Comments

  • Neither science nor logic can disprove God?
    I understand those answers but will ask if that means you have no interest in causes, as discussed in the thread. — Valentinus

    I side with the materialists who that science can explain the world on an empirical level.
  • Does God have free will?
    Jesus, Descartes and me: God can do absolutely anything — Bartricks

    The Bible speaks of truth and Jesus says he is truth. The Bible says God can never fail or tell a lie. So why do you quote the Jesus to support your position?
  • Neither science nor logic can disprove God?
    How did this purely internal thing come to be? — Valentinus

    We don't know

    If it is separated from all the other stuff, when did that happen? — Valentinus

    The mystical side of life offers view answers that can be expressed with certainty

    And if one is to accept such a possibility, why bother trying to make sense of other things that are not like that if the internal thing is primary? — Valentinus

    Well we are bodies. God is in our consciousness, which has a mystical side
  • Neither science nor logic can disprove God?
    ↪Shawn


    The world makes little sense without a center. Call it Brahmin or Spinoza's God. In fact if I remember correctly Spinoza says in the Ethics that God created the world through us. At least that's how the post-Kantian idealist understood him.
  • Neither science nor logic can disprove God?
    ↪Shawn


    But what if God is purely an internal thing and is not above, below, alongside, and in any sense outside the world. The sufficient reason isn't outside things. Science can explain just fine how the world came to be (Hawking's hypothesis, ect)
  • Neither science nor logic can disprove God?
    1) The Principle of Sufficient Reason is necessary for endowing God with an existence in the world, otherwise it's 'woo'. — Shawn

    Yes that's true, but then you have to ask if God is immanent in us or not. It's the next immediate question
  • God and time.
    Not sure what you mean by relativism. — Bartricks

    Well can a contingent truth be certainly true?
  • Neither science nor logic can disprove God?
    ↪Shawn


    Well we can know a holy God doesn't exist, because God is said to be the necessary ground of everything and would be the necessary ground for all horrible things in the world (rape, ect). So a holy God can't be a part of that

    He can't be perfectly "simple" because if he created the world than that adds a thought to his simplicity and he is no longer perfectly simply. So that's out of the way

    Holiness and simplicity are essential for a traditional Western view of God.
  • God and time.
    ↪Bartricks


    Just as question: does "all truth is contingent" mean "relativism is true"?
  • Some remarks on Wittgenstein's private language argument (PLA)
    What distinguishes us from animals is the complexity of our language. Philosophy of nature is about who we are as humans as much as ontology. Language itself is complex in that what we tell ourselves is not necessary what we tell ourselves. If I have a private language, do I really understand it's function in me?

    Ludwig Wittgenstein said “If you and I are to live religious lives, it mustn't be that we talk a lot about religion, but that our manner of life is different. It is my belief that only if you try to be helpful to other people will you in the end find your way to God.”

    So someone may use religious language and yet be not religious at all. It's not that we can do anything apart from language in this world but that we don't fully realize all the time what our own personal language means (and especially how it's taken by others)

    My two cents..
  • Some remarks on Wittgenstein's private language argument (PLA)
    I think Wittgenstein point, present throughout his philosophy, is that we talk even to ourselves through language. It's incredibly hard to do philosophy on language because you can only do philosophy WITH language. Wittgenstein latter work was simply fixing the solipsism that some of his ideas early on may have led to
  • The Supremes and the New Texas Abortion Law
    ↪DingoJones


    It's tedious to go over ontology with people who say life and personhood are not identical, equate moles with embryos, and defend an anti-soul, anti-God, anti-child, anti-family position like abortion. I did what I wanted to spend my time to do on this thread and if you didn't appreciate it I am both not taking it personally and not going to spend my time debating it further
  • The Supremes and the New Texas Abortion Law
    If someone believes in complete materialism than there is no reason one shouldn't enslave or kill anyone on a whim. The point of philosophy is to give these matters more thought, wonder about what is controlling your thoughts, and consider what is best for you and everyone else. Believing in a soul is not superstition. All I've said is what Aristotle, Hegel, and others have said about form, spirit, soul
  • The Supremes and the New Texas Abortion Law
    ↪James Riley


    Freedom means we choose our actions such that crimes merit punishment. Animals may or may not have this. If you choose to act without freedom you have still made a choice
  • The Supremes and the New Texas Abortion Law
    ↪Srap Tasmaner


    The right to life means your life is good. Crimes forfeit rights because of bad actions. Your trying to take philosophy out of social science but then what is left?
  • The Supremes and the New Texas Abortion Law
    There is no concept of a life being innocent that I'm aware of. — Srap Tasmaner

    Innocent until proven guilty is law
  • The Supremes and the New Texas Abortion Law
    ↪Srap Tasmaner


    You don't kill the fetus but if someone attacks you you assume he's not the situation of a fetus. Easy to understand
  • The Supremes and the New Texas Abortion Law
    ↪James Riley


    Support for abortion is completely dependent on emotion and not based on rationality. If you want to be an animal your choices are in your hands
  • The Supremes and the New Texas Abortion Law
    The soul dies with the body then? — praxis

    We do not fully understand body, spirit, or death

    don't think we classify lives as "innocent" and "not innocent" in our legal system, — Srap Tasmaner

