- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Is there a secular argument against abortions?
Posted on 5/4/17 at 3:51 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
Posted on 5/4/17 at 3:51 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:I know what you're doing but I'm not pulling something out of thin air, here. I've got a worldview based on the Bible which claims to be revelation from God, who classifies as an objective moral law giver based on His description in the Bible. You aren't providing any concrete basis for an objective moral law giver and at this point are turning a serious philosophical discussion into a parody.
OK, then let's say we have objective morality that doesn't come from your god. "I don't know" is where it comes from. There, now we each have an equal claim to objective morality.
If you'll concede that the existence of God as He's described in the Bible provides for an authoritative basis for objective morality, we can discuss the merits of objectivity versus subjectivity within a moral framework.
1
Posted on 5/4/17 at 3:59 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
I've got a worldview based on the Bible
Written by primitive men thousands of years ago. You have no more objectivity than anything I'd offer.
quote:
You aren't providing any concrete basis for an objective moral law giver
Neither are you. That's the point.
quote:
If you'll concede that the existence of God as He's described in the Bible provides for an authoritative basis for objective morality, we can discuss the merits of objectivity versus subjectivity within a moral framework.
Concede that "I don't know" is as relevant to that point as the existence of your god, and I'm happy to.
Posted on 5/4/17 at 4:03 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:Would you care to officially specify the composition of your worldview? What are your fundamental assumptions that develop your understanding of the world we live in? I assume from previous discussions that you buy into evolutionary theory based on a naturalistic view of the world. I suppose you deny the existence of the supernatural and anything that is not part of the material world. I'm not sure what your religious views are but I would assume you are a secular humanist who believes humanity reaching its potential is the ultimate goal of life.
Incorrect, insofar as you accept your own worldview.
None of that allows for an objective standard for morality. If you believe differently, please fill me in so we can discuss how your thoughts on morality align with your stated worldview.
quote:Not very helpful when you assert the possibility of an objective moral standard without even a hint of how that could be. You might disagree with the basis for my worldview but at least I have a cogent argument to give. I'm not sure but I think you're trolling now.
"I don't know."
quote:Such as?
No, they don't. It could come from anything.
quote:I had to google him as I haven't heard of him before, which is probably a fault on my part, but no, I'm not a fan of his. Thank you for clarifying.
William Lane Craig.
Posted on 5/4/17 at 4:12 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:It's amazing how insightful it is concerning it was written by "primitive men". Regardless, it claims to be given under the inspiration of God, meaning that its truth transcends whatever primitiveness existed in those men (which isn't much, considering they faced the same general problems we do and wrestled with the same sins we do). And, if that is true that the words, themselves, were inspired by God and thus are as good as if God penned the words with His own finger, then any argument about the human authors is irrelevant. The message, therefore, is what is important and what is the basis for the objectivity, not the humans who put pen to papyrus.
Written by primitive men thousands of years ago. You have no more objectivity than anything I'd offer.
quote:But I have. You don't have to believe it but you can't deny that if it's true, it is most certainly a concrete basis for objectivity, and that's the point I'm trying to make. You aren't providing anything other than contrarianism.
Neither are you. That's the point.
quote:It's not relevant.
Concede that "I don't know" is as relevant to that point as the existence of your god, and I'm happy to.
If you refuse to concede because I won't agree to your nonsensical statements and not because of the rationality of what I have proposed, then you are irrational. If you are willing to concede for the sake of catching me in some sort of argumentative trick, then you are insincere. Either way, you're making a mockery of this discussion at this point.
Posted on 5/4/17 at 4:12 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Would you care to officially specify the composition of your worldview?
"I don't know."
I think it's quite a leap for anyone to claim objective moral authority from any source.
quote:
Not very helpful when you assert the possibility of an objective moral standard without even a hint of how that could be.
No, it's more than sufficient relative to what you offer. Not that long ago, we didn't understand why something we tossed in the air came back down, and look at us now. "I don't know" is perfectly acceptable in this discussion.
quote:
Such as?
"I don't know."
quote:
I'm not a fan of his.
Then y'all have many common sources, because you have several arguments that mirror his.
Posted on 5/4/17 at 4:18 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
It's amazing how insightful it is concerning it was written by "primitive men".
I think the Bible is a great piece of literature. You take primitive to mean something it doesn't mean. That doesn't mean it holds any objectivity. It gets quite a bit wrong to coincide with all of that insight. Insight from the minds of men.
quote:
claims
Sure, but that's irrelevant.
quote:
You don't have to believe it but you can't deny that if it's true, it is most certainly a concrete basis for objectivity, and that's the point I'm trying to make.
