What's Andrea's fixation with newborns?

No, what is more puzzling is the recent number of women who have attempted to remove or in this case succeeded in removing the baby from the abdomen of a pregnant women.
I've never heard of this until the past few years. It seemed prior to this, women would kidnap newborn babies from hospitals.
Is this part of our objectification of babies - the idea that we have a right to one regardless of our circumstances?

I guess these are the effects of what JP II's warning on the Culture of Death...Desensitization on the sanctity of life for both born and unborn.

...And pro-aborts would say...they're not related...these people CHOSE to do this by themselves...nothing to do with abortion or BC....yeah right.

Relevant radio was talking about the "commercialization" of people the other day.

They asked the question "if we can kill children in the womb, go into clinics and purchase sperm from sperm vendors (not donors...that's a misnomer as donors donate...as in for free), pay surrogate mothers...and all of this is morally acceptable, then why is it that we can't just buy babies?

Any thoughts? Would buying babies be morally wrong? Why, why not?

http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/does_sex_have_a_future/

What about the brave new world envisioned in this article?
The recent emergence of induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS cells) – cells which have all the malleability of embryonic stem cells but which are created without destroying embryos – spells the end of embryonic stem cell research as an avenue for miracle cures for dread diseases. Many of the world's top stem cell scientists are abandoning it and turning to the new technique.

However, as iPS cells can theoretically morph into any cell in the body, it is theoretically possible to transform them into “artificial” sperm and eggs. This means that anyone can be the progenitor (the words mother and father hardly seem appropriate) of a child – whether they are six months old or 100 years old. Furthermore, eggs and sperm will no longer be in short supply. Lab technicians will be able to make thousands of them. Instead of being conceived and born in love, human life will become a manufactured artefact.

Note the last sentence - the absence of love in a culture of death where people are commodified from birth till death.

Patricia,

Exactly. I've always been surprised with our mentality that it is illegal to sell your organs...

Why not just auction off babies, stem cells, organs, embryos...

Think of all the poor we could help @@

MK:
"Furthermore, eggs and sperm will no longer be in short supply. Lab technicians will be able to make thousands of them"

and arguably, thousands of babies then too.

Babies that can be bought by anyone, for ANY purpose!

Hi, Bethany. I was wondering if you could take my picture down, like Amanda's. Most of the people I like on here already know what I look like, so there's no real reason to keep it up, especially in light of what happened to Amanda.

If anyone wants to get my email address, or my facebook, feel free to ask through Bethany or MK and I'll be happy to let them give it to you.

Patricia --

I've never heard of this until the past few years. It seemed prior to this, women would kidnap newborn babies from hospitals.

I know there was at least one case of it when I was a kid, back in maybe the late 80's or early 90's. I overheard it on the news and it wasn't like they were making a huge fuss over it or anything, so I don't think it was all that rare even back then. I mean obviously it doesn't happen every day, but I don't think it's just a recent phenomenon. I only remember it because it terrified me and I spent approximately the next 5 months of my life worrying that if I ever got pregnant, some crazy person would come and kill me for my baby.

Fortunately, as I was maybe 6 or 7 at the time, it wasn't an immediate concern.

Oh Lyssie and Amanda,

I'm so sad that you are removing your pics. I understand, but I'm still so sad...

MK --

I guess that we, as a culture, still draw a line between spending money to create a person, or spending money to buy a person. I know it seems like a really small distinction, and maybe some people think it's only a token gesture towards acknowledging that people are not commodities. But in our culture at least, buying something implies ownership, and I think that people will probably always shy away from the implication of owning another person. You can buy a man's sperm, or you can buy the temporary use of a woman's body, but even though those things result in the same conclusion as buying a baby -- having a baby -- they're not really the same thing in most people's minds.

Of course, we do come pretty close to that line sometimes, even without getting into scientific technologies. A friend of mine gave her daughter up for adoption a year and a half ago, and the family that she chose to be the adoptive parents were very nice to her, basically as much as the law would allow.

Alexandra,

But isn't the whole abortion rights argument based on the fact that the mother "owns" the person that is growing inside of her?

It's in her body, so she has the right to do whatever she wants with it? Isn't that ownership?

"Of course, we do come pretty close to that line sometimes, even without getting into scientific technologies. "
------------------------------------------

I believe it's not just a line....it's a line that's in the middle of a "slippery slope"...and we have already crossed that line and are heading downwards as a culture and as a nation.

MK: that's right the women's movement considers that the woman "owns" the baby as it is inside her. Even the father of the baby has no say in anything that happens.
As I pointed out on another thread, frozen embryo's apparently have no rights to be born what-so-ever. And, it appears that no matter how desperate the mother is to have a child, even if that embryo represents her ONLY chance of having a child, the man has the final say as to whether the embryo lives or not. Now I wonder what would happen if an independent party sued to have the baby born?

But isn't the whole abortion rights argument based on the fact that the mother "owns" the person that is growing inside of her?

Not really. She owns her own body, including the parts that the person inside her needs in order to grow.

Patricia,

"No, what is more puzzling is the recent number of women who have attempted to remove or in this case succeeded in removing the baby from the abdomen of a pregnant women."

Perhaps it's an instance of copycatting. Occasionally once a crime starts being reported on instances of that crime occurring go up.

It could also simply be a case of an increase in reporting.

"I've never heard of this until the past few years. It seemed prior to this, women would kidnap newborn babies from hospitals.
Is this part of our objectification of babies - the idea that we have a right to one regardless of our circumstances?"

I think it's more due to the increased security in hospitals. In some cases, it may be easier to attempt to steal a baby before it is born (though it's technically not a baby until that point) than to wait until after.

Patricia,

"As I pointed out on another thread, frozen embryo's apparently have no rights to be born what-so-ever."

Can any embryo truly ever be said to have a "right" to be born? If one argues that they do, that "right" is violated by nature far more often than by humanity.

"And, it appears that no matter how desperate the mother is to have a child, even if that embryo represents her ONLY chance of having a child, the man has the final say as to whether the embryo lives or not."

To me, I look at this as an instance in which the wishes of the one who do not wish to take part in a certain course of action should out-way the wishes of the one who wishes to proceed with said course of action. It's exactly the same as when a couple disagrees about having sex--one wishes to, and the other does not. Assuming that all parties have an aversion to rape, said couple will not and should not have sex. I see no reason why this case should be any different. One's right not to do something should out-way the wishes of another who would compel them to do so.

"Now I wonder what would happen if an independent party sued to have the baby born?"

Likely, the independent party would have no grounds for such a suit and the case would go nowhere.

Patricia, in the US at least, it would take noting short of magic powers to take a baby from a hospital. All maternity wards now have alarmed security systems - usually a tag on the umbilical cord clip, that if a baby is moved past a certain point in the hospital, an alarm is sounded and the elevators open on whatever floor they're on and will not close. Also in most hospitals, only the mom or dad who have hospital bracelets on with a numeric code that matches the baby's bracelet as well and the nurse makes the parent read off the code before they can take the child to their room. Some hospitals I've been to even have a permanent security guard post outside the maternity ward. At the hospital I work at, no one can enter the maternity ward with a regular hospital ID, they need a special tag. At the hospital I interned at, a staff member actually needed to walk the parent down to the entrance, check them out with security, and then walk them right to their car. This served a double purpose, because we could make sure they were using their car seats correctly as well.

"I think it's more due to the increased security in hospitals. In some cases, it may be easier to attempt to steal a baby before it is born(though it's technically not a baby until that point)than to wait until after."

Not sure I understand what you are trying to say here, A. It's easier to cut a baby out of it's mothers body although what you are cutting out is not a baby?! So....what are you stealing? Something not worth stealing but worth eviscerating someone for? Stealing is ok?

If you could clear that up, I would appreciate it.

Carla,

"Not sure I understand what you are trying to say here, A. It's easier to cut a baby out of it's mothers body although what you are cutting out is not a baby?!"

Yes, sorry for the confusion. Despite my efforts, my reasoning can be quite convoluted at times. While still inside the mother, the entity in question is a fetus, not a baby. So what one is stealing is the fetus.

"So....what are you stealing? Something not worth stealing but worth eviscerating someone for?"

Wouldn't whether or not something is worth stealing be contingent upon the opinions of the thief?

"Stealing is ok?"

Where did I ever make that assertion? I was clarifying a point, not providing a guide for where-and-when it is acceptable to steal.

Most women who are pregnant and are looking forward to the birth, say they are expecting a BABY, not a fetus. They say "the baby kicked" or "the baby is hiccuping". You don't ask a pregnant woman "how is the 'fetus' doing today?" You don't give women Fetus Showers. You give women BABY showers.

LizFromNebraska,

"Most women who are pregnant and are looking forward to the birth, say they are expecting a BABY, not a fetus. They say "the baby kicked" or "the baby is hiccuping". You don't ask a pregnant woman "how is the 'fetus' doing today?" You don't give women Fetus Showers. You give women BABY showers."

This proves nothing. People use both the vernacular and incorrect terminology all the time in their regular, daily speech. This does not mean that those terms which they choose to use are actually correct.

And they are expecting a baby. That does not imply that the baby currently exists.

When one bakes cookies or a cake, one is "expecting" the baked treat--not batter/dough. That does not, however, mean that the batter/dough currently is either cookies or a cake.

A. @ 11:57 AM

"fetus" describes a stage of growth of a particular offspring - in this case a human being. When one is not pushing an agenda, that's known as a baby.

Actually scientifically there's no doubt what the early human being is - at all. So you're selectively using a stage of growth term - "fetus" to describe what is well known as a baby, which is also completely acceptable when having a philosophic discussion.

Shall we bring out embyrology textbooks?

If one wants it; it's a baby and if one doesn't; it's a fetus. The Pro-Abortion movement has to use the label, "fetus", otherwise they would be acknowledging the person-hood or humanity of the fetus.

Not really. She owns her own body, including the parts that the person inside her needs in order to grow.
Posted by: Alexandra at July 22, 2008 10:14 AM

Can't she "loan" them for nine months and give that "person" a chance at life with someone else?
It's not as if that "person" is going to be a life-long parasite that a woman has to deal with for the rest of her life.

Chris,

"baby" describes a stage of growth of a particular offspring - in this case a human being. When one is not pushing an agenda, that's known as a fetus [until it is born].

I never denied that said fetus was not human--never said that it was not a human offspring. I simply prefer to use medically correct terminology (ie. fetus, embryo, zygote) as opposed to the more emotional-laden and incorrect term of "baby."

It isn't "well-known" to be a baby. That's your subjective judgment and cannot legitimately be passed off as fact. To do so is academic dishonesty.

Eileen,

"If one wants it; it's a baby and if one doesn't; it's a fetus."

Not technically true. While in the womb, the developing entity is a fetus, regardless of what one chooses to call it.

"It's not as if that "person" is going to be a life-long parasite that a woman has to deal with for the rest of her life."

No, but she will be dealing with the effects that that "person" (to use your terminology, which I personally feel is incorrect) will have upon her body for the rest of her life.

Personhood and humanity are also entirely separate issues.

A. @ 12:57 PM

Show me a non-human person.

A. @ 12:55 PM

What about the zygote, blastocyst, the embryo?

Personhood and humanity are also entirely separate issues.

Gnostic eh?

Detachable personhood from your body - right?

Some corporations are legally viewed as "persons." Last time I checked, the corporation itself wasn't human.

Also, your logic there is slightly flawed. Saying "personhood and humanity are separate issues" is in no way comparable to saying "everyone who is a person is human," as you have attempted to do so.

A - is truth real?

Another question - are you self-aware?

Just because you don't understand where I'm coming from doesn't mean my logic is flawed.

"What about the zygote, blastocyst, the embryo?"

What about them? I have no idea what you're asking.

"Gnostic eh?"

I am most assuredly not a member of any Christian sect.

"Detachable personhood from your body - right?"

Show me where I ever asserted this.

"Just because you don't understand where I'm coming from doesn't mean my logic is flawed."

It does when you're extrapolating falsely limited meanings from what I say.

Personhood is a separate issue from humanity - right?

A- Are your personhood attributes accidental?

“A - is truth real?”

That depends by on what you mean by truth.

“Another question - are you self-aware?”

Yes. In the words of Descartes, “I think, so therefore I am.”

It does when you're extrapolating falsely limited meanings from what I say.

What - rules about how I think?

Why that sounds completely subjective.

That depends by on what you mean by truth.

Can truth be unreal?

Yes. In the words of Descartes, “I think, so therefore I am.”

But how do you know?

Chris,

A simple fallacy of logic.

Take the statement: "Personhood and humanity are also entirely separate issues."

You responded with "Show me a non-human person," implying that humanity was both a necessary and sufficient condition for personhood. The error lies in your assumption that the statement logically cannot be applicable in any other way. Why can that statement not be read the other way--that personhood is a condition of humanity?

"I simply prefer to use medically correct terminology (ie. fetus, embryo, zygote) as opposed to the more emotional-laden and incorrect term of "baby."
------------------------------------

Ah yes...the typical pro-abort reasoning once again. De-humanizing terms for the unborn.
Once de-humanized..it would be easier to kill.
(*do you pro-aborts take a class somewhere on this?)

Tell me A., why would the entire world call a "baby" a baby if it was incorrect?

IF you prefer to call the unborn a fetus, what KIND of fetus, A.?

If you want to be accurate and specific in the terms, there are monkey fetus, goat fetus..animal fetus..etc...

..an unborn baby is a HUMAN fetus.

Eileen --

Can't she "loan" them for nine months and give that "person" a chance at life with someone else?

Of course she can. Man women do. But should she be forced to?

"Can truth be unreal?"

Once again, that depends upon your definition of truth. What is truth and then how do we know that it is actually truth once we have identified it?

"But how do you know?"

You did not seriously just dismiss out-of-hand one of the leading tenants of philosophy.

That is Descartes' proof of existence. "I think, so therefore I am." A simple statement, yet quite powerful. I know that I exist (I count self-awareness as a part of that existence) because I cam think. Being aware that I can think is the definition of being self-aware.

I think this would also be a lovely time to bring up my arguments about beliefs and knowing (or lack thereof). One can hold a belief without having definitive proof of the rightness of it.

A - you're arguing about the personhood of the unborn, who are scientifically, and rather undeniably human beings.

So you're entering a metaphysics territory. I'm asking you questions to establish how you think about personhood and whether it is accidental and an inherent trait of humanity.

Are you now saying this is irrelevant? I'm asking you questions about your own personhood and truth. And if you're going to start making statements that personhood is not inherent to humanity, then I'll have to leave, because you'd be arguing quite literally against yourself!

"Tell me A., why would the entire world call a "baby" a baby if it was incorrect?"

It doesn't.

"..an unborn baby is a HUMAN fetus."

And where did I ever dispute this?

Hang on...I didn't read that carefully enough.

A baby and a human fetus are two separate things. First come the fetus, then comes the baby.

Hey A - If Descartes was knocked unconscious would he have ceased to "be"?

Is awareness a detachable trait of humanity?

"A - you're arguing about the personhood of the unborn, who are scientifically, and rather undeniably human beings."

But what makes a human being a person?

"I'm asking you questions to establish how you think about personhood and whether it is accidental and an inherent trait of humanity."

And which would you prefer?

"Are you now saying this is irrelevant?"

I thought I'd throw that line of thinking out there. Normally, I don't make it pertaining to issues such as this (more when people try to convert me). However, that said, there are very few things in this world which one can definitively know.

"And if you're going to start making statements that personhood is not inherent to humanity, then I'll have to leave, because you'd be arguing quite literally against yourself!"

And why would that be?

And I hate to tell you this, but I believe that personhood is, in fact, accidental.

A- I'm getting the impression that you're not fully baked!

(I'm teasing you! Of course.)

We'll have to take this up at another time - I have to get back to some productive work.

Cheers!

"Hey A - If Descartes was knocked unconscious would he have ceased to "be"?"

No, for he still retained the capacity.

"Is awareness a detachable trait of humanity?"

Please state what you mean by detachable.

A - see we agree. Personhood is an accidental trait. (But then so are the rest of our inherent traits!)

"A baby and a human fetus are two separate things. First come the fetus, then comes the baby.

Posted by: A. at July 22, 2008 1:30 PM"
-----------------------------------

Two 'separate' things? You mean to say when a woman becomes pregnant it has a fetus then when she gives birth, it becomes a baby?

At what point does the fetus 'become' the baby?
When the fetus comes out, then voila, it's a baby?

Answer me this..my son's head got stuck for about 10-20 secs coming out (he got conehead because of this)...When was he considered a baby?

So things like FETAL heart monitors and FETAL growth charts ...so on and so forth... are all inventions of "pro aborts"?

A.:1:09: Some corporations are legally viewed as "persons." Last time I checked, the corporation itself wasn't human.

You are correct that a corporation can be considered a "legal person", but a corporation is not a "natural person".

Corporate law (from: Wikipedia)

"The existence of a corporation requires a special legal framework and body of law that specifically grants the corporation legal personality, and typically views a corporation as a fictional person, a legal person, or a moral person (as opposed to a natural person). As such, corporate statutes typically give corporations the ability to own property, sign binding contracts, pay taxes in a capacity that is separate from that of its shareholders (who are sometimes referred to as "members")."

According to Lord Chancellor Haldane,
"...a corporation is an abstraction. It has no mind of its own any more than it has a body of its own; its active and directing will must consequently be sought in the person of somebody who is really the directing mind and will of the corporation, the very ego and centre of the personality of the corporation."[21]

mk:8:35: Looks like someone took away your lollipop.:(
Is there any way we can cheer you up?

The woman who self-aborted must have been mentally ill. What a sad story. Where was her family, or her boyfriend when she needed them? Why didn't she contact a social worker if she needed help?
She could have gone to a fire station, a hospital, a police station,
or a crisis pregnancy center, instead of aborting her baby, right?

"So things like FETAL heart monitors and FETAL growth charts ...so on and so forth... are all inventions of "pro aborts"?

Posted by: Amanda at July 22, 2008 2:10 PM
-------------------------------------

Why, what's wrong with those terms, Amanda?

I stated "Human Fetus" to be a much more precise definition.

I shudder to think at what a pro-abort might invent...(Sanger and Hitler comes to mind)

...let's include Obama in that list , just for the heck of it...

RSD,

"Two 'separate' things? You mean to say when a woman becomes pregnant it has a fetus then when she gives birth, it becomes a baby?"

