For Stephen - Prophecy is Reasonable and Logical to Believe

Author: PGA2.0

Posts

Total: 353
#271
Mdh2000
Mdh2000's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 112
0
1
1
Mdh2000's avatar
Mdh2000
0
1
1
-->
@PGA2.0
There must be an ultimate best to know good, just like without good we would not know evil. Evil is measured against good, just like good is measured against the best.
And you can demonstrate that we can know good? Or that we can know evil? How can we show any of these things to be objectively true?

Objective best is God. He has commanded humanity to not kill (murder, or take innocent human life), not steal, not lie, not commit adultery, not covet something that is not ours, honor our parents, love Him, and do not defame Him.
Ok. I get that's your postion, but you still haven't answered my question. Can you show that best exists objectively? 

You are saying you don't know best because your worldview does not have what is necessary for best. 
No, I'm saying that we have no demonstrable example of good or best existing. We have no way of determining if they are anything more than ideas we made up. Until we can demonstrate that they exist let alone what they are how can anyone logically claim they know what good or best are?

You make sense of the concept because you understand that good and better are degrees that depend on the ultimate, best. 
No. I make sense of them as because I understand when someone says 'X is good' they are basing that on a collection of criteria they determine to be good. Same when they say 'X is best'. This fits every example of best or good I have encountered. Please don't assume to know what I understand and don't, it's quite insulting.
Topic's author
#272
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Mdh2000
Best implies no better. How can that not be objective?

Beauty is a subjective preference. It is not wrong for me to think someone is more beautiful than someone else
Because what you think is best isn't what others think is best. To my knowledge there isn't one demonstrably objective example of best. You can state something is better than something else, you can even state why you think that, but you will always be stating criteria you (or someone else)  as being better. I notice you still haven't demonstrated an example that best actually exists.
Then logically one of us, maybe both, must be wrong. One thing is certain, logically we both can't be right because we state opposites. What that first statement confirms is that UNLESS there is an objective, ultimate, absolute best we can refer to then we can't know best, or better, of good. 


Then I ask, is your example underlined above any better than any other? 


To your last statement above I say, I have always stated what is necessary to make sense of qualitative values. You can't make sense of values to date. You have given no reason to believe you can. 
 
Killing and torturing children for fun is morally reprehensible. It says it is wrong, not just a subjective choice.
Now the trouble is how do we show this to be objectively true? I personally find it reprehensible, I believe anyone who would do such a thing should be removed from society for the safety of society, but that in no way suggests that morality is objective. I have created the criteria by which I determine what is moral and what isn't  (largely due to the same social pressures and teachings others of my time have gone through). The objectivity of morality is thrown into question when you look at the world over a long enough timeframe what we view as moral has clearly changed over cultures and times.
Truth is objective. 

Listen to what you are saying. You personally find it reprehensible...but what about those who don't? If there is no objective best, no fixed and final reference point, then what makes your personal PREFERENCE any better than their personal PREFERENCE? Nothing. YET, you can't live by personal preferences consistently because once you become a moral RELATIVIST you can no more criticize their position than they can yours as better or worse. Your worldview cannot say it is wrong. All it can do is say, "I don't like it." And when a future Hitler calls you forth and leads you to the gas chambers all you can do is say "I don't like this," not that it is wrong. But I'm sure your inner being is SCREAMING this is definitely wrong - no doubts. Once it happens to you then you are no longer a moral relativist.

When you use "social pressures" to determine right and wrong, good and evil, what happens if you live in a society that sees slavery as morally good, or killing Jews because they are not quite as superior or HUMAN as your "race" of people? ARE YOU SAYING THAT MAKES SLAVERY OR KILLING JEWS GOOD? It all depends on where you live?


Anything can be deemed good, as long as those in control have the power to enforce their desires. That, however, does not make anything good, it just makes it permissible. To have a good you have to have a fixed best that you can compare goodness too. If you don't have that all you have is power and preference. My worldview has what is necessary and can make sense of goodness, yours cannot. THAT IS MY POINT. So, you can live inconsistently, always borrowing from my Christian worldview when it is convenient, but you can never reconcile from your own worldview its inconsistencies.  


Topic's author
#273
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Mdh2000

 Again an argument that has no bearing on what is true. Though your conclusion is false. I very well can say I will not accept X. I can do everything in my power to prevent X. I can even have reasons I state for that position, but I cannot claim the moral high ground. power to prevent X.

To have the truth you have to have OBJECTIVITY. Saying you will not accept X does not make it evil. What makes it evil only if it has the identity of evil. You can't call a thing what it is not for you deny the logical law of identity. The problem is that you can't identify evil with a relativist worldview (until it happens to you). 


That is the difference between the two of us. I know what is necessary. You do not and yet you are trying to convince me otherwise. You have NO moral high ground with such a view (which you just admitted), but I continually see you outraged when you think I am claiming to have such ground and I touch a nerve as I did earlier as shown by your outrage. It only goes to show the inconsistency of your position. 


Topic's author
#274
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Mdh2000
If you try to push beauty along the same lines as torturing children as both subjective then for someone who likes to torture little children there is nothing wrong in their eyes and each to his own. Are you willing to live with such a belief or do you think that some things are definitely wrong?
This is an argument from consequence. It's also moot, since what I want has no bearing on what is true. Further it does nothing to show any way in which morality is objective. I don't push morality and beauty down the same path, I follow the path they both go down. Can you demonstrate that morality is objective? You can certainly show that people have a sense of morality, but can you show it is consistent and reliable? Spartans used to consider it moral to throw babies off cliffs if deemed unfit (and immoral for parents to hide unfit babes), slavery was deemed moral for most of human history. Can you objectively demonstrate that they were wrong (you can give reasons you think they were wrong, but can you demonstrate it objectively)?
When you compare beauty and torturing innocent children you are comparing apples to oranges. One is a personal preference, the other is a qualitative value judgment. You thinking your wife is the most beautiful person in the world is subjective to you. Others may not think so. There is nothing wrong with your belief as long as you don't give another person an inferiority complex. Torturing an innocent human child for fun is plain wrong, all the time, any time, and anyone who cannot distinguish this is deranged.

