₦airaland Forum

thehomer: I wasn't arguing with you on whether or not it is human, once again, you were the one who introduced that as your defining factor and tried to back it up using a text-book case of a logical fallacy.

I've already addressed my point of view about the rights with respect to the mother. It is up to you (as it has been for a pretty long time now) to make a non-fallacious argument for your point of view.

If I hear you correctly, you grant that the fetus is human yet you think that the mother's right to choose justifies her killing another human? Tell me how that works.

thehomer: Obviously you once again failed to do that.

yawn

You know, the question still remains unanswered despite your hand-waving. You can answer that question with a yes or a no. And realize that so far, you've not said what the purpose of this mysterious designer of yours is.

I have answered your question. You are always free to reject my answer.

It wasn't an analogy, it was a hypothetical situation to let you know that without you informing me of the purpose of your designer, then nothing can be assessed on your part.

Without you acknowledging a designer, nothing can be assessed on your part

I didn't introduce any ideas of a purpose, you did and so far, you've tried to avoid saying what this purpose is despite the fact that I've asked you over and over again. Just declare what the purpose of this mysterious designer is.

I have made it clear to you. if you say that a person objectively ought to act in a certain way then you have granted a purpose.

Oh I can accuse your God of atrocities alright based on what he has already commanded. In fact, I did that in the OP but you've just been trying to dance around answering the question despite the fact that I said you're welcome to do that using your own idea of good. Ignore my own idea or assume mine is actually evil, just use yours to answer the direct questions.

In what universe is a designer subject to the laws that he created for his design?

I already answered this. This is another one of the reasons why I said you're a bad apologist. Do you remember when I said this:


Just so you know, my points of reference are on the effects of Gods actions on humans at the very least. In fact, that much was made clear in my OP here.

By what standard do you judge these effects?

Edit: What is your own point of reference?

Irrelevant, We must first agree on what constitutes an objective standard for morality

Do you remember what your answer to this question was? Let me tell you. It was nothing. You simply danced away from it.

You mean like you danced away from these questions?

What exactly are you trying to explain with your analogy? What does it relate to? We are discussing the relationship between a creator and his creation. In your analogy;
1. Who is the creator?
2. Who is the creation?
3. Is the person asking the question a creator or a creation?

Surely you can tell me what you think good is before even talking about this "objective good" is. Even if I cannot.

There is no sense in telling you what I think. What matters is that which is good regardless of our opinions

thehomer: Have you already forgotten the concept you posted right here from Wikipedia? It's still up for you to read.

Once again, just take a look at what you posted as the concept of naturalism. It refers to the natural.

Lol, of course, "naturalism is the belief that the natural is all there is" tells us everything we need to know about the natural. You are such a genius!

thehomer: You're the harping on what a human being is.

No it isn't. Once again, you need to realize that you're the one wondering whether or not it is human not me. Keep in mind the fact that your entire argument still rests on an unresolved logical fallacy.

Lol, Yeah I forgot. It is irrelevant to you whether it is human or not.Yet you have been arguing with me over whether it is human or not and whether it's rights weigh more than the mother.


Continue dancing my friend. Just keep dancing.

thehomer: You were asking for something weren't you?

I wasn't asking a question. I was pointing out the absurdity of your statement

You didn't answer my question. Here it is again in case you've forgotten.

As I said for the umpteenth time, your definition of well-being is vague. A serial rap[color=#000000]ist[/color] can regard as necessary to his/her prosperity, health and happiness the exact same things that a non-r[color=#000000]api[/color]st would call evil. The only way you can legitimately say that one is wrong and the other right is if there is indeed a way humans ought to act. If it is true that there is a way humans ought to act, then it is true that there is an objective purpose to human life i.e. life ought to be lived according to a particular design. If this is true, then it means there is a designer. To ask what the purpose is is to ask if people ought to live a certain way. To deny a purpose is to deny that people are bound by any moral obligation.

At that point, we were trying to determine whether or not one can discover purpose without being informed.

I thought you were about to explain your analogy, this doesn't do the job you know.

