Look, I’m bored now, so I’ll just state the obvious one more time and leave it at that.

My language is blunt; it’s no wonder you don’t like it, because what you’re doing is justifying the killing of unborn children, so it helps you to veil this fact with softer words. The reasons for your belief seem crude: life sucks, what’s the point?, etc.

I’d say a society which values and respects the lives of its members, especially the weak and defenceless, is better than one which does not. It will be safer, kinder, and happier - at least in my view; doesn’t seem too controversial to me. But you, of course, can believe what you want.

The killing of unborn children is an emotive issue. So what if there are unsuccessful pregnancies? How does that make any difference to the fact that it is wrong to kill (as if using the word ‘kill’ makes it any better) children? The answer, so that you don’t have to think about it, is it doesn’t. It’s not about souls and spirits; it’s about valuing and having respect for the lives of others, especially if they’re weak and defenceless.

Let's be clear then. A person has dignity in virtue of their sentience, emotion, affection, physical health, appetite and rationality. It does not admit of degrees; there is no scale of dignity.

And a blastocyst is not a person. — Banno

OK, so how many of those attributes and to what degree does someone need them before they get their Dignity Card? And what about those without theirs? Are they fair game?

It’s not self-conscious and rational if that’s what you mean, but will become so unless interrupted by violence.

I’m not talking about pigs or apples. I’m talking about innocent, defenceless, human life. Innocent because it has done no wrong; defenceless because it cannot defend itself against violence; human because it is human; a life because it is alive. Destroying such a life because you’d rather not take care of it (which would be an inconvenience) is wrong. Destroying it because Andrew4Handel thinks it would be better off dead, is also wrong.

If you say so. I’m going off what you’ve been saying.

You’re outlining a moral code that favours the strong and healthy over the weak and defenceless, and your response to opposition is an accusation of misogyny?

A lot of people live perfectly good lives. The majority of people love their children, planned or not.

On a moral code of any worth, destroying an innocent human life because you find it convenient to do so is wrong, even if life isn’t always great.

As that cluster of cells develops, it grows in its ability to express sentience, emotion, affection, physical health, appetite and rationality. It grows in its entitlement to be treated with dignity. — Banno

So on your moral code murdering an adult is less acceptable that murdering a new born baby?

People also have abortions simply because they do not want the child, and so an innocent human life is destroyed because it suits someone else’s plans.

I take the view that destroying innocent human life because we find it convenient to do so is wrong. If that lacks nuance then so be it.
— AJJ

Well this doesn't apply to abortion. — Andrew4Handel

It is a life, it is human, it is innocent. It is most often destroyed simply because it is unwanted.

I take the view that destroying innocent human life because we find it convenient to do so is wrong. If that lacks nuance then so be it.

No more replies to any of this now from me.

He does, because of everything I’ve already said.

No, because of everything I’ve already said.

He’s necessary, which means that He can’t not exist. Through various logical steps, and I’ve tried to demonstrate some of those as well as I can, He is shown to be the necessary source of the universe.

Settle down everyone, you don’t have to believe it if you don’t want to. I’m out.

Graham Oppy is a distinguished atheist philosopher of religion, don’t know how well known he is, but he simply believes that there is a necessary part of the universe, while accepting that theism is reasonable also.

He’s eternal. I meant he’s posited as the explanation for the universe.

He exists as the universe’s explanation and his timelessness makes him eternal.

Magical because it exists for no reason, by virtue of nothing except its own inexplicable nature. Call that something else if you want, I call it magic; or worse, since there isn’t even anyone holding the wand.

Does that mean I can do my victory dance? — S

You’d have to be a bloody fool to, so go ahead.

If either side of the choice of "always existed" or "spontaneously popped into existence" is "magical thinking," then " magical thinking" is unavoidable, and what of it? — Terrapin Station

It’s magical, and God isn’t. You’ll disagree, of course, but I think we’re about finished with this argument for the time being.

You just said that we could talk properly about god without even using the word "universe." You can do that under the way I use universe, too--you can talk properly about god without even using the word "universe." So in that regard it's the same. My usage of the term would make no practical difference. — Terrapin Station

Your definition does make a practical difference, as I’ve said, and demonstrated. Again, I’ve demonstrated it, it’s a problem, as I’ve demonstrated.

Yeah, fine.

"The universe has always existed by virtue of its own, necessary, nature."--what does that have to do with "timelessness"? — Terrapin Station

Nothing. But that’s exactly what I’m calling magical thinking.

You could say exactly the same things sans the word "universe." — Terrapin Station

I’ll just say it again. Your definition of “universe” makes it impossible to talk properly about God, as I’ve said, and demonstrated.

And we don't know anything about any possible event - if that's even the right word - prior to the Big Bang, or even if there was a "prior" to the Big Bang. — S

Well if there wasn’t anything prior to the Big Bang then either the universe brought itself into existence or it was created.

Everything else you said was assertion and prejudice. You’ll disagree, of course, but I’m bored and I don’t care.