Spartans throwing babies off a cliff is always wrong, whether you or they think so, only if there is an absolute, objective, final reference point. Otherwise, do whatever you want or whatever you can get away with doing. Regardless of what you may think of slavery, it is either right or it is wrong. It can't be both. Once you are a slave you may feel differently. Just because something is deemed moral does not make it so. It only is if that is its identity.  A thing is what it is, and it cannot be what it is not or else it has no identity. Only relativists can think this kind of thought, but they can't live by such thoughts. Their worldview is inconsistent. When something is inconsistent there is a good reason to believe it is wrong. 
 

If you have no evidence of best actually existing then how do you gauge what is good? What do you have to gauge it against? If you say subjective preference then what makes your subjective preference better than mine? If nothing, then why is it wrong to torture little children for every person?
I don't that's my point. I have no reason to believe best exists as anything more than a concept, something we as humans dream up. We can imagine things that don't actually exist, in terms of somethinng as best we all imagine something slightly different, give it different traits, draw from our personal preferences. This makes sense of best and fits with what we see in the world. Can you show any way in which you can demonstrate anything is best? Your entire argument rests on your ability to demonstrate such a thing.

You don't, so how can you object to someone who does? That is my point. If best does not exist then what do you have to compare good or better too? Do you just make up something you like? Again, you confuse preference with qualitative moral values. 

You can't get an OUGHT from an IS. A behavior is what is. It describes it does not prescribe.
#275
Mdh2000
Mdh2000's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 112
0
1
1
Mdh2000's avatar
Mdh2000
0
1
1
-->
@PGA2.0
It STILL CANNOT be both good and not good at the same time and in the same way. It is a contradiction and defies the very thing you use to make sense of anything - the laws of logic. You could not communicate without these laws. You could not make sense of anything without employing these laws, so what you claim above is nonsense. Even as "a simple concept" it cannot be contradictory (exact opposite) and still make sense. 
You're assuming good is a single thing with a clearly defined set of traits.


Now, most of these statements are highly subjective (or at least have criteria that are subjective towards a particular preference). You could point to ''something conforming to the moral order of the universe, but then I ask can you demonstrate such moral order in the universe?

If there is no objective morality or 'good' then there are many, many 

By putting in a moral claim (good) you are implying something that must be true, but how can it if it loses its identity? Therefore, such statements are self-refuting.
No. You may infer that, but it isn't what I am implying at all. It is a subjective statement. That something is of a favourable character tendency. It is a subjective statement. I have decided what I consider to be correct behaviour, it is a statement of what I consider moral. I don't deny having a strong sense of morality, I always keep my promises, because my morality demands it of me, I help people where I can and try not to hurt them where I can't. These ideas and many more have formed over many years and drive many of my actions, yet I cannot with any honesty say I am objectively more or less moral than anyone else who follows their concept of what is moral. (My morality may drive me to stop them, but I can never judge them as immoral).
#276
Mdh2000
Mdh2000's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 112
0
1
1
Mdh2000's avatar
Mdh2000
0
1
1
Sure it follows if best is derived from One who is the best, One who is objective in the sense that He knows all things, thus knows what is actually right and wrong.
And you can demonstrate that this is the case? If not you haven't demonstrated objective mortality.

What is necessary for objectivity in regards to morality? You would have to understand every position and you would have to know what is right and wrong, then your nature would have to be good to judge rightly. For a subjective being to know the difference, such a being (you) would have to have a revelation from an objective Being to guide your thinking (i.e., The Ten Commandments covers our relationship with both God and humanity).

Currently meaningless as you can't establish morality is objective, let alone that we can judge such an objective morality. I have no reason to conclude that there is an objective being to provide such a revelation or such an objective truth to be revealed.

He is that objective best, and since we are imperfect, we are with sin/wrong and limited in our nature, we cannot get to that best ideal on our own merits, but we can understand the One who has because we are created in His image and likeness (Genesis 1:26).
You have a means of proving this statement?

Genesis 1:26 (NASB)
26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
Our minds are made in the image and likeness of the Greatest Mind, our Maker, just not to the same extent.
Your proof of this?
Topic's author
#277
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Mdh2000
It STILL CANNOT be both good and not good at the same time and in the same way. It is a contradiction and defies the very thing you use to make sense of anything - the laws of logic. You could not communicate without these laws. You could not make sense of anything without employing these laws, so what you claim above is nonsense. Even as "a simple concept" it cannot be contradictory (exact opposite) and still make sense. 
You're assuming good is a single thing with a clearly defined set of traits.
No, I'm not. Pick a topic. Is abortion as a woman's choice good? There, that is a hot topic. 
Should a woman have the right to choose? Is that a good thing? 






Now, most of these statements are highly subjective (or at least have criteria that are subjective towards a particular preference). You could point to ''something conforming to the moral order of the universe, but then I ask can you demonstrate such moral order in the universe?

If there is no objective morality or 'good' then there are many, many 

Exactly, and good becomes meaningless if it has no fixed, objective address. 


By putting in a moral claim (good) you are implying something that must be true, but how can it if it loses its identity? Therefore, such statements are self-refuting.
No. You may infer that, but it isn't what I am implying at all. It is a subjective statement. That something is of a favourable character tendency. It is a subjective statement. I have decided what I consider to be correct behaviour, it is a statement of what I consider moral. I don't deny having a strong sense of morality, I always keep my promises, because my morality demands it of me, I help people where I can and try not to hurt them where I can't. These ideas and many more have formed over many years and drive many of my actions, yet I cannot with any honesty say I am objectively more or less moral than anyone else who follows their concept of what is moral. (My morality may drive me to stop them, but I can never judge them as immoral).

It is COMMON SENSE.

We give a fixed term to the thing you and I call a dog. You understand when I use that term that it does not mean a cat or tree. It refers to that thing and nothing else. When it comes to goodness on any given specific subject the term is interchanged with other meanings, depending on where you live. It can mean the exact opposite. Some countries believe abortion as a woman's choice is wrong/ evil and others believe it is right/good. 

So who is actually right? Which is the true position, since logically they are not both good? You CAN'T answer that because you have no objective best. 

When you say "a favorable character tendency" - which persons or groups favor? If it is subjective then it is not wrong for someone who believes the opposite. Can you live in a world like that? Watch what happens if the Democrat's take back the power to govern and pass their agenda with their relative ideas. Your country is done if that happens. The downward spiral into despair and meaninglessness will continue at an accelerated rate. Watch what happens to the wealth of your country. 