Right, and in that case, my basis is just as likely to be correct. You cannot rationally accept one possibility without accepting the other.
quote:
It's not relevant.
It certainly is. You don't like it, but that's not important.
Posted on 5/4/17 at 4:24 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:...other than from God? If God is who the Bible claims He is, He would seem to be a good source of an objective morality from humanity's perspective.
"I don't know."
I think it's quite a leap for anyone to claim objective moral authority from any source.
quote:Of course it is not acceptable. You are trying to equate natural law with moral law, the same mistake another poster made earlier in this thread. They aren't the same thing and cannot be measured the same way. "I don't know" isn't just insufficient to this discussion but it's inconsistent with whatever worldview you hold to, which you haven't described yet that I'm aware of.
No, it's more than sufficient relative to what you offer. Not that long ago, we didn't understand why something we tossed in the air came back down, and look at us now. "I don't know" is perfectly acceptable in this discussion.
quote:This is the inevitable point in the discussion where you continue to respond because you don't want to look like a quitter but you refuse to offer anything of substance. It seems that our discourse is coming to an end. We'll see if you offer anything else to respond to.
"I don't know."
quote:I apply laws of logic to my Biblical worldview to come up with these arguments. Many other Christian apologists use the same arguments because they are rational, reasonable, and make sense in light of the world we live in and the Bible we believe in. If he argues from the same starting points it makes sense that we would have the same conclusions.
Then y'all have many common sources, because you have several arguments that mirror his.
Posted on 5/4/17 at 4:34 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:Again, if the Bible does provide the truth as revealed by God, then yes, it could and would hold objectivity because the human authors are irrelevant if guarded by God as to not provide error. If you want to talk about errors, you can start that thread that I asked about previously. You seem concerned with showing how the Bible isn't trustworthy so please demonstrate it.
I think the Bible is a great piece of literature. You take primitive to mean something it doesn't mean. That doesn't mean it holds any objectivity. It gets quite a bit wrong to coincide with all of that insight. Insight from the minds of men.
quote:Your claims aren't relevant because you don't substantiate them. Not even that, you don't even provide anything concrete in your claims. You've resorted to the absurdity of using "I don't know" as a philosophical defense of your worldview because you think it's a clever refutation of the claim of God.
Sure, but that's irrelevant.
quote:Not all claims hold the same weight. You have to provide a reason for why "I don't know" should be acceptable to me or to anyone else and you haven't done that. I have provided a rational explanation of how an objective morality can exist in my worldview but you haven't provided a rational explanation of how objective morality can exist in yours.
Right, and in that case, my basis is just as likely to be correct. You cannot rationally accept one possibility without accepting the other.
quote:It's not relevant because you haven't offered up anything. You haven't put together a thought and presented a rational reason for why it should be accepted. You have just declared that no reason at all holds the same weight as the existence of an objective law giver in God, which philosophers throughout history have wrestled with due to question of morality. You are being trite with a serious topic. If you'd like me to give you the last word and end this farce, let me know, because you have left the realm of serious discussion.
It certainly is. You don't like it, but that's not important.
Posted on 5/4/17 at 4:41 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
...other than from God? If God is who the Bible claims He is, He would seem to be a good source of an objective morality from humanity's perspective.
If "I don't know" provides us with objective morality, that would also seem to be a good source.
quote:
You are trying to equate natural law with moral law, the same mistake another poster made earlier in this thread.
Incorrect. I'm equating our lack of understanding and knowledge with our lack of understanding and knowledge.
quote:
This is the inevitable point in the discussion where you continue to respond because you don't want to look like a quitter but you refuse to offer anything of substance.
Nope, this is the point in the discussion where we don't agree. Your views are not verifiable and cannot be any more objective than mine. You want to be able to use "ifs," but it falls apart when the opposition does so.
You don't like that I won't concede a point you haven't won, so you pass it off to "nothing else to offer."
I don't care about the last word, but I won't let certain things go unaddressed. Feel free to move on, as always.
quote:
Many other Christian apologists
Indeed, and this is why they're easily defeated in rational discourse.
Posted on 5/4/17 at 4:47 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
If you want to talk about errors, you can start that thread that I asked about previously.
I already invited you to do so. I'm not starting it because I'm not the one with a position to defend.
quote:
Not even that, you don't even provide anything concrete in your claims.
Neither do you. Again, that's the whole point of this.
quote:
Not all claims hold the same weight.
They do when they can be equally proven.
quote:
It's not relevant because you haven't offered up anything.
Sure I have. Your god cannot give objective morality any more than anything else based on what we know.
