proper diet, such as avoiding the fruit of the tree of knowledge until we are ready and prepared to eat of it properly. Drinking, smoking, drugs, even fast food and all the rest. Does anyone force us to consume these things? Nope. Our choice. And such things introduce foreign matter into our bodies that do the body no good whatsoever. The CDC says that 60% of cancer and diabetes would be prevented just by our making better consuming choices. 80% of heart disease obliterated, just by making better choices. So, why do we blame God for our choices? Why do we blame God for these miseries and others? He is not the cause. We are by our own poor choices. Who knows by what miracles great storms would cease if we were more obedient to God's laws than slaves to our own petty choices? Want to be perfect? Then be perfect by making proper choices. Yes, it;'s hard. It was meant to be. Satan's path is the easy path, and the reward is like unto it. He is the counterfeit, not God.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
The biggest assumption is that the bible is in anyway a completely accurate record of anything.
Never made that assumption. I know it is not accurate. But then, not a jot of it was written by God, let alone translated by him.
embellished with a super-natural creation hypothesis and an associated godhead
As if only by the Hebrew culture. Curious that multiple cultures around the world, having no connection to ancient Hebrews, have similar respective creation motifs, even by cultures immediately proximate to Canaan. And many have their own holy writ; it is not exclusive to Judaism, or to Islam, but also Hindu, Asia, ancient Polynesia, Europe, etc. Do not discount them in your critique of Semitic cultures.
a day was a day
Yes, but a yom is not necessarily the equivalent of a day. And a full rotation of Earth is a sunrise to the next sunrise, not merely to sunset from the first rise. But even that changes once one considers perspectives of other planets of our solar system, so the Genesis perspective is not the only perspective.
Assumptions were and are made to substantiate illogical ideas
Are not scientific theories all assumptions before some are proven as evident truth? Therefore, all assumptions are not merely illogical ideas, for logic transcends known facts and even has navigation in the unknown, else we would never bridge the known to the unknown, continuously encroaching on it as theory becomes fact. Who are you to conclude, even for yourself, that God remains one of the illogics? The greatest sin is to limit God. Don't. You may personally believe he is myth, but are unwilling to admit that you just don't know, and further insist that knowledge comes only by the limitation of only the five senses. There are more, but if you choose to ignore them, that is your limitation, but not mine.
Creation and creator is a logical assumption for an evolutionist
Which cannot explain why Darwin edited On the Origin of Species fully six times; the first of which acknowledged a Creator, and the latter five did not. Seems he had a logical shift. Not even Darwin was certain of himself. So much for assumptions. You do it, too.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Never claimed they were,
Oh, but you did, as I quoted from your #51:
other measurements were kept in English translated units
the implication of which is that the terms I applied in my #53 are, by your statement, translated to English from another language. Nether cubit, nor shekel, nor talent [the latter also in reference, as shekel, to money] are English-originated words, but are transliterated, not "translated" directly from ancient [1] and mid-hebrew [2, 3]. The first translated-to-English Bible occurred in the 16th century by Wm. Tyndale, but that was from modern Hebrew and Greek, so already at least a lingual generation from mid- let alone ancient lexicons, which used the term Yom [in Hebrew] which is not a simple 24-hour period as we understand "day" today, as well as in the 16th century of English by Tyndale. You cannot assume words hold their meaning throughout the history of one lexicon, let alone more than one. Not to mention what changes in culture affect language, and the more so when considering multiple languages that do not share a culture, particularly over centuries and millennia.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Tradesecret
not until verse 3 that day is mentioned.
actually, the 5th verse. Longer time, still.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
other measurements were kept in English translated units
Are cubits, shekels, or talents, English units of measure? Nope.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
Yes, it matters. If you acknowledge evidence from just five senses, you're unnecessarily limiting potential knowledge of truth.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
If Darwinian evolution is impossible, why did Darwin, himself, acknowledge the "Creator" in his first edition "On the origin of Species" "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved." This is from his concluding paragraph.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
if it wasn't days, then the bible wouldn't have said days
Was the Torah originally written in English? Nope. Have a care to understand the ancient Hebrew, which has a longer perception of "day" [as translated poorly into English through several other languages] from then to now. Besides, the 24-hour day may not have existed until at least "day" 3, when Earth was first formed. Take nothing you read biblically verbatim. Just because the Bible is the most popular work in print does not imply that it is the most accurate work in print.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PressF4Respect
This is meant to directly contradict the notion of creationism, as God is supposed to be omniscient.