You can't say you're objective because you don't have what is necessary for objectivity with your worldview. It does not allow it. Yet, people with a relativistic worldview keep borrowing from an objective worldview everytime someone crosses the line. Then their subjectivity goes out the window. 
Topic's author
#278
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Mdh2000
Sure it follows if best is derived from One who is the best, One who is objective in the sense that He knows all things, thus knows what is actually right and wrong.
And you can demonstrate that this is the case? If not you haven't demonstrated objective mortality.

I can to a reasonable and logical degree, but that does not mean you will accept it. Your worldview does not let you accept it because you have invested your life in believing as you do.

I can give you evidence when you are ready to discuss what this thread is all about. I laid out factual claims in Post 182 and 191. I'm still waiting for someone to challenge the truthfulness of those claims. If the Bible is right on those prophecies it opens the door to be right/true on other issues. 

Morality cannot be anything other than objective for it to be true. Is what you believe true? I ask you. You don't even know, yet you argue maybe even indignantly when I push a particular button, that morality is subjective. 

What is necessary for objectivity in regards to morality? You would have to understand every position and you would have to know what is right and wrong, then your nature would have to be good to judge rightly. For a subjective being to know the difference, such a being (you) would have to have a revelation from an objective Being to guide your thinking (i.e., The Ten Commandments covers our relationship with both God and humanity).

Currently meaningless as you can't establish morality is objective, let alone that we can judge such an objective morality. I have no reason to conclude that there is an objective being to provide such a revelation or such an objective truth to be revealed.
I can establish the reasonableness of my position. Some people do not want to think reasonably and by employing common sense.

You have every reason to conclude that morality is objective IF you want to arrive at truth or make sense of what is ACTUALLY the case. If not then you are welcome to drown in meaninglessness (playing devil's advocate). 


He is that objective best, and since we are imperfect, we are with sin/wrong and limited in our nature, we cannot get to that best ideal on our own merits, but we can understand the One who has because we are created in His image and likeness (Genesis 1:26).
You have a means of proving this statement?
To a reasonable degree. First, show me how reason derives from something devoid of it. All I ever witness is reasoning beings giving life to other reasoning beings. Why would and do you expect to find reason in a chance happenstance universe? How can you make sense of the meaningless and purposeless, yet you continue to in most things you look at. 

My worldview is logically consistent with itself - from reason Being comes other reasoning beings. From a Mindful and purposeful Creator comes mindful and purposeful creatures. Logical self-sufficient Being gives rise to more logical beings. 


Genesis 1:26 (NASB)
26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
Our minds are made in the image and likeness of the Greatest Mind, our Maker, just not to the same extent.
Your proof of this?

It makes sense that God would transcend what is made and has a beginning. It makes sense that we DISCOVER laws of how things work because there is meaning behind the universe that created and sustains it and everything in it. These laws point to that Lawgiver. 

You have a choice whether you want to believe that or that ultimately everything is meaningless and without purpose. It all means nothing in the long run with such a worldview.




Topic's author
#279
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Mdh2000
Best implies no better. How can that not be objective?

Beauty is a subjective preference. It is not wrong for me to think someone is more beautiful than someone else
Because what you think is best isn't what others think is best. To my knowledge there isn't one demonstrably objective example of best. You can state something is better than something else, you can even state why you think that, but you will always be stating criteria you (or someone else)  as being better. I notice you still haven't demonstrated an example that best actually exists.
Again, you are confusing personal preference with right and wrong. Beauty is a subjective preference. Torturing innocent babies for fun is not for any person or any time. 

Are you willing to say that torturing innocent babies for fun by some is okay, morally good? If you are then how could you be trusted in looking after such a helpless person? If not then you think it is objectively true since it applies to every person.



Killing and torturing children for fun is morally reprehensible. It says it is wrong, not just a subjective choice.
Now the trouble is how do we show this to be objectively true? I personally find it reprehensible, I believe anyone who would do such a thing should be removed from society for the safety of society, but that in no way suggests that morality is objective. I have created the criteria by which I determine what is moral and what isn't  (largely due to the same social pressures and teachings others of my time have gone through). The objectivity of morality is thrown into question when you look at the world over a long enough timeframe what we view as moral has clearly changed over cultures and times.
The trouble is yours, not mine. Your worldview does not have the means to do so. Thus, if someone in a society that accepts torturing innocent children for fun enjoying this you can't say it is WRONG for them.

If a society that kills Jews because it sees them as less human than non-Jews, you can't say it is wrong for them. If a moral reformer comes along and tries to change the views of that society because he does not see Jews as non-persons, or lesser persons, then they are wrong. How does that grab you?

Why SHOULD I trust your moral compass in determining right and wrong, especially when I believe the exact opposite? There is no reason I should accept your personal opinion, especially since it is relative. 


Within every culture/country/society, there are thousands of social groups that are opposed to the culture-at-large values. 

Yes, the morality in any given culture has changed which begs the question of which is the actual correct view? There is no way of saying. Which again brings me to the point that you can't make sense of morality, yet you continually fight for your view being valid. If you did not think so, why would you hold it???


If you try to push beauty along the same lines as torturing children as both subjective then for someone who likes to torture little children there is nothing wrong in their eyes and each to his own. Are you willing to live with such a belief or do you think that some things are definitely wrong?
This is an argument from consequence. It's also moot, since what I want has no bearing on what is true. Further it does nothing to show any way in which morality is objective. I don't push morality and beauty down the same path, I follow the path they both go down. Can you demonstrate that morality is objective? You can certainly show that people have a sense of morality, but can you show it is consistent and reliable? Spartans used to consider it moral to throw babies off cliffs if deemed unfit (and immoral for parents to hide unfit babes), slavery was deemed moral for most of human history. Can you objectively demonstrate that they were wrong (you can give reasons you think they were wrong, but can you demonstrate it objectively)? 
It is an argument for common sense. If what you want has no bearing on what is true, the question still is what is true? You can't say. You have no idea. Yet you would prefer that others adopt your views that you like for no good reason. 