Yes. A fetus becomes a baby when it is no longer housed within a woman's body and dependent upon her for survival.

"Answer me this..my son's head got stuck for about 10-20 secs coming out (he got conehead because of this)...When was he considered a baby?"

That depends...I don't know enough about the specific case to comment.

Janet,

No distinction was drawn between "natural" and "corporate" person in the above discussion.

In any case, I do not accept Wikipedia as a legitimate source. If it cannot be cited in an academic paper, it is not credible enough for me.

A., So, a woman's body is a fetal house?? Oh please. A newborn baby is still dependent for food and clothing, etc... please...

"The woman who self-aborted must have been mentally ill."

Um...she didn't self-abort. She committed infanticide.

Janet,

"A., So, a woman's body is a fetal house??"

Nope, never said it. A fetus is housed inside a woman's body. That fact does not reduce a woman's body to simply being a "fetal house." Since you object, please tell me where a fetus resides for the nine months until it is born.

"A newborn baby is still dependent for food and clothing, etc... please..."

There is a difference between social and physical dependency.

"Answer me this..my son's head got stuck for about 10-20 secs coming out (he got conehead because of this)...When was he considered a baby?"

That depends...I don't know enough about the specific case to comment.

Posted by: A. at July 22, 2008 2:59 PM
------------------------------------

Typical answer. What else do you need to know?
The head was sticking out a couple of inches on his way out...the Ob did an episiotomy(sp?) and out comes my son.

Was he a baby when he got stuck or only when he was freed?

Or is it when the umbilical cord was clamped or cut? But remember he was already out when I cut the cord.

RSD,

When he got stuck, was there concern that he might die if not freed soon?

Padme to young Anakin Skywalker: You're a Slave?

Young Anakin Skywalker: I'm a person and my name is Anakin.

;)

A.3:04: No distinction was drawn between "natural" and "corporate" person in the above discussion.

My point in defining a corporation is that a corporation as a "person" is irrelevant to this discussion. A corporation is an abstraction with no mind or body of its own.

A: In any case, I do not accept Wikipedia as a legitimate source. If it cannot be cited in an academic paper, it is not credible enough for me.

Is the IRS academic enough? http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=98240,00.html

A: 3:18: "Um...she didn't self-abort. She committed infanticide."

So she murdered her fetus (or baby)?

A baby doesn't "reside". A baby grows in the woman's uterus for nine months.

"A newborn baby is still dependent for food and clothing, etc... please..."

A: There is a difference between social and physical dependency.

Obviously.

@Liz: That movie suuuuuuucked.

(Go Original Trilogy!)

A. does it matter? The question was when does the human fetus become a baby?

A. You sound a lot like SoMG. Are you?

Janet,

I can assure you that A is not SoMG.

I don't think so, Janet...SoMG is more 'heartless'...he accepts the pro-life definition of terms but sticks to his abortion ideals nevertheless.

A. won't even come to "terms" (no pun inteneded)

RSD,

Didn't mean to sound callous there. It matters because you asked me my opinion on a specific case. In order to give a judgment, I need to know all of the relevant information. That is relevant--it speaks to the ability to survive on one's own as opposed to that being contingent upon the environment.

I actually don't know much about the birthing process, but I do believe that the air supply is cut off for a certain amount of time and that it that time is too long death can occur.

Bobby, that was fast!

Bobby,

Thanks for the vote of confidence :)

Your clarity in expressing your ideas is not easily forgotten, A... :)

Though if people are seriously comparing me to SOMG (diff. debating styles and views), perhaps it means that I should retire for the day.

A...he was on his way out...he already did his 9 months...

I wasn't asking about the birthing process nor the viability of the unborn on his way out of the mother..

My simple question was: When did the fetus become my baby if he got stuck coming out?

Bobby, Now you have me wondering.....

I fear, however, that perhaps I am being a tad too aggressive today and not up to my usual standard.

A....still waiting for your answer.

Well, it's just that SoMG has recently been banned for two weeks, but has been trying to post under false names, so we're all a little suspicious that someone new might be him in disguise. That would be my conjecture.

And I still can't give you one because you haven't given me all of the relevant information. I'm sorry if you think that I'm being stubborn, but I really don't like giving an opinion until I feel I have all of the information that I need to in order to give an informed answer.

A...you mean to say that fetus changes to a baby depending on what happens at birth???

IF you don't want to commit to an answer...I will answer for you:

The very simple answer is that the Fetus and the Baby are one and the same...even when my son got stuck..he's still a baby..in the womb or out.

Fetus is just a technical/ medical term for development and you pro-abort folks would like to think otherwise but get hung in the process.

RSD,

You asked me to give my opinion on a specific case, not a general answer. In order to speak to the specific, I need all of the details.

I've already given you my general answer.

Bobby,

Good to know.

A. I apologize. I shouldn't have jumped to conclusions, it wasn't fair to you.

Sure, A.....whatever you say.

RSD, I'm sorry you had to go through that. It must have been terrible.

Speaking of cakes in the oven (above), don't some people refer to pregnancy as "having a bun in the oven"? They certainly don't call it a "wad of dough", do they?

A.,

...My curious mind wants to know..have you ever been pregnant or would you have kids?

No problem Janet...the baby is turning 1 next month. The one that miscarried has been prayed over with and is now in a better place.

I was just adding something to the personhood argument. Anakin was Watto's "property", but he said he was a Person and that he had a name.

And yes, I agree, go Original Trilogy.

RSD,

Could you clarify for me? You have a one year old who got his head caught during the birth, and the little angel that you lost was just recently, like within the past couple of months. Is that right?

Speaking of cakes in the oven (above), don't some people refer to pregnancy as "having a bun in the oven"? They certainly don't call it a "wad of dough", do they?

Posted by: Janet at July 22, 2008 5:03 PM
................................

Most people would not need to be told that for there to be a bun, there must first be a wad of dough followed by a period of applied heat to cause the ingredients to react sufficiently to create a bun. Of course, if the recipe is not correctly followed and/or the heat not appropriate, there will be no bun.
Obviously to say that there is a bun in the oven, is not to say that what is in the oven is already a bun.
Saying that dinner is the oven is not the same as saying that dinner is ready.

Sally, I'm getting hungry!

No, but she will be dealing with the effects that that "person" (to use your terminology, which I personally feel is incorrect) will have upon her body for the rest of her life.
Posted by: A. at July 22, 2008 12:55 PM

She will deal with the effects on her body if she has an abortion also. Effects that would potentially be worse than what childbirth would cause.

I fear, however, that perhaps I am being a tad too aggressive today and not up to my usual standard.

Posted by: A. at July 22, 2008 3:48 PM

HOw do you KNOW for sure this is not somg? He could be posting from another computer?

WHAT is SOMG doing on this board!
MODERATORS!???????

NO Somg - it's just that you are creepy and a lurker.
You are obsessed. How many babies did you kill today?

This proves nothing. People use both the vernacular and incorrect terminology all the time in their regular, daily speech. This does not mean that those terms which they choose to use are actually correct.

Posted by: A at July 22, 2008 12:18 PM

Nevertheless, the vernacular reflects what we believe in. If we believed that this was anything other than a baby this would be the convention. It is only recently as we try to deflect our consciences away from what is happening that this claim has been made.
In fact, I would argue that the fact that proaborts use innocuous medical terms to distract attention from the fact that we are dealing with a baby and that we are dealing with the right to life of an actual human person suggests that they KNOW (in their conscience) the truth of what they are arguing against.
If it were not so they would not need to change the language.

A baby and a human fetus are two separate things. First come the fetus, then comes the baby.

Posted by: A. at July 22, 2008 1:30 PM"

This posting proves my point. A. knows in fact it is a baby from conception onward but to accept abortions early in pregnancy she must use the medical term "fetus", not necessarily because that is what it is (in medical terminology) but because fetus makes it somehow less than a baby in her proabort thinking.

If the fetus is less than a human baby then it CAN be aborted.
YOu can rationalize all you want A, but it ain't gonna make it so.

Bobby,

That is correct...we had our baby(3rd child) last Aug..our elder kids are 11 and 12 ...We thought we were done...didn't expect a third. Then last Feb, we found out we had a 4th one...not really sure what we were gonna do with a second baby so soon BUT we trusted in Divine Providence...and was really looking forward to it...then the miscarriage happened during the Sat before Palm Sunday.

That was a tough Holy Week.

I'm so sorry about your loss RSD.
I have friends who had 7 children and the father had a vasectomy. His wife recently became Catholic and they just had their 8th child. The 7th is 15 and the youngest is 18mons!

RSD -- your post brings to mind---
"I will bless the Lord at all times..."

God bless you!

Hi Patricia!
I'm happy to see that Thor didn't catch you! :D

RSD,

“My curious mind wants to know..have you ever been pregnant or would you have kids?”

Does that honestly make any difference? One can have opinions on a topic without having direct knowledge of it.

Regardless, the answer to both of those questions is no, though the reasoning for the latter answer is not what you would think.

Janet,

It's okay. Thanks though.

Eileen,

"She will deal with the effects on her body if she has an abortion also. Effects that would potentially be worse than what childbirth would cause."

I have yet to see a credible source that supports this.

Patricia,

"HOw do you KNOW for sure this is not somg? He could be posting from another computer?"

"WHAT is SOMG doing on this board!
MODERATORS!???????"

"NO Somg - it's just that you are creepy and a lurker. You are obsessed. How many babies did you kill today?"

Okay, either I missed something or you're really paranoid.

Is Bobby vouching for me not enough?

Janet,

"My point in defining a corporation is that a corporation as a "person" is irrelevant to this discussion. A corporation is an abstraction with no mind or body of its own."

And the assertion was made that to be a person one had to have a human mind and a human body. The existence of corporate "persons" disproves said assertion.

"So she murdered her fetus (or baby)?"

Murdering a baby is infanticide. Killing a fetus is not, since the fetus is not an infant.

"A baby doesn't "reside". A baby grows in the woman's uterus for nine months."

What's the difference? Do you mean to tell me that while the fetus is "growing" in a woman's uterus it is residing elsewhere?

"Obviously."

If you admit that there is a difference between physical and social dependency, why do you treat them the same?

Patricia,

"Nevertheless, the vernacular reflects what we believe in."

This I dispute. In my opinion, the vernacular often reflects what is simply easier or is couched in unnecessarily and factually incorrect emotional terminology.

"If we believed that this was anything other than a baby this would be the convention."

Not necessarily. I would also like to point out that belief does not necessarily make things true.

"It is only recently as we try to deflect our consciences away from what is happening that this claim has been made."

Sources please.

"In fact, I would argue that the fact that proaborts use innocuous medical terms to distract attention from the fact that we are dealing with a baby and that we are dealing with the right to life of an actual human person suggests that they KNOW (in their conscience) the truth of what they are arguing against."

A few points. First, it's hard to take you seriously when you consistently refer to your opponents in terms which you know to be offensive and incorrect. If you want respect, you have to show it.

Secondly, the entity in question is a fetus, not a baby. I suggest you look up the definition of fetus.

Thirdly, you assume far too much. You're grossly mischaracterizing the debate. Basically, you just said "Deep down, you really believe what I believe but refuse to accept it."

Really convincing. @@

There's absolutely no way that you could know more about me and how I think than I do.

RSD,

I, too, am sorry for your loss.

Patricia, Eileen, A...

Thank you for your sympathies...we WILL meet our little one in heaven.

A,

would you by any chance be willing to email me? You can make up a fake email addy. If not that is totally 100% fine.

"Regardless, the answer to both of those questions is no, though the reasoning for the latter answer is not what you would think.

Posted by: A. at July 23, 2008 10:10 AM"
------------------------------------

I just wanted to know if you have ever had the chance of cradling your own baby..your own flesh and blood...of smelling that new baby smell and seeing the baby sleeping so delicately and so soundly in your arms...

Hi A - could you send me an email at chris@jillstanek.com. Thanks.

Eileen,

"She will deal with the effects on her body if she has an abortion also. Effects that would potentially be worse than what childbirth would cause."

I have yet to see a credible source that supports this.
Posted by: A. at July 23, 2008 10:16 AM

It's out there, A. What gets me is the convoluted reasoning that pro-choice people use to refute it.

Eileen,

"It's out there, A. What gets me is the convoluted reasoning that pro-choice people use to refute it."

What gets me is the convoluted logic of people who don't understand what makes a study valid and applicable or those people who believe that a study's accuracy is determined by the ideological leanings of those who conduct it.

Chris,

I'll think about it. I don't mean to sound callous or cold, but I generally have an aversion to sending emails to people that I meet on the web.

No problem - it was entirely voluntary. I noticed also that Bobby had asked just prior to my asking.

RSD,

"I just wanted to know if you have ever had the chance of cradling your own baby..your own flesh and blood...of smelling that new baby smell and seeing the baby sleeping so delicately and so soundly in your arms..."

I do not deny that having a baby is an incredibly beautiful, moving and profound experience.

It is simply not for everyone and I see no reason why women should be forced to give birth when they are opposed to having children and to having their bodies used in such a manner.

So, rather than give birth to live baby ...kill the baby and give birth to a dead one?

Abortion doesn't make you un-pregnant...it just makes you the mother of a dead baby.

And IMO, motherhood is a calling for all women.

RSD,

"So, rather than give birth to live baby ...kill the baby and give birth to a dead one?"

First, generally abortions do not effect babies because the abortion is performed when no baby exists.

"Abortion doesn't make you un-pregnant...it just makes you the mother of a dead baby."

False. Since abortion ends a pregnancy, it does indeed make you "un-pregnannt." It also does not result in a dead baby, because one cannot kill what does not exist.

"And IMO, motherhood is a calling for all women."

No, it really isn't. If this calling is so universal and all women desire to be mothers, than why do women often choose not to have children?

A.10:24: This going back and forth is probably getting a bit tedious for others....
1) You can assume no one is talking about coporate "persons" at Jill's. I think you and Chris were discussing that and I'll leave that to you both.
2) What is your point about social dependency and physical dependency?
3) If this mother committed infanticide by committing an abortion on herself, why isn't an abortionist accused of the same when the baby ends up dead? She did just what an abortionist would do.

If this calling is so universal and all women desire to be mothers, than why do women often choose not to have children?

Posted by: A. at July 23, 2008 5:00 PM

Selfishness? Lack of hope? Despair?

Janet,

"1) You can assume no one is talking about coporate "persons" at Jill's. I think you and Chris were discussing that and I'll leave that to you both."

That would have been my advice.

"2) What is your point about social dependency and physical dependency?"

One cannot kill an infant because an infant is socially dependent (ie. anyone could care for it) while one can end the potential life of a fetus because it is physically dependent upon the body of another (who may not be willing to provide).

"3) If this mother committed infanticide by committing an abortion on herself, why isn't an abortionist accused of the same when the baby ends up dead? She did just what an abortionist would do."

One cannot commit infanticide through abortion; if the article claims this, the terminology that it is using it incorrect.

So, when you're pregnant, there's no baby inside the tummy?

What does the abortionist do then?

Janet,

"Selfishness? Lack of hope? Despair?"

So if anyone deviates from your view of what is acceptable, something is wrong with them?

You have a very stereotypical and damaging view of womanhood.

RSD,

"So, when you're pregnant, there's no baby inside the tummy?"

I've covered this--a fetus.

Why don't women want to be moms?

Well, A...YOU tell me.

RSD,

"Well, A...YOU tell me."

I will not generalize. If one wants something quick and easy, seek generalization. If one wants something true, look elsewhere.

Ok A. If women were NOT called to be moms...why would they have mammary glands and a uterus?

Shouldn't this be optional for thos women?

RSD,

"Ok A. If women were NOT called to be moms...why would they have mammary glands and a uterus? Shouldn't this be optional for thos women?"

Simply because one has the physical capacity to do something does not mean that they are all called to to do.

Slight typo there:

Simply because one has the physical capacity to do something does not mean that one has a "calling" to do so.

Good enough A....gotta go coach VB camp now.

I was listening to Relevant Radio the other day, and Janet Smith was talking.

She brought up some fascinating points.

We know that birth control mimics pregnancy. So as far as the woman's body is concerned, she is carrying a child.

But is it possible, that males in certain species pick up on this? In many animals, the female looks for the Alpha Male to mate with. In wolves ONLY the Alpha male and Alpha female are allowed to mate.

The male that gets chosen is the one most like to protect and provide for any offspring.

An experiment was done with monkeys. The females were put on the pill, and introduced to males. The males not only didn't attempt to mate with the females, but they became aggressive and acted out.

In another experiment female lap dancers were monitored. Those that were on the pill got significantly lower tips than those who were not, and the women that were ovulating got the highest tips. Men are attracted to fertile females.

Finally, in another test, men that were considered "losers", didn't have jobs, weren't clean, weren't aggressive/competitive, were given T-shirts to wear for 24 hours. Another group of men, that were highly competitive/aggressive, successful, etc. were also given t-shirts.

Women on birth control and women that were not on birth control were given the t-shirts to smell.

The woman on birth control, chose the t-shirts of the "losers", while the women not on birth control chose the "winners"...

What does this mean? Maybe nothing.

BUT:

What if, by being on the pill you are sending out signals (most likely pheremones) that you are pregnant, and therefore not looking to "mate", you were actually attracting the types of guys who were not interested in starting families?

I realize that that seems contradictory, since if you're pregnant your already starting a family, but the pheremones whe're talking about here are the ones that attract men, sexually.

So men that don't want to make babies are being attracted to infertile women. Men that want families and would make good providers are attracted to fertile women.

And women on the pill, often NOT ALWAYS, have less sex drive. So, they might not be putting out any signals that would attract potentially "good" mates.

I'm not saying that these were conclusive. I can't even find the studies to cite them. I can only find articles of people talking about them, but not the studies themselves.

So I'm not putting this out there as a SEE, BIRTH CONTROL IS BAAAAAD...but it did make me think. Couple this with all the hormones in our food, and BC in our water supply...

And the fact that so many women on the pro choice side say they never want children...maybe it's the birth control pills themselves that are suppressing maternal instincts. After all, your body thinks it's pregnant, so it's not looking to get pregnant again...not actively seeking someone to "Impregnate" them...

I don't know. I just thought it would make a good discussion...

A. said:5:00: If this calling is so universal and all women desire to be mothers, than why do women often choose not to have children?

Janet: 5:02: Selfishness? Lack of hope? Despair?