Do you always operate at 100%? No, you don 't have to do that. What makes you think God does? I saying that God in omniscient in no way implies that he must always act thereby. Tell me one thing about creation that was perfect. Nothing. However, the problem with the view that everything should have been perfect disregards that creation continues today, and Darwin admitted that. Evolution is the continuation of the extended creation event. Or, did you imagine that God created for 6 days, and rested, then retired?
Nope. Even survival of the fittest is a testament to the ongoing progress from imperfection to perfection. It's a process, not a single event.
Created:
Posted in:
I had a debate with Nevets in Mar/Apr this year on this very subject: https://www.debateart.com/debates/1822-genesis-creation-and-darwins-evolution-theory-co-cooperate
Curious that over a dozen of you are tickled by this posit, but only one [none of you and Dr. Spy hasn't been here for sevenmonths] bothered to vote.
My resolution sides with Jarrett's, and I concluded that Darwin's theory was compatible with Genesis, age of the universe notwithstanding. I oppose the typical Christian view that imposes a six-day creation. "Day" is not a clear concept of 24-hours in ancient Hebrew, anyway, and besides, Earth was not created until the third "day" and all of them may have been millions to billions of year each. A careful read of the O.T. will demonstrate that there are chronological gaps just in Genesis, so the 6,000-year existence popularized by 19th century Christianity is hogwash.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
Read it again and put an emphasis on senses.
Which senses? How many of them? Try to be specific; there's method in the madness.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
even if you got 60% success, you could save 10's, maybe hundreds of thousands of lives.
Yes, but in the case of gun control via modification of the 2A, your achievement is at the cost of limiting people from exercising their 2A who have no intention of, and will not break the law. The problem with limited freedom is that a few are benefited by the control of fewer still.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Yes, quantum mechanics states that, on a very, very tiny scale and for very, very, very short lengths of time, energy can be spontaneously be created and destroyed.
Nope. Observe: https://www.physicscentral.com/experiment/askaphysicist/physics-answer.cfm?uid=20120221015143
"The first law of thermodynamics doesn't actually specify that matter can neither be created nor destroyed, but instead that the total amount of energy in a closed system cannot be created nor destroyed (though it can be changed from one form to another). It was after nuclear physics told us that mass and energy are essentially equivalent - this is what Einstein meant when he wrote E= mc^2 - that we realized the 1st law of thermodynamics also applied to mass. Mass became another form of energy that had to be included in a thorough thermodynamic treatment of a system. (For a very important note on the difference between matter and mass, see here: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/equivME/#2.1).
"The first thing we have to do is determine what a "closed system" is. When we look at a physical situation and draw an imaginary circle around it, we're defining a system. A refrigerator, for example, can be a thermodynamical system. But once we've specified that the system is closed, it means that everything inside the system at that moment - the total amount of energy, be it potential energy (mass can be thought of as a kind of potential energy) or kinetic energy or both - must stay at that same, constant level."
Observe that a "closed system" is an imaginary construct: "draw an imaginary circle." So, if imaginary, draw a circle around the universe. Then apply Clausius' first law of thermodynamics, and it still stipulates that matter and energy cannot be created nor destroyed, but merely transferred one to the other. The dialog continues:
"Now, there's a slight hitch in what we've said so far, and that's quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics states that, on a very, very tiny scale and for very, very, very short lengths of time, energy can be spontaneously be created and destroyed. Kind of like boiling water, where bubbles spontaneously appear and burst, energy - in the form of particles - can spontaneously appear from the void of spacetime, exist for a tremendously short amount of time, and disappear again."
