For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
I'm not seeing how you imagine it can be, since you don't know where I'm going yet.sthitapragya wrote:Sorry, but My question is directly related to your question. So you will have to answer before I can answer.
Just as I cannot imagine where you are going with this. So it should be a mutual give and take.i answer one question and you answer one. that is fair play, isn't it?Immanuel Can wrote:I'm not seeing how you imagine it can be, since you don't know where I'm going yet.sthitapragya wrote:Sorry, but My question is directly related to your question. So you will have to answer before I can answer.
Or maybe you do...if you want to tell me. And if you do, and get it right, we'll happily turn to your question. I can't be fairer than that, can I?
sthitapragya wrote:Why is it important where who is going with what? So it should be a mutual give and take.i answer one question and you answer one. that is fair play, isn't it?Immanuel Can wrote:I'm not seeing how you imagine it can be, since you don't know where I'm going yet.sthitapragya wrote:Sorry, but My question is directly related to your question. So you will have to answer before I can answer.
Or maybe you do...if you want to tell me. And if you do, and get it right, we'll happily turn to your question. I can't be fairer than that, can I?
Since you cannot figure out where I'm going, it's clear I should go there. Then you will have reason to know if your objection or analogy is the one you want to advance or not.sthitapragya wrote:Just as I cannot imagine where you are going with this. So it should be a mutual give and take.i answer one question and you answer one. that is fair play, isn't it?
Let us not get into reasons why who is doing what. Let us just focus on fair play. You asked a question and I answered it. Now it is your turn.Immanuel Can wrote:Since you cannot figure out where I'm going, it's clear I should go there. Then you will have reason to know if your objection or analogy is the one you want to advance or not.sthitapragya wrote:Just as I cannot imagine where you are going with this. So it should be a mutual give and take.i answer one question and you answer one. that is fair play, isn't it?
So let's go there quickly, and then we'll give you complete control of the floor. I will respond to any question you ask. I promise.
We left off at the late-third-trimester abortion. I now put the question again: murder or not?
Yes, let's.sthitapragya wrote:Let us not get into reasons why who is doing what. Let us just focus on fair play.
Well, you can answer my question with but one word too. So of what are you afraid?Immanuel Can wrote:Yes, let's.sthitapragya wrote:Let us not get into reasons why who is doing what. Let us just focus on fair play.
You can answer my question with but one word. If you will not finish the line of thought, then of what are you afraid?
One word. Just one. Then you get the floor.
Let's get to the bottom of this. You are trying to prove that the Canadians are baby murderers and you want me to agree. Well, I am trying to prove that God is a baby murderer by the same standards and want you to agree with me. If you have an excuse for God, then apply the same excuse for the Canadians and for any woman.Immanuel Can wrote:Yes, let's.sthitapragya wrote:Let us not get into reasons why who is doing what. Let us just focus on fair play.
You can answer my question with but one word. If you will not finish the line of thought, then of what are you afraid?
One word. Just one. Then you get the floor.
Yes, let's.sthitapragya wrote: Let's get to the bottom of this.
You are trying to prove that the Canadians are baby murderers and you want me to agree.
Before we commence, we must, like good philosophers, see if the question is rationally well-formed, or whether it contains any fallacies, equivocations, unclear terms, and so forth. We must not take for granted that we understand one another, then find out we don't. I owe it to you to answer YOUR question, not one I make up on your behalf, right?sthitapragya wrote:Does God commit murder if a woman suffers a miscarriage due to a genetic condition?
Whether a moral code higher than the Supreme Being Himself exists or not is not the question. The question is from your perspective. The supreme being is above judgement in your eyes, in the sense that no moral code applies to him so he cannot commit any sin, according to you. But in YOUR eyes, from YOUR perspective, in YOUR opinion, if a woman has a miscarriage due to a genetic condition, did God commit murder?Immanuel Can wrote:Before we commence, we must, like good philosophers, see if the question is rationally well-formed, or whether it contains any fallacies, equivocations, unclear terms, and so forth. We must not take for granted that we understand one another, then find out we don't. I owe it to you to answer YOUR question, not one I make up on your behalf, right?sthitapragya wrote:Does God commit murder if a woman suffers a miscarriage due to a genetic condition?
Okay, there's your wording above. To understand your question, I need to ask about two aspects of it.
Firstly, is it your presumption that because I am a Christian I also be rationally bound to be a Determinist -- say, a Hypercalvinist of some kind? I ask because your answer will put certain kinds of response in or out of reasonable court. Only if all actions are, so to speak, "God's fault" can we ask the question as you frame it -- or so it seems to me at the moment. So could you clear that up for me?
Secondly, is it your presumption that there exists a moral code higher than the Supreme Being Himself, by which we could judge His actions to be "murder"? I ask because if such a thing does not exist, then obviously the question is already dead. So I presume you must have some better explanation than I am currently seeing for the existence of such a code. Correct?
I won't reply to this rant. You are just making accusations based on your unfounded conclusion of murder. If you want a fight, tell me. I will give you one. Otherwise, redraft this insulting an offensive post. It has more accusations that arguments.Immanuel Can wrote:Yes, let's.sthitapragya wrote: Let's get to the bottom of this.
I do actually know why you won't answer my question. It is just as you say:You are trying to prove that the Canadians are baby murderers and you want me to agree.
And if you followed out my line of thought, you already know you'd have to agree. Or rather, you'd be trapped between excusing what you had already clearly defined as "murder" and denying that abortion is legitimate. And you don't want to go there, because either way, that would make you immoral -- and that, according to your own lights, not mine!
But I conclude with this: if somebody as limited as I can trap you in the paradox of your position so easily, what possibly consolation can anyone have that God (if He exists) cannot do the same? The Judge of the Earth will hold guilty all those who have killed children, and all who have advocated doing so. I'm certain of that. And I suspect that though you deny it, you rightly fear it too.
The truth is that we all know abortion is murder. There is no point at which we can stop the "yes or no" murder chain, and then offer any rational explanation for why we do so. If I'm wrong about that, then I invite you to try: tell me where that line is, where killing a child is murder, but a mere millisecond earlier, it is not.
But nobody can do that. They continue to butcher children who are nearly, or half, or fully born, and to make irrational excuses for their behaviour. Meanwhile, since the anti-abortion side is not advocating killing anyone, they simply cannot be murderers. But abortionists can, and are murderers. They know it, and we know it...does God? If He exists, we can be assured He does.
That they pose as "liberators," and rationalize and lie to cover their evil will not fool God. He's a much better arguer than I will ever be.
Next message: on to your question.
Well, you only answered my second question. In which case, I will deal with it.sthitapragya wrote:Whether a moral code higher than the Supreme Being Himself exists or not is not the question. The question is from your perspective. The supreme being is above judgement in your eyes, in the sense that no moral code applies to him so he cannot commit any sin, according to you. But in YOUR eyes, from YOUR perspective, in YOUR opinion, if a woman has a miscarriage due to a genetic condition, did God commit murder?
Then defeat it. In fact, you can destroy my whole case instantly: I'll point out the central weak point to you. Just tell me at what point abortion tips over into murder. Show rationally that you are correct. And you will have defeated my argument utterly. I will graciously accept defeat.sthitapragya wrote: I won't reply to this rant. You are just making accusations based on your unfounded conclusion of murder. If you want a fight, tell me. I will give you one. Otherwise, redraft this insulting an offensive post. It has more accusations that arguments.
Sorry but that is a cop out. I did not ask the question from the perspective of God. I asked it from your perspective as a human. Did God commit murder or not? I am not asking how it is justified because he is God.Immanuel Can wrote:Well, you only answered my second question. In which case, I will deal with it.sthitapragya wrote:Whether a moral code higher than the Supreme Being Himself exists or not is not the question. The question is from your perspective. The supreme being is above judgement in your eyes, in the sense that no moral code applies to him so he cannot commit any sin, according to you. But in YOUR eyes, from YOUR perspective, in YOUR opinion, if a woman has a miscarriage due to a genetic condition, did God commit murder?
I have to point out to you that your characterization of Christianity is, at most, an extreme minority one. Most are not hypercalvinists, and so they believe that neither human beings nor all natural processes in the fallen world are expressions of the will and action of God. So your question would evaporate, except for hypercalvinists: of which I am not one.
So the answer to your question would be "No": for things other than God can be responsible for that.
But to be fair, I'll tackle both of my two questions, if I may. So on to your comment on your response above, that pertains only to the second. To frame your question at all, you need me to accept that there is a code higher than God. But if He's the Supreme Being, then you know what I must believe: that nothing can be higher than Him.
I apologize, but to cover my bases I must now get a bit technical and add a caveat, anticipating the usual objection. That objection goes as follows: Does this, then, leave me open to the "Euthyphro" objection," namely that it would imply God can do immoral things?
But the Euthryphro objection is founded on a false dichotomy: it posits (and Socrates was quite explicit about this) the existence of more than one god, so that, as Socrates says, Euthyphro must believe that morality is different from the character of God, not coextensive with it. He says this because, as he points out, multiple gods can and do (allegedly) disagree about what is "right"; so they can't all be channelling the uniquely moral position in their preferences.
However, there is no necessity that a singular God must In fact, it would be odd to think He sustained a "disagreement" with Himself. Thus "morality" and "the Nature of God" are better seen as two descriptions of precisely the same phenomenon. That which is moral is both moral and pleases God, being according to His character. There is no more sense in thinking they have to be different things than there is in assuming that as "boy" and "son" cannot be equivalent terms, or "cat" and "domestic feline" cannot be.
And so, absent any code higher than God, and absent any division between God and morality, your question can be answered in total:
God is neither (of necessity) the responsible agent of a woman's miscarriage, nor in any way culpable if she miscarries. Igitur, God cannot be a "murderer," by definition.