it's morally OK to abort a foetus because it isn't viable? — Hallucinogen
It is. — AmadeusD
The common argument here is that bodily autonomy is a defensive right - you have the right to refuse interference with your body, but you don't have a right to a specific treatment. And in case of a pregnancy, the fetus/baby is "using" the body of the mother, hence her bodily autonomy takes precedence. — Echarmion
Evidence seems to suggest humans become conscious, in the sense of being aware of themselves and their own awareness, only some time after birth — Echarmion
a new human being needs to acquire certain basic capabilities in order to become an individual, and being born and capable of surviving outside the womb is certainly a prerequisite. — Echarmion
You apparently have no knowledge of what a fetus is in any sense that justifies the use of the term. As to differences, here are just two of many. inside/outside, viable/not-viable - and they're all substantive differences — tim wood
Not cant, won't. It's there for you to find, and that not difficult at all. And for you to take take the won't as can't simply says you're only concerned with your beliefs — tim wood
This is a non-issue. A human foetus and a human baby are the same individuals being described in different ways. — Ludwig V
when what is at stake is the ethical attitudes embedded in the descriptions. — Ludwig V
Are suggesting there is no difference? — tim wood
why don't you try a list of them and see just how long it is. I thought Roe v. Wade was good law. Three divisions of nine months: first, abortion ok, second, maybe ok, third, probably not ok. — tim wood
In ignoring difference — tim wood
Could you give an example or point to statistics? — Hallucinogen
No — tim wood
There is a clear difference in this thread - and elsewhere - in the language used by folks. — tim wood
and mothers are dying that shouldn't — tim wood
In this it doesn't matter when a fetus 'becomes human' what matters is the bodily autonomy of the mother — Tom Storm
I would say to that, your conscious, the foetus isn’t. — Samlw
My main issue with pro-life is that your taking away a choice for people that don't share the same beliefs when having it the other way, — Samlw
It seems you're claiming that you cannot have a valid argument without true premises. — AmadeusD
For an argument to be sound, it has to be valid already. A requirement for soundness is the truth of the premises, whereas validity is to do with how the rules of logic are applied. — Hallucinogen
What I am saying is that sound arguments are a subset of valid arguments. — Hallucinogen
A true premise with a false conclusion is not sound — AmadeusD
Because it isn't valid. — Hallucinogen
Your premises can be entirely false — AmadeusD
If your premises are empirically wrong, the argument is unsound, but can be considered valid — AmadeusD
P1: Hitler was German
P2: Hitler carried out his acts in service of Germany
C: Hitler was a German dictator.
This is false. He was an Austrian dictator of Germany.
But the above is a valid argument. In the world where Hitler was German, it holds. However, P1 is untrue, therefore it is not a Sound argument.
Another example:
P1: It is raining today where i am
P2: I am outside, unshaded
C: I am wet with rain. — AmadeusD
False.
Your premises can be entirely false — AmadeusD
A true premise with a false conclusion is not sound — AmadeusD
Soundness: An argument is sound if it meets these two criteria: (1) It is valid. (2) Its premises are true. — colorado.edu
The addition of the premises being true creates soundness. — AmadeusD
Validity doesn't have much of a relationship with truth. — AmadeusD
Do not attempt to argue with Me, worm. Cower in fear of My wrath. — unenlightened
But since unenlightened is not God — unenlightened
Soundness is a relationship between true premises and a valid conclusion. — AmadeusD
A true premise with a false conclusion is not sound — AmadeusD
That's soundness — AmadeusD
Validity is mere formal agreement between premises and conclusion. — AmadeusD
If your premises are empirically wrong, the argument is unsound — AmadeusD
Validity doesn't have much of a relationship with truth. — AmadeusD
But since unenlightened is not God, there is a contradiction. — unenlightened
If everything is evidence that God did it, then everything is evidence that unenlightened did it. — unenlightened
I have another theory: — "unenlightened did it". — unenlightened
You have a whole lot of work to do on - at least - defining your terms and how they relate to each other. — tim wood
Scientific evidence depends entirely on repetition in controlled environments where particular experiences composed of beliefs, desires, motivations and various subjective phenomena are neutralized. — JuanZu
Subjective experiences and scientific evidence are not the same thing. — JuanZu
In subjective experience that which validates a belief does not escape the particular subjective experience. — JuanZu
In scientific evidence that which validates theory necessarily escapes particular subjective experience. — JuanZu
When we compare both types of validation we realize how poor is the validation of beliefs on the religious plane — JuanZu
It is your job to say what you are talking about. — I like sushi
There is no argument. — I like sushi
When I look outside my house I experience seeing my car for "biological reasons," but this doesn't undermine my claim that my car is "really there." — Count Timothy von Icarus
There is a phenomenon referred to as Christianity.