I can demonstrate that without objective morality you can't determine good and evil, because anything goes, depending on what any particular people or cultures like. In Iran, the commonly heard moral outcry is "death to America." They think that is good. Do you? Is there anything you can give to show them they should not think this way? Since you don't know what is ACTUALLY good you don't have a voice of reason. You can't explain what is good. 

I look at The Ten Commandments as the moral standard and morality branches off from that standard. In most cultures, people recognize it is wrong to kill innocent people, and especially not for fun and pleasure. I believe every one of us has a moral compass built into us because we are made in the image and likeness of God. The further we get from recognizing God as that objective source of morality the more anything goes.


Topic's author
#280
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Mdh2000

If you have no evidence of best actually existing then how do you gauge what is good? What do you have to gauge it against? If you say subjective preference then what makes your subjective preference better than mine? If nothing, then why is it wrong to torture little children for every person?
I don't that's my point. I have no reason to believe best exists as anything more than a concept, something we as humans dream up. We can imagine things that don't actually exist, in terms of somethinng as best we all imagine something slightly different, give it different traits, draw from our personal preferences. This makes sense of best and fits with what we see in the world. Can you show any way in which you can demonstrate anything is best? Your entire argument rests on your ability to demonstrate such a thing.
It may not be YOUR point but it is mine. You have stated your beliefs are no better than mine. You have stated you don't know what is actually best because you don't think there is such a best. Why SHOULD I trust anything you have to say? Morals are different from preferences. Preferences are what are, morals are what SHOULD be. How can you say what SHOULD be (morals) if you are unsure? It begs why I would trust anything you have to say. You can live like that but don't tell me there is no such thing as objective morality You are ignorant of the fact, not me.  


With subjective preferences as the norm for morality, you can't say something is any more desirable than anything else - each to his/her own.
Again an argument that has no bearing on what is true. Though your conclusion is false. I very well can say I will not accept X. I can do everything in my power to prevent X. I can even have reasons I state for that position, but I cannot claim the moral high ground.
What is true regarding morals. You don't know yet you say my conclusion is false??? How do you know? You have NO MORAL HIGH GROUND. If you do, state what it is. (It would be inconsistent in what you have already said)

#281
Mdh2000
Mdh2000's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 112
0
1
1
Mdh2000's avatar
Mdh2000
0
1
1
So you start nowhere? (i.e., starting point) You have no starting point?
No, I start with a question. Why would I start with an answer when I have no means to support that answer.

I argue it does presuppose since you were not there, neither was any other human. Even if you don't know you still look at or start with the universe from God as Creator (or the greatest personal being), or you begin with a material origin alone and origins via a chance instead of by intent. You ASSUME that everything that exists came about by your presupposed method, even if you have no surety (ignorant).

No. You don't have to assume either. To assume is to believe. I don't believe the universe came to be without god, I don't believe the universe came to be with a god. The only belief I have in regards to the nature of the universe is that it appears to have had a beginning. No assumptions are made in that position at all and as such no presuppositions.

That is precisely the point, if you don't know but exclude God then you are taking a position. You are presupposing that the material worldview is the more evident worldview.
My only presupposition is that my senses are generally reasonably accurate and that I am able to make somewhat accurate deductions from the information I receive from these senses (the fact I survive and function suggests these assumptions are reasonable). I make these assumptions because they are necessary to function, without them I would literally be able to observe nothing and reason nothing. However, once we have these necessary assumptions, I see no reason to assume anything else, reason tells me assuming as few things as possible is more likely to produce accurate results. As for excluding god, I don't exclude god. I simply question the claims god exists, even in that statement you show your biased. You cannot objectively or reasonably address the existence of god because you have already concluded god exists before the 

Even if you don't know whether God exists by looking at the world through " a naturalist's eyes" you see things through "atheistic eyes" - eyes that deny God. Jesus made this point:

[ The Unpardonable Sin ] He who is not with Me is against Me; and he who does not gather with Me scatters.

If this is true then there is no neutrality. I do not believe we are unbiased and neutral in the way we look at origins or life. We either cling to the one worldview or the other. In the Christian worldview, an atheist is the one who denies Jesus. He/she does not take the biblical God at His Word, for the Bible claims to be His revelation.

It's a false dichotomy. I am not 'against' Jesus, I care very little one way or the other. That that's a logically fallacious statement, it dismisses the possibility of questioning without presupposing one position or the other. It's easy to do, you simply ask 'is a god necessary to the existence of the universe' then you look at the universe and begin to consider and deduce. So far I have seen nothing conclusive either way. We have complexity and consistency, but none of these have been shown to require an intelligence, we have abstracts such as morality and logic, but in the first case we have no evidence that these exist as anything more than a construct of the human mind and in the second a system formed based on observation of the way the universe functions.
#282
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0
No, I'm not. Pick a topic. Is abortion as a woman's choice good? There, that is a hot topic. 
Should a woman have the right to choose? Is that a good thing? 


Every woman has the sole right to her own body, there isn't even any reason for men to be involved in the discussion.
#283
Mdh2000
Mdh2000's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 112
0
1
1
Mdh2000's avatar
Mdh2000
0
1
1
-->
@PGA2.0
No denying that, but we are all biased. I'm glad that you are looking for reasons! Doubt is a part of life. I'm asking you to find out which is more REASONABLE and LOGICAL by examining the evidence as best as I can present it. There are lots who are much more sophisticated and polished, yet in regards to prophecy, I have been examining the evidence for the Christian worldview for a long time. I've professed faith in Jesus Christ for almost 40 years now. Debating unbelievers for most of that time has helped me to look hard for the explanations that confirm God for others. That said, even if the evidence is most compelling, those who are rebelling will always find another excuse not to believe. That has been my witness. On these forums I find but a handful of people who are really willing to test what they believe. The rest are locked solidly in their position and do not budge, do not hear the message or evidence. They do the opposite. They deny it. The more you present the more they dig into their position. That is why you, me, or anyone else coming to faith depends on God and His word.
Let's begin the examination of the evidence with the most pertinent question. What methods have been used to date when the gospels were written? Internal prophecy is always hard to handle. The claims that Jesus fulfilled OT prophecy is questionable at best because the only details we have to Jesus' life are held within the text that is claiming he fulfilled prophecy (I tend to question outside the source for claims when seeking to confirm claims). Our issue here is again going to be your presupposition of the bible. I don't claim to be particularly versed in prophecy, nor do I claim to be particularly versed in history. I would however question how we confirm the Gospels were written before AD70 and how we confirm the events of Jesus' life occurred as is claimed in the Bible as a starting point (to believe these things and then build a case is making strong assumptions that will heavily bias our conclusions).