Posted on 5/4/17 at 4:49 pm to Blob Fish
If you criminalize abortions, how would you penalize those who break the law (physicians & staff, social workers, patients, consenting fathers, etc) ?
Posted on 5/4/17 at 5:08 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:"I don't know" is not an argument or even a guess. It's nothing. You are making light of a hotly debated topic that is as old as the study of philosophy if not as old as mankind.
If "I don't know" provides us with objective morality, that would also seem to be a good source
quote:Your comparison is off because you are trying to treat philosophy like the natural sciences when they don't operate the same way.
Incorrect. I'm equating our lack of understanding and knowledge with our lack of understanding and knowledge.
quote:That point was reached from the first post. Instead of continuing in philosophical discourse, you have resorted to irrationality and accuse me of the same, which is not true.
Nope, this is the point in the discussion where we don't agree.
quote:My views are based on both the Bible and philosophy; I'm using the laws of logic in my reasoning and those are not being refuted by you or anyone else.
Your views are not verifiable and cannot be any more objective than mine.
quote:I'm providing a very specific "what if" for the sake of argument, but I believe it is reality and truth, not just a what if. You haven't provided anything specific. You haven't provided a competing idea or argument. You have provided "I don't know" in a serious philosophical discussion. Nothing I have said has fallen apart yet because there hasn't been a serious rebuttal provided.
You want to be able to use "ifs," but it falls apart when the opposition does so.
quote:You haven't provided anything else. You've provided a farcical "I don't know" as a legitimate comparison to a specific philosophical argument. I claim the existence of an omniscient, unchanging God that has provided an objective moral standard and you equate that with "I don't know". It's as if you don't understand we are talking philosophically.
You don't like that I won't concede a point you haven't won, so you pass it off to "nothing else to offer."
quote:You have left a lot unaddressed so I don't buy that statement. The responses you are giving are short, unclear, lacking specifics, and borderline juvenile considering the topic we're discussing.
I don't care about the last word, but I won't let certain things go unaddressed. Feel free to move on
quote:That's simply not true. I'm a complete amateur at apologetics yet you have to devolve into the absurd because you leave so much of what I have said unanswered.
Indeed, and this is why they're easily defeated in rational discourse.
This post was edited on 5/4/17 at 5:11 pm
Posted on 5/4/17 at 5:17 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:Everyone has a position to defend. You just haven't been honest about yours. I'm not interested in starting a discussion about biblical inerrancy but I'll participate in one if you'd like. I only mentioned that in this thread because that is where the discussion was going when no one was agreeing to my initial premise. I already discussed why it was futile to delve into that discussion here until the broader question was answered.
I already invited you to do so. I'm not starting it because I'm not the one with a position to defend.
quote:I've provided philosophical answers to philosophical questions. You have provided "I don't know".
Neither do you. Again, that's the whole point of this.
quote:If you'd like to provide a philosophical argument to "I don't know", go ahead. I've already done so for what I believe. I've already done more than you're willing to do.
They do when they can be equally proven
quote:Apparently I know more than you do since I accept a source document for God and accept the philosophical necessity of God that you seem to not have put much thought into. The world that we know requires the God of the Bible in order to be sensible. Philosophers throughout the ages have pondered on this topic, yet those brilliant minds seem to have been defeated by "I don't know". I wonder why they even tried.
Sure I have. Your god cannot give objective morality any more than anything else based on what we know.
Posted on 5/4/17 at 5:18 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
"I don't know" is not an argument or even a guess.
Correct, it's a point, not an argument and certainly not a guess.
quote:
Your comparison is off because you are trying to treat philosophy like the natural sciences when they don't operate the same way.
Wrong. There is commonality that is sufficient for my point.
quote:
Instead of continuing in philosophical discourse
Your continued insistence that only your god could provide objective morality shows that you have no interest in that.
quote:
the Bible
I'm aware, and this is your biggest issue.
quote:
You haven't provided anything specific. You haven't provided a competing idea or argument.
I don't need to. You want to pull me into your mythology to make your point, because it doesn't work otherwise. I won't allow it, and I don't care if that bothers you.
quote:
I claim the existence of an omniscient, unchanging God that has provided an objective moral standard and you equate that with "I don't know".
Correct, and one is as likely as the other.
quote:
You have left a lot unaddressed so I don't buy that statement.
We've had this conversation before. Do we really need to do it again?
quote:
That's simply not true.
It is. Much better than I have done it over and over again.
Posted on 5/4/17 at 5:22 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Everyone has a position to defend.