The bubbles do not appear out of nothing; they appear as heated, vaporized pockets of air [matter]. They enlarge, rise to the surface, and burst, releasing an equivalent mass of energy. No magic, nor matter destroyed, and not even quantum mechanics. But it is "kind of like" the first law of thermodynamics: transference from matter to energy with nothing lost, nothing gained, just as the law states in a closed system [a pan of boiling water].
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Fact is verification of truth of what is known and via observation i.e. sensorial only or via instrumentation that may confirmed what is observed by the senses.
Observed by how many senses? And do you limit "senses" to the strict five we appear to have, even though there is indication that there are more than five? Why impose a limit when there may be no limit?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
For English, I accept definitions as given by THE standard of the English language: the OED, unabridged, which I own in 20 volumes; the most complete and unabridged dictionary of the lexicon because it is the only dictionary that offers a complete historic etymology of all words, and not just their current:
Truth: A. n.
I. Loyalty, faithfulness, etc.; cf. troth n. I.
1. The quality or character of being true to a person, principle, cause, etc.; steadfast allegiance; faithfulness, fidelity, loyalty, constancy. In later use only with to. Now somewhat rare.
II. Something that conforms with fact or reality.
5.
a. True statement; report or account which is in accordance with fact or reality. Chiefly in to tell (also speak, say) the truth (also (now archaic) without the): to speak truly, to report the matter as it really is;
Fact: A. n.
I. Senses relating primarily to action.
1. An action, a deed, a course of conduct; (formerly also occasionally) †an effect, a result. Also as a mass noun: action, deeds, as opposed to words. Now somewhat rare.
II. Senses relating primarily to truth.
6. Law.
a. The sum of circumstances and incidents of a case, looked at apart from their legal bearing.
b. In plural with the same sense. Also: items of information used or usable as evidence.
There for facts exist irrespective of unknowns (unknowns do not apply). Correct?
No, not correct. Both truth and fact, as I earlier demonstrated, as represented by my reference to "geocentrism," and "heliocentrism," were, after all, merely beliefs, and not truth or facts. The truth and/or fact of the galaxy, and the universe at large, is something entirely different than either description, which never were truth or fact. The truth is, and always was, some other form, even though at their separate times of belief, unknown at the time. There is nothing in either definition declaring that truth and fact must be known to be truth and fact, because "reality" obviously includes what is unknown. Tell me, for example, that we known everything about clouds [we don't] though we see the evidence [truth and/or fact] of them virtually daily.
And,
there for
is: therefore, not "ther for."
Try again, my friend. Someday, you'll get it right..
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
It’s almost as if you’re refuting your own claim.
Go ahead and ask again. The answer will be the same. There are facts not yet in evidence among things which are unknown. How do I demonstrate that which is unknown? As I said, it's self-evident. If something is known, it is known to be fact, or it is folly. the unknown has no such distinction. Therefore, it cannot be demonstrated. But the fact remains that among things unknown there are facts. Otherwise, the joke that the Patent Office pulled in 1899 that the office would close as of 1900 because all things had already been invented would have been a sad truth.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
So you want to use objective correlative
All that precedes this comment is descriptive of the current chaos of the human brain. It will not always be so just because that is currently descriptive. When it is perfectly organized, as all things must ultimately be, then currency no longer endures as is. Eternity is a such a long time, it is no longer measured by a clock. There will be no clock. Perfection is the ultimate consequence. Then, your descriptive is no longer and all is restored to its perfection.
As conceived by Washington Allston? No, and not even as further explored by TS Eliot, or George Santayana. No, as perceived by Ani, the resilient scribe of The Egyptian Book of the Dead, on scrolled papyrus in the nineteenth new kingdom dynasty [13th century BCE], transliterated from temple wall texts dating from old kingdom 27th century BCE], in which languages I am fluent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Your argument of logical necessity is merely a convenient personal limitation to prevent the personal stretch of what you do not believe because you cannot empirically demonstrate what you do not believe. But who said you are limited to only five senses to demonstrate logical and necessary evidence? Argue for your limitations; they're yours.