#284
Mdh2000
Mdh2000's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 112
0
1
1
Mdh2000's avatar
Mdh2000
0
1
1
No, I'm not. Pick a topic. Is abortion as a woman's choice good? There, that is a hot topic. 
Should a woman have the right to choose? Is that a good thing?
Here you make to mistakes in what my point is I think. Firstly regardless of a topic you're assuming that morality on said topic is a single thing, that there is a good and a bad. Yet we have no way of knowing such a thing exists, let alone how to apply it to this (or any other position). Your position is that it's meaningless to state X is good or bad without an objective morality. I don't disagree, I simply state that we don't have any evidence for an objective morality. We have only our own opinions and assumptions to use as a basis, so until an objective morality can be shown to exist, then it logically is meaningless to state X is good or X is bad. This point makes sense of morality by acknowledging that morality is meaningless until we have an objective morality. You don't want to make sense of morality you want to justify morality having meaning. In short, morality in no way supports the existence of god, it simply shows a reason why people may want to believe in god.
#285
Mdh2000
Mdh2000's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 112
0
1
1
Mdh2000's avatar
Mdh2000
0
1
1
Exactly, and good becomes meaningless if it has no fixed, objective address.
And that is evidence that god exists how? This again seems to be an argument from consequence, this doesn't show anything other than the fact that good may be meaningless (and that our opinion of what is good is meaningless until we can demonstrate that not only objective morality exists, but that we can and do know what it is). You're pointing out something you don't like and stating that because your world view allows you to view the world otherwise your worldview is valid, this isn't a case for your world view unless you can show that morality is objective.



It is COMMON SENSE.
No it isn't.

We give a fixed term to the thing you and I call a dog. You understand when I use that term that it does not mean a cat or tree. It refers to that thing and nothing else. When it comes to goodness on any given specific subject the term is interchanged with other meanings, depending on where you live. It can mean the exact opposite. Some countries believe abortion as a woman's choice is wrong/ evil and others believe it is right/good.

This is because dog has a (reasonably) clear and defined meaning, it means a canid, especially the canis familiaris (it can also mean a worthless or contemptible person).

Notice this is a clear definition, the traits necessary to fit it are fairly small, a cat and a tree aren't canids, so they're not dogs.

Now look back at the link I presented for good, it lacks that same traits, if we were to write a definition for good that included the traits and criteria that made a thing good (there are several definitions for good that actually do this, but they're for very specific context), then we'd have a world that clearly meant one thing, it wouldn't however be anymore objectively 'moral' than it is now. The first definition presented for good is actually: of a favorable character or tendency.

That's subjective, that's dependent on circumstance. How about these:
(2): BOUNTIFUL, FERTILEgood land
(3): HANDSOME, ATTRACTIVEgood looks
b(1): SUITABLE, FITgood to eat
(2): free from injury or diseaseone good arm
(3): not depreciatedbad money drives out good
(4): commercially sounda good risk
(5): that can be relied ongood for another yeargood for a hundred dollarsalways good for a laugh
(6): PROFITABLE, ADVANTAGEOUSmade a very good deal
c(1): AGREEABLE, PLEASANThad a good time
(2): SALUTARY, WHOLESOMEgood for a cold
(3): AMUSING, CLEVER

3, 6, c1 and 3 are certainly subjective. We have to scroll the page down quite a way before we come to anything that addresses morality directly and then it states:

'something conforming to the moral order of the universe'

That's fine, show that this moral order exists and how we can demonstrate what it is and we may finally have a clear definition of good, but until then, we've nothing to give traits to good within a moral context. You can claim this is why your worldview is better, but what you actually mean is it's why you prefer it. You see I'm not debating what worldview is best, I'm debating which worldview is most accurate to what we can show to be true.

So who is actually right? Which is the true position, since logically they are not both good? You CAN'T answer that because you have no objective best.
It's entirely dependent on what you conclude the moral order of the universe is. I would personally say we've not got evidence that either is good. So I would answer neither.
#286
Mdh2000
Mdh2000's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 112
0
1
1
Mdh2000's avatar
Mdh2000
0
1
1

When you say "a favorable character tendency" - which persons or groups favor? If it is subjective then it is not wrong for someone who believes the opposite. Can you live in a world like that? Watch what happens if the Democrat's take back the power to govern and pass their agenda with their relative ideas. Your country is done if that happens. The downward spiral into despair and meaninglessness will continue at an accelerated rate. Watch what happens to the wealth of your country. 
This is again an argument to consequence. I don't have a choice in any of this, I can only logically and reasonably follow the evidence where it leads, so far it has all led to the conclusion that if there is an objective morality we have no evidence to show it or what it is. In short, reality is what it is. I can only conclude based on facts.

You can't say you're objective because you don't have what is necessary for objectivity with your worldview. It does not allow it. Yet, people with a relativistic worldview keep borrowing from an objective worldview everytime someone crosses the line. Then their subjectivity goes out the window.
I can be very objective when there is objective data to work with, same as you. The difference is that I don't assume that data when I don't have it. When I'm left without that data, I rather concede the fact that I can only be objective. I will ask again, can you demonstrate objective morality? So far you have argued:

that good cannot be made sense of without it, yet I can make sense of good. Your issue seems to be more with the idea that good is meaningless without it. Considering we have cases where 'good' is meaningless without objective morality and as of yet no one has shown objective morality exists what is the logical reason to conclude good isn't meaningless?

You don't want to live in a world where morality is subjective. This is moot since the reality is what it is regardless of what we want.

I objectively consider what is presented to me and then conclude what warrants belief based on that.

