Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote:
Consequently, in your account of what you see as their dilemma, you're assuming something they don't assume. They know Judgment is indeed coming: but it's not now. So for the present, just as adults can kill them, a baby can suffer not because of what it deserves but by dint of being born into a world that contains free entities and yet is absolutely sick with sin.

And you are okay with that? You are okay with a God who has designed a world where a baby is punished simply for being born into a world that contains free entities and yet is absolutely sick with sin? You have no problems with that? You don't even feel like questioning your God why he would make a design like that?
And you have a problem with abortions? How does that even make sense to you?

sthitapragya wrote:And you are okay with that? You are okay with a God who has designed a world where a baby is punished simply for being born into a world that contains free entities and yet is absolutely sick with sin? You have no problems with that? You don't even feel like questioning your God why he would make a design like that?
And you have a problem with abortions? How does that even make sense to you?

It depends on two things:

1. Is there a sufficient good that could not be had except if God allowed for a time for evil to exist? and

2. Is God capable of making everything right, balancing the scales, rewarding the innocent and dealing with the guilty, so that at the end of the day all questions will be answered with justice?

The answer to the first question is "yes," I believe; and the answer to the second is most certainly "yes." After all, the Supreme Being can surely fulfill the requirements of issue 2.

So why would I have a problem with abortions? Because the fact that God allows temporary injustice does not mean he sanctions permanent injustice. The fact that he allows the innocent to suffer, so that the guilty can be, at least temporarily, free does not mean He approves of the evil outcomes these free agents sometimes choose to produce. And the fact that He has made us morally-responsible beings means that we have to answer for doing the things he has told us not to do, and for treating this Earth as if it were a mere forum for our sinful self-gratification, instead of a gift of His goodness, and rightfully the stage on which our love and obedience to Him should be put into practice.

Babies are not your property. They are not their mother's property. They are not property of their society, or even of their world. They are dignified entities intended to live and enter into relationship with their Creator; and when we murder one, it is not against the baby only we have sinned. That is the bottom line.

Immanuel Can wrote:...the fact that He has made us morally-responsible beings means that we have to answer for doing the things he has told us not to do...

Where?

sthitapragya wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:
Consequently, in your account of what you see as their dilemma, you're assuming something they don't assume. They know Judgment is indeed coming: but it's not now. So for the present, just as adults can kill them, a baby can suffer not because of what it deserves but by dint of being born into a world that contains free entities and yet is absolutely sick with sin.

And you are okay with that? You are okay with a God who has designed a world where a baby is punished simply for being born into a world that contains free entities and yet is absolutely sick with sin? You have no problems with that? You don't even feel like questioning your God why he would make a design like that?
And you have a problem with abortions? How does that even make sense to you?

I don't know why you are bothering. He's not genuine, and he doesn't give a shit about embryos.

I find it both annoying and funny that some still think of sperm and embryos as homunculi. I also react the same when people talk about potentials as waiting to be created.

Dalek Prime wrote:I find it both annoying and funny that some still think of sperm and embryos as homunculi. I also react the same when people talk about potentials as waiting to be created.

He doesn't, because he doesn't care about IVF embryos. I detest him and his hypocritical ilk.

Immanuel Can wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:And you are okay with that? You are okay with a God who has designed a world where a baby is punished simply for being born into a world that contains free entities and yet is absolutely sick with sin? You have no problems with that? You don't even feel like questioning your God why he would make a design like that?
And you have a problem with abortions? How does that even make sense to you?

It depends on two things:

1. Is there a sufficient good that could not be had except if God allowed for a time for evil to exist? and

2. Is God capable of making everything right, balancing the scales, rewarding the innocent and dealing with the guilty, so that at the end of the day all questions will be answered with justice?

The answer to the first question is "yes," I believe; and the answer to the second is most certainly "yes." After all, the Supreme Being can surely fulfill the requirements of issue 2.

So why would I have a problem with abortions? Because the fact that God allows temporary injustice does not mean he sanctions permanent injustice.

What do you mean permanent injustice? You yourself said God is capable of making everything right, rewarding the innocent and punishing the guilty, so that at the end of the day all questions will be answered by justice. So abortionists will face justice and be punished by God for their actions. So the injustice is temporary. The fetus will got heaven.

But I will ask you to consider the kind of God you follow. Such a brilliant being could not come up with a design that would ensure babies and children didn't die horrible slow deaths? What kind of sin deserves such punishment to babies? How can you allow it? These children suffers for years before they die. Everyday, every minute, without relent. And you are okay with that. I cannot imagine how you do not find this evil considering how much evil you see in abortions.

It's pretty offensive and a bit bizarre that two males are 'debating' abortion on here, especially as they ignore females who actually know about the subject. Is it ever going to end? I wish you would both just shut up.

sthitapragya wrote:But I will ask you to consider the kind of God you follow. Such a brilliant being could not come up with a design that would ensure babies and children didn't die horrible slow deaths? What kind of sin deserves such punishment to babies? How can you allow it? These children suffers for years before they die. Everyday, every minute, without relent. And you are okay with that. I cannot imagine how you do not find this evil considering how much evil you see in abortions.

It's not a design issue. It's analytically impossible for a world to exist in which people are "free" but "have no alternatives." The problem there is simply that it is a contradiction in terms, like asking for a square circle. If mankind is going to have the "freedom" to love, to choose, to have personal identity, and so on, then analytically, that means mankind cannot be confined merely to obedience. Disobedience must also be a live option, or there is no sense in which we can speak of humans having genuine "free will," (or choice, or individual identity).

What God created, as the Bible says, was originally "good." But mankind has taken things in another direction. It is because mankind is free that it could do that. But because it is also responsible, it must answer for what it has done with its freedom.

You think that this life is all there is, perhaps. If so, that is why you cannot think of how the scales can ever be balanced again. But all sorrows can be answered with eternal joys, and all evils can be answered with due recompense, if life as we know it here is not all there is.

It's worth thinking about.

Immanuel Can wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:But I will ask you to consider the kind of God you follow. Such a brilliant being could not come up with a design that would ensure babies and children didn't die horrible slow deaths? What kind of sin deserves such punishment to babies? How can you allow it? These children suffers for years before they die. Everyday, every minute, without relent. And you are okay with that. I cannot imagine how you do not find this evil considering how much evil you see in abortions.

It's not a design issue. It's analytically impossible for a world to exist in which people are "free" but "have no alternatives." The problem there is simply that it is a contradiction in terms, like asking for a square circle. If mankind is going to have the "freedom" to love, to choose, to have personal identity, and so on, then analytically, that means mankind cannot be confined merely to obedience. Disobedience must also be a live option, or there is no sense in which we can speak of humans having genuine "free will," (or choice, or individual identity).

What God created, as the Bible says, was originally "good." But mankind has taken things in another direction. It is because mankind is free that it could do that. But because it is also responsible, it must answer for what it has done with its freedom.

You think that this life is all there is, perhaps. If so, that is why you cannot think of how the scales can ever be balanced again. But all sorrows can be answered with eternal joys, and all evils can be answered with due recompense, if life as we know it here is not all there is.

It's worth thinking about.

I am sorry, but all this has nothing to do with babies and children suffering slow horrible deaths. This is not about freedom to choose or obedience or disobedience. And whatever direction mankind might have taken, God could still have made an exception for innocent babies and children and let adults suffer the consequences of their behaviour.

No objective morality can conclude that it is right for babies and children to suffer for the sins of mankind. Even if there is life after this one in a heaven with 72 virgins, you cannot believe that it compensates for the slow agonizing deaths of innocent babies and children. And I cannot believe that for someone who loves children so much that they are unwilling to let an unborn fetus suffer, this is acceptable. You at least owe it to your love for children to question God why this kind cruel punishment exists for innocent babies and children.

But your above argument does put paid to your abortion argument. If man has genuine freewill, then you should respect that and let people do whatever they want. It is their choice. They have god given genuine free will.

sthitapragya wrote:

Immanuel Can wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:But I will ask you to consider the kind of God you follow. Such a brilliant being could not come up with a design that would ensure babies and children didn't die horrible slow deaths? What kind of sin deserves such punishment to babies? How can you allow it? These children suffers for years before they die. Everyday, every minute, without relent. And you are okay with that. I cannot imagine how you do not find this evil considering how much evil you see in abortions.

It's not a design issue. It's analytically impossible for a world to exist in which people are "free" but "have no alternatives." The problem there is simply that it is a contradiction in terms, like asking for a square circle. If mankind is going to have the "freedom" to love, to choose, to have personal identity, and so on, then analytically, that means mankind cannot be confined merely to obedience. Disobedience must also be a live option, or there is no sense in which we can speak of humans having genuine "free will," (or choice, or individual identity).

What God created, as the Bible says, was originally "good." But mankind has taken things in another direction. It is because mankind is free that it could do that. But because it is also responsible, it must answer for what it has done with its freedom.

You think that this life is all there is, perhaps. If so, that is why you cannot think of how the scales can ever be balanced again. But all sorrows can be answered with eternal joys, and all evils can be answered with due recompense, if life as we know it here is not all there is.

It's worth thinking about.

I am sorry, but all this has nothing to do with babies and children suffering slow horrible deaths. This is not about freedom to choose or obedience or disobedience. And whatever direction mankind might have taken, God could still have made an exception for innocent babies and children and let adults suffer the consequences of their behaviour.

No objective morality can conclude that it is right for babies and children to suffer for the sins of mankind. Even if there is life after this one in a heaven with 72 virgins, you cannot believe that it compensates for the slow agonizing deaths of innocent babies and children. And I cannot believe that for someone who loves children so much that they are unwilling to let an unborn fetus suffer, this is acceptable. You at least owe it to your love for children to question God why this kind cruel punishment exists for innocent babies and children.

But your above argument does put paid to your abortion argument. If man has genuine freewill, then you should respect that and let people do whatever they want. It is their choice. They have god given genuine free will.

Why don't you fuck up and stop encouraging the prik? And try not to steal others' ideas and pass them off as your own.

sthitapragya wrote:...whatever direction mankind might have taken, God could still have made an exception for innocent babies and children and let adults suffer the consequences of their behaviour.

Not if human freedom was going to be real. Real freedom entails not only the option to make one's own bad decisions, but the option to initiate evil. And one thing that's always the case about evil...it harms the innocent. Evil does not confine its effects to private persons, you know; it's not that compassionate.

...cruel punishment exists for innocent babies and children.

You've forgotten: humankind is the author of the situation in which babies and children suffer. They are responsible directly for things like abortion, and indirectly, by having precipitated the environmental factors that make possible things like bad genetic situations. For humankind is nothing if not unkind. We could have chosen to love God; we had that opportunity. But we did not. We chose to love ourselves. The suffering of the innocent is not "punishment" from God; it's the natural outcome of bad human choices...rather like abortion, actually.

If man has genuine freewill, then you should respect that and let people do whatever they want. It is their choice. They have god given genuine free will.

Oh, I absolutely agree. They have the freedom, and it's not mine to take away. I wouldn't dream of trying. Debate is about changing minds rationally, not depriving people of freedom. But I would warn them that one's own free choice never includes a free pass on cruelty to others. Murder is still murder, even when it's been freely chosen. And it's only a kindness to remind them of that fact before God does.

You see, the flip side of freedom is always responsibility. People who have freedom are therefore responsible for what they do, and are rightly condemnable for opting to do evil rather than good. In the day of Judgment, no abortion-supporter will be able to say, "I just didn't know." They do know; they just don't want to take responsibility for the bad choice they're making, or the wickedness they're endorsing.

But we will see how it all works out -- of that I a certain.

The better option is to change our minds and ask forgiveness before that happens.

Immanuel Can wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:...whatever direction mankind might have taken, God could still have made an exception for innocent babies and children and let adults suffer the consequences of their behaviour.

Not if human freedom was going to be real. Real freedom entails not only the option to make one's own bad decisions, but the option to initiate evil. And one thing that's always the case about evil...it harms the innocent. Evil does not confine its effects to private persons, you know; it's not that compassionate.

But you keep forgetting that even this whole cause effect thing is God's design. And Making babies suffer might be a consequence of human action, but the fact that it happens is because it is God's design. Even if it was not God's design, He chooses to let it continue when He can very easily put a stop to it. There is no way around it. Innocent children and babies suffer and die because God chooses not to do anything about it. He chooses to punish us and sit on judgment on us after we die and he ALSO chooses not to do anything to prevent children and babies die horrible death due to the sins committed by mankind which He will definitely sit on judgement and punish us for. Basically the punishment never ends. What kind of God is this?

Immanuel Can wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:...cruel punishment exists for innocent babies and children.

You've forgotten: humankind is the author of the situation in which babies and children suffer. They are responsible directly for things like abortion, and indirectly, by having precipitated the environmental factors that make possible things like bad genetic situations. For humankind is nothing if not unkind. We could have chosen to love God; we had that opportunity. But we did not. We chose to love ourselves. The suffering of the innocent is not "punishment" from God; it's the natural outcome of bad human choices...rather like abortion, actually.

Again, God chooses to punish innocent babies and children by not changing his design to punish adults instead. If cause and effect should work, it should be evil people who acquire genetic diseases when they commit sins and die slow and horrible deaths. For them, God chooses punishment after death. For babies and children, it is punishment in this life. How does that make sense to you?

Immanuel Can wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:If man has genuine freewill, then you should respect that and let people do whatever they want. It is their choice. They have god given genuine free will.

Oh, I absolutely agree. They have the freedom, and it's not mine to take away. I wouldn't dream of trying. Debate is about changing minds rationally, not depriving people of freedom. But I would warn them that one's own free choice never includes a free pass on cruelty to others. Murder is still murder, even when it's been freely chosen. And it's only a kindness to remind them of that fact before God does.

And that brings us to the next problem. If it is free will, why does God choose to punish us for our acts? "You are free to do anything good or bad, but if you do bad things, I will punish you." How can you rationally call this free will? It is not free will. It is an or else.

Immanuel Can wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:You see, the flip side of freedom is always responsibility. People who have freedom are therefore responsible for what they do, and are rightly condemnable for opting to do evil rather than good. In the day of Judgment, no abortion-supporter will be able to say, "I just didn't know." They do know; they just don't want to take responsibility for the bad choice they're making, or the wickedness they're endorsing.

What about the wickedness of God in endorsing the slow and horrible deaths of babies and children? They are suffering for sins of other people. How is that justified? How can you accept such a thing?

And how do you call anything freewill if there is an option to condemn them for their actions? Why is there a judgement day if there is free will? How is that rational to you?

How can you ask forgiveness of an entity that is okay with its own design that punishes babies and children for sins of others? What good do you think that will do? He can allow babies and children to die horrible deaths due to a cause and effect chain he designed. He knew it would happen when he designed it. It was inevitable. He still went ahead with it.

Also, if the babies and children are suffering due to sins of mankind, that means the punishment for the sins is already given to babies and children. So what will God do to you on judgement day? Do you mean to say that I will be punished for my sins and that babies and children will ALSO suffer for my sins? What kind of sins can you imagine that require so much punishment? You punish the guilty as well and children in the next life?

So let me summarize. If I commit a sin that the law of my country considers illegal, there is a good chance that I will be punished by the law. Then on my death I will be punished by God. Also, my sins will cause genetic defects in women which will cause them to produce children who die slow and horrible deaths.

If however, I commit a sin which is not recognized as illegal by the law of the land, like coveting another man's wife, I will die and be punished by God. Also, my sins will cause genetic defects in women which will cause them to produce children who die slow and horrible deaths.

If I endorse abortion, you will sit on judgement on me and if you have violent tendencies you will cause me harm. You will be punished by the law of the land. Then we will both die and God will judge us and punish us. Me for endorsing abortion and you for wrath and violence. And our sins will cause genetic defects in some child who will die a slow and horrible death.

So in some cases, the punishment will be three fold and in some cases the punishment will be two fold. So even if I commit the sin of eating too much, some child is going to die a slow and horrible death.

Oh yeah, and it is not every child. Some child. Other children will be fine. Only some children will face this problem.

And this makes sense to you and you are okay with it. Is that correct?

Oh yeah, and amidst all this punishment, we have the free will to do whatever we choose to do.

sthitapragya wrote:So let me summarize. If I commit a sin that the law of my country considers illegal, there is a good chance that I will be punished by the law. Then on my death I will be punished by God. Also, my sins will cause genetic defects in women which will cause them to produce children who die slow and horrible deaths.

If however, I commit a sin which is not recognized as illegal by the law of the land, like coveting another man's wife, I will die and be punished by God. Also, my sins will cause genetic defects in women which will cause them to produce children who die slow and horrible deaths.

If I endorse abortion, you will sit on judgement on me and if you have violent tendencies you will cause me harm. You will be punished by the law of the land. Then we will both die and God will judge us and punish us. Me for endorsing abortion and you for wrath and violence. And our sins will cause genetic defects in some child who will die a slow and horrible death.

So in some cases, the punishment will be three fold and in some cases the punishment will be two fold. So even if I commit the sin of eating too much, some child is going to die a slow and horrible death.

Oh yeah, and it is not every child. Some child. Other children will be fine. Only some children will face this problem.

And this makes sense to you and you are okay with it. Is that correct?

Oh yeah, and amidst all this punishment, we have the free will to do whatever we choose to do.

Let me explain it to you here then. Fucks like imcan claim to have deep feelings for embryos. IVF clinics create far more emybryos than are needed, meaning probably 80-90 per cent of embroyos are destroyed as surperfluous. I would like to know why he doesn't have a problem with this.