If I have forgotten anything? Premature questions are kind of like premature efactulation. Patience. All will be restored in due time, but not by your clock.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
Your question assumes all unknowns are counterintuitive. Merely by my reference to geo- and heliocentrism, you are shown two cases of unknowns that were intuitive once known; intuitively false. How would you know about other unknowns unless they are not unknown? Unknown means, well, isn't it self-evident? Don't ask me. Ask Someone for whom there are no unknowns. I'll wager, however, that He will not be revealing just for the asking. You've got to demonstrate a purpose in knowing, and a surety that you will accept what you are told, or mysteries remain such. However, in the argument, you must still allow for them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
#21: So, your disbelief in God is only because you cannot, by empiric proof, tell us where He is? See #22.
#22: Aristotle's Modes of Persuasion are cooperative, not combative. See #23.
#23: Ask me in one thousand years. See #24.
#24: The title of your reference: "We change our memories each time we recall them, but that doesn’t mean we’re lying" See #21.
It is all one eternal round.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
Those are not the same thing. One means that legislation cannot limit human behavior. The other is that legislation is not 100% effective at limiting human behavior.
One statement says, "...legislation cannot limit human behavior. " If it's less than 100% effective in limiting behavior, which the second phrase stipulates regarding the first, then human behavior cannot be 100% controlled, which is the aim of legislation. However, creation of a penal system says that one branch of the government [the executive, via the justice department] does not believe the legislative branch is totally successful, or it would not have a penal system in place.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
It is impossible to recall a memory without changing it.
Nope. "The process that mediates this time-dependent stabilization of memory is known as consolidation.4 The duration and anatomy of the consolidation process still is not fully understood. Clinical studies of people who have had brain traumas, stroke, seizure, or even removal of brain tissue because of untreatable pathological conditions have revealed that memory consolidation takes weeks to years and occurs while the information is processed by the part of the brain known as the medial temporal lobe. However, once a memory has been consolidated, information storage seems to involve brain regions other than the temporal lobe, particularly cortical areas."
Your statement is more true with traumatic experience memory because we are wired to want to forget these experiences, and do. But it is not true with pleasant experiences as the referenced article goes on to explain.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
our memories, which are presumed to be permanently recorded in the brain
That, my friend, is known fact. No presumption.
Memory is not like a DVR that can play back the past on a screen in your mind.
Oh, but they are. In fact, every recall of a memory creates a new neural path for it, strengthening the memory. Then there 's a process called the "objective correlative." That utterly refutes your comment that
long-term memories are stored statically.
if the brain is starved of oxygen-rich blood, the neurons die, along with the memories stored therein.
"It was widely believed that brain cells undergo rapid—and irreversible—degeneration immediately after death. But a striking new study, published Wednesday in Nature, suggests that much functionality can be preserved or restored—even hours after death."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Not necessarily.All we can say, "for a fact" is that energy is apparently indestructible.
Do you want to read Clausius' first law of thermodynamics, which is accepted science, or maintain your jaded opinion? Try a little research.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
NOBODY is making that claim.
Somebody is:
The specific location of the "objective" "center" of "the (knowable) cosmos" is NOT empirically verifiable and or logically-necessary.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
Could you please give me an example of one of your counterintuitive facts?
Counterintuitive? Re-read my #4. That's not counterintuitive, that's just plain facts. Geocentrism was a scientific belief prior to the 16th century. Heliocentrism was a scientific belief into the 19th century, but utterly faded in the 20th. Counterintuitive? Not bloody likely. Of course, you may still believe the flat earth for all I know.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
New York is implementing
As if churches cannot prepare the same exact precautions?
lol that is just obviously not true.