I don't claim that my worldview doesn't hold subjectives, it does it holds many of them, the difference is that I admit they're subjective, I hold them strongly, I will do a lot to support these values, but they are subjective and they are no better and no worse than your subjective values, which I suspect you hold just as strongly, just as dearly. Where in all this do I borrow from your worldview? Or do you mean in some hypothetical situation where you spin my actions or reactions to suit what you want? 
#287
Mdh2000
Mdh2000's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 112
0
1
1
Mdh2000's avatar
Mdh2000
0
1
1
Again, you are confusing personal preference with right and wrong. Beauty is a subjective preference. Torturing innocent babies for fun is not for any person or any time. 
But everything we have suggests good is just as subjective. It exists as an idea no more no less.
Are you willing to say that torturing innocent babies for fun by some is okay, morally good? If you are then how could you be trusted in looking after such a helpless person? If not then you think it is objectively true since it applies to every person.
No, I am not willing to say anything is morally good. My whole position is that there is no way to call anything morally good, it's a subjective term it is meaningless. I have a concept of good that I have formed, I hold it dearly, but it is objectively meaningless same as everyone else's (unless someone can prove that moral objectivity is true and that their morals are in line with it). There is no circumstance where any deed can be shown to be moral because we have no way to demonstrate objective morality. You can spin this however you want, you can argue to consequence or appeal to emotions as much as you want, but until you can demonstrate a moral reality exists and that we can know what it is, you have nothing but subjective morality to rely on and as you have established, that is meaningless. 
#288
Mdh2000
Mdh2000's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 112
0
1
1
Mdh2000's avatar
Mdh2000
0
1
1
-->
@PGA2.0
I can to a reasonable and logical degree, but that does not mean you will accept it. Your worldview does not let you accept it because you have invested your life in believing as you do. 
No, I believe as I do because reason led me there, you have invested yourself to the belief and constructed your reason afterwards (as you've already conceded).

I can give you evidence when you are ready to discuss what this thread is all about. I laid out factual claims in Post 182 and 191. I'm still waiting for someone to challenge the truthfulness of those claims. If the Bible is right on those prophecies it opens the door to be right/true on other issues.
As I said, we'll begin with the questions of how we verify the age of the text and the validity of the events the address and go from there.

Morality cannot be anything other than objective for it to be true. Is what you believe true? I ask you. You don't even know, yet you argue maybe even indignantly when I push a particular button, that morality is subjective. 
I argue that we have no way of knowing if objective morality exists, if we can't demonstrate it does exist then how can we know /what/ it is if it exists. If we can't know that then all our morality is subjective. This is logical, it's actually the only logical conclusion we can come to. You want to prove otherwise then demonstrate objective morality and what it is.
#289
Mdh2000
Mdh2000's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 112
0
1
1
Mdh2000's avatar
Mdh2000
0
1
1
To a reasonable degree. First, show me how reason derives from something devoid of it. All I ever witness is reasoning beings giving life to other reasoning beings. Why would and do you expect to find reason in a chance happenstance universe? How can you make sense of the meaningless and purposeless, yet you continue to in most things you look at.
This is an argument from ignorance. The counter argument would be show a god creating anything. Again this proves nothing. You're shifting the burden of proof. You have the claim 'god exists' I ask you why does reason require an intelligence to have formed? We've already discussed this though it took a slightly different form. If the universe exists that contains consistent forces working in consistent ways then it stands that we would be able to observe these interactions and make sense of them. You make the claim reason requires an intelligence to form. Can you prove this claim or is it just supposition based on what you've observed? Again, I have never observed a god creating anything, that doesn't mean a god couldn't have.

My worldview is logically consistent with itself - from reason Being comes other reasoning beings. From a Mindful and purposeful Creator comes mindful and purposeful creatures. Logical self-sufficient Being gives rise to more logical beings.
It is logically consistent, that is true. However, not all logically consistent arguments are true. For your position to warrant belief, you need to show that it is true, not simply logically sound can you do that. Can you show a single reason that it's not logical to conclude that we lack a means of knowing what caused the origins of reasoning beings? We lack evidence so a conclusion is unfounded.
#290
Mdh2000
Mdh2000's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 112
0
1
1
Mdh2000's avatar
Mdh2000
0
1
1
Truth is objective.
Truth as in something that is true? Sure, anything that is in accordance with reality is true. Laptops are definitely true, this post is evidence of that.
 
Listen to what you are saying. You personally find it reprehensible...but what about those who don't? If there is no objective best, no fixed and final reference point, then what makes your personal PREFERENCE any better than their personal PREFERENCE? Nothing. YET, you can't live by personal preferences consistently because once you become a moral RELATIVIST you can no more criticize their position than they can yours as better or worse. Your worldview cannot say it is wrong. All it can do is say, "I don't like it." And when a future Hitler calls you forth and leads you to the gas chambers all you can do is say "I don't like this," not that it is wrong. But I'm sure your inner being is SCREAMING this is definitely wrong - no doubts. Once it happens to you then you are no longer a moral relativist.
My personal preference isn't any better than anyone else's. I can very much criticize their position, just as they can mine, but it's simply opinion in both cases. My world view allows me to state 'this is wrong' in two ways, firstly if it's factually inaccurate and secondly if I'm stating an opinion.

After this you fall into speculation fear of consequence fallacies. I have had things done to me that I subjectively would call bad, I disapproved of them, they cost me and they hurt me. I don't however say they were wrong, because there is no objective standard by which we can conclude that.

When you use "social pressures" to determine right and wrong, good and evil, what happens if you live in a society that sees slavery as morally good, or killing Jews because they are not quite as superior or HUMAN as your "race" of people? ARE YOU SAYING THAT MAKES SLAVERY OR KILLING JEWS GOOD? It all depends on where you live?
No. I'm saying there is no good. We have our concepts of good, we imagine good, but as far as the evidence suggests it's something we make up. We've no evidence to suggest good or bad exist.

Anything can be deemed good, as long as those in control have the power to enforce their desires. That, however, does not make anything good, it just makes it permissible. To have a good you have to have a fixed best that you can compare goodness too. If you don't have that all you have is power and preference. My worldview has what is necessary and can make sense of goodness, yours cannot. THAT IS MY POINT. So, you can live inconsistently, always borrowing from my Christian worldview when it is convenient, but you can never reconcile from your own worldview its inconsistencies.  
But can you show that we have good? This is the question I have posed to you several times. When I say we have subjective good and I can make sense of good. It's because good isn't a real thing, it's an idea, it's something we've thought up. If this position is correct then I don't need borrow from your worldview. I have only opinion I can express that opinion whenever I like and people can dismiss it when they like. I have my values, I hold to them.