A:5:08: So if anyone deviates from your view of what is acceptable, something is wrong with them?
You have a very stereotypical and damaging view of womanhood.

You're assuming I think something is wrong those motives I listed, I didn't say that.
Also, I misread the question, I thought it asked "why do women abort?"Sorry!

mk: 5:38: You are being very prejudicial in saying that men who didn't have jobs, weren't clean, weren't aggressive/competitive, are losers. Some people may like that sort of guy!!! You have no right!!
(just kidding).

mk, I have actually heard of that before. I find it really interesting.

Alexandra,

I know...I'm not saying I believe it, or that it doesn't have it's flaws. But it really makes you think...what exactly are we messing with here?

Simply because one has the physical capacity to do something does not mean that one has a "calling" to do so.

Posted by: A at July 23, 2008 5:25 PM

yes it does. It means that that was the way God intended the being to function. That is women have a uterus and breasts because they were designed to bear children. Men do not - they were not designed to physically nurture a developing human inside their bodies.

The vast majority of women DO want children. It is part of innate femininity to wish to bear children and to desire to nurture them. Women enjoy this to varying degrees based on their personality, their physical make up, their emotional maturity etc.

If this calling is so universal and all women desire to be mothers, than why do women often choose not to have children?

Posted by: A. at July 23, 2008 5:00 PM

you have not proven this statement - provide some stats.

And the fact that so many women on the pro choice side say they never want children...maybe it's the birth control pills themselves that are suppressing maternal instincts. After all, your body thinks it's pregnant, so it's not looking to get pregnant again...not actively seeking someone to "Impregnate" them...

I don't know. I just thought it would make a good discussion...

Posted by: mk at July 23, 2008 5:38 PM

MK: there is a doctor who believes that BC pills actually have an effect on women making them fearful of getting pregnant. It has already been proven that BC lowers libido in women.
I'll try to find the site where I read about the former.

It has already been proven that BC lowers libido in women.

Patricia, I just mentioned that this week. I heard it in an interview of Dr. Janet Smith by Johnette Benkovic. It was very interesting. I wish I could remember specifics for you! :(

Eileen,

If you read my post (the one that started this conversation) you'll see that it was that interview that I was talking about.

I remember the interview, but can't find the studies. I wish I could, because the whole thing was absolutely riveting.

Yes I've seen lots of articles about this on the internet Eileen.

Whoops! Sorry, mk, I didn't go back far enough when returned. Is it any surprise when we start fiddling with God's design? :)

Janet,

"Lack of hope? Despair?"

I think a lot of people would find something wrong with those.

"Also, I misread the question, I thought it asked "why do women abort?"Sorry!"

Is okay.

Patricia,

"yes it does. It means that that was the way God intended the being to function. That is women have a uterus and breasts because they were designed to bear children. Men do not - they were not designed to physically nurture a developing human inside their bodies."

Simply because someone is designed to be capable of doing something does not mean that that one is destined to do so. Simply because human beings are designed to be able run relatively fast (well, not compared to a cheetah) or to hunt does not mean that we have a calling to do so.

An argument calling upon God as a justification is only valid if you are arguing with someone who shares your beliefs. Since I do not, it you wish to be able to effectively use this type of reasoning in an argument you must:

A.) Prove the existence of a god.
B.) Prove that this god is the Christian God.
C.) Prove that your interpretation of this Christian God is correct.

"The vast majority of women DO want children. It is part of innate femininity to wish to bear children and to desire to nurture them. Women enjoy this to varying degrees based on their personality, their physical make up, their emotional maturity etc."

Sources please.

"you have not proven this statement - provide some stats."

I said many, not most. That gives me far more leeway than if I had made some other claim. I believe that the proof you seek can be found at childfree.com or other similar sites.

In addition, what about all of those women who (sorry, MK) choose to be nuns and to devote their lives to their conception of God instead of having children? Are they violating God's grand design and acting in ways contrary to their natures?
Posted by: Patricia at July 23, 2008 7:13 PM

M.K.

That is indeed a very interesting article. It raises a few questions, however. If men are so overwhelming attracted to fertile women, why do men sometimes marry infertile women?

As to the effects of BC on a women's hormones and who she finds attractive, I don't know enough about how hormones operate to comment. I will however, say that if one is altering the hormonal makeup of one's body it is likely that there will be unintended effects.

In my case, a desire not to have children has nothing to do with BC. I'd prefer not to get into my reasoning, because I really don't want about fifteen people jumping down my back and saying, "see! this is why you should be pro-life!" (And yes, it would happen with what my reasons are.)

"A.) Prove the existence of a god.
B.) Prove that this god is the Christian God.
C.) Prove that your interpretation of this Christian God is correct.
----------------------------------

A) Already proven by the 5 ways of St. Thomas Aquinas (summary: http://members.aol.com/plweiss1/aquinas.htm)

B) Read the Old Testament WITH the New Testament
(pray to the Holy SPirit first for guidance or Better yet..read the CCC: http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm

C) Believe first that you may understand...rather than the other way around.

A...the burden of proof is not with us believers but to you Non-believers...

Patricia,

"the burden of proof is not with us believers but to you Non-believers..."

But that's the opposite of how proof and assumption works in the rest of the world. Guilt is not assumed: people are presumed to be innocent until it has been proven otherwise.

Non-existence also cannot be proven--it's philosophically impossible. (Well, apart from that whole of "prove this chair does not exist"--"what chair?") Existence, however, can be proven and I ask for that definitive proof.

Additionally, this would be a good time for me to mention that absolute certainty and proof is not necessary to hold a belief. If, however, one is going to tell me that I am wrong and try to change my mind, I ask for proof.

You cannot use the Bible to prove God's existence. That is a circular argument at it's finest: the Bible (which, depending on interpretation, is either divinely inspired or the literal work of God) cannot prove the existence of said God because the divinity of said entity has already been assumed.

Thomas Acquinas's proofs do not prove the existence of the Christian God. His proofs are also not infallible. If you wish, I can go through and dispute each one.

However, the point of my statement in the original post was not to either attack your faith or argue about the existence (or lack thereof) of a being known as the Christian God. My point was that if you want to prove your point, you have to begin with assertions that we both agree on. Otherwise, you have made a meaningless statement in the context of this debate.

Oops, that was supposed to be addressed to RSD.

"Existence, however, can be proven and I ask for that definitive proof."
----------------------------------
Already did...just because you can't see something doesn't mean it does not exist.

"You cannot use the Bible to prove God's existence"
-------------------
I didn't...read the post again...

"Thomas Acquinas's proofs do not prove the existence of the Christian God"
---------------------------
It was for the existence of God.

"My point was that if you want to prove your point, you have to begin with assertions that we both agree on..."

ah, there's the rub....what do we agree on?

RSD,

"Already did...just because you can't see something doesn't mean it does not exist."

I'm sorry, you didn't. You offered Philosophical Proofs that have long since been disputed/disproven by minds far greater than my own and a Book which demonstrates nothing one already believes. You also have a long way to go in proven that, if there is a God, that it is the Christian one.

"ah, there's the rub....what do we agree on?"

Which is why I suggest leaving God out of the equation.

*nothing unless one already believes

There you go....

A,

I think so of this will be really interesting to discuss with you. As always though, I may take a while to respond. I'll address only one thing to get us started and see where it goes.

"Non-existence also cannot be proven--it's philosophically impossible. (Well, apart from that whole of "prove this chair does not exist"--"what chair?") Existence, however, can be proven and I ask for that definitive proof."

Once we have an understanding of the words "God" and "exists", the negative claim that "God does not exist" is in fact a positive truth claim which the atheist has a burden of proof to show. This is in contrast to the agnostic who says that they don't know if God exists or not (the agnostic who says that we can NOT KNOW if God exists also has the burden of proof on him).

So I would argue that the only claim for which one does not have a burden of proof is the claim that they don't know if God exists. As far as your chair example goes, I think you haven't given me enough information in order to make a decision on whether or not it exists. If you say "a pink chair which only I can see," I might be able to say a little bit more. But I think the problem lies in your phrase "this chair." Tell me more about the chair and I think I can make a sesnable existence claim about it.

So that's all I'm going to say for now. Talk to you soon.

Bobby,

"Once we have an understanding of the words "God" and "exists", the negative claim that "God does not exist" is in fact a positive truth claim which the atheist has a burden of proof to show."

I stand corrected--you are correct in that it depends upon the assumptions which one begins upon. If one begins from a position that God exists, then the nonexistence of said entity is, in fact, a positive claim. If one begins from a position of nonexistence, the reverse is true.

I suppose it's also true that the only position which needs to prove nothing is the agnostic. I still think that it's somewhat of a wash as a position though--one does not need definitive proof in order to hold a belief.

"As far as your chair example goes, I think you haven't given me enough information in order to make a decision on whether or not it exists. If you say "a pink chair which only I can see," I might be able to say a little bit more. But I think the problem lies in your phrase "this chair." Tell me more about the chair and I think I can make a sesnable existence claim about it."

Okay, though I used it I don't know much about this particular proof (if it is one). Years ago, I saw the example used in a television program (The professor charged her class to prove that a chair sitting in front of her did not exist. While the rest of the class was scrambling to come up with complicated proofs, one male student simply raised his hand and said, "What chair?"--an answer which the professor said was correct.) Admittedly, the show was not a particularly factual or intellectual program (please don't laugh--it was Sabrina the Teenage Witch) but I do tend to be pretty good at picking out of things what is true and what is fantasy.

Hey A,

"I stand corrected--you are correct in that it depends upon the assumptions which one begins upon. If one begins from a position that God exists, then the nonexistence of said entity is, in fact, a positive claim. If one begins from a position of nonexistence, the reverse is true."

So would you agree then that as it is well-defined, the claim that a certain entity exists is a truth claim (in need of proof), the claim that the entity does not exist is a truth claim (in need of proof), the claim that we can not know if it exists is a truth claim (in need of proof), and the statement that I'm not sure if it exists is also valid, but no real need of proof because it is only a statement of a person's knowledge.

I would add there are statements that for me would personally fall into the last category. For example, I heard a debate on atheism vs. theism where the atheist debater said "Suppose I tell you that I am god and that I just created all of you 5 seconds ago with all the info in your head that you have now, all the past memories in your head, etc. You would have no way to refute that." I thought about it, and the truth is, I think he's right. There is no way to refute that. And if that is the case, there is nothing I can do about it. But I suppose I am agnostic on that question.

"I suppose it's also true that the only position which needs to prove nothing is the agnostic."

Indeed, at least the agnostic who says they aren't sure. Some people who say we can't know call themselves agnostic. Do you agree with my distinction?

"I still think that it's somewhat of a wash as a position though--one does not need definitive proof in order to hold a belief."

I agree. And this gets into the theory of justification; what are grounds for holding a belief? I'd say it is reasonable to hold a belief if it is more probable than its negation. Now I"m not saying one necessarily SHOULD hold a belief if they figure that there is a 51% chance of it being true and 49% chance of it being false, but I'd say they are justified if they do wish to hold it.

But yeah, I would never hold you to being 100% sure about a belief.

"Okay, though I used it I don't know much about this particular proof (if it is one). Years ago, I saw the example used in a television program (The professor charged her class to prove that a chair sitting in front of her did not exist. While the rest of the class was scrambling to come up with complicated proofs, one male student simply raised his hand and said, "What chair?"--an answer which the professor said was correct.) Admittedly, the show was not a particularly factual or intellectual program (please don't laugh--it was Sabrina the Teenage Witch) but I do tend to be pretty good at picking out of things what is true and what is fantasy."

Sorry, I couldn't help myself from laughing! Even though it was on that show, that of course, does not make the example irrelevant. It took me a minute to get it. That is interesting, but I think the problem is that the chair that the teacher was talking about was not well-defined. But it still is an interesting exercise in philosophical thinking.

Bobby,

"So would you agree then that as it is well-defined, the claim that a certain entity exists is a truth claim (in need of proof), the claim that the entity does not exist is a truth claim (in need of proof), the claim that we can not know if it exists is a truth claim (in need of proof), and the statement that I'm not sure if it exists is also valid, but no real need of proof because it is only a statement of a person's knowledge.”

I might disagree with that last bit (the claim that we can not know if it exists is in need of proof). Technically, that’s what agnosticism means. In common usage, it is often taken to mean a person who is unsure about the existence of a deity. In truth, that is incorrect; agnosticism is the belief that there can never be proof in either direction as to whether there is or is not a deity. (A side note—many atheists actually exhibit agnostic tendencies and yet still maintain the belief that God does not exist. I fall into this category.) To me it follows logically that if one must offer proof to support one of two contrasting truth claims and cannot do so (because, let’s face it…there are very few things which we can ever have definitive proof of), that one could set forth the claim that we can never know and then not need to prove this assertion.

“I would add there are statements that for me would personally fall into the last category. For example, I heard a debate on atheism vs. theism where the atheist debater said "Suppose I tell you that I am god and that I just created all of you 5 seconds ago with all the info in your head that you have now, all the past memories in your head, etc. You would have no way to refute that." I thought about it, and the truth is, I think he's right. There is no way to refute that. And if that is the case, there is nothing I can do about it. But I suppose I am agnostic on that question.”

That’s interesting.

“Indeed, at least the agnostic who says they aren't sure. Some people who say we can't know call themselves agnostic. Do you agree with my distinction?”

I’d argue that the first is a misuse of the term agnostic. (One which Ray Comfort never seems to figure out.)

“I agree. And this gets into the theory of justification; what are grounds for holding a belief? I'd say it is reasonable to hold a belief if it is more probable than its negation.”

Agreed.

“Now I"m not saying one necessarily SHOULD hold a belief if they figure that there is a 51% chance of it being true and 49% chance of it being false, but I'd say they are justified if they do wish to hold it.”

Indeed. Though most people (myself included) are not that logical and objective when it comes to beliefs and whether or not to hold them.

“But yeah, I would never hold you to being 100% sure about a belief.”

The only time I ask for definitive proof is when someone else is trying to tell me that my belief(s) are wrong.

"Sorry, I couldn't help myself from laughing!”

Hey, no fair! I’m sure you used to watch weird stuff when you were younger that seems quite ridiculous now.

“It took me a minute to get it. That is interesting, but I think the problem is that the chair that the teacher was talking about was not well-defined. But it still is an interesting exercise in philosophical thinking.”

It is, but I’m not sure that I entirely buy it. Refusing to acknowledge the existence of something does not mean that it no longer exists.

Wow, so we're actually in pretty good agreement! Couple things though...

"I might disagree with that last bit (the claim that we can not know if it exists is in need of proof). Technically, that’s what agnosticism means. In common usage, it is often taken to mean a person who is unsure about the existence of a deity. In truth, that is incorrect; agnosticism is the belief that there can never be proof in either direction as to whether there is or is not a deity. (A side note—many atheists actually exhibit agnostic tendencies and yet still maintain the belief that God does not exist. I fall into this category.)"

I have no problem with defining agnosticism like that.

"To me it follows logically that if one must offer proof to support one of two contrasting truth claims and cannot do so (because, let’s face it…there are very few things which we can ever have definitive proof of), that one could set forth the claim that we can never know and then not need to prove this assertion."

Well, theists believe that they can offer proofs (in the philosophical sense, not the mathematical sense; like we discussed before, based on premises more likely than their negation) for the existence of God. But the fact that many people do not accept the proof shouldn't imply that the truth can not be known. Or maybe this is what you mean? You mentioned above that no one can tell you you are wrong if they are not 100% sure of their belief.

So I may be way off base here, but are you saying that everyone has to agree in order to know something? Like, would you say that we KNOW that the earth is round? Maybe explain your position a little more, I think I'm way off.

"I’d argue that the first is a misuse of the term agnostic. (One which Ray Comfort never seems to figure out.)"

Haha! I kinda like Ray Comfort. He has a nice mustache. Did you happen to see the debate on the existence of God with Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron vs. the Rational Response Squad? Horrible! It was a really pathetic debate. I think it was on NBC or something about a year ago. I watched it on YouTube. Don't watch it :)

"Hey, no fair! I’m sure you used to watch weird stuff when you were younger that seems quite ridiculous now."

While we're discussing Melissa Joan Hart, I used to watch "Clarissa Explains it All." There, we're even.

But let's see, the discussion of the burden of proof and agnosticism is somewhat of a moot point because you claim atheism, ehh? Now the burden of proof is on me to define what I mean by the statement "God exists" and then you can let me know how what you think of it, and we'll go from there.

So by God (and this is all subject to slight tweaking if needed) I mean a divine personal being who reigns supreme [over us and all of time, space, and matter as well as any other non-corporal entities (if they exist)].

To say that X exists, I mean that the essence of X is actualized in some being.

Have a good evening.

Bobby,

“Well, theists believe that they can offer proofs (in the philosophical sense, not the mathematical sense; like we discussed before, based on premises more likely than their negation) for the existence of God. But the fact that many people do not accept the proof shouldn't imply that the truth can not be known. Or maybe this is what you mean? You mentioned above that no one can tell you you are wrong if they are not 100% sure of their belief.”

I assume you're referring to things like Thomas Aquinas' Five Proofs or something similar. (Please, please, please don't tell me you're going bring up the kinds of thing that Ray Comfort does--“a building has a builder, ect.” That man needs to be told (A.) the definition of a circular argument and (B.) that avoiding questions does not improve your point.) The problem is that philosophically its very hard to prove anything definitively—subjective interpretation gets in the way. Then you get into the whole realm of “well, just because we can't conceive of something doesn't mean that it can't be true” (one of my objections to the Five Proofs). In my opinion (and I think a good portion of the Philo Society), philosophy isn't about deciding anything—it's about learning how to think and how to question.

When I was talking about how the truth cannot be known, I was only referring to the existence/non-existence of God. In my opinion, there can never be proof either way. Those who believe will see proof wherever they look and those who do not will see nothing that they do not expect to see (yes, I fall into this category—I was going through it at one point with a friend who kept trying to convert me and there was literally nothing that could make me believe.) This does not mean that the truth cannot exist but only that we cannot known it.

Well, they can try (to tell me I'm wrong). It annoys me though because I'm not an unreasonable person and I don't hold absurd beliefs (well, MK might have a different opinion on the subject, though my comments about children got taken in the wrong way. I don't advocate letting your kids run naked through the streets and eating only candy—I advocate waiting and supplying the child with an adequate enough base so that he/she can decide things like religion for him/herself.) If someone is going to tell me that I am flat-out wrong and that they are unquestionably right, I ask that they have definitive proof (this is why I don't try to convert people). I don't think that that is unreasonable.