    Of course we do

    Keep in mind that self-defense is not just an analogy here, but a common exception recognized in abortion laws. An unborn child can threaten a mother's life without having an intention to. — Srap Tasmaner

    Someone trying to kill you is not analogous to the situation with a fetus

    She sure as hell does, if that other body goes a wandering around inside of her body. It's like a little uninvited trespasser. — James Riley

    Coming from somebody who said the fetus is a human but you would personally kill it is asked by the mother..
  • The Supremes and the New Texas Abortion Law
    ↪Srap Tasmaner


    We should never recognize the right of one person to take the innocent life of another. If your philosophy says otherwise there is something wrong with your philosophy
  • The Supremes and the New Texas Abortion Law
    ↪jorndoe


    We are all lumps of cells
  • The Supremes and the New Texas Abortion Law
    Do you believe in a soul Gregory? — DingoJones

    Yes. Matter formed at conception is the soul. I don't subscribe to dualism. Humanity is the form but it is not separate from matter. The soul is all through the body and the body is all through the soul. We speak of them as two and must but I think they are really one.

    On abortion, people are arguing, "first it must have a heart", "no a brain and a heart", "no kidneys too", "no it must be born". All these arguments are random. The form is there at conception and blossoms into different shapes of that form throughout life
  • The Supremes and the New Texas Abortion Law
    It's not a person a couple months in. That's not an arbitrary assessment. — jorndoe

    Yes it is. Why not rights just after birth then? We have to presume all human life has rights
  • The Supremes and the New Texas Abortion Law
    Perhaps the mother of an unborn child does indeed have a unique right to kill that child, even supposing that what is inside her is a person. — Srap Tasmaner

    What rational person would say this with a straight face?
  • The Supremes and the New Texas Abortion Law
    ↪Srap Tasmaner


    You're proving one of my points. Once you don't respect all life other's rights will be violated. Why would rights be different because of dependency? Do you have an argument for this? No rights of the mother are violated by the anti-abortion stance. I am saying she doesn't have an addition right over someone else, dependent in body or in need to be raised as with post-born children
  • The Supremes and the New Texas Abortion Law
    ↪tim wood


    A human is a human and it begins at conception. You wonder what a human is and so will say absolute rights start at birth but don't know what rights are or what humanity is. The problem is that you are obsessed with language instead of philosophy, as in :

    I have only attended to the words you use and how you use them — tim wood
  • The Supremes and the New Texas Abortion Law
    I asked that twice long above. Human what? — tim wood

    Well you have no concept of humanity or rights.
  • The Supremes and the New Texas Abortion Law
    Rights given by the mother? What does that mean? — tim wood

    When does someone become a human?
  • The Supremes and the New Texas Abortion Law
    And my real question was how shall we determine whether a woman has such a "matria potestas"? — Srap Tasmaner

    Because you are juxtaposing the right to life of one being with the "right" to kill it on the other. There is no symmetry there
  • The Supremes and the New Texas Abortion Law
    And it certainly does not begin at birth. I — tim wood

    When does someone become a human?
  • The Supremes and the New Texas Abortion Law
    And why would the rights of anyone outside be diminished even if someone were inside them? — tim wood

    So you think, without evidence, that life begins at birth and that before birth the rights are given by the mother to the not-human entity? You have no evidence and why not respect all life instead?
  • The Supremes and the New Texas Abortion Law
    You appear to be arguing that life begins in the womb. What life would that be and from what did it come? — tim wood

    I appear to be? Wow. Where did it come from? Conception
  • The Supremes and the New Texas Abortion Law
    Pregnant women are unique in a way we cannot pretend not to notice, just as the people -- granting your claim that a fertilized egg is a person, for the moment -- inside them are in a unique position. — Srap Tasmaner

    Why would rights of anyone be diminished because it is inside someone else?
  • The Supremes and the New Texas Abortion Law
    ↪tim wood


    Rights come from humanity
  • The Supremes and the New Texas Abortion Law
    But in your argument, what obliges a woman to maintain that life? — tim wood
  • The Supremes and the New Texas Abortion Law
    You want horrible? Look in a mirror! — tim wood

    Well read over my responses, I'll read over yours, and have good day and come down
  • The Supremes and the New Texas Abortion Law
    No life begins in the body. Think about it for a t least a second or two. If life began in the body, from what is it emerging? — tim wood

    It's a human inside a human. duh
  • The Supremes and the New Texas Abortion Law
    And then that's what we'd have to decide, whether the outer person has such a right, and whether it is limited. How do we go about that? — Srap Tasmaner

    You are not talking about a right to life of the mother but the "right" of her to take the rights of the unborn
  • The Supremes and the New Texas Abortion Law
    "Wnen does it become a body." — tim wood

    You need to come down.
  • The Supremes and the New Texas Abortion Law
    I wish the f**k you were a responsible interlocutor and not the ignorant clown that you are. Even allowing for your shortcomings you're annoying. I never, ever said this.

    Nor did I ever say that birth grants rights. i simply acknowledged that (to my knowledge), all responsible persons pretty much anywhere anytime have agreed upon and accepted that standard. Try to pay attention to the conversation and what is actually said.     — tim wood

    No YOU are being dishonest. You say the unborn have no rights. You have no evidence. But you ask me to prove the contrary. I said we must assume rights unless proven otherwise. That's the natural human way of looking on this. You say a mother has no obligation to the unborn? What world do you live in
Home » Gregory