Wow. You've started mind reading again. This is just amazing.

Interesting, tell me exactly how I have misrepresented you.

Let's see where we are.

So far, I've asked you direct questions but you just wriggle like a fish that has been caught on a hook. I wonder just how far you can go without saying anything while the atrocities of your God are so glaring.

This is why I said you were just a bad apologist. Avoiding direct questions is just one of the signs.

Nonsense. You have not yet defined what you mean by objective good yet you want to make the magical leap to accusing God of "atrocities".

Lol, and calling me a bad apologist won't let you off the hook. I still haven't seen the standard by which you want to judge God's goodness. I'm always ready to discuss with you when you actually have something to discuss about.

thehomer: That wasn't my claim. Maybe you should take another look at it. Do you understand what naturalism is?

Apparently I don't. I don't know what you mean by natural, how should I know what you mean by naturalism?

From that link I asked you:

"Have you seen matter coming into existence from non-natural incidents?"

You never answered.

lol, this guy you are funny, you have not yet explained what you mean by "natural" how do you expect me to know what you mean by "non-natural incidents". Surely you know I cannot read your mind. I don't have psychic powers.

thehomer: No because once again, I showed you how you committed the fallacy with a reference. Human being has been defined already. See the first definition here.

Interesting. How does a new-born baby meet that definition in a way that the fetus I showed you does not?

That isn't what I said.

That's exactly the implication of "whether it is human or not is irrelevant"

Kay 17: Natural is the consistency btw the nature/character of an entity to its behaviour.

interesting. What entity are we discussing it's nature/character here?

thehomer: Look at it this way. Christian is the adjectival form of Christianity. Natural is the adjectival form of Naturalism. If you understand one, you should understand the other. If you cannot, then you just need more instruction on the language.

Hahahaha nice try. Your evasion tactics have failed yet again.

https://www.nairaland.com/1294170/argument-against-supernatural-god/3#15852442

In the link above. You have basically claimed that something can be non-spatial, non-temporal, non-material, existing beyond the universe but must be "natural". I think it is only fair to ask you exactly what you mean by the word.

So my friend, what do you mean by "natural"?

thehomer: But you did commit the logical fallacy and so far, you've done nothing to rectify it. Saying that a single celled organism or a two celled organism is a human being is just ridiculous.

Lol, ridiculous because you say so? Tell me, how do you define a human being?

As far as I'm concerned, the question of whether or not it is human is irrelevant since as I'm sure you know, rights can be denied with good reason. So, saying that it is human and therefore deserving to be imposed on the mother isn't enough.

Interesting, so a human being's right to life can be denied based solely on another person's "right" to choose to end it?

thehomer: What doesn't it tell you?

it tells me nothing of what you mean by "natural".

The religion of peace is at work again

thehomer: What? This is just ridiculous. Please just look up the definition in a dictionary.

Yawn...how does this even relate to what I'm talking about

You have actually provided nothing at all.

Yawn.

Since you're so comprehending, why have you avoided answering any direct questions?

The fact that you rejected my answer does not mean I didn't answer your question

What word or phrase was so confusing to you?

What exactly are you trying to explain with your analogy? What does it relate to? We are discussing the relationship between a creator and his creation. In your analogy;
1. Who is the creator?
2. Who is the creation?
3. Is the person asking the question a creator or a creation?

You do realize that you're asking me to tell you what the purpose of your creator is. Why don't you do it as I've asked repeatedly? If I say what it is, you'll disagree and start dancing around again. Just come out and say what you think it is.

You are the one who is dancing around. You are the one who thinks people ought to act a certain way yet you also think there is no purpose why they ought to act that certain way. If you cannot see the glaring contradiction in your stance, then I really can't help you.

You haven't even shown that you know what is right or wrong before introducing objectivity.

Really? Since you understand the questions, just go ahead and answer them using your own idea of right and wrong. It shouldn't be so difficult for you.

You must really like your circles.

thehomer: If you recall, that was one of my questions to you that you never answered non-fallaciously.