“So I may be way off base here, but are you saying that everyone has to agree in order to know something? Like, would you say that we KNOW that the earth is round? Maybe explain your position a little more, I think I'm way off.”

You're a little off—I don't believe that consensus has anything to do with knowledge. I believe that one can never definitively “know” anything unless that individual discovers it for him-or-herself. I've been told that the earth is round, but how do I know that this information is true unless I go out and discover it for myself? That said, I do not discount the wealth of knowledge that mankind has accumulated—I simply believe that it is a different type of knowledge that one can never objectively, definitively know.

“Haha! I kinda like Ray Comfort. He has a nice mustache. Did you happen to see the debate on the existence of God with Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron vs. the Rational Response Squad? Horrible! It was a really pathetic debate. I think it was on NBC or something about a year ago. I watched it on YouTube. Don't watch it :)”

Don't worry, I won't. He annoys me in any case—he is wilfully ignorant of both atheism and agnosticism. Many of his “proofs” (an atheist's worst nightmare—the banana!) are absolutely laughable and I personally feel that he is nothing more than a media-loving attention seeker.

“While we're discussing Melissa Joan Hart, I used to watch "Clarissa Explains it All." There, we're even.”

Original Power Rangers.

“But let's see, the discussion of the burden of proof and agnosticism is somewhat of a moot point because you claim atheism, ehh? Now the burden of proof is on me to define what I mean by the statement "God exists" and then you can let me know how what you think of it, and we'll go from there.”

Fair enough—I should warn you, though, no one's been able to convince that any form of deity exists and it isn't for lack of trying.

“So by God (and this is all subject to slight tweaking if needed) I mean a divine personal being who reigns supreme [over us and all of time, space, and matter as well as any other non-corporal entities (if they exist)].
To say that X exists, I mean that the essence of X is actualized in some being.”

This is my understanding as well.

Have a good day.

A,

If it doesn't bother you, I want to try and keep these a little bit shorter than the ones we had back in the day. That probably won't happen, but we'll see...Mostly it was me who was doing all the yapping...

"I assume you're referring to things like Thomas Aquinas' Five Proofs or something similar."

Yeah, more or less. I'll just lay out one that I like at the end for discussion.

"(Please, please, please don't tell me you're going bring up the kinds of thing that Ray Comfort does--“a building has a builder, ect.""

Haha, no. While obviously as a theist I think that it is true that the universe had a designer, I don't think it's a convincing argument. I don't arguments by analogy work too well, although it can provide evidence.

"The problem is that philosophically its very hard to prove anything definitively—subjective interpretation gets in the way."

Wait, but didn't we agree that as long as one is convinced that something is more probable than it's negation, then they are justified in holding it? I suppose I somewhat equate those ideas; that is, someone has proven a statement X to me if he has convinced me that X is more probable than its negation, in which case I am justified in holding that belief.

"When I was talking about how the truth cannot be known, I was only referring to the existence/non-existence of God. In my opinion, there can never be proof either way."

So you are an agnostic in the sense we defined above then, right?

"Original Power Rangers."

Continuing with the SNICK lineup, Roundhouse. Beat that!

"Fair enough—I should warn you, though, no one's been able to convince that any form of deity exists and it isn't for lack of trying."

I understand. This will be good to discuss then. So what I am going to do is propose one of my favorite arguments, the Kalam cosmological argument. I'm not going to try and defend the premises; I'll wait and see which one (or both) you reject. But here is the first argument to consider

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence.

2. The universe began to exist.

Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Now there is no debate on whether or not that is a logically valid argument; the conclusion logically follows from the premises. So if you reject the conclusion, you must reject at least one premise.

The other thing is that you may accept the argument but see no reason to equate the "cause of the universe" with what I defined to be God. That is also on me to try and convince you of.

So let's start with the Kalam argument. If you accept it, we'll move on and I'll try and argue that the first cause is God. Otherwise, we can discuss the reasonableness of the premises and why one might reject them. Sound OK?

Bobby,

“If it doesn't bother you, I want to try and keep these a little bit shorter than the ones we had back in the day. That probably won't happen, but we'll see...Mostly it was me who was doing all the yapping...”

Somehow I don’t think we’ll be too successful.

“Haha, no. While obviously as a theist I think that it is true that the universe had a designer, I don't think it's a convincing argument. I don't arguments by analogy work too well, although it can provide evidence.”

In this case, flawed evidence. Just because we cannot conceive of it does not mean that it is not possible.

“Wait, but didn't we agree that as long as one is convinced that something is more probable than it's negation, then they are justified in holding it? I suppose I somewhat equate those ideas; that is, someone has proven a statement X to me if he has convinced me that X is more probable than its negation, in which case I am justified in holding that belief.”

Justification is different from definitive proof. One can be justified in having a belief and not have definitive proof for it.

“So you are an agnostic in the sense we defined above then, right?”

Correct. Technically, I am an atheist with agnostics tendencies. I admit that I have no definitive proof but still believe because definitive proof is not required. In my opinion, if believers (in the religious sense) are honest, they will admit this as well. That charge that to be an atheist one has to have absolute knowledge of the universe--it's true for believers as well.

“Continuing with the SNICK lineup, Roundhouse. Beat that!”

Los Luchadores

"I understand. This will be good to discuss then. So what I am going to do is propose one of my favorite arguments, the Kalam cosmological argument. I'm not going to try and defend the premises; I'll wait and see which one (or both) you reject. But here is the first argument to consider.
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause for its existence.
2. The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause.”

It depends on what you mean by cause. If by cause, you mean some natural force that leads to some action (ie. the earthquake causing the rock to fall) then I agree with you. If you mean cause as in an intelligent cause, I disagree with you.

I don’t know enough about theoretical physics to argue this point, but I’ll bring it up anyway. Everything that we’re aware of has a cause. That does not, however, mean that everything has to have a cause. There is much in this world that we’re not aware of and it would foolish of us to assume that everything that has ever been in the universe must necessarily exist within the realms of that with which we have experience.

Oops...that was me.

A,

"Justification is different from definitive proof. One can be justified in having a belief and not have definitive proof for it."

Right, but I guess when I use the word proof, I just mean a compelling argument more probable than its negation. I think we're on the same page that the only time one should really use the word proof in its strongest sense is in mathematics??

"Los Luchadores"

Wow, so I hadn't heard of this before, but (as you know) it's a show about pro wrestling. Do you know any of my history with pro wrestling? If not, google "Bobby Bambino" and check out the very first page that pops up :)

OK. I'll try and keep my responses terse.

"It depends on what you mean by cause. If by cause, you mean some natural force that leads to some action (ie. the earthquake causing the rock to fall) then I agree with you. If you mean cause as in an intelligent cause, I disagree with you."

Well, all I mean by a cause is "something which brings about a change in something else." So in my case, the first something I would argue is God, the second something is the universe, and the change is the action of the universe's coming into existence. So I claim the the reason, or what it was that brought the universe into existence from non-existence is God.

"I don’t know enough about theoretical physics to argue this point, but I’ll bring it up anyway. Everything that we’re aware of has a cause."

So it seems to me that that statement should imply that the statement "(*)everything that begins to exist has a cause" [I'm labeling that statement (*) so I don't have to keep rewriting it whenever I want to refer back to it] is at least more probable than its negation. True, it does not irrefutably follow, but it seems to me that in light of any evidence to believe that things come into existence uncaused, there is no compelling reason to doubt that (*) is more reasonable than not.

And this is really the way the scientific method works; you take all the known data, and try and hypothesize the best possible explanation to fit that data. Could new data come up some day that changes what we now believe to be true? Sure. But up to this point, all human experience points to (*) being true.

Another question to consider is that if (*) is false, why don't we see this happening in the world? Wouldn't we expect to see things popping in and out of existence often? If the universe's existence is uncaused, why not something smaller, like say a tiger? My daughter is asleep in her crib in her room right now, and the last thing I'm worried about is a tiger simply popping into existence in her room and mauling her. Now that example is a bit flippant, but I think it illustrates the point that no one is REALLY concerned about things coming into being out of nothing. Again, I don't say it is 100% impossible, just that we have really no reason to think that they would. So, in light of a total lack of evidence or reason to the contrary, I see (*) as being quite probable, and justified for one to hold.

Sorry, wrote more than I intended to. Well, we know this was gonna happen. Talk with ya later!

Bobby,

Bobby,

“I think we're on the same page that the only time one should really use the word proof in its strongest sense is in mathematics??”
Agreed.

" Wow, so I hadn't heard of this before, but (as you know) it's a show about pro wrestling. Do you know any of my history with pro wrestling? If not, google "Bobby Bambino" and check out the very first page that pops up :) “

Okay, I’m actually confused. Is that really you or someone else?

“Well, all I mean by a cause is "something which brings about a change in something else." So in my case, the first something I would argue is God, the second something is the universe, and the change is the action of the universe's coming into existence. So I claim the the reason, or what it was that brought the universe into existence from non-existence is God.”

Going off of the first premise, couldn’t the cause be something else that we don’t understand?
“So it seems to me that that statement should imply that the statement "(*)everything that begins to exist has a cause" [I'm labeling that statement (*) so I don't have to keep rewriting it whenever I want to refer back to it] is at least more probable than its negation. True, it does not irrefutably follow, but it seems to me that in light of any evidence to believe that things come into existence uncaused, there is no compelling reason to doubt that (*) is more reasonable than not.”

It is reasonable, but I cringe away from absolutes.

“And this is really the way the scientific method works; you take all the known data, and try and hypothesize the best possible explanation to fit that data. Could new data come up some day that changes what we now believe to be true? Sure. But up to this point, all human experience points to (*) being true.”

True.

“Another question to consider is that if (*) is false, why don't we see this happening in the world? Wouldn't we expect to see things popping in and out of existence often?”

Perhaps because it takes a very specific sets of conditions and circumstances that have only occurred once, perhaps at the beginning of the universe.

“If the universe's existence is uncaused, why not something smaller, like say a tiger? My daughter is asleep in her crib in her room right now, and the last thing I'm worried about is a tiger simply popping into existence in her room and mauling her. Now that example is a bit flippant, but I think it illustrates the point that no one is REALLY concerned about things coming into being out of nothing. Again, I don't say it is 100% impossible, just that we have really no reason to think that they would. So, in light of a total lack of evidence or reason to the contrary, I see (*) as being quite probable, and justified for one to hold.”

Probably and justified yes, but remember that I ask for definitive proof if someone is trying to show me something. As much as I practically agree with you and your conclusions, a lack of experience is not and will never be proof.

A,

"Okay, I’m actually confused. Is that really you or someone else?"

Indeed, that is me. I was a pro wrestler for 8 years before I came out here for school. My brother makes a living as a pro wrestler. Strange, ehh?

So based on your responses, we may be at somewhat of an impasse. I may have misunderstood or whatever, but to be honest, whenever I am discussing the existence of God with a non-theist, the VERY BEST that I hope for is to convince the non-theist that belief in God is reasonable and that God's existence much more probable than not. So even on my own terms, I can not possibly expect to give you definitive proof.

That said, let's take a step back and think about the idea of definitive proof. I think last week you mentioned your belief in the famous "cogito ergo sum." You believe that you exist. But what about other minds? I think Descartes also said in his Discourse on Method when remarking on his cogito ergo sum something along the lines of "It could be the case that a demon is causing me to think I am seeing the world around me but that in reality it does not exist. But he can not be causing me to think I exist when in reality I don't exist." (something like that; not an exact quote) So how do you know (or maybe you don't) that a demon isn't causing you to see the world around you? In particular, would you say you have definitive proof that I exist?

It is also interesting to note that it can be the case that one has definitive proof of something but will not accept the conclusion. I have an example. It turns out that .9999... where the 9s go on FOREVER is equal to the number 1. They are the EXACT same number. Now I have shown the proof to people, an engineer in particular (who obviously is not dumb). The proof is of course air tight and definitive. After seeing the proof, he said "I understand it; but I don't believe it." He believed every single line, that every line followed from the one previous from it. There was nothing he could say that was wrong; he just for whatevr reason did not want to accept the conclusion.

Now I am in no way accusing you or any non-theist of doing this. In fact, it cuts both ways. But the point is that even given definitive proof, it can still be the case that someone will not agree with the conclusion. BTW, if you're interested, I can show you a proof or at least give you good reasons to see why it might be true. Have a great day; it looks like you were really, really busy with Chris and MK earlier. I'm gonna read it all now. Should be fun!

Bobby,

"Indeed, that is me. I was a pro wrestler for 8 years before I came out here for school. My brother makes a living as a pro wrestler. Strange, ehh?"

Totally bizarre, in that it is entirely beyond my comprehension. What was it like?

"So based on your responses, we may be at somewhat of an impasse. I may have misunderstood or whatever, but to be honest, whenever I am discussing the existence of God with a non-theist, the VERY BEST that I hope for is to convince the non-theist that belief in God is reasonable and that God's existence much more probable than not. So even on my own terms, I can not possibly expect to give you definitive proof."

Hmm...I've been thinking about that, and it might not be an entirely fair standard. I mean, I don't even have definitive proof for what I believe, so how can I demand it in others?

"That said, let's take a step back and think about the idea of definitive proof. I think last week you mentioned your belief in the famous "cogito ergo sum." You believe that you exist. But what about other minds? I think Descartes also said in his Discourse on Method when remarking on his cogito ergo sum something along the lines of "It could be the case that a demon is causing me to think I am seeing the world around me but that in reality it does not exist. But he can not be causing me to think I exist when in reality I don't exist." (something like that; not an exact quote) So how do you know (or maybe you don't) that a demon isn't causing you to see the world around you? In particular, would you say you have definitive proof that I exist?"

I don't. This gets back to the whole "brains in a vat" thing (shudder) and ultimately, I don't think it can proven that we aren't. However, the reason that I hated epistemology is because I don't think it matters. What if I am a brain in a vat? Does that mean that I should give up and die because nothing is real?

Oh, using whether or not I think you're real is probably a bad example. I mean, we're on the internet. I've seen pictures and I know that you have a facebook profile, but do I really have any proof that you exist as opposed to simply being a computer or some other entity? (Not that I don't think you exist, mind, I simply couldn't resist making the point. For that matter, you have no proof that I exist either.)

"It is also interesting to note that it can be the case that one has definitive proof of something but will not accept the conclusion. I have an example. It turns out that .9999... where the 9s go on FOREVER is equal to the number 1. They are the EXACT same number. Now I have shown the proof to people, an engineer in particular (who obviously is not dumb). The proof is of course air tight and definitive. After seeing the proof, he said "I understand it; but I don't believe it." He believed every single line, that every line followed from the one previous from it. There was nothing he could say that was wrong; he just for whatevr reason did not want to accept the conclusion."

Oh, completely. The example doesn't exactly fit, but at one point a friend of mine was asking what it would take for me to believe in a god and the answer was literally nothing. We tried a burning bush, the appearance of Jesus to a large crowd of people, and an angel coming to visit me. My answer to the first was spontaneous combustion; to the second, mass delusion; and to the third, a temporary break with reality. I try to be open about things and I do critique my own beliefs (not exactly a fun exercise) but religion is something that I've never been open to since I was child.

"Now I am in no way accusing you or any non-theist of doing this. In fact, it cuts both ways. But the point is that even given definitive proof, it can still be the case that someone will not agree with the conclusion."

It does indeed; humans grow far too attached to what they know.

"BTW, if you're interested, I can show you a proof or at least give you good reasons to see why it might be true."

Yes, I am indeed interested. More thought is always good.

"Have a great day; it looks like you were really, really busy with Chris and MK earlier. I'm gonna read it all now. Should be fun!"

I was procrastinating. (Bad, bad A.) The day was going well (went out and got dinner, bought a few really interesting books), then became kind of crappy.

Have a good night.

A. - excellent comments. You're right - beyond the fact of its own consciousness, what else can a consciousness really be sure of?

Going with the assumption that we're separate and individual consciousnesses, we all make (other) unprovable assumptions, and it's where our assumptions diverge that the arguments begin.

Doug,

"excellent comments."

Thanks. You know, it's quite sad here that normally only the pro-lifers ever get told that they have good arguments or make good points.

"You're right - beyond the fact of its own consciousness, what else can a consciousness really be sure of?"

No---help--I'm being dragged into the realm of epistemology!

"Going with the assumption that we're separate and individual consciousnesses, we all make (other) unprovable assumptions, and it's where our assumptions diverge that the arguments begin."

Indeed. Which is why I always try to begin at the level of those assumptions.

OK. So let me make a couple more observations about the kalam cosmological argument.

It boils down to this; is it reasonable to believe that the universe has a cause for its existence? In other words, it seems that the universe come from either something or nothing. Current Big Bang Cosmology tells us that if we trace time all the way back to the moment of the big bang, we arrive a point, a singularity. It can be thought of as taking the base of a cone and pulling it back to its apex. Everything goes back to this one point (the singularity) out of which expanded the universe as we know it. With the big bang time, matter, and space all came into being. We can't even talk about "before" the big bang because time came into being with the big bang, so there was no "before."

So what seems to me to be the most plausible explanation for this initial singularity is "something" rather than nothing. I would then further argue what that "something" might entail. Later, friend.

Bobby,

I think this approach--avoiding absolutes--will work much better.

It is reasonable to assume that the universe has a cause. I would go further and say it is also reasonable to assume that it does not have a cause, but I digress.

A slight side note: Do you know where the theory of the big bang originated?

Have a good day.

OK A, we'll assume that it is reasonable to believe that the universe has a cause for its existence. What I'll do now is very briefly go dome properties of that cause that I think follow.

Since the cause brought not only the universe into existence but also time space and matter, it follows that this cause is somehow outside of time space and matter because the cause existed "previously" to the big bang, but those things didn't and hence they could not be necessary for the cause. This means that the cause is not localized (in some place) nor is it corporal (it doesn't have a body or made of material). It also needs to be something personal (conscience, self-aware, etc) because if it isn't, if it's say something like an immaterial rock, the universe would have never come into being because non-personal beings can't decisions or do things. In other words, this cause existed outside of time "before" the universe came into existence; if it was non-personal, what caused it bring the universe into existence? It then follows that this personal being is worthy of our worship because it created the universe and us (that's almost how I would define a deity). It is also extremely powerful to have created the universe out of no pre-existing "stuff."