I would note none of this has done anything to suggest that moral absolutes exist. It simply gives reasons for why you're uncomfortable with the lack of moral absolutes.
#291
Mdh2000
Mdh2000's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 112
0
1
1
Mdh2000's avatar
Mdh2000
0
1
1
It makes sense that God would transcend what is made and has a beginning. It makes sense that we DISCOVER laws of how things work because there is meaning behind the universe that created and sustains it and everything in it. These laws point to that Lawgiver.

Newton wrote the law of gravity. This is fact. You argue that we 'discover' the laws of how things work. Yet can you show this is the case? It can be argued that we invent the laws based on observing how things work. Can you show these laws are prescriptive and not descriptive? It would make sense that intelligent beings in a consistent universe (regardless of if that universe was produced by an intelligence or not) would observe the consistency and find ways to describe that consistency.

You have a choice whether you want to believe that or that ultimately everything is meaningless and without purpose. It all means nothing in the long run with such a worldview.
What does that have to do with which position is actually true? Again what does what I would prefer matter to what is true? This does nothing to prove your point or disprove any other.
#292
Mdh2000
Mdh2000's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 112
0
1
1
Mdh2000's avatar
Mdh2000
0
1
1
-->
@PGA2.0
Again, you are confusing personal preference with right and wrong. Beauty is a subjective preference. Torturing innocent babies for fun is not for any person or any time.
Not at all. I am following what we know to where it concludes. We have no evidence of an objective morality, we have only our subjective preferences as to what is moral. Also your last sentence doesn't make sense. It is not what exactly? I'm sure it is the personal preference for some, is it moral? No, but then in a true sense what is? That is kind of my point.

Are you willing to say that torturing innocent babies for fun by some is okay, morally good? If you are then how could you be trusted in looking after such a helpless person? If not then you think it is objectively true since it applies to every person.
No. I would never call anything moral. That's kind of my point. If we cannot demonstrate there is an objective morality then we form morality, we make it up. We have our values and we either hold to them or we don't, but they're not real. They're made up either we make them up ourselves or others do. Nothing is moral nothing is immoral. You can agree with an act, you can disagree with it, but moral weight is moot. This is the case even if there is an objective morality that we cannot demonstrate as being true (since we've no way of knowing which set of moral values if any are accurate). Ultimately you shouldn't determine if someone is fit to look after a baby because they would be willing to say torture is bad, but because they would be willing to act to stop that torture from happening, if they deem morality to exist or not.
#293
Mdh2000
Mdh2000's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 112
0
1
1
Mdh2000's avatar
Mdh2000
0
1
1
The trouble is yours, not mine. Your worldview does not have the means to do so. Thus, if someone in a society that accepts torturing innocent children for fun enjoying this you can't say it is WRONG for them.
No, it's your problem, the difference is you're ignoring it while I acknowledge it. I wouldn't say they were wrong. I'd stop them from harming children.

If a society that kills Jews because it sees them as less human than non-Jews, you can't say it is wrong for them. If a moral reformer comes along and tries to change the views of that society because he does not see Jews as non-persons, or lesser persons, then they are wrong. How does that grab you?
Why would the social reformer be wrong? Unless he's presenting facts that are inaccurate why would wrong apply to him? I would support the reformer, I don't support the killing of jews, however that wouldn't be a moral choice in the way you seem to define morals, it would be me acting on my preferences, on values I have formed for myself.

Why SHOULD I trust your moral compass in determining right and wrong, especially when I believe the exact opposite? There is no reason I should accept your personal opinion, especially since it is relative.
You shouldn't, just like I shouldn't trust yours. Neither of us can show we know which way north is.

Within every culture/country/society, there are thousands of social groups that are opposed to the culture-at-large values.
So? I'm not saying that cultures form morality and so that is moral. I am stating we can't know what morality is (if there even is such a thing as morality beyond our imaginings).

Yes, the morality in any given culture has changed which begs the question of which is the actual correct view? There is no way of saying. Which again brings me to the point that you can't make sense of morality, yet you continually fight for your view being valid. If you did not think so, why would you hold it???
I can make sense of morality, you might not like the ramifications of my conclusion, but it makes sense of what we know. Morality is something we each conceptualise, if what we conceptualise is true or not is unknown (I hold this since you still haven't presented any reason to conclude any morality is objectively true, let alone that your moral values are). If we cannot know that what we conceptualize is accurate or not (or even if there is something for it to be accurate against) then our morality is a collection of preferences and opinions. So far nothing that has been said invalidates any of those points. You simply argue that you dislike them. My argument isn't based on moral principles, it's based on reason, logic and the evidence or lack thereof.

#294
Mdh2000
Mdh2000's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 112
0
1
1
Mdh2000's avatar
Mdh2000
0
1
1
It is an argument for common sense. If what you want has no bearing on what is true, the question still is what is true? You can't say. You have no idea. Yet you would prefer that others adopt your views that you like for no good reason.
Not really no. I don't care if people adopt my view. I question other views because in doing so maybe I'll find something valid. Unfortunately as of yet your view shows nothing conclusive.

I can demonstrate that without objective morality you can't determine good and evil, because anything goes, depending on what any particular people or cultures like. In Iran, the commonly heard moral outcry is "death to America." They think that is good. Do you? Is there anything you can give to show them they should not think this way? Since you don't know what is ACTUALLY good you don't have a voice of reason. You can't explain what is good.
You are correct. Without objective morality you can't determine what is good or evil. You haven't however shown that there is a good or evil or that we can determine one from the other. You aren't proving anything, you're simply stating things you don't like about the other position. To save some time now. I will point out that I will not state that I find any position you present to me as good or bad, there is no point in doing so, the terms are purely subjective and meaningless. Even you have pointed out that good is meaningless without a clear definition. Read the link I gave you, outside of specific context it is meaningless, in a moral sense it's meaningless until you can demonstrate A) there is an objective morality and B) we can demonstrate what it is. Since we can do neither good becomes meaningless within a moral context as does bad.