Are you saying anything else other than this? — I like sushi
You said address what bert1 was responding to (180proof's post), not bert1's reply to 180proof. — Lionino
Anyhow, not only that but bert1 himself said he agreed, not just 180proof. — Lionino
And it is not like what I said has any room for disagreement, it is something obvious. — Lionino
The Bible says the Sun sets on the West. We see the sun sets on the West. Is that evidence of Christianity? Of course not. — Lionino
Well, this is like saying
'If some observation corresponds to some Star Wars-specific proposition, then it is evidence that Jediism is true.' — 180 Proof
Too subjective, you need some objective way to verify that the experience is veridical. — Sam26
You first need to distinguish evidence of Christianity from interpretations of "Christianity" — sime
Do you really wish to argue that mystical visions are externally related to Christian concepts and present inferential evidence that those Christian concepts denote 'facts'? — sime
If you can't figure out what's wrong with #2, you are not thinking or engaging in good faith. — Lionino
It is comical that God intentionally bothers to mysteriously appear to random people at random times — Lionino
yet stays quiet when a little Nepali child is being ripped to shreds by a Bengali tiger. — Lionino
Curing children from cancer is somehow a violation of free will — Lionino
You are scurrying through abstracts like a politician to find convenient statements — Lionino
“Prayer induced experiences” - what is that to you? — Fire Ologist
I’d like to see how you distinguish “prayer induced experiences” from “experiences of observations”. — Fire Ologist
“Bible-specific propositions” - probably just need an example, one that cashes out with the other terms using an example would help. — Fire Ologist
“Christianity is true”. Do you mean objectively, verifiably true, like the earth revolves around the sun type truth? — Fire Ologist
I think I need to see an example that shows how a person’s prayers are answered so to speak in a way that verifies a connection between the prayer and the observable experiences of that person — Fire Ologist
Someone giving a specific account of a prayer leading to proof of a Christian proposition in themselves, that is evidence of faith at work. — Fire Ologist
Yes, because a logical argument has to show something multiple third parties can use to see the same thing, to see whatever is the conclusion of the argument — Fire Ologist
I’m saying to the third party scientists running tests on believers and taking as objects things like Christian propositions, and prayer-induced experiences, all the scientists are left with (if they believe in the honesty of the test subject) is someone who is demonstrating faith. — Fire Ologist
They don’t see the reason that test subject sees a reason to connect the Christian proposition to the prayer. You don’t see the reasons as a third party, you just see their reasons (that the scientific observer didn’t directly access) — Fire Ologist
and would be better to call this evidence of what faith is, namely, someone in the act of believing something) rather than any proof about Truth of the thing they believe (how the christian proposition relates to their own prayer.) — Fire Ologist
You are not saying any of this is about what's true, it's merely evidence for the person having the experience. — Tom Storm
People believe all kinds of absurdities based on bad evidence. — Tom Storm
Is this intended to be an argument? — bert1
Is (4) an assumption? — bert1
Granting (4), doesn't this apply to other religions as well? — bert1
Are you as happy for this line of thinking to support other religions than Christianity? — bert1
Perhaps you think that all religions are culture-specific approaches to one spiritual reality? — bert1
Conversely, the Christian vison confirms that Islam is not true and Jesus is God. How do you resolve this psycho-cultural conundrum? — Tom Storm
I am wondering if you are arguing that all religions are equally proven true if followers have specific religious experiences? — Tom Storm
It would be far more convincing if those people had visons or experiences of a god outside of their cultural expectations — Tom Storm
like Kali or an Australian Aboriginal creator spirit. — Tom Storm
The fact that someone in a Christian country sees Christian vision just taps into expectations. Hallucinations or psychological experiences tend to be tied to the culture you know. — Tom Storm
Can you cite reputable studies? — Tom Storm
My argument is about gathering evidence for a religion, not proving God.“because I experienced God, I know God is true.” — Fire Ologist
Yes, it's just evidence. It provides that person with an individual basis to interpret the spiritual world.That argument only works for that one person. — Fire Ologist
For those of us who haven't had such experiences, one could build a model from the internally-consistent religious experiences other people have had. All of them seem to involve a metaphysical basis of life, certain metaphysical operations such as prayer, a distinction between good and evil, and so on. This permits us to build a global model.but without firsthand experience of this prayer induced evidence, the praying one is asking the other scientist/logicians to take his word on it. — Fire Ologist
I'm not sure what you mean, do you mean to contradict the argument?Someone giving a specific account of a prayer leading to proof of a Christian proposition in themselves, that is evidence of faith at work. — Fire Ologist
Scientists have established methods for investigating subjective phenomena, such as hallucinations, out of body experiences, neuropathic pain and other private experiences that lack an adequate scientific model.But the link between Christianity and prayer-induced experiences is as invisible to the scientist — Fire Ologist