Now the obvious question is "what caused the cause?" One could possibly ask why there can't be an infinite series of gods creating other gods, etc. The reason is that since we deduced that the first cause is outside of time, it follows that there can be no change in the first cause since time is needed for change to take place. But since no change can be made in the first cause, if it itself is caused, it would have had to go from not existing to existing, which is a change. Thus, the first cause has the property of aseity. That is, it is an uncaused, necessary being. This cause can not NOT exist. It is in the very nature of this cause to exist.

OK, I've very briefly sketched some of the properties that I think the cause must have. So now I'll refer to this cause as God since I argued that the first cause is a deity who is worthy of our worship and who created the universe.

Note that we did not (and I think can not) deduce other properties from this argument normally attributed to God; omnipotence, all loving, trinity, etc.

So that is how I see God, strictly from a theistic POV. Have a great day!

"Do you know where the theory of the big bang originated?"

Not totally... I know it was a Catholic who first postulated it and the name "Big Bang" was sort of a mocking name... what do you have in mind?

Bobby,

“Since the cause brought not only the universe into existence but also time space and matter, it follows that this cause is somehow outside of time space and matter because the cause existed "previously" to the big bang, but those things didn't and hence they could not be necessary for the cause.”

There’s nothing in the theory of the big bang that says that it created all matter. As I understand the theory, it states that everything began from an initial dense concentration known as a singularity. I see no reason why this could not have been matter. (That said, I also see no reason why it could not have been God.

“This means that the cause is not localized (in some place) nor is it corporal (it doesn't have a body or made of material).”

Based on what I know of the big bang theory, this is not true.

An additional point: how do we know that the big bang theory is true?

“It also needs to be something personal (conscience, self-aware, etc) because if it isn't, if it's say something like an immaterial rock, the universe would have never come into being because non-personal beings can't decisions or do things”

Non-personal beings (like, a rock) cannot make decisions, but they certainly can do things. A bolt of lightening can still destroy a tree.

“ In other words, this cause existed outside of time "before" the universe came into existence; if it was non-personal, what caused it bring the universe into existence? It then follows that this personal being is worthy of our worship because it created the universe and us (that's almost how I would define a deity). It is also extremely powerful to have created the universe out of no pre-existing "stuff."

Since I disagree with earlier points, I must dispute this as well.

Given that this statement is true, who’s to say that such a being would even care about us or want us to worship it?

“Now the obvious question is "what caused the cause?" One could possibly ask why there can't be an infinite series of gods creating other gods, etc. The reason is that since we deduced that the first cause is outside of time, it follows that there can be no change in the first cause since time is needed for change to take place.”

Based on our understanding of time. Humans literally cannot comprehend what it means to be without time. So how could we postulate what this pre-time condition was likely to be?

“Note that we did not (and I think can not) deduce other properties from this argument normally attributed to God; omnipotence, all loving, trinity, etc.”

Indeed. The argument was well-made; it simply doesn’t fit with my understanding of the big bang.

Have a good day.

Bobby,

I didn't have anything in mind; I simply don't know as much as I should about the big bang theory.

A,

"There’s nothing in the theory of the big bang that says that it created all matter. As I understand the theory, it states that everything began from an initial dense concentration known as a singularity. I see no reason why this could not have been matter. (That said, I also see no reason why it could not have been God."

So it seems that this is the crux of the matter. At this point, all we can do is appeal to authority, so I'll give you a couple of quotes with references and you can decide what you think of it. I don't want to pretend I"m a cosmologist, so yeah...

"The universe began from a state of infinite density. . . . Space and time were created in that event and so was all the matter in the universe. It is not meaningful to ask what happened before the Big Bang; it is like asking what is north of the North Pole. Similarly, it is not sensible to ask where the Big Bang took place. The point-universe was not an object isolated in space; it was the entire universe, and so the answer can only be that the Big Bang happened everywhere"

Richard J. Gott, et.al., "Will the Universe Expand Forever?" Scientific American (March 1976), p. 65

"That’s right. The mechanism of the coming-into-being of the universe, as discussed in modern science, is actually much more profound than the biblical version because it does not merely involve order emerging out of chaos. It’s not just a matter of imposing some sort of organisation or structure upon a previous incoherent state, but literally the coming-into-being of all physical things from nothing."

http://www.abc.net.au/science/bigquestions/s460625.htm

"An additional point: how do we know that the big bang theory is true?"

Right. Well, kind of like we discussed before, it is currently the accepted scientific explanation of the origins of the universe. True, it could change some day, but right now it seems that if we take everything that is known, the big bang theory is the best possible explanation to fit the evidence. Also, I should note that there are philosophical arguments for why the universe is finite.

"Given that this statement is true, who’s to say that such a being would even care about us or want us to worship it?"

This is true. Reason may suggest that this being is deserving of worship, but there is no way to tell that the being desires it (although I don't think it would be unreasonable to think so). We get a much better understanding of the type of worship required through divine revelation, which we may get to much later. But you're right; even if we can deduce that there is a God, it seems likely that we should worship him, but it may not necessarily be the case.

"Based on our understanding of time. Humans literally cannot comprehend what it means to be without time. So how could we postulate what this pre-time condition was likely to be?"

Yeah, this is tricky. It seems to me that in order to say a change has occurred, time is necessary because by definition, if you change (say from brown hair to green hair), then there should be an "instant" when you had brown hair and currently you have green hair. But this is tricky. That last sentence of mine was laced with "time"words, which isn't good... So I suppose all I can say is that it seems to me that time is necessary in order for a change to happen. I'll have to think more about how to defend that.

"Indeed. The argument was well-made; it simply doesn’t fit with my understanding of the big bang."

I'm going to try and look some more into the justification for why matter had to come into being in addition to those two quotes. That seems pretty important.

OK, hope your evening goes well.

"You're right - beyond the fact of its own consciousness, what else can a consciousness really be sure of?"

A.: No---help--I'm being dragged into the realm of epistemology!

Heh, yeah.... I think the main point is that we simply DO make assumptions. Then some people start acting like theirs somehow necessarily must apply to other people, and even acting like they aren't assumptions in the first place. So of course many will disagree.

Bobby,

“So it seems that this is the crux of the matter. At this point, all we can do is appeal to authority, so I'll give you a couple of quotes with references and you can decide what you think of it. I don't want to pretend I"m a cosmologist, so yeah...”

Nor am I—I’m way out of my depth here. I'm not even a science or math type person. :(

"The universe began from a state of infinite density. . . . Space and time were created in that event and so was all the matter in the universe. It is not meaningful to ask what happened before the Big Bang; it is like asking what is north of the North Pole. Similarly, it is not sensible to ask where the Big Bang took place. The point-universe was not an object isolated in space; it was the entire universe, and so the answer can only be that the Big Bang happened everywhere"

Here’s what doesn’t make sense to me…how can the universe begin from a state of infinite density if it doesn’t include some form of matter, even if it’s a form that we wouldn’t recognize? There has to be something there in order for it to be dense, doesn't there?

From this website http://www.big-bang-theory.com/

“According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a "singularity" and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don't know for sure. Singularities are zones which defy our current understanding of physics. They are thought to exist at the core of "black holes." Black holes are areas of intense gravitational pressure. The pressure is thought to be so intense that finite matter is actually squished into infinite density (a mathematical concept which truly boggles the mind). These zones of infinite density are called "singularities." Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity. Where did it come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We don't know.”

“The singularity didn't appear in space; rather, space began inside of the singularity. Prior to the singularity, nothing existed, not space, time, matter, or energy - nothing. So where and in what did the singularity appear if not in space? We don't know. We don't know where it came from, why it's here, or even where it is. All we really know is that we are inside of it and at one time it didn't exist and neither did we.”

Okay, clearly I need to read more carefully before I start refuting things. This implies that we are inside the singularity which marked the beginning of the universe—if this singularity is, in fact, God (as you postulate) we would therefore be inside of and a part of this entity as opposed to separate from Him.

Additionally, the argument that just because we don’t fully understand something it must have been divinely inspired is a poor one.

“Right. Well, kind of like we discussed before, it is currently the accepted scientific explanation of the origins of the universe. True, it could change some day, but right now it seems that if we take everything that is known, the big bang theory is the best possible explanation to fit the evidence. Also, I should note that there are philosophical arguments for why the universe is finite.”

Oh, I don’t dispute that we must go off of what science is currently telling us—I just like to point out that this argument can change.

"This is true. Reason may suggest that this being is deserving of worship, but there is no way to tell that the being desires it (although I don't think it would be unreasonable to think so). We get a much better understanding of the type of worship required through divine revelation, which we may get to much later. But you're right; even if we can deduce that there is a God, it seems likely that we should worship him, but it may not necessarily be the case.”

Hang on…if some being was awesome enough to create an entire universe, what makes you think that he/she/it would even care about one puny little race on one ultimately quite insignificant planet?

I know where’re not discussing it at the moment, but this is one of my reasons for disputing Christianity. God created the entire universe—countless planets, stars, black holes, nebulas, ect.—all for the benefit of one race which inhabits the teeniest little corner of His entire creation? To me, that just doesn’t make sense. If we really were all that important and made to be masters over the rest of creation, why would He both making so much of creation out of reach?

"Yeah, this is tricky. It seems to me that in order to say a change has occurred, time is necessary because by definition, if you change (say from brown hair to green hair), then there should be an "instant" when you had brown hair and currently you have green hair. But this is tricky. That last sentence of mine was laced with "time"words, which isn't good... So I suppose all I can say is that it seems to me that time is necessary in order for a change to happen. I'll have to think more about how to defend that.”

Time is necessary for our conception of change to happen—that doesn’t mean that there can’t be possibilities of which cannot conceive.

And what if time did exists before then, but in an entirely different and unrecognizable form?

Have a good day.

A,

"Here’s what doesn’t make sense to me…how can the universe begin from a state of infinite density if it doesn’t include some form of matter, even if it’s a form that we wouldn’t recognize? There has to be something there in order for it to be dense, doesn't there?"

I think we may be talking "before" that infinite density; that is, before the singularity. The last question your quote asks "Where did it come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We don't know" seems to verify this. So perhaps I've been a little sloppy with my wording, but maybe I should have been asking "what caused the singularity?" I think that doesn't change any of what I claim follows.

BTW, note that this fits exactly into traditional Christian creation account where God created the entire universe out of nothing. That's not evidence or anything, just pointing out a consistency.

"if this singularity is, in fact, God (as you postulate) we would therefore be inside of and a part of this entity as opposed to separate from Him."

Ah, I immediately stand corrected. It seems like you were thinking that the cause of the universe is the singularity and that I am equating the singularity with God, but not so. Sorry about that. I'm claiming that God caused the singularity to come into existence out of nothing. I mean, I always thought that the universe IS the singularity just expanded, so that's why I talk about the cause of the universe being the same thing as the cause of the singularity.

"Hang on…if some being was awesome enough to create an entire universe, what makes you think that he/she/it would even care about one puny little race on one ultimately quite insignificant planet?"

Yeah, it isn't obvious that he would care. I'll talk a little more about this below.

"I know where’re not discussing it at the moment, but this is one of my reasons for disputing Christianity. God created the entire universe—countless planets, stars, black holes, nebulas, ect.—all for the benefit of one race which inhabits the teeniest little corner of His entire creation? To me, that just doesn’t make sense. If we really were all that important and made to be masters over the rest of creation, why would He both making so much of creation out of reach? "

It's an interesting question. Christianity teaches that we are made in God's image and likeness; that is, with rational and moral dignity. One possible answer is that God wishes us to push the bounds of our intellect; he gave us this huge universe with all sorts of cool physics and mathematics, quantum mechanics, evolution, all this beautiful science that we can discover and learn. Then I think what that does is it demonstrates his power, his awesomeness, and his beauty. This is where I kind of digress into "Ray Comfort" mode (haha), but if there is a God who created the world, all of the mountains, trees, the sun, lakes, etc, then the beauty of them is like a gift to us.

But I think the more looming question is why would he care about us or want us to worship him, which Christianity does give an answer to.

"Time is necessary for our conception of change to happen—that doesn’t mean that there can’t be possibilities of which cannot conceive.

And what if time did exists before then, but in an entirely different and unrecognizable form? "

But I think what we saw above is that as far as we know, before the singularity, there was nothing (that is, nothing that science can observe). So that would eliminate something like time. That's how I understand it.

The baby is crying (what a baby!) so I must depart. TTYL.

Bobby,

"It's an interesting question. Christianity teaches that we are made in God's image and likeness; that is, with rational and moral dignity. One possible answer is that God wishes us to push the bounds of our intellect; he gave us this huge universe with all sorts of cool physics and mathematics, quantum mechanics, evolution, all this beautiful science that we can discover and learn. Then I think what that does is it demonstrates his power, his awesomeness, and his beauty. This is where I kind of digress into "Ray Comfort" mode (haha), but if there is a God who created the world, all of the mountains, trees, the sun, lakes, etc, then the beauty of them is like a gift to us."

I'd give you our solar system (the eight planets and the sun) or perhaps even the Milky Way galaxy , but not the entire universe. To me, that's beyond overkill and moves into the realm of hubris (that everything exists for us).

"But I think the more looming question is why would he care about us or want us to worship him, which Christianity does give an answer to."

If one assumes that Christianity is, in fact, correct. I, however, have never seen anything which would give it superiority over any other religion (a side note: Ray Comfort's answer to this question was hilarious and amazingly circular). I'm of the thought that a person's religion is more a feature of where they live and how they were brought up than any indicator of genuine truth.

"But I think what we saw above is that as far as we know, before the singularity, there was nothing (that is, nothing that science can observe). So that would eliminate something like time. That's how I understand it."

There was nothing according to our conception of nothing--who is to say that this conception is entirely correct? And if there was nothing--where was God?

Have a good night.

Hi A,

"I'd give you our solar system (the eight planets and the sun) or perhaps even the Milky Way galaxy , but not the entire universe. To me, that's beyond overkill and moves into the realm of hubris (that everything exists for us)."

Well, I can understand where you're coming from, I think. But IF God exists and created the universe, he wouldn't necessarily need a reason that we need to understand for creating the universe as it is, ehh? I mean, it might not be something that we can give a great answer to, but would you consider this like a MAIN objection to belief in God?

"If one assumes that Christianity is, in fact, correct. I, however, have never seen anything which would give it superiority over any other religion"

Well, here is a whole other topic in the sense that indeed, it needs to be argued that Christianity is true; not from a "I like it" POV or from a "it makes sense" POV, but but from a rational, "what-is-the-best-explanation" for certain evidence POV. If our conversation goes in that direction, I will try and give a rational defense of why I believe that Christianity is the truth.

I mean, the way I look at it in the most general sense is that I need to show 1) God exists. 2) God has revealed himself in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, and hence some form of Christianity is true. 3) The sect of Christianity that Jesus founded can be found in its fullness here on earth in the Catholic Church.

I have the burden of proof for all three of those. It is possible that someone could only be convinced of 1) and hence not a Christian but still a theist. All of 1), 2), and 3) are their own separate, individual arguments.

"(a side note: Ray Comfort's answer to this question was hilarious and amazingly circular)."

But I mean, how many men can pull of the mustache look?

"There was nothing according to our conception of nothing--who is to say that this conception is entirely correct? And if there was nothing--where was God?"

Ah see, this is why I like you A. You make me more precise. I shouldn't absolutely be saying nothing; rather, no space, time or matter so there was nothing detectable by our scientific standards. Hence, if all there is in the world is what we observe (i.e. materialism) then indeed, there was nothing before the big bang. So one who believes that only the things we can see and observe scientifically has to account for the fact that the universe came into being out of absolutely nothing. However, I contend that there was something prior to the big bang; an immaterial, spiritual being outside of time. That might be another way to look at it.

OK, time to take the baby out of the tub (no, she isn't alone in the tub, LOL) Have a wonderful evening.

Bobby,

"Well, I can understand where you're coming from, I think. But IF God exists and created the universe, he wouldn't necessarily need a reason that we need to understand for creating the universe as it is, ehh? I mean, it might not be something that we can give a great answer to, but would you consider this like a MAIN objection to belief in God?"

No. And I also admit that IF a being such as God existed, his mind would literally be impossible for humanity to comprehend.

My main objections to religion pertain directly to Christianity and deal with the question of evil (well, the original one, anyway). I've got plenty of others, many which I have already addressed through various comments in this thread.

"Well, here is a whole other topic in the sense that indeed, it needs to be argued that Christianity is true; not from a "I like it" POV or from a "it makes sense" POV, but but from a rational, "what-is-the-best-explanation" for certain evidence POV. If our conversation goes in that direction, I will try and give a rational defense of why I believe that Christianity is the truth."

And that's all I can ask. I have to admit, no one's been able to give me before. They've ranged from, "well, this person was raised in a different religion but felt a calling that they didn't understand until they converted to Christianity" (an argument which must fail because it does not address the other side of the equation) to the "well, you just have to believe and God will open you heart."

"I mean, the way I look at it in the most general sense is that I need to show 1) God exists. 2) God has revealed himself in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, and hence some form of Christianity is true. 3) The sect of Christianity that Jesus founded can be found in its fullness here on earth in the Catholic Church."

Well, the first two are sufficient unless you're trying to advocate for Catholicism. (Good luck with that one--I find that I disagree with many of the Vatican's official positions to the point where I believe that they are actually immoral. That said, some of my favorite people are Catholics).

"I have the burden of proof for all three of those. It is possible that someone could only be convinced of 1) and hence not a Christian but still a theist. All of 1), 2), and 3) are their own separate, individual arguments."

Agreed.

"But I mean, how many men can pull of the mustache look?"

I've never really thought about it to be honest. I'm not a big fan of facial hair though.

"Ah see, this is why I like you A. You make me more precise. I shouldn't absolutely be saying nothing; rather, no space, time or matter so there was nothing detectable by our scientific standards. Hence, if all there is in the world is what we observe (i.e. materialism) then indeed, there was nothing before the big bang. So one who believes that only the things we can see and observe scientifically has to account for the fact that the universe came into being out of absolutely nothing. However, I contend that there was something prior to the big bang; an immaterial, spiritual being outside of time. That might be another way to look at it."

True. And I knew what you meant--as I like to say, "I am not in the business of making my opponent's argument for them."