I look at The Ten Commandments as the moral standard and morality branches off from that standard. In most cultures, people recognize it is wrong to kill innocent people, and especially not for fun and pleasure. I believe every one of us has a moral compass built into us because we are made in the image and likeness of God. The further we get from recognizing God as that objective source of morality the more anything goes. 
And yet we have people who do kill children and do it thinking they're righteous, they believe themselves moral. That flies in the face of your belief. Can you show that the belief is true? You certainly haven't done anything that does so yet.
Topic's author
#295
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Mdh2000
You did not answer the question. Can you answer that question? It's easy to push it back to me, but how well does your worldview answer it?
I have answered the question several times (more accurately I have addressed the question as it's a nonsense question). If best is subjective  (which all examples I'm aware of are), then best doesn't exist, we make it up. It's nothing more than an idea we have. This is why we can (and often do) disagree repeatedly over what is best.
I've never said best is subjective in regards to moral good and evil. It is only subjective in terms of personal preference (what is as opposed to what should be). As soon as a moral ought is brought into the equation there has to be a best to make sense of it. There has to be something (or Someone) that does not change in which we can measure everything else in relation to it (Him). If there is nothing that does not change then you can't measure it. God is that something (Someone).


It is not nonsensical to ask why a subjective opinion is good or better and in relation to what. 


My worldview has what is NECESSARY to make sense of morality. 
No. My world view makes sense of morality just fine. It just accepts unpleasant conclusions in favour of what can be shown to be true. Rather than bowing to arguments of consequence and appeals to emotion. Humans are intelligent creatures capable of (varying degrees of) reasoning. Humans generally have similar priorities (safety, comfort, companionship). If we can agree on that, then wouldn't it follow that subjective morality would develop in such a way that many would share similar principles (don't steal, don't kill... In short don't do those things that might one day hurt me). It explains a somewhat consistent attitude in morality (especially when society teaches morality), it also explains why morality changes and is sometimes drastically different in different cultures. The only thing it doesn't make sense of is the existence of objective morality... Not an issue since if it's correct there is no objective morality to make sense of.
Makes sense of it? Why is your view any better than any other view? You have already admitted it is not. Thus, you are inconsistent which means you have major problems. Why is your good better than my good? Not only this but as I have pointed out a number of times, everything has an identity and that identity cannot be what it is not. 

Norm Geisler, Any Absolutes, Absolutely, had this to say:

"Finally, if morals are relative to each social group, then even opposite ethical imperatives can be viewed as right. But contradictory imperatives cannot both be true. Everything cannot be right, certainly not opposites."

That brings another cog into the wheel, moral absolutes.

Funny thing is that you can't deny an absolute without implying one in the process of the denial and I noticed you have been fairly conscientious not to do so. God is that absolute.


How do I know if there is no objective best? I don't. It becomes a game of power to enact your desires and preferences over those who think differently, but Hitler's Germany is no BETTER than your America, or Kim Jong-un's North Korea.
Appeal to consequence/emotion that does nothing to support the existence of objective morality. Can you show that one system of morality is objectively better than another? Or do you simply believe it to be so? How do you prove one moral code is better than another?

Yes, I can show it as reasonable and logical because only one system is necessary for morality and no other meets that criterion. If you want to know what is good you need God - the unchanging, benevolent final standard of appeal.


#296
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0

Yes, I can show it as reasonable and logical because only one system is necessary for morality and no other meets that criterion. If you want to know what is good you need God - the unchanging, benevolent final standard of appeal.
We are fresh out of gods, they don't and never have existed outside of human imagination. You base everything on your fantasy. It's not an adult thing to do.
#297
Mdh2000
Mdh2000's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 112
0
1
1
Mdh2000's avatar
Mdh2000
0
1
1
I've never said best is subjective in regards to moral good and evil. It is only subjective in terms of personal preference (what is as opposed to what should be). As soon as a moral ought is brought into the equation there has to be a best to make sense of it. There has to be something (or Someone) that does not change in which we can measure everything else in relation to it (Him). If there is nothing that does not change then you can't measure it. God is that something (Someone).
And what ought to be is a subjective opinion. Objectively we have what is. You have no logical way to say what 'ought to be' since you have no way to demonstrate that your opinion is better than others. I can make sense of ought by admitting that it's meaningless to what is, irrelevant to reality. We can give reasons why we think we should change a thing, we can change things, but we can't say that these things should be changed because as of yet no standard by which we can judge such an assertion has been demonstrated to exist. As of yet you haven't shown that you can measure morality, we can assume A is better than B, but notice how you haven't presented once case where that can be shown to be true.

It is not nonsensical to ask why a subjective opinion is good or better and in relation to what.
Good and better are meaningless terms unless you have given specific criteria, unless that is you can finally demonstrate that objective morality exists.
Topic's author
#298
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@disgusted
No, I'm not. Pick a topic. Is abortion as a woman's choice good? There, that is a hot topic. 
Should a woman have the right to choose? Is that a good thing? 


Every woman has the sole right to her own body, there isn't even any reason for men to be involved in the discussion.

Rubbish. There are all kinds of reasons. 

It is not only her body but the unborns we are speaking about. 

And the central point in the abortion debate is what is the unborn? It is a human being.

Once you start killing one class of human beings you open the door to killing other classes of human beings. Once you degrade one class you open the door to degrade others. Hitler degraded the Jews so he could justify their mass slaughter. The South degraded African Americans so they could exploit them as slaves. South Africa downgraded people of color to exploit them and use them. Hindu's downgrade through the caste system. Most dictatorships tend to eliminate opposition or downgrade people to deny them rights and exploit them for their own personal power. 


The biggest genocide in the history of the world has happened since Roe v. Wade with an estimated 1.5 billion human beings slaughtered. That is the craziness of the leftist Democrat and socialist ideology. It is disgusting. 
#299
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@PGA2.0

And the central point in the abortion debate is what is the unborn? It is a human being.

There is only one question and that is a woman's right to autonomy of her body and her right to remove a growth from her body, there are no other humans involved.
Topic's author
#300
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@disgusted

And the central point in the abortion debate is what is the unborn? It is a human being. 

There is only one question and that is a woman's right to autonomy of her body and her right to remove a growth from her body, there are no other humans involved.

Completely and utterly untrue. Within her body is another human life. It is a human being and science backs this up. 

A unique and completely different human life begins at CONCEPTION. Thus you are not killing a blob of growth cells but a living human being. There are various websites that list biological textbooks that state just that - a human being. 

Once you kill one class of human beings because you downgrade them, it opens the door to do that with other classes of human beings, like Jews, or slaves, or people of color.