The universe, if it has such a nature, cannot have it necessarily,
— AJJ

Why not? — Terrapin Station

God is necessarily timeless, and has his eternality by virtue of this. The universe is not timeless, so if it has eternality then it just has it, for no reason, as if by magic.

Wouldn't you be able to talk "properly" about God without even using the word "universe"? — Terrapin Station

Yeah. But you can’t talk properly about Him using your definition of “universe”.

That's simply using "universe" in a different way, which is fine. That's just not the way I use the term. The way I use the term doesn't change anything other than a word we're applying to things. — Terrapin Station

It changes everything. As I’ve pointed out and demonstrated, it makes it impossible to talk properly about God.

Yes, but God has always existed by virtue of his own, necessary, nature. The universe, if it has such a nature, cannot have it necessarily, but rather by some kind of magic.

No it isn't, and that's a false dichotomy. What about there's no known reason? — S

The reason is either within the universe, in which case the universe is its own source, or it is beyond the universe, in which case it is God. Unless you can think of one, there is no other option.

I have, so I interpret that as a request to needlessly repeat myself, which is a request I refuse, as I refused Rank Amateur when he tried that shit with me. — S

I’m calling BS on that then. There are no unfavourable aspects of my case that you’ve pointed out and I’ve ignored. What I’ve said is itself a justification for believing in God; asking for a justification of the justification is silly, so unless you can be specific with your objections, rather than throwing alleged fallacies around, I’m bored and don’t want to argue about this anymore.

If you introduce god, either he has always existed (maybe in timeless existence if you think that makes sense), or he suddenly appeared at some point. — Terrapin Station

He is posited as the source of the universe, so necessarily exists, and is necessarily timeless, so He can’t possibly have begun to exist, and therefore must always have existed.

God would simply be beyond the source of the rest of the universe. — Terrapin Station

Which is nonsense, because God as defined by classical theism is the source of the universe, all of it. Your strange definition makes it impossible to argue properly about God.

That's not a justification, because atheism doesn't posit a universe-by-magic, and your supposed alternative possibility to atheism is implausible and an instance of special pleading. — S

To say the universe brought itself into existence, or has always existed for no reason is magical talk. You’ll have to explain why it’s special pleading.

A concept can't create the universe. A concept can't take actions. And a concept is all I have reason to believe might have these attributes you mention. — S

I know, that’s why the source of the universe can’t be simply be a concept, as I said. Again, you’ll have to explain why what I’ve posited is special pleading.

I’m not misunderstanding the way you’re using the word. Your definition is problematic because it makes it impossible to speak properly about God, who is beyond and the source of the universe as commonly defined. He’s not beyond, but part of, but not subject to the universe, however you define it, because that’s just heap of contradictions.

(Sigh)

Saying it’s magical thinking doesn’t make it magical thinking. — Mww

No, but believing that the universe accounts for its own existence is, in my humble opinion, magical thinking.

What's arguably timeless, immaterial, and outside of space are concepts. If God is not a concept, then justify what appears to be special pleading. — S

My justification is that to avoid atheism’s universe-by-magic, you must posit a source beyond the universe, which, being beyond the universe, is necessarily spacless and timeless, not arbitrarily so, because it is beyond the universe, of which space and time are a part. To have creative power it must also be conscious, because as I think you’ll agree, concepts have no creative powers per se. The name we give to this entity is God.

We are not deciding for them because they have no desires or knowledge (except maybe knowledge of their womb experience). There is just no comparison.

If you want to argue that a fetuses desires can be thwarted you have to show they have these long term goals. — Andrew4Handel

I’m not arguing that. I agree that unborn children are incapable of deciding whether they would like to live or not, and asking does that make it appropriate for us to kill them as we see fit?

That's a dodge. — S

Saying it’s a dodge does not make it a dodge.

Now you're being all Aspieish about "part." That's not the idea. If there is an x--whatever imaginable x is--I label it as "the universe" — Terrapin Station

Settle down. So if x is a pencil, you label the pencil “the universe”? Perhaps you’ve mistyped.

If there are timeless and immaterial things, per how I use language, the universe has timeless and immaterial things. — Terrapin Station

God can’t be “had” by the universe for the same reason I gave in my last post; he would be subject to it, and therefore not God. And we’ve established that your definition is peculiar using two dictionaries.

The only "things" I know of which could possibly qualify as having those attributes are concepts. If you're going to suggest that God is not a concept, and that God is a special exception, then you have a burden to justify that. — S

God is a logical alternative to atheism’s universe-by-magic. If the universe is not the source of itself, then its source is beyond it, and so necessarily timeless and immaterial. The argument for God is an argument for, and a justification for believing in, a spaceless, timelss Creator.

Oh, whoops, I didn't mean to overlook the "in space" part. But that doesn't matter because it's nonsense to say that God exists outside of space, unless perhaps you just mean a concept, but that would trivialise God. — S

Either the universe accounts for its own existence - by some inexplicable magic - or an entity beyond it does, which necessarily has the attributes of being timeless and immaterial. They are not arbitrary predications, and simply calling it nonsense does not make it so.