Thought that is one of the reasons that I enjoy debate--it forces you to solidify your own position.

"OK, time to take the baby out of the tub (no, she isn't alone in the tub, LOL) Have a wonderful evening."

Glad to hear it. From what I've heard, leaving a baby alone in a tub is a big no-no. I mean, even I know better than that. And I'm also the person who refuses to hold babies on the grounds that I might drop them.

Have a good night.

An added note: I do agree that it is possible for nothing measurable and God to exist simultaneously, as you mentioned above.

A.,

"No. And I also admit that IF a being such as God existed, his mind would literally be impossible for humanity to comprehend."

Oh yes. No arguments here! Again though, recall that even if one buys the kalam cosmological (as well as other arguments for God's existence) we still don't know too much about God that is normally attributed to him; in fact, there could be several gods, and there is no reason to even refer to God as "him."

But if God does exist, then it is also conceivable that he might be able to and wish to tell us something directly about himself or reveal a little bit about himself to us. This is what is known as "divine revelation." For example, Christianity claims that God is three persons subsisting in one nature; a trinity. The ONLY reason we think that is because we believe that it was revealed to us by God himself. Otherwise, there would be no way to know that. But even with "divine revelation," it would be very, very wrong to claim that we comprehend God. We can be told some things about him without comprehending him. In fact, Christianity (or maybe Catholicism in particular) teaches that even in heaven we will never be able to comprehend God completely. We may know far more about him in heaven than we do now, but even then, never fully.

"My main objections to religion pertain directly to Christianity and deal with the question of evil (well, the original one, anyway). I've got plenty of others, many which I have already addressed through various comments in this thread."

Well, I'd love to discuss the problem of evil with you as well. I believe it can be dealt with on a kind of natural religion level, but I should also note that as far as I know, Christianity is the only religion that actually provides a meaning a reason for human suffering.

"Well, the first two are sufficient unless you're trying to advocate for Catholicism. (Good luck with that one--I find that I disagree with many of the Vatican's official positions to the point where I believe that they are actually immoral. That said, some of my favorite people are Catholics)."

Yes, ultimately I would like to, but first things first. As you pointed out, I would have to convince you of 1) and 2) first. But either way, I do sympathies with what you're saying about believing the Church's positions can be immoral. I know there is a lot of frustration with the stance on birth control and condemns to fight AIDS, etc.

"I've never really thought about it to be honest. I'm not a big fan of facial hair though."

Well I've been growing a beard since the beginning of the year. It's over two inches off my face now!

"And I'm also the person who refuses to hold babies on the grounds that I might drop them."

What if you held a baby while sitting on a couch? That would be pretty safe. Have you ever held a baby?

TTYL.

Bobby,

"Oh yes. No arguments here! Again though, recall that even if one buys the kalam cosmological (as well as other arguments for God's existence) we still don't know too much about God that is normally attributed to him; in fact, there could be several gods, and there is no reason to even refer to God as "him.""

Of course. Generally in a debate, however, I try to use those terms which will be least offensive to whoever I'm debating with, unless it is more pertinent to do otherwise (or unless I'm annoyed).

"But if God does exist, then it is also conceivable that he might be able to and wish to tell us something directly about himself or reveal a little bit about himself to us. This is what is known as "divine revelation." For example, Christianity claims that God is three persons subsisting in one nature; a trinity. The ONLY reason we think that is because we believe that it was revealed to us by God himself. Otherwise, there would be no way to know that. But even with "divine revelation," it would be very, very wrong to claim that we comprehend God. We can be told some things about him without comprehending him. In fact, Christianity (or maybe Catholicism in particular) teaches that even in heaven we will never be able to comprehend God completely. We may know far more about him in heaven than we do now, but even then, never fully."

Makes sense.

"Well, I'd love to discuss the problem of evil with you as well. I believe it can be dealt with on a kind of natural religion level, but I should also note that as far as I know, Christianity is the only religion that actually provides a meaning a reason for human suffering."

As I understand it, most religions deal with the issue by having gods which either A.) aren't all-loving or B.) are both good and evil (in the case of there being multiple gods).

"Yes, ultimately I would like to, but first things first. As you pointed out, I would have to convince you of 1) and 2) first. But either way, I do sympathies with what you're saying about believing the Church's positions can be immoral. I know there is a lot of frustration with the stance on birth control and condemns to fight AIDS, etc."

Yep--that's why I view the Catholic Church as behaving in an immoral manner--the whole condoms in Africa thing.

I also take issue with anyone (or anything) who gets so caught up in theory and how they wish the world was that they can't deal with how the world actually is.

"Well I've been growing a beard since the beginning of the year. It's over two inches off my face now!"

It is, of course, a personal choice. I simply find them too scratchy.

"What if you held a baby while sitting on a couch? That would be pretty safe."

Knowing me, I'd still find a way.

"Have you ever held a baby?"

As far as I can remember, no. I'm the youngest in my immediate family and most of the extended family lives too far away for us to spend much time with them. Not to mention that there are aunts everywhere who are just dying to hold the baby. (As a general rule, I am clueless with small children.)

Have a good day.

Oops, the above post was me.

Yo yo yo!

"As I understand it, most religions deal with the issue by having gods which either A.) aren't all-loving or B.) are both good and evil (in the case of there being multiple gods)."

I'll give you a brief Christian (although it's particularly Catholic) understanding of the problem of suffering. There is a whole, huge, beautiful theology of it, but here is the most basic understanding:

Human suffering exists to bring about a greater good.

What reason is there to believe this? What good could possibly come out of a little child dying of AIDS? Well, in the claims of Christianity, we see IN THE SAME EVENT the greatest evil conceivable and the greatest good conceivable. We claim that Jesus, who IS God, was killed by human beings. Deicide. Man kills his God. The greatest evil. But in that same event, we see the greatest good; mankind is redeemed in a way that we could NEVER have done ourselves and EVERY SINGLE HUMAN BEING IN HISTORY is given the free gift to be united with God and eternally happy with him forever.

Now obviously you don't believe a lot of this stuff; that mankind needed a redeemer, that Jesus was God, etc. But the point is that this is what we THINK happened. So by our own standards, we have the greatest evil and greatest good as one in the same event. Now as evil as some of the suffering that goes on in this world is, IF God exists and IF we "killed" (we can talk more about what this means) him, any other suffering or evil is not as evil as deicide. Yet God was able to bring a great good out of it, so it is conceivable that God can bring some great good, even though we may never know what it is this side of eternity, out of human suffering. We saw him do it in an amazing fashion in the person of Jesus; why couldn't he do it with his other children?

So actually, I think most Christians would agree with that. Here is an even deeper Catholic understanding.

Suffering can be salvific.

In other words, when I suffer and offer that suffering up to God, I am imitating Jesus; I am doing nothing less than participating in his salvific work and hence when I unite my sufferings to Christ, I can merit graces (roughly God's help to those who need it) for other people. This gets into the whole "the church as the body of Christ" business where we are all in a sense "one" and we help each other out and all this great stuff. But the point is that in suffering, we become more like Jesus because he, as God, humbled himself, became a human, and was mocked, ridiculed, and even killed. Suffering brings us closer to God.

Crap, so much for my little "keeping it short" rule. That's the basic idea though. There is SO much more! I think you'll see, though, that Christianity at least gives a POSITIVE answer to suffering, as opposed to many other religions which explain suffering as evil. Suffering in itself isn't good, but we can make it good; we can make it salvific.

"Knowing me, I'd still find a way. "

Ha! What if you sit of the couch, facing the OTHER way so that the baby is sandwiched in between you and the cushion on the back of the couch?

"As far as I can remember, no. I'm the youngest in my immediate family and most of the extended family lives too far away for us to spend much time with them. Not to mention that there are aunts everywhere who are just dying to hold the baby. (As a general rule, I am clueless with small children.)"

Well if you ever decide to have children, I'm sure you'll wonder how you ever got along without them :) Talk to ya later.

Bobby,

"Human suffering exists to bring about a greater good."

Oh, I do know this basic premise and to some extent I can even agree with it. Great suffering can often lead to a greater good or to a deeper understanding of self, particularly on the individual level.

What I dispute is that ALL suffering brings about a greater good or that, even assuming that this suffering does bring about a greater good, that this justifies the misery caused by the suffering in the first place.

Returning to the first point--let's say that there's a case in which the suffering is only ever known by two individuals, the one who is suffering and the tormentor. If no one ever knows--the person who suffered simply lives an absolutely horrid life and then dies unlamented--except for a tormentor who either A. continues on blissfully torturing and killing or B. dies unrepentant (or both)--what good can come of this?

In the second place, I would not think that a being who could allow certain kinds of suffering to exist in order for some "greater good" would be particularly moral. I realize that it is not an act of love to protect another from all the bumps and bruises of life, but I think that there's a limit here. I'm sorry, if there's some God out there who's going to let little children get raped and murdered (or some other half-dozen equally heinous acts) for some abstract "higher good," I don't believe that that being would be worthy of either worship or respect.

In response to this argument, I've often been told that "well, they're in heaven now and perfectly happy." My reply "it doesn't matter--they still suffered." There are some forms of suffering which it is never moral to allow if one has the ability to stop it.

The typical response here (sorry, I've delved into this topic before and am somewhat anticipating responses) is that God can't stop the suffering because humans have free will. In my opinion, that's a false dichotomy--that God either gives us free will and thus cannot stop suffering, or that he doesn't give us free will and can. Just because those are the only options that we can conceive us does not mean that those are the only options that exist. I believe that if a being such as God were so inclined, he could both give humanity free will and yet simultaneously forbid certain acts. I would additionally argue that an omni-benevolent and omniscient being would be required to do so, since He would know exactly what would happen to the world.

"What reason is there to believe this? What good could possibly come out of a little child dying of AIDS? Well, in the claims of Christianity, we see IN THE SAME EVENT the greatest evil conceivable and the greatest good conceivable. We claim that Jesus, who IS God, was killed by human beings. Deicide. Man kills his God. The greatest evil. But in that same event, we see the greatest good; mankind is redeemed in a way that we could NEVER have done ourselves and EVERY SINGLE HUMAN BEING IN HISTORY is given the free gift to be united with God and eternally happy with him forever."

I'll allow a little leeway here in the sense that, if a being such as God did exist, we could never hope to understand or know his mind and thus quite possibly would not be able to conceive of some higher plan. I still hold, however, that this course of action would not be consistent with my understanding or morality or the actions of an omni-benevolent being (unless we misunderstand the term).

"Suffering can be salvific. In other words, when I suffer and offer that suffering up to God, I am imitating Jesus; I am doing nothing less than participating in his salvific work and hence when I unite my sufferings to Christ, I can merit graces (roughly God's help to those who need it) for other people. This gets into the whole "the church as the body of Christ" business where we are all in a sense "one" and we help each other out and all this great stuff. But the point is that in suffering, we become more like Jesus because he, as God, humbled himself, became a human, and was mocked, ridiculed, and even killed. Suffering brings us closer to God."

Interesting--I didn't know this. I don't believe in God, so I can't fully buy into this view but I argue with a small caveat--suffering brings us closer to ourselves.

"I think you'll see, though, that Christianity at least gives a POSITIVE answer to suffering, as opposed to many other religions which explain suffering as evil. Suffering in itself isn't good, but we can make it good; we can make it salvific."

Does suffering really need an answer?

I know that life, which can be both scary and painful, is uncertain and that it is often comforting to grasp for some form of either certainty or meaning to which we can cling. Does this mean that we have to cling or that we will have a fuller life if we do? Is that with which we seek comfort true and does it even matter if it is? Comfort is still comfort, regardless of whether or not it is real.

"Ha! What if you sit of the couch, facing the OTHER way so that the baby is sandwiched in between you and the cushion on the back of the couch?"

You underestimate me and my level of accident-proneness.

"Well if you ever decide to have children, I'm sure you'll wonder how you ever got along without them :)"

I'd never want to inflict myself upon an innocent child--he/she really wouldn't deserve that (and I'm only half-kidding when I say this).

Have a good day.

A,

You've raised some great points, and I can't wait to discuss this some more. Unfortunately I don't know if I can respond this weekend because my in-laws are here, but I'll try and respond by Monday at the latest. Have a wonderful weekend, my friend.

Bobby,

Have fun with the in-laws. Of course, we all know that they're there just to see Gianna. ;)

Enjiy.

Hey A,

"Of course, we all know that they're there just to see Gianna. ;)"

Yeah, seriously... same deal with MY parents... I suppose I can't blame them...

"What I dispute is that ALL suffering brings about a greater good or that, even assuming that this suffering does bring about a greater good, that this justifies the misery caused by the suffering in the first place."

I wouldn't necessarily say JUSTIFIES. That seems to imply that God CAUSED or WILLED the suffering. We always say that God ALLOWS suffering and has the ability to bring about a greater good from that. It makes Gods goodness and his allowance of free will compatible.

"Returning to the first point--let's say that there's a case in which the suffering is only ever known by two individuals, the one who is suffering and the tormentor. If no one ever knows--the person who suffered simply lives an absolutely horrid life and then dies unlamented--except for a tormentor who either A. continues on blissfully torturing and killing or B. dies unrepentant (or both)--what good can come of this? "

Well we can't know for sure, but I don't think that implies that it is 100% certain that nothing good can come out of it. Remember, you said yourself that if God exists, then we can't understand him. In fact, it wouldn't even be good enough to try and imagine an infinite version of myself and say "that's probably what God is like." If he does exist, he can bring about good in ways known to him alone and even comprehended by him alone. There may be something that comes out of the scenario you described in a way that we humans can't even comprehend.

"In response to this argument, I've often been told that "well, they're in heaven now and perfectly happy." My reply "it doesn't matter--they still suffered." There are some forms of suffering which it is never moral to allow if one has the ability to stop it."

I'm not so sure about this. The reason is that just like if God exists we can't begin to comprehend him, if heaven exists and is "experiencing God face to face", we can't really comprehend on any level what that is like either. What I mean is that any amount of pain or suffering on this earth may very well be seen as nothing compared to union with God in the afterlife.

"Does suffering really need an answer?

I know that life, which can be both scary and painful, is uncertain and that it is often comforting to grasp for some form of either certainty or meaning to which we can cling. Does this mean that we have to cling or that we will have a fuller life if we do? Is that with which we seek comfort true and does it even matter if it is? Comfort is still comfort, regardless of whether or not it is real."

So usually the problem of evil is pis incompatible with and all-loving God, and so if there is an all-loving God, there would need to be a reason or purpose for suffering. Hope everything is good with you, A.

Oh I forgot to mention. If there is one thing I want to stress about this, it is that it doesn't make sense to use the problem of evil as a reason to not be a theist. This is a mistake that many people make. The reason is that THEISM does not claim that God is all loving. That is really a tenant of Christianity. So even if one sees the problem of evil as insurmountable, that is independent of theism because there is no reason to believe that God is all-loving. That is a claim of Christianity. Does that make sense?

Bobby,

“If there is one thing I want to stress about this, it is that it doesn't make sense to use the problem of evil as a reason to not be a theist. […] The reason is that THEISM does not claim that God is all loving. That is really a tenant of Christianity. So even if one sees the problem of evil as insurmountable, that is independent of theism because there is no reason to believe that God is all-loving. That is a claim of Christianity. Does that make sense?”

Indeed, it does. I am aware of this. Since I was raised a Christian, when I rejected the concept of God, I rejected the ideas and tenants that I had been raised to believe in. Consequently, many of my objections to theism (though not all) are explicitly rejections of Christianity. At the time when I stopped believing in a God, I did not consider any alternatives other than those supplied by the dualistic mindset I had been raised in: either the Christian God exists, or there is no god. I was only ten at the time, so deep thought wasn’t exactly my forte. (Well, maybe—I distinctly remember having conversations when I was much younger (probably 6-8) about the following topics: why are we here (I finally stopped asking that one because I couldn’t answer it) and the shape of the universe, because it was hard to conceive of it being neverending and yet equally hard to conceive of it having an end. I eventually raised the possibility of it being circular, though that still didn’t answer the question of what would be beyond the universe if it had an end.)

“I wouldn't necessarily say JUSTIFIES. That seems to imply that God CAUSED or WILLED the suffering. We always say that God ALLOWS suffering and has the ability to bring about a greater good from that. It makes Gods goodness and his allowance of free will compatible.”

In some sense, He has caused it/willed it into being, or at least created conditions in which He knew it would arise. This gets back to something I said in my last post—just because we see a dichotomy does not mean that there is one.

I do realize that any discussion of this sort is necessarily hindered by a lack of certainty.
“There may be something that comes out of the scenario you described in a way that we humans can't even comprehend.”

True. But I would still return to my point that an all-loving, omniscient God could not have created a world in which this kind of thing was possible (also getting back to last post stuff).

“I'm not so sure about this. The reason is that just like if God exists we can't begin to comprehend him, if heaven exists and is "experiencing God face to face", we can't really comprehend on any level what that is like either. What I mean is that any amount of pain or suffering on this earth may very well be seen as nothing compared to union with God in the afterlife.”

It may be seen as nothing, but that doesn’t somehow either negate it or make it right (okay, maybe better). A really bad example that I apologize for using—say a pedophile gets ahold of a child too young to remember anything that happens. The pedophile justifies him/herself by saying, “well, it was only a couple times and the kid won’t remember. I’ll also give this child’s family the money to send him/her to a good school and ensure that he/she has a good life.” Does this make what has happened any less terrible?
“So usually the problem of evil is incompatible with and all-loving God, and so if there is an all-loving God, there would need to be a reason or purpose for suffering.”

Oh, I’m aware, but I still think that the question is worth asking, if only for its psychological underpinnings.

Does suffering need a reason? In my opinion, the answer is no—many things happen on this earth which are both needless and terrible. I think that humanity has created a reason because we need to justify/explain it in our own minds. Other religions (even the ones witout an all-loving god) do this as well—the reasoning here is simply that the god (or gods) is not omnibenevolent and all-merciful.

Have a good day.

A,

I have not forgotten about you. Things have been busy in the bustling megalopolis of Lebanon, New Hampshire; the city that never sleeps. Oh wait, did I say the city that never sleeps? I meant the city that goes to bed at 6 pm. Anywho, I'm gonna get to your comments later this afternoon.

A,

"Indeed, it does. I am aware of this."