It is not true that legislation cannot impose behavior? None so blind... they say. The prisons are full of people who are not deterred by the risk of capture, indictment, trial and conviction for criminal behavior. Therefore, legislation is not ever 100% effective in prevention. Laugh all you like. You laugh at yourself, which is why I maintaqin that lol = frightened little girl. They laugh, just like that.
If people weren't idiots or assholes about this
Thank yo making my point
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Checkmate
Nor do I. Sorry you think I do, but, your beliefs are your limitations, not mine. I have my own, thanks.
Created:
Posted in:
The proposal Checkmate makes that either a person believes in God, or will burn in hell, leaves a huge field of potential that is left unsaid. Are those the only two choices available? No. Mere belief is not so powerful. In fact, belief does not compel one to action at all. Belief is that weak. Therefore, the matter of belief cannot determine whether or not a person burns in hell for simple belief. What one believes can change with the direction of the wind. What if, otherwise, a person lives an exemplary life, kind and good to all, grateful for their contribution to his/her life. No, that person who may also not believe in God is not going to hell. In fact, the assumption of that kind of good character shows its a personal decision to be that good, and not because they want to avoid hell. I advised my children that, though I know God exists, I wanted them to find out for themselves, because I cannot force their beliefs or their knowledge. I will encourage, I showed my children exactly how I came to know, but I told them that knowledge is a personal journey each must make for themselves, and not because of anyone else.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Theweakeredge
Fine, but your point that abortion is amoral is a bit rich considering that abortion is not a social decision, but an individual decision, therefore, morality is obviously not a factor, except that it is such a controversial subject that will always be controversial.
Created:
Posted in:
I've watched this string with interest because it is a matter on which I've just finished a debate, and is now in voting. Bump, by the way. Frst, I'll mention that although Edge began the string claiming indifference to the argument, that position changed in the #3 post, and forward by introducing a distinction between morality and ethics. There is a difference. Morality is a social construct, ethics are the purview of individuals. Their respective Latin and Greek roots are evidence of that.
That said, it appears abortion requires a number of assumptions to justify either the morality or the ethics.
1. Life does not begin at conception.
2. The fetus is not human, nor a person.
3. Therefore, abortion is not murder.
I'll address each in order:
1. Life does not begin at conception. However, the ignored point is that life never begins in the first place; it is evident prior to conception, and even prior to coitus because the male and female gametes, themselves, are living organisms of 23 chromosomes, each. The fact that they become one complete 46-chromosome individual [or more], does not change the "living condition." Life continues from two separate individuals to that unified in conception.
2. The separate gametes represent nothing but 50% of human DNA, and of no other creature. The conception by gametes' unification creates nothing but one [or more] creatures comprised of human DNA and nothing else. A person is defined as a human being. As that human begins as human, and nothing else, it follows that it maintains its existence as human throughout fetal development. through birth, and beyond. It therefore meets the definition of "person."
3. Since the gametes/zygote/embryo/fetus is human, therefore a person, though unborn, it bears the rights granted to any other born person, or it should. In fact, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 certifies that violence leading to the death of a pregnant woman carries two charges of murder; one for the unborn. Murder is a legal term for the willful death of a human, and no other animal.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Checkmate
maybe he won't keep us awake.
Sorry that you let TS keep you awake at night. Can't control yourself, by yourself? Pity. That's not a great admission, but that's what you've said. Be yourself, everyone else is taken.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
The specific location of the "objective" "center" of "the (knowable) cosmos" is NOT empirically verifiable and or logically-necessary.