Nope. I don't care if you agree with me. You need me to agree with you. Don't try to equate that.
quote:
I've already done so for what I believe.
And it's no more effective than anything I've offered.
quote:
Apparently I know more than you do since I accept a source document for God and accept the philosophical necessity of God that you seem to not have put much thought into.
That isn't knowledge. That's faith.
Posted on 5/4/17 at 5:33 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:Whatever you call it is not sufficient for this discussion. If "I don't know" was a salient point in order to rebut any arguments for the existence of God, it would have received more treatment by the philosophers throughout history.
Correct, it's a point, not an argument and certainly not a guess.
quote:You are trying to compare apples to oranges, like the other poster did earlier in the thread. You want to falsify an idea which cannot be done. You can certainly falsify expected results of an idea, but that hasn't been attempted here.
Wrong. There is commonality that is sufficient for my point
quote:I have put forth a philosophical argument and you claim that it is on part with "I don't know". You haven't offered any defense of your statement as I have or backed up what "I don't know" could even look like in relation to this argument.
Your continued insistence that only your god could provide objective morality shows that you have no interest in that.
quote:I don't believe it is, but even if you're correct, it offers a concrete starting point for what an objective moral law giver would look like. Secularism has no version of "God" that could do the same thing, which has been my point all along.
I'm aware, and this is your biggest issue.
quote:I'm not trying to pull you into anything but an actual discussion of ideas. You are not providing any of your own, just saying that I'm wrong and that "I don't know" is an acceptable rebuttal. I said previously that don't have to believe the Bible is true in order to grant that the God of the Bible would be an objective moral law giver. My argument doesn't require your belief in the Bible as you seem to think.
I don't need to. You want to pull me into your mythology to make your point, because it doesn't work otherwise. I won't allow it, and I don't care if that bothers you.
quote:There are several philosophical arguments for the existence of God. How many are there for the existence of "I don't know"?
Correct, and one is as likely as the other
quote:Apparently so, since you cherry-pick what you want to discuss while not providing any real answer to what you are addressing.
We've had this conversation before. Do we really need to do it again?
quote:Care to provide an example of this? I'm worried that you're slipping into delusion.
It is. Much better than I have done it over and over again.
Posted on 5/4/17 at 5:38 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:I don't need you to agree with me. Rational discourse requires rational arguments. You haven't provided that.
Nope. I don't care if you agree with me. You need me to agree with you. Don't try to equate that.
quote:Perhaps not more effective to you than anything you've offered, but I'm using reason and logic. You are sticking to "I don't know".
And it's no more effective than anything I've offered.
quote:Everything in this world is taken on faith to one degree or another, even the belief that the laws of causality and non-contradiction are unchanging. Those are the basis for everything we think we know in this world. You are still wanting to take on the subject of philosophy the same way you approach natural sciences. You want empirical evidence for a philosophical assertion when philosophy relies on the laws of logic.
That isn't knowledge. That's faith
Posted on 5/4/17 at 6:40 pm to Blob Fish
Abortion denies an innocent human their right to life.
Birth control (except IUDs-obviously) should be sold OTC.
I think less of people who support abortion.
Birth control (except IUDs-obviously) should be sold OTC.
I think less of people who support abortion.
Posted on 5/4/17 at 7:45 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
Whatever you call it is not sufficient for this discussion.
Yes, it is.
quote:
If "I don't know" was a salient point in order to rebut any arguments for the existence of God, it would have received more treatment by the philosophers throughout history.
Then it's a good thing we aren't discussing that.
quote:
You want to falsify an idea which cannot be done.
Nope, that's not what I'm doing.
quote:
you claim that it is on part with "I don't know".
Because it is.
quote:
Secularism has no version of "God" that could do the same thing, which has been my point all along.
It doesn't have to be a version of your god. It could literally be anything, and it'd carry as much weight as your position.
quote:
I'm not trying to pull you into anything
Yes, you are and it isn't limited to this thread or topic.
quote:
How many are there for the existence of "I don't know"?
Several.
quote:
you cherry-pick
Correct. I'll discuss what I like. If that bothers you, you're free to discuss those other things with someone else.
quote:
Care to provide an example of this?
Of apologists getting picked apart? You could probably watch any debate Sam Harris has been involved with for that.
Posted on 5/4/17 at 7:48 pm to FooManChoo
quote:
I don't need you to agree with me.
Your previous statements about the responsibilities your religion places on you indicate otherwise.
quote:
I'm using reason and logic.
Until you concede the point, this is not true.
quote:
Everything in this world is taken on faith to one degree or another
This is completely false.
Page 16 of 16
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News