Ok great. It's just that so many people confuse these. In fact, back in April there was a debate on campus titled "Are morals grounded in God?" (or something like that) between Dinesh D'Souza (who you've probably heard of) and an atheist professor here Walter Sinnot-Armstrong (who is by no means a bum). Before the debate, there was a group of people handing out little sheets of paper that had bible verse on them which supposedly showed how evil God is (I'm sure you know what kinds of verses I'm talking about). Now that is partially D'Souza's fault because he comes at the question from such a Christian perspective, but there is no a priori reason that the Christian God has to be the real God, and everybody (including the debaters) that night were just confusing atheism with Christianity.

But to make a long story short, I"m glad you see the difference.

" Since I was raised a Christian, when I rejected the concept of God, I rejected the ideas and tenants that I had been raised to believe in. Consequently, many of my objections to theism (though not all) are explicitly rejections of Christianity. At the time when I stopped believing in a God, I did not consider any alternatives other than those supplied by the dualistic mindset I had been raised in: either the Christian God exists, or there is no god. I was only ten at the time, so deep thought wasn’t exactly my forte. (Well, maybe—I distinctly remember having conversations when I was much younger (probably 6-8) about the following topics: why are we here (I finally stopped asking that one because I couldn’t answer it) and the shape of the universe, because it was hard to conceive of it being neverending and yet equally hard to conceive of it having an end. I eventually raised the possibility of it being circular, though that still didn’t answer the question of what would be beyond the universe if it had an end.)"

Ya know, I hope you don't mind me being so bold, but it seems to me that you wouldn't have too much of an objection to theism. Especially given that you believe that absolutes exist and absolute morals (which actually I wanna discuss a little bit with you below), it doesn't seem too far fetched. Maybe there is still a lot I don't know, but it seems that a higher powered being would be consistent with your philosophy.

"True. But I would still return to my point that an all-loving, omniscient God could not have created a world in which this kind of thing was possible (also getting back to last post stuff)."

Here is another possibility. Given Christianity, I think there is a good argument to be made that God has something called "middle knowledge." That is, he knows that, given a certain situation, what WOULD happen if that situation were to occur. So for example, if I decide to go home early tonight and have dinner with me wife and she asks me what I want for dinner, God knows what I would say. Now, I"m going to stay at school late today, so that won't happen, but IF it did, God knows what I WOULD choose. (this also gets into free will vs. sovereignty, but that's something else).

Now given that, here is my other possibility. Before God created the universe, he used his middle knowledge to consider all the possible universe he could create. It is conceivable that the universe he chose to create (this universe) is the one with the maximum number of people who end up being saved. In other words, given all the complexities of human free will, God created the world where he took into account that free will and all the people who would choose to love him, and made the world where the maximum number of people would love him (be saved). Now that's just a hypothesis. There are other scenarios that one can create that are similar to this to explain these difficult questions you've raised.

"Does suffering need a reason? In my opinion, the answer is no—many things happen on this earth which are both needless and terrible. I think that humanity has created a reason because we need to justify/explain it in our own minds. Other religions (even the ones witout an all-loving god) do this as well—the reasoning here is simply that the god (or gods) is not omnibenevolent and all-merciful. "

Yeah, I would agree that suffering does not need a reason, but it seems that if there is a God then it DOES need a reason.

I've written more than I intended, so maybe next time I"ll get to what I wanted to talk with you about concerning your philosophy of truth. Till then...

Bobby,

"Things have been busy in the bustling megalopolis of Lebanon, New Hampshire; the city that never sleeps. Oh wait, did I say the city that never sleeps? I meant the city that goes to bed at 6 pm."

Heh. I know exactly what you mean. My home town shuts down around 8 PM at the latest. And everything in it is aimed at people who are waist-high or shorter (I call them either "little people" or "kidlets".

I have indeed heard of Dinesh D'Souza--I read his blog on occasion as well. (I am not addicted to the internet, I am not addicted to the internet.) For some reason, I can never read blogs that I actually agree with--they bore me.

"Ya know, I hope you don't mind me being so bold, but it seems to me that you wouldn't have too much of an objection to theism. Especially given that you believe that absolutes exist and absolute morals (which actually I wanna discuss a little bit with you below), it doesn't seem too far fetched. Maybe there is still a lot I don't know, but it seems that a higher powered being would be consistent with your philosophy."

Logically, I know this. But there is a difference between knowing something and understanding it (trust me, I exploited this for a long time). I've come a long way, but I still view religion in terms of that dichotomy. I'm not going to rule out ever embracing my childhood beliefs again (though it is quite unlikely) but, at this point, I'm simply not able to do so.

"Here is another possibility. Given Christianity, I think there is a good argument to be made that God has something called "middle knowledge." That is, he knows that, given a certain situation, what WOULD happen if that situation were to occur. So for example, if I decide to go home early tonight and have dinner with me wife and she asks me what I want for dinner, God knows what I would say. Now, I"m going to stay at school late today, so that won't happen, but IF it did, God knows what I WOULD choose. (this also gets into free will vs. sovereignty, but that's something else)."

I've actually heard something similar to this theory before, but wanted to probe further because I've only ever heard it from one other person before (strangely enough, he was a Catholic monk). I've got to admit, this view makes much more sense to me than other arguments that I've heard.

Now given that, here is my other possibility. Before God created the universe, he used his middle knowledge to consider all the possible universe he could create. It is conceivable that the universe he chose to create (this universe) is the one with the maximum number of people who end up being saved. In other words, given all the complexities of human free will, God created the world where he took into account that free will and all the people who would choose to love him, and made the world where the maximum number of people would love him (be saved). Now that's just a hypothesis. There are other scenarios that one can create that are similar to this to explain these difficult questions you've raised.

"Yeah, I would agree that suffering does not need a reason, but it seems that if there is a God then it DOES need a reason."

Well, it depends on your kind of God. But, as I alluded to earlier, I think people may have almost a kind of psychological need to explain/justify suffering to themselves.

"I've written more than I intended, so maybe next time I"ll get to what I wanted to talk with you about concerning your philosophy of truth."

I warn you, that one's still evolving and you're quite likely to push me to a point where I'm going to have to start backpedaling and redefining things.

Have a good day, as always, and have fun with the little one.

I should add:

"I warn you, that one's still evolving and you're quite likely to push me to a point where I'm going to have to start backpedaling and redefining things."

But that's the fun of it, isn't it?

A,

"Logically, I know this. But there is a difference between knowing something and understanding it (trust me, I exploited this for a long time). I've come a long way, but I still view religion in terms of that dichotomy. I'm not going to rule out ever embracing my childhood beliefs again (though it is quite unlikely) but, at this point, I'm simply not able to do so. "

Yeah, I understand.

"I've actually heard something similar to this theory before, but wanted to probe further because I've only ever heard it from one other person before (strangely enough, he was a Catholic monk). I've got to admit, this view makes much more sense to me than other arguments that I've heard."

Cool. So I don't know if you ever have looked at any esoteric theology arguments (I'm talking like among Catholic theologians who are all faithful to the Catholic Church; stuff that is open for debate), but this understanding of God having middle knowledge is something called Molinism, and it is generally held by Jesuits (amongst others). Two of the main schools of thought in Catholic theology are Jesuit and Dominican. Now personally, I almost always accept the Dominican theology, but in this one instance, I think the Jesuit understanding makes more sense.

So I don't know why I just told you all that, but as you can probably tell, I find the real nitty-gritty theology fascinating.

"I warn you, that one's still evolving and you're quite likely to push me to a point where I'm going to have to start backpedaling and redefining things."

Haha, of course of course. Actually, I think you may have anticipated what I'm going to say by your comment. So several times you've mentioned that yes, there is objective truth but that we are too caught up in our subjective understandings to correctly interpret that truth (something along those lines). But if you are correct, then the statement "we are too caught up in our subjective understandings to correctly interpret that truth" is your subjective understanding of truth, so there wouldn't really be any reason to believe it. I mean, I think you can salvage your philosophy but right now it seems self-defeating to me. I guess what I'm saying is that the way you currently explain it to people, you seem to be saying that there isn't any way to KNOW any truth. But if you claim to know that you can't know truth; well, if that is true, then it isn't true because you know something true.

I know I may have said a lot of things that don't adequately reflect your philosophy, but I just wanted to point this out and see what you thought about it.

Have a magnificent rest of the weekend.

Bobby,

"Cool. So I don't know if you ever have looked at any esoteric theology arguments (I'm talking like among Catholic theologians who are all faithful to the Catholic Church; stuff that is open for debate), but this understanding of God having middle knowledge is something called Molinism, and it is generally held by Jesuits (amongst others). Two of the main schools of thought in Catholic theology are Jesuit and Dominican. Now personally, I almost always accept the Dominican theology, but in this one instance, I think the Jesuit understanding makes more sense."

I have very little overall theological knowledge. Heck, I don't even know much about the split between Catholics and Protestants.

"So several times you've mentioned that yes, there is objective truth but that we are too caught up in our subjective understandings to correctly interpret that truth (something along those lines). But if you are correct, then the statement "we are too caught up in our subjective understandings to correctly interpret that truth" is your subjective understanding of truth, so there wouldn't really be any reason to believe it. I mean, I think you can salvage your philosophy but right now it seems self-defeating to me. I guess what I'm saying is that the way you currently explain it to people, you seem to be saying that there isn't any way to KNOW any truth. But if you claim to know that you can't know truth; well, if that is true, then it isn't true because you know something true."

I do see where you're coming from, but that isn't how I see my statement. The clause "we're too caught up in our own subjective interpretations" is, to me, an observaton about, not a statement of truth. Depending on one's point of view, these may be seen as different names for the same thing--to me, however, they are not. When I speak of truth in this context, I am generally refering to abstract, (for lack of a better word) "higher" elements; observations are not a matter with which truth is concerned because they fall below the necessary threshold.

Hopefully that just didn't confuse you more.

I hope you have a good weekend.

Hi A,

"I have very little overall theological knowledge. Heck, I don't even know much about the split between Catholics and Protestants."

If you ever want to know...Oh actually, I don't know if you were around at this time, but earlier this year, there was a 3500 comment post on Catholicism vs. Protestantism. It was mostly MK, a guy named Brian, and me discussing with Bethany and JLM. If you're ever interested in reading all of us arguing amongst ourselves, http://www.jillstanek.com/archives/2008/03/weekend_questio_33.html#comments should be a fun read :)

"I do see where you're coming from, but that isn't how I see my statement. The clause "we're too caught up in our own subjective interpretations" is, to me, an observaton about, not a statement of truth. Depending on one's point of view, these may be seen as different names for the same thing--to me, however, they are not. When I speak of truth in this context, I am generally refering to abstract, (for lack of a better word) "higher" elements; observations are not a matter with which truth is concerned because they fall below the necessary threshold."

OK I see what you're saying. It's kind of like whenever I think I'm going to catch Doug claiming a moral absolute, he always is careful to add "IMO." So it's kind of like "it seems to me that we're caught up etc." But even your observation that "we're too caught up in our subjective interpretations to know the truth"; you know that that is what you believe. In other words, it is true that you believe that, right? So I still hold that there are things that we can know for sure. Well, so now I'm yapping without a good train of thought, but maybe this means that we can't know anything outside of ourselves; or I should say, it is your observation that we can not know any truth outside of ourselves. Hmmm...

Alright, well I think if you're still up for it, next time I'll share another argument for God's existence with you, and then if you're STILL up for it, eventually get to an apology for Christianity. I'm curious to see what you think of the next argument for God's existence. I'm not entirely positive if it's convincing or not, so your observations would be great, but I really like it. It's a design argument, which HOPEFULLY has a little more sophistication that what YOUR BOY Ray Comfort offers :)

Have a great day.

Hello.

I'll have to check that thread out when I have time, which is a commodity that is in short supply at the moment. (Damn my overambitious desires to apply for way too many things at once.)

"OK I see what you're saying. It's kind of like whenever I think I'm going to catch Doug claiming a moral absolute, he always is careful to add "IMO.""

Kind of, but not quite yet.

Observations may be on a lower level than truth, but I believe that they follow many of the same rules, as in they can be either constructed or unconstructed, have a hierarchy of value, can be universal, ect. I would argue that the observation that humans are caught up in their own subjective interpretations of moral truth is a universal, unconstructed observation.

Welcome to the scary, confusing world on my own thoughts. It's okay though, they know me here. :)

"In other words, it is true that you believe that, right?"

That depends on how you define the word "belief." Like many, this word is overloaded with meanings.

In this case, when I say that I believe this, I mean that I hold it to be true.

"So I still hold that there are things that we can know for sure."

Knowing for sure implies either definitive proof or overwhelming evidence.

"Well, so now I'm yapping without a good train of thought, but maybe this means that we can't know anything outside of ourselves; or I should say, it is your observation that we can not know any truth outside of ourselves. Hmmm..."

According to my understanding, people aren't solely limited to the personal realm. Most other forms of truth, save for the highest, are accessible to humanity.

"Alright, well I think if you're still up for it, next time I'll share another argument for God's existence with you, and then if you're STILL up for it, eventually get to an apology for Christianity."

I'm always up for a good argument. They're fun.

"It's a design argument, which HOPEFULLY has a little more sophistication that what YOUR BOY Ray Comfort offers :)"

That man is an insult to any cause that he purports to support. I'm almost sad that I've never run into him on the streets--I could make mincemeat of his arguments in seconds. Of course, I'd never allow myself to be filmed. I read his blog mostly for sheer entertainment value and to watch him fall into the holes that he accuses atheists of being trapped in. I have nothing against religious people or their arguments, if well made, but he doesn't make it to that level.

"Have a great day."

Thanks, you too.

Yo yo!

"Observations may be on a lower level than truth, but I believe that they follow many of the same rules, as in they can be either constructed or unconstructed, have a hierarchy of value, can be universal, ect. I would argue that the observation that humans are caught up in their own subjective interpretations of moral truth is a universal, unconstructed observation."

OK, what you're saying makes more sense to me now.

"I'm always up for a good argument. They're fun."

OK, well if it's good or not is yet to be determined...

This isn't in a nice syllogism like before, but hey. So the argument asks two questions 1) What is the best possible explanation for our desire for higher, abstract knowledge? and 2) What is the best possible explanation for why our higher, abstract knowledge is so well mirrored in nature? I claim that the best possible explanation is a designer. Notice that even if the argument is convincing, we get even less properties about God than we do with the kalam argument.

So why do many humans desire to know things like theoretical physics or chemistry or higher mathematics that has no known application? While I have no problem with Darwinian evolution (I should say natural selection to be more precise) and can even accept that it can be used to explain our sexual desires and survivals, it does not explain our want to study say quantum field theory. There is no reason, evolutionarily speaking, that our minds would have developed this desire for knowledge that has no use in real life. In fact, that is the kind of thing I study; algebraic topology. Many aspects of it (certainly my area) has no applications in real life and it is done purely for the enjoyment and beauty of discovery. In fact, some scientific knowledge is anti-natural selection. Those who study medicine in order to find cures for people are acting against natural selection because they are using their higher knowledge to find cures to prolong or heal lives which otherwise should have been weeded out. So I think an evolutionary explanation is highly unlikely for our desire for abstract knowledge.

But even if it could be explained, there is still question 2). Let me illustrate with an example. You may have studied "The Elements" by Euclid, which was basically a collection of all known geometry around the time it was written. Now in the elements, Euclid proved all sorts of things about conics and other crazy formulas that had NO BEARING on anything is real life. He was investigating all these shapes and such purely for pleasure. While some of the more simple things people could use in real life, much of what he proved had little or no application. Then 2000 years later, Newton comes along and uses Euclids equations and crazy results about conics to prove much of his laws of motion. Never before did anyone think that what Euclid had done could be applied in real life, but Newton proved that much of the motion as we understand it is governed by laws that people once thought were just exercises in abstract reasoning.

Not only that, but shortly after Newton, mathematicians discovered what is called non-Euclidean geometry. This stuff had curved lines and all sorts of other bizzare properties that NO WAY was applicable at all to real life. It was just another exercise in abstract reasoning. But history repeats itself and believe it or not, non-euclidean geometry is the mathematical foundation and backbone for Einsteins theory of relativity!

So there are two examples in history of people using their higher abstract reasoning for only the purpose of higher abstract reasoning, yet many years later, others coming along and discovering that the universe is actually based on those laws. And I have no doubt that someday physicists will be able to apply my work to the real world because it has happened over and over in history. There are many more examples.

To me, this seems like a strong case for some sort of being having designed the universe with certain laws and designed human beings with the want to learn and discover those laws.

So let me know what you think of that. It's interesting, and it may be hard to comment on it if you aren't familiar with some of the math or history, but let me know. Have a great day.

Bobby,

“OK, what you're saying makes more sense to me
now.”

A lot of my basic understandings of the world follow the same sorts of rules. The internal world of my thoughts may seem somewhat crazy, but there is some logic there.

“This isn't in a nice syllogism like before, but hey. So the argument asks two questions 1) What is the best possible explanation for our desire for higher, abstract knowledge? and 2) What is the best possible explanation for why our higher, abstract knowledge is so well mirrored in nature? I claim that the best possible explanation is a designer. Notice that even if the argument is convincing, we get even less properties about God than we do with the kalam argument.”

This is one which I’m not familiar with. At this point, I don’t think properties are that important—in debate, I follow one basic rule (well, that’s applicable at this point)— always begin at the earliest point of divergence and move on from there.

“So why do many humans desire to know things like theoretical physics or chemistry or higher mathematics that has no known application? While I have no problem with Darwinian evolution (I should say natural selection to be more precise) and can even accept that it can be used to explain our sexual desires and survivals, it does not explain our want to study say quantum field theory. There is no reason, evolutionarily speaking, that our minds would have developed this desire for knowledge that has no use in real life. In fact, that is the kind of thing I study; algebraic topology. Many aspects of it (certainly my area) has no applications in real life and it is done purely for the enjoyment and beauty of discovery. In fact, some scientific knowledge is anti-natural selection. Those who study medicine in order to find cures for people are acting against natural selection because they are using their higher knowledge to find cures to prolong or heal lives which otherwise should have been weeded out. So I think an evolutionary explanation is highly unlikely for our desire for abstract knowledge.”

Okay, even the term algebraic topology makes my head hurt.

Why do humans desire higher, abstract knowledge? (My mother would say that it’s because of our innate curiosity, but that’s a side note.) While I agree that much of what we pursue today (and have for much of human history) itself appears to have no basis upon the laws of natural selection and such, I see no reason why the tendencies which lead humanity to desire knowledge could not have arisen from an evolutionary standpoint.

Humans did not survive because we are the fastest or because we are the strongest. (Actually, there’s a vein of thought out there which says that we survived as a species because other carnivores found us smelly and distasteful!) Humans survived because of our intelligence and because we were able to recognize patterns in nature in a way that most other animals were not. Since out survival was based upon our brainpower, natural selection would favor the development of traits which both enhanced this brainpower and then gave us the desire to use it. Even when no longer absolutely essential for survival, these traits would remain (until such a point as when they became a handicap to survival) and so it is only natural that humans would have turned them towards other pursuits.

I don’t think aspects of science being anti-natural selection have any real bearing on this argument. It is in the interests of each organism to survive and to thrive, while the process of natural selection is opposed to the survival of all but the best genes—the interests here diverge and will often be in conflict. It is only natural, therefore, that humans would use their intelligence to try and thwart a natural process which is opposed to their vital interests. (I actually argue that we’re systematically destroying our gene pool, but that’s another argument).

“But even if it could be explained, there is still question 2). Let me illustrate with an example. You may have studied "The Elements" by Euclid, which was basically a collection of all known geometry around the time it was written. Now in the elements, Euclid proved all sorts of things about conics and other crazy formulas that had NO BEARING on anything is real life. He was investigating all these shapes and such purely for pleasure. While some of the more simple things people could use in real life, much of what he proved had little or no application. Then 2000 years later, Newton comes along and uses Euclids equations and crazy results about conics to prove much of his laws of motion. Never before did anyone think that what Euclid had done could be applied in real life, but Newton proved that much of the motion as we understand it is governed by laws that people once thought were just exercises in abstract reasoning.

Not only that, but shortly after Newton, mathematicians discovered what is called non-Euclidean geometry. This stuff had curved lines and all sorts of other bizare properties that NO WAY was applicable at all to real life. It was just another exercise in abstract reasoning. But history repeats itself and believe it or not, non-euclidean geometry is the mathematical foundation and backbone for Einsteins theory of relativity!

So there are two examples in history of people using their higher abstract reasoning for only the purpose of higher abstract reasoning, yet many years later, others coming along and discovering that the universe is actually based on those laws. And I have no doubt that someday physicists will be able to apply my work to the real world because it has happened over and over in history. There are many more examples.”

I’m not incredibly familiar with the examples that you’re using, but I understand the basic premise. To repeat the question (for my own organizational purposes), what is the best possible explanation for why our higher, abstract knowledge is so well mirrored in nature? Again, I do not see this as being either contradictory or as needing a higher power to have designed it. I would argue that much of our higher, abstract knowledge is so well mirrored in nature because it came from nature to begin with—its basis was in natural law and natural processes which were then refined to a heightened, abstract level.

I also don’t see a contradiction in discoveries being made which were then found to be correct and useful once more knowledge was discovered—nature simply is; natural laws, rhythms, and processes do not change (here I’m speaking on a more abstract level because, on lower levels, nature does indeed change. I mostly means the laws that govern interaction in nature and the mathematical patterns inherent in almost all of life.) It doesn’t matter what equipment humans use to discover it—the answer will not change. Knowledge does not exist in isolation—other knowledge is required in order to be able to use it; it therefore makes sense that some forms of knowledge would seem to have no use until other knowledge was discovered.

“To me, this seems like a strong case for some sort of being having designed the universe with certain laws and designed human beings with the want to learn and discover those laws.”

It all depends on the perspective from which one initially looks at it—where others see evidence of a higher power, I often see no more than coincidence or some other perfectly rational explanation.

“So let me know what you think of that. It's interesting, and it may be hard to comment on it if you aren't familiar with some of the math or history, but let me know. Have a great day.”

It is indeed interesting, and—as mentioned above—not an argument that I have ever come across before. Kudos for the creative thinking. :)

Have fun with Gianna.

Hi A. I'm such a bum, so sorry for taking so long. The problem is that I need to know that I have a large block of time uninterrupted to respond, and with a baby crawling around constantly, standing up on furniture and pulling things off of shelves, I can't focus for more than a few minutes. It was easier earlier in the year cause she just laid in her basket (or whatever that thing is called) and couldn't roll around. But alas...

Also, before I say anything else, I want to make clear that the argument is NOT my own. It is my paraphrasing above, but I believe the argument goes back to a 2006 book by Wiker and Witt "A Meaningful World." So I just want to make sure that I'm not taking credit for something I didn't come up with.

"This is one which I’m not familiar with. At this point, I don’t think properties are that important—in debate, I follow one basic rule (well, that’s applicable at this point)— always begin at the earliest point of divergence and move on from there. "

The reason I pointed this out is because it isn't quite clear that the being that I defined as God way back when is the same being that I claim exists due to this argument, but that's a fairly technical point.

"Okay, even the term algebraic topology makes my head hurt."

Yeah, but you're not the one who has a family who's welfare is dependent upon you publishing new results in that area...How did my life come down to this? :)

"Why do humans desire higher, abstract knowledge? (My mother would say that it’s because of our innate curiosity, but that’s a side note.) While I agree that much of what we pursue today (and have for much of human history) itself appears to have no basis upon the laws of natural selection and such, I see no reason why the tendencies which lead humanity to desire knowledge could not have arisen from an evolutionary standpoint.

Humans did not survive because we are the fastest or because we are the strongest. (Actually, there’s a vein of thought out there which says that we survived as a species because other carnivores found us smelly and distasteful!) Humans survived because of our intelligence and because we were able to recognize patterns in nature in a way that most other animals were not. Since out survival was based upon our brainpower, natural selection would favor the development of traits which both enhanced this brainpower and then gave us the desire to use it. Even when no longer absolutely essential for survival, these traits would remain (until such a point as when they became a handicap to survival) and so it is only natural that humans would have turned them towards other pursuits.

I don’t think aspects of science being anti-natural selection have any real bearing on this argument. It is in the interests of each organism to survive and to thrive, while the process of natural selection is opposed to the survival of all but the best genes—the interests here diverge and will often be in conflict. It is only natural, therefore, that humans would use their intelligence to try and thwart a natural process which is opposed to their vital interests. (I actually argue that we’re systematically destroying our gene pool, but that’s another argument)."

Well, I do agree with a lot of what you said to a certain extent. Certainly some aspects of intelligence could contribute more to survival. Like inventing the wheel for example. But what I'm talking about goes so far beyond this. For example, people have been using concepts from calculus long before calculus was actually hammered out. People can approximate areas of circular objects without knowing about integration (the mathematical way of determining areas of circular objects) Now being able to estimate areas and work well with numbers is evolutionarily adventagous, I agree, but why did we develop a gene which allowed us to go beyond that and develop this whole abstract theory of calculus? And these who developed it did it purely for the intellectual pursuit of it; not to help solve a "real world" problem.

Another aspect that I didn't mention before of this is the fact that our abstract reasoning has evolved so quickly. I mentioned how what Euclid did around 300 BC was considered esoteric at the time. But if Euclid were around now, he would be blown out of the water at the level of abstraction and theory that mathematicians engage in. [I think this applies to someone in any science] At least with Euclid you could picture the geometrical concepts he's talking about. Nowadays, there are no ways to describe many of the mathematical ideas we come up with (in physical terms) yet they can be applied to many real world applications.

Another observation (I don't think this is a good point) is that if you look at those people who are the great chemists, physicists, mathematicians, those who make their living doing very high abstract reasoning, many of them could not survive on their own very well. I mean, there is a reason that there is a stereotype about scientists being sort of nerdy. There is a story about Paul Erdos, one of the greatest mathematicians of the 20th century, where in order to drink some orange juice, he stabbed the carton in the middle with a knife. And he would do stuff like this all the time. That's one example, but a lot of these guys have very poor social skills, they have their wives almost completely take care of them like they are their mothers (guilty!). Like I said, this isn't a very strong point, but it seems like those who have developed this very high abstract thinking would almost otherwise not be able to survive on their own, especially say, 5000 years ago or so. I can't imagine a single one of my professors being able to survive in the wilderness. Maybe this is what you mean by us destroying out gene pool... :)

BTW (stream of consciousness here) you're doing well so far at discussing this, but let me know if I get too technical or rely too much on mathematics. It's a little unfair for me to throw my area of expertise at you and be like "you need to accept this cause I'm an expert!" I'm trying to use some math history as examples to illustrate my point, but let me know if I ever try to make a point which basically boils down to "accept my authority or else..."

"I’m not incredibly familiar with the examples that you’re using, but I understand the basic premise."

Good, I figured you'd be able to, and the basic premise is where I hope to argue from, not specifics specialized to me.

"To repeat the question (for my own organizational purposes), what is the best possible explanation for why our higher, abstract knowledge is so well mirrored in nature? Again, I do not see this as being either contradictory or as needing a higher power to have designed it."

No, I wouldn't say I'm going for a contradiction either. It's possible there is another explanation, but I'd like to argue that a designer is the best possible one given what we know.

" I would argue that much of our higher, abstract knowledge is so well mirrored in nature because it came from nature to begin with—its basis was in natural law and natural processes which were then refined to a heightened, abstract level."

I think it;s hard to say what that means. Nature is impersonal. How would nature give us this ability? I think from a Darwinian standpoint, the question would be "what is the mechanism"?

"It all depends on the perspective from which one initially looks at it—where others see evidence of a higher power, I often see no more than coincidence or some other perfectly rational explanation."

I guess one thing I might ask then is (and I'm not saying this in a sarcastic or condescending tone, even though it can be read that way) what kind of evidence would be strong enough to convince you that something wasn't chance/coincidence and that any other explanation would be less rational than some supreme being? Maybe one thing to think about is what kind of evidence (short of actually seeing them) might be reasonable to draw the conclusion that aliens exist? Like, suppose we found a whole bunch of complex machinery on the other side of the moon where humans supposedly hadn't been before. While it is probable that it is there because of some alien race, it is still possible that humans could have done it. Perhaps humans were extremely advanced 10,000 years ago but where wiped out and we just haven't found any archeological evidence to confirm that yet. Or maybe the government is keeping certain space missions secret from us, and we used to have settlements on the other side of the moon during the 80s.

What is that balance between being skeptical/ not being duped and falling for anything and being stubborn? That's a hard question, I dunno.

OK, this post was out of control. Terribly sorry about that. Hope your day goes well, my friend.

Bobby,

"I'm such a bum, so sorry for taking so long. The problem is that I need to know that I have a large block of time uninterrupted to respond, and with a baby crawling around constantly, standing up on furniture and pulling things off of shelves, I can't focus for more than a few minutes. It was easier earlier in the year cause she just laid in her basket (or whatever that thing is called) and couldn't roll around. But alas..."

Don't worry about it; life had a way of interfering with the most well-laid plans or the best of intentions. (Though I would argue that trying to prevent your baby from wrecking havoc is a far better--and more important!--intention then debating online.) Kids can be a handful though, can't they?

"Also, before I say anything else, I want to make clear that the argument is NOT my own. It is my paraphrasing above, but I believe the argument goes back to a 2006 book by Wiker and Witt "A Meaningful World." So I just want to make sure that I'm not taking credit for something I didn't come up with."

Fair enough; thanks for pointing this out.

"This is one which I’m not familiar with. At this point, I don’t think properties are that important—in debate, I follow one basic rule (well, that’s applicable at this point)— always begin at the earliest point of divergence and move on from there. "

"Yeah, but you're not the one who has a family who's welfare is dependent upon you publishing new results in that area...How did my life come down to this? :)"

You know you love it.

"Well, I do agree with a lot of what you said to a certain extent. Certainly some aspects of intelligence could contribute more to survival. Like inventing the wheel for example. But what I'm talking about goes so far beyond this. For example, people have been using concepts from calculus long before calculus was actually hammered out. People can approximate areas of circular objects without knowing about integration (the mathematical way of determining areas of circular objects) Now being able to estimate areas and work well with numbers is evolutionarily adventagous, I agree, but why did we develop a gene which allowed us to go beyond that and develop this whole abstract theory of calculus? And these who developed it did it purely for the intellectual pursuit of it; not to help solve a "real world" problem."

Going off of my understanding of genetics, it wouldn't be a separate gene which caused this tendency; rather, it would be the same one (or, more likely, ones) that caused our curiosity in the first place. Forgive me if I'm reviewing stuff you already know. Genes are not as simple as one gene-one trait. Even such simple things as eye color are influenced by several genes. It is quite likely that such attributes as intelligence and curiosity are influenced by an even more varied assortment of genes.

"Another aspect that I didn't mention before of this is the fact that our abstract reasoning has evolved so quickly. I mentioned how what Euclid did around 300 BC was considered esoteric at the time. But if Euclid were around now, he would be blown out of the water at the level of abstraction and theory that mathematicians engage in. [I think this applies to someone in any science] At least with Euclid you could picture the geometrical concepts he's talking about. Nowadays, there are no ways to describe many of the mathematical ideas we come up with (in physical terms) yet they can be applied to many real world applications."

You know, there is another explanation for why humans desire abstract knowledge that has nothing to do with genetics. Genes are very rarely ever destiny--even if one has a tendency or a capacity to be able to do something, one has to be in an environment which is conducive to the development of this attribute. So it is highly possible that humans desire increasingly esoteric and abstract knowledge because, at some point in history, someone started looking at only slightly abstract forms of knowledge and society decided both that abstract knowledge was good and that others should be encouraged to pursue it. If this cycle continued, it is only natural that the progression of this would culminate (not that I'm arguing that it has) with abstract knowledge that is so far removed from the world that it wouldn't have even been conceived of when the cycle began.

"Another observation (I don't think this is a good point) is that if you look at those people who are the great chemists, physicists, mathematicians, those who make their living doing very high abstract reasoning, many of them could not survive on their own very well. I mean, there is a reason that there is a stereotype about scientists being sort of nerdy. There is a story about Paul Erdos, one of the greatest mathematicians of the 20th century, where in order to drink some orange juice, he stabbed the carton in the middle with a knife. And he would do stuff like this all the time. That's one example, but a lot of these guys have very poor social skills, they have their wives almost completely take care of them like they are their mothers (guilty!). Like I said, this isn't a very strong point, but it seems like those who have developed this very high abstract thinking would almost otherwise not be able to survive on their own, especially say, 5000 years ago or so. I can't imagine a single one of my professors being able to survive in the wilderness. Maybe this is what you mean by us destroying out gene pool... :)"

Do you think any human currently living today (well, at least in the western world) would really be able to have survived 5000 or so years ago? I don't: we have lost far too much of what was crucial then to keep ourselves alive.

It is very possible for a trait that was previously selected for during the process of natural selection can become a trait that would be selected against. Humanity no longer allows for natural selection among the population, however. Ultimately, I think this (what you've cited above) is more of a matter of nurture (in most cases) than of nature.

"BTW (stream of consciousness here) you're doing well so far at discussing this, but let me know if I get too technical or rely too much on mathematics. It's a little unfair for me to throw my area of expertise at you and be like "you need to accept this cause I'm an expert!" I'm trying to use some math history as examples to illustrate my point, but let me know if I ever try to make a point which basically boils down to "accept my authority or else...""

People argue using what they know; it would be equally unfair of me to ask you to abandon your specific branch of specialized knowledge in order to prove a point. Don't worry--I try to avoid ever accepting arguments based on the premise "I'm an expert, you must agree with me!" To some extent it is necessary to rely on the testimony of said experts (ecsp. in math and science), but just because one doesn't have specialized knowledge of an area does not mean that one cannot have a dissenting opinion on it.

"Good, I figured you'd be able to, and the basic premise is where I hope to argue from, not specifics specialized to me."

Excellent--that's a far superior strategy in this case than arguing specifics. With what I study, I'm also much better at arguing from a trends standpoint as opposed to a specific case-by-case basis (though I can do that as well).

"No, I wouldn't say I'm going for a contradiction either. It's possible there is another explanation, but I'd like to argue that a designer is the best possible one given what we know."

It could be. The simplest answer is, however, not always the right one. (I should note here that I've been criticized in the past for never giving a simple answer. It got to the point that when asked if I could give a yes or no answer, I responded, "But then you miss all of the intricacies and layers of the answer....so, in short, no.")

"I think it;s hard to say what that means. Nature is impersonal. How would nature give us this ability? I think from a Darwinian standpoint, the question would be "what is the mechanism"?"

What I mean is that a lot of our abstract knowledge began as simple observations about the world and then trying to figure out those simple observations. For me, the mechanism would be the same as the one which allowed ancient humans to puzzle out rhythms and patterns in the natural world which enabled them to survive.

"It all depends on the perspective from which one initially looks at it—where others see evidence of a higher power, I often see no more than coincidence or some other perfectly rational explanation."

"I guess one thing I might ask then is (and I'm not saying this in a sarcastic or condescending tone, even though it can be read that way) what kind of evidence would be strong enough to convince you that something wasn't chance/coincidence and that any other explanation would be less rational than some supreme being? Maybe one thing to think about is what kind of evidence (short of actually seeing them) might be reasonable to draw the conclusion that aliens exist? Like, suppose we found a whole bunch of complex machinery on the other side of the moon where humans supposedly hadn't been before. While it is probable that it is there because of some alien race, it is still possible that humans could have done it. Perhaps humans were extremely advanced 10,000 years ago but where wiped out and we just haven't found any archeological evidence to confirm that yet. Or maybe the government is keeping certain space missions secret from us, and we used to have settlements on the other side of the moon during the 80s.

What is that balance between being skeptical/ not being duped and falling for anything and being stubborn? That's a hard question, I dunno."

This is a tricky subject; humans are by nature subjective beings. No matter how much one tries to be objective, one cannot escape this (nor, actually, would I argue that we should). It's all a question of trying to weigh the evidence in as unbiased a manner as possible and trusting/hoping that the conclusions one draws are correct.

In this case, we have two competing, plausible explanations. Well, not necessarily competing because the first (a designer) is compatible with the second. Many who accept the second, however, dispute the first. For me, I see way too many poorly designed things in this world to be able to believe that it was all designed by a perfect, infallible being.

It's really dangerous to get into that realm (aliens existing, machinery on the far side of the moon, ect.) with me. I'm a sci-fi/fantasy person and could probably come up with about fifty increasingly obscure and unlikely explanations.

Have a good day.