That center may, in fact, be unknown. As I said, such an objective center may not be known by empirical verification, and may not be logically necessary, but that does not result in a correct belief that the center is, therefore, not extant. See my reply to Reece101 in my #8.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
Unknowns must also apply because of Clausius' First Law of Thermodynamics which concludes, in one respect, that matter and energy have always existed, i.e. were not created, because matter and energy cannot be created, but merely transformed one to the other. Therefore, it is a "fact" they always existed, even if only in a form of chaos and not organized matter and energy. Their existence verified, or not, always was. They did not begin to exist only when Clausius understood the science behind his law, or, in other words, just because we were ignorant of the natural laws of thermodynamics did not mean those laws, and there effects, did not exist before they were discovered, which is why facts exist regardless of our understanding, perception, and proof of them. And Einstein's E=MC^2 was just further evidence of Clausius. Therefore, just because we do not have empirical proof of a fact does not negate it. We just do not see it, yet. Tell me, otherwise, how you have memories [energy, if you want to know the truth of their nature], of which you have not the slightest proof but to yourself. Are you going to deny your memories are facts?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
I need not ask anyone anything, and I object to your insistence that it is my obligation. I'm merely saying that such decisions are clearly not made on the basis of a scientific principle, not to mention that no legislation can successfully limit human behavior. It can try, but it will, by percentage, fail. I'll further advise that, as Madison, said, if men we angels, we'd need no government, because we would already have learned that by conduct of correct principles, we can govern ourselves without need of the institution.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Reece101
A fact by definition is evidence based (proven to be true).What’s the point of a fact if it isn’t verified?I don’t know why you’re so agitated.
Prior to the 16th century, "fact" said the universe was geocentric, and all the known evidence pointed to that condition as "fact." But it wasn't, was it? Heliocentrism became "fact." But that's not fact, either, now, is it? Therefore, your "fact by definition" is NOT correct, and that is not what my OED defines "fact" as, anyway.
Therefore, "fact" does not depend on verification, regardless of your claim, or we would still be in a mode of geocentric belief because eyes-only verification would still insist on proving geocentrism is the correct model of the universe. Facts exist regardless of our ability of verification. Otherwise, there woud be no unknowns, and that is clearly not the case, as your third statement reveals.
The point of a fact is that it is true. Is it dependent on our ability to detect it, demonstrate it, and , therefore, prove it? No.
Your lack of knowledge regarding my agitation is, therefore, merely yours, isn't it? But it does not make it a fact. Your observation is merely insufficient, like our former belief as fact that the universe is geocentric.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
A FACT must be empirically demonstrable and or logically-necessary QUANTA (and emotionally meaningless).
No, facts exist independent of whether they can be empirically demonstrated, or even logically necessary. That we cannot devise a method to demonstrate some empirical evidence does not affect whether an unknown, or even a posit is true, or not. It merely remains unproven, but can still be true. If we accept that empiric evidence is demonstrated when it can be reliably repeated by use of our five known senses, one by one, or in combination, must we necessarily accept being limited only by those five senses and not more, such as other animals, and even plants demonstrate? What if there is evidence obtained by a sense humans do not recognize as a valid sense that can transmit the necessary evidence needed to demonstrate fact? If a fact can be demonstrated by an unrecognized, yet extant sixth or seventh sense, or nth sense, is it an invalid detection, and, therefore, not a fact? No. Otherwise, one must distrust the evidence shown by senses 1 - 5, as well. Your yellow robot tells us that well enough.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dustryder
So, the science that says Nevada can have gatherings in casinos but not in churches is what? The so-called science that says you can pay money to clean the clouds?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Oh? The Bible is the only source? How utterly self-limiting.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Since when is a citation necessary for a comment beginning with "I think?" Kind of makes it obvious that it's a personal opinion and not necessary a statement of fact needing a citation. Or if you insist, the citation is: https://www.amazon.com/Road-Taken-Richard-Heket-ebook/dp/B075X29FSP/ref=sr_1_15?dchild=1&keywords=richard+heket&qid=1606426158&s=books&sr=1-15
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgmi
I did some extended research on the idea of congressional term limits and discovered, to my surprise, ;that even without term limits, the average congressional service since 1950 is ten years, so it appears the the great majority of those in Congress leave of their own accord within a reasonable period of time. Yes, there are a few outliers who spend a career and more, but they are a small minority. Unfortunately, it tends to be the ones who should be limited, and I blame their constituents for not just voting them out when they've obviously continued running when they're too flagged to work.
Created: