Philosophy Now Forum

Gary Childress wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:If you believe that there is an intelligent designer and you believe that abortion is taking of a life equivalent to murder, then if a woman suffers a miscarriage due to genetic conditions, did the intelligent designer commit murder?

Great point. Sounds sort of along the lines of one of the variations on the problem of evil.

1. God created everything that exists.
2. God does not create evil.
3. Evil exists.

sthitapragya wrote:Where is the flaw?

sthitapragya wrote:

Gary Childress wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:If you believe that there is an intelligent designer and you believe that abortion is taking of a life equivalent to murder, then if a woman suffers a miscarriage due to genetic conditions, did the intelligent designer commit murder?

Great point. Sounds sort of along the lines of one of the variations on the problem of evil.

1. God created everything that exists.
2. God does not create evil.
3. Evil exists.

Miscarriage would be an act of God. Evil is supposed to be an omission of God I think. The question would be, who created evil if nothing can exist that is not created by God?

Gary Childress wrote:
I've heard evil explained before as a "lack of" or something along those lines and therefore not a "something" that is actually created. But it seems like a person could pretty easily substitute the word "evil" in the premises above with "natural disaster". Just saying your argument appears to be along the lines of the problem of evil.

HexHammer wrote: You pose a question where the premise is questionable, thus I point that out to the general public, so they can decide better for an answer.

sthitapragya wrote:

Gary Childress wrote:
I've heard evil explained before as a "lack of" or something along those lines and therefore not a "something" that is actually created. But it seems like a person could pretty easily substitute the word "evil" in the premises above with "natural disaster". Just saying your argument appears to be along the lines of the problem of evil.

But even if evil was a lack of something, it would still need to exist as an underlying condition. In which case it would still be created by God.

Gary Childress wrote:
What do you mean by "evil must still need to exist as an underlying condition"? Do you mean to say that God creates the very POSSIBILITY of lack itself? In other words if God were truly benevolent then he would have made it such that good could not be lacked? If so, then that is sort of my belief as well. I wonder what we should think if it really were the case that:

1. God exists.
2. God created everything else that exists, including evil.

sthitapragya wrote:

HexHammer wrote:If the question was .."what would you saw a flying pink elephant?" ..then I say such thing is irrelevant because it wouldn't be possible, thus the question isn't philosophical.

You pose a question where the premise is questionable, thus I point that out to the general public, so they can decide better for an answer.

Which part is questionable? If you believe that there is an intelligent designer and you believe that abortion is taking of a life equivalent to murder, then if a woman suffers a miscarriage due to genetic conditions, did the intelligent designer commit murder?

1. You believes that there is an intelligent designer. The intelligent designer does not make mistakes.

2. You also believe that abortion is murder.

3. A woman has a miscarriage due to genetic conditions.

4. Therefor she was genetically designed to abort the fetus, as the intelligent designer does not make mistakes.

5. the intelligent designer designed the woman and the fetus thus intent was for the fetus to abort.

6. This implies that there is intent to abort.

7. Intent to abort is murder, provided you believe abortion is murder.

8. You believe in the intelligent designer. You also believe that abortion is murder.

9. So the intelligent designer committed murder.

Where is the flaw?

HexHammer wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:

HexHammer wrote:If the question was .."what would you saw a flying pink elephant?" ..then I say such thing is irrelevant because it wouldn't be possible, thus the question isn't philosophical.

You pose a question where the premise is questionable, thus I point that out to the general public, so they can decide better for an answer.

Which part is questionable? If you believe that there is an intelligent designer and you believe that abortion is taking of a life equivalent to murder, then if a woman suffers a miscarriage due to genetic conditions, did the intelligent designer commit murder?

1. You believes that there is an intelligent designer. The intelligent designer does not make mistakes.

2. You also believe that abortion is murder.

3. A woman has a miscarriage due to genetic conditions.

4. Therefor she was genetically designed to abort the fetus, as the intelligent designer does not make mistakes.

5. the intelligent designer designed the woman and the fetus thus intent was for the fetus to abort.

6. This implies that there is intent to abort.

7. Intent to abort is murder, provided you believe abortion is murder.

8. You believe in the intelligent designer. You also believe that abortion is murder.

9. So the intelligent designer committed murder.

Where is the flaw?

You have the logic of a child, makes circular reasoning and binary statements with binary logic.

Even if there was an ID, things happens by laws of physics, not because the ID has the finger on every fucking tiny thing. You clearly doesn't have a clue about genetics, about chemistry, about any fucking thing out there that scientists know about. How about you went to a religious site where you can babble and rave all day long about your ID, this is a philosophy site where we are supposed to say wise things, which you are totally unable to say nor comprehend.

HexHammer wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:

HexHammer wrote:If the question was .."what would you saw a flying pink elephant?" ..then I say such thing is irrelevant because it wouldn't be possible, thus the question isn't philosophical.

You pose a question where the premise is questionable, thus I point that out to the general public, so they can decide better for an answer.

Which part is questionable? If you believe that there is an intelligent designer and you believe that abortion is taking of a life equivalent to murder, then if a woman suffers a miscarriage due to genetic conditions, did the intelligent designer commit murder?

1. You believes that there is an intelligent designer. The intelligent designer does not make mistakes.

2. You also believe that abortion is murder.

3. A woman has a miscarriage due to genetic conditions.

4. Therefor she was genetically designed to abort the fetus, as the intelligent designer does not make mistakes.

5. the intelligent designer designed the woman and the fetus thus intent was for the fetus to abort.

6. This implies that there is intent to abort.

7. Intent to abort is murder, provided you believe abortion is murder.

8. You believe in the intelligent designer. You also believe that abortion is murder.

9. So the intelligent designer committed murder.

Where is the flaw?

You have the logic of a child, makes circular reasoning and binary statements with binary logic.

Even if there was an ID, things happens by laws of physics, not because the ID has the finger on every fucking tiny thing. You clearly doesn't have a clue about genetics, about chemistry, about any fucking thing out there that scientists know about. How about you went to a religious site where you can babble and rave all day long about your ID, this is a philosophy site where we are supposed to say wise things, which you are totally unable to say nor comprehend.

sthitapragya wrote:Oh, I am sorry. I didn't realize you were one of those. Very insensitive on my part. It's just that I have never met anyone with asperger's before. Sorry again. I always thought you guys were very quick to grasp things though. I never knew some of you had problems comprehending stuff. So sorry again. Next time I will try and explain in simpler words.

HexHammer wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:Oh, I am sorry. I didn't realize you were one of those. Very insensitive on my part. It's just that I have never met anyone with asperger's before. Sorry again. I always thought you guys were very quick to grasp things though. I never knew some of you had problems comprehending stuff. So sorry again. Next time I will try and explain in simpler words.

I am very quick to grasp things, that's why I was the best shooter of a whole company of 100 soldiers, why I as a 22 y was in the quality department telling veterans newspaper people how to do their work finding 100 waste hours per sales person with a sales staff counting 150+, reducing several tasks with 90% that means over 7 hours.

Doing all my lawsuits myself, winning against huge million dollar companies, which suggest I am exceedingly good at reasoning and reading close.

I am good at what I do, what are you good at?

HexHammer wrote:
I am good at what I do, what are you good at?

Walker wrote:

sthitapragya wrote:Where is the flaw?

Death by animal is not murder unless the animal is used as a weapon, then a human is responsible.

Death by machine is an accident, unless the machine is used as a weapon, then a human is responsible.

Death by “Act of God” is not murder.

It’s just one of those things.

Legally, i.e., in reality.

Death by “Act of Man” is murder with distinctions determined by intent.

Harbal wrote:

HexHammer wrote:
I am good at what I do, what are you good at?

The only thing you've shown any evidence of being any good at is a crackpot.