I have answered you clearly that a human being is a human being because of the nature of what he is and not what his body looks like i.e. a person does not grow into becoming a human being. A person is a human being from conception until death.

Your accusation that I have committed the slippery slope fallacy is baseless because, there is no "slope of humanness" one is either human or isn't.

Though whatever it is, if it isn't yet at the age of viability, I don't think that it has rights equal to or superior to that of the mother.

You still haven't said whether it is human or not. Does the age of viability determine whether a one is human or not? If the age of viability doesn't determine if one is human or not then bringing it up has no relevance to the question you were asked.

thehomer: If you know what naturalism is, you'll know what I mean by natural. Natural is the adjectival form of what I mean by naturalism.

I notice that as usual, you're unable to actually present your own view and defend it. You just prefer to chuck out pointless diversion. A tactic that you and others in your shoes have accused me of without showing evidence for your accusations. Your attempts are just so obvious its embarrassing.

Lol, in all your dancing around, you have not told me what you mean by "natural" yet you claim everything must be natural.

let me post your definition of naturalism from wikipedia:

Naturalism refers to the viewpoint that laws of nature (as opposed to supernatural ones) operate in the universe, and that nothing exists beyond the natural universe or, if it does, it does not affect the natural universe. Adherents of naturalism (i.e. naturalists) assert that natural laws are the rules that govern the structure and behavior of the natural universe, that the universe is a product of these laws.

Explain to me again how the above tells us anything about what you mean by the word "natural". Feel free to continue dancing.

thehomer: I mean [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_%28philosophy%29]this[/url].

I didn't ask you what naturalism is, I asked you what you mean when you use the word "natural". You have not answered my question.

thehomer: Come on. I asked you another direct question and you try to cause another diversion. I have a concept of malicious because I have a concept of the sorts of actions that would promote well-being. Now please answer my direct question.

The bolded is a non-answer. All you've said is "I know what is bad because I know what is good" You have told us absolutely nothing about what exactly it is that you know.

Another direct question that you're trying to obfuscate. You alone know what you mean by the will of your designer. You and I know what I mean by well-being. Why don't you tell me if what you mean by the will of your designer corresponds to what I mean by well-being?

You have not provided anything that vaguely looks like an objective well being

It shows the failures of your attempts at obfuscation.

no it shows your failures at comprehension

Seriously? You didn't understand something that was so clear and obvious?

Not to me. Remind me again what exactly was "clear and obvious".

Do you know the purpose for which people exist?

Can you differentiate between what ought to be done and what ought not to be done? If you can, then you have some knowledge of how people ought to exist (a.k.a. purpose of people's existence)

If you do not know the designer's purpose, then it is actually you who has no say in what is actually right or wrong objectively or subjectively. You have just successfully recused yourself from the discussion of morality.

Similarly, if you do not know what is objectively right or wrong, you have no grounds to discuss morality

If you feel able, you can go ahead and attempt the questions in the OP with whatever degree of knowledge you have of this designer's purpose.

You haven't shown that you have any understanding of the question you set out to ask.

thehomer: That doesn't look like a zygote to me. Neither does it look like anyone I know so can you tell me how it is human since you think it is?

Is it human? Yes or no.

thehomer: That's just it. If nothing cannot exist, then there must always have been something natural not necessarily the universe.

And by "natural" you mean.....?

No, just that the natural is all there is.

And by "natural" you mean.....?

We see matter coming into existence from natural occurrences. Have you seen matter coming into existence from non-natural incidents?

And by "natural" you mean.....?

thehomer: Well, is it human?

https://www.priestsforlife.org/images/baby-phillip-01.jpg

Why don't you tell me. Is it human?

thehomer: Is God really the first cause of the cosmos? Are you sure there isn't a natural explanation?

If you have an explanation for how nature that wasn't existing caused itself to begin to exist, I'd like to hear it

Seun didn't cause Nairaland out of a vacuum, he created it using machines that were already available, tools that were already available but what did God cause the cosmos out of?

This assumes that matter is all there is.
Nairaland is purely non-material data yet all the things that cause nairaland to exist and sustain it's existence are physical matter.
In the case where we see matter coming into existence from non-matter, It is reasonable to say that matter must have been created out of something non-material.
If you have another explanation for matter beginning to exist out of non-matter, I'll be happy to hear it.

thehomer: How do I know that the design is purposeful if I do not know the purpose? You're asking for a blank to accept whatever it is that you wan to peddle because for all I know, the purpose could actually be malicious towards humans.

How can you have a concept of malicious without granting that the creation has a purpose which is being thwarted?

Secondly, is "that which is in accordance with the will of your Designer" contrary to what I presented as well-being?

As I said, happiness, health and prosperity mean different things to different people. It is only by granting a designer that you can talk about what ought to be seen as true happiness, prosperity and health

Your answer above still doesn't help.

too bad for you

It is not an analogy. It is to show you that unless the purpose is known by some other party, then whatever it is that has been made cannot be assessed to determine whether or not it actually fits that purpose. Here, you're the other party who claims knowledge of the purpose, I don't so I'm asking you what the purpose is.

If that was not an analogy, then I don't know what you were trying to say there. As I have said many times over. The moment you start saying that people ought to behave a certain way or that a certain manner of behaviour is objectively better than another, in that very moment, you have assumed that people exist for a purpose and hence they must have a designer.
What is the purpose of the designer? we may not know it in it's entirety but whenever we say that a person is acting in an objectively wrong manner, we are indeed saying that the person's actions are not part of the designer's purpose.

Kay 17: From 1 to 6 to the exclusion of 3, we are in order.

3. God is also a supernatural being and a Cause sometimes referred to as the first cause, cos the world is an effect of him.

So no ambiguity in my belief.

God is the first cause of the cosmos in the same sense that Seun is the cause of nairaland i.e. a being bringing something into existence

I think my point has been made quite clearly

Kay 17: But laws are all non physical (information in the least). Also I linked God to his primary function as a Cause which ought to make his existence totally necessary.

However there isn't sufficient reason to have a supernatural cause supercede a natural cause.

EDITED

I see you missed the point. Let me try again

Consider this example of a bad argument:

1. Greek is a language,
2. Socrates is Greek
3.Therefore Socrates is a language.

Note that while 1 is true and 2 is true, 3 is not true because 1 and 2 are not true in the same sense. The above is the classic fallacy of equivocation.

======================================================================================================================
Now onto your argument.

I thought my initial mirror argument would make the error in yours evident to you but since you still missed it, I'll tackle your argument one last time. point by point

Kay 17: 1. God is a necessary being

2. If God exists, he necessarily exists

True. However, I hope you do realize that what is meant by this is that the entirety of nature is contingent on the existence of God. To put it simply No God, No Nature

3. God is a Supernatural Cause.

To be more precise: God is the supernatural being(transcendent to nature) that caused nature(the natural world) itself to begin to exist.

4. Causes can be Natural.

True.

5. A cause is either supernatural or natural.

True. In the sense that a supernatural being can cause something as well as a natural being can equally cause something.

6. A cause is not necessarily Supernatural.

True. Again In the sense that a supernatural being can cause something as well as a natural being can equally cause something.

7. Therefore God is not necessary and hence can not exist.

Here lies your "Socrates is a language" moment. Notice that you have equivocated "being" to "cause" by slyly taking advantage of an ambiguity in the English language.

In case what I said still isn't clear, consider yet another example:

1. Seun is the Cause of Nairaland
2. Causes are not human beings
3. Therefore Seun is not a Human being.

I hope I have been clear enough for you.



Once again, have a great day.

Mr Anony

Kay 17: 1. God is a necessary being

2. If God exists, he necessarily exists

3. God is a Supernatural Cause.

4. Causes can be Natural.

5. A cause is either supernatural or natural.

6. A cause is not necessarily Supernatural.

7. Therefore God is not necessary and hence can not exist.

Wow, I find it hard to believe that you of all people blundered this badly

Let me see if I can break it down for you:

1. The laws of logic are necessary laws

2. If the laws of logic exist, they necessarily exist

3. The laws of logic are non-physical

4. Laws can be physical

5. A law is either physical or non-physical

6. A law is not necessarily physical

7. Therefore the laws of logic are not necessary and hence cannot exist

See I've just disproved the laws of logic. Now spot the error in my argument (as you do I'm sure you'll spot the error in yours as well)



Have a Happy Sunday.

Mr Anony

Logicboy03: Keep arguing with yourself, bro

My point has been made

thehomer: Why on earth do you keep doing this? Do you accept the idea of well-being I presented there before you move on to whether or not it is objective? I just gave you a direct answer to your request for the meaning of well-being yet you turn around and do this?

Does this mean you don't agree with what I said? I'm sorry but the phrase in bold is meaningless and cannot be assessed unless we have an idea of what the will of your designer is. i.e what your designer intends.

...and unless we accept that there can only be a right way or wrong way when there is a purposeful design, there is no need to jump to asking what the purpose is. You cannot ask what the purpose is without first accepting that the purpose defines the creation.

No, I said I don't know what this designer's intent is so can you tell me what it is? Well if the notion of good is similar to the notion of well-being you presented earlier, then you've not done that because as I said, that phrase in bold is meaningless.



I never said this creator you had in mind didn't have an intent, I asked what that intent was.

Refer to my answer above

You've somehow fundamentally misunderstood this example too. The point of that example was to show you that without knowing the intent, the outcome cannot be assessed. That is all.

In that case your analogy fails because the person asking the question is not the creation

Yet you've fallen flat on your face once more.

Lol, and he throws his retaliatory jibe. fairplay to you ser

Logicboy03: Well played....Anony....well played........you dexterously threw in the strawman with style!


This has nothing to do with the end of the universe. It is irrelevant if the world lasts 5000 trillion years from now because the fact remains that God wasted time in reaching out to humans at first with the Jews and then to Africans. Try again.

You guys make me laugh sometimes. The strength of the argument lies in how long that time was. You can't say that God wasted time if you can't show that the time is indeed long.
A person living in AD50,000,000,000,000,000,000 will not think that a mere 200,000 years was a waste of time. As far as he will be concerned, God showed up in the very earliest stages of human development.

thehomer: Oh? You wanted a definition of well-being? You should have just asked for that. The definition is available in dictionaries. Last I recall, you were asking for a definition of "objective well-being".

Here's a conception of well-being I have in mind.

These do not tell us anything about an objective well-being

Do you agree with this or not? If not, what then is your conception of well-being?

My well-being is that which is in accordance with the will of my Designer

What is the designer's intention?

But you have not accepted that the designer has an intent? Also I have just shown you that what is objectively good for the creation is subject to the creator.

Oh I know what I said. Please tell me what is wrong with what I said.

Look at it this way. If you intended to draw a car but what you drew looks more like a duck than a car, without asking you, how can I tell that you intended to draw a car?

Notice you've already granted that I have an intent. Also notice that in order to legitimately question my drawing, you cannot be my drawing, you must exist outside it and outside me (i.e. the creation cannot legitimately question what the creator is doing because the very rules it will use are subject to the creator.)

Next time, try to read what you've written before trying to throw a jibe at me.

That jibe was well deserved

cyrexx: The question is….. so after creating the universe and the earth billions of years ago, Big brother had to wait so long to show himself to Africans?

This erroneously assumes that the universe is nearer it's end than it's beginning. If it lasts for another 5 trillion years, Will "big brother" have waited so long?

Think my dear Cyrexx think.

thehomer: Yet you and I have agreed on it.

Lol, he does it again. Thehomer's Moment Of Dishonesty season 2.
What I agreed to is that objective good is dependent on objective well-being. I did not agree to any specific definition of well-being. You didn't provide one.

Why don't you try clarifying with examples of the designer's intention and the effect of its design.

here's an example to explain what i mean.
Assuming the designer made human beings and programmed them to believe that forcing people to have sex with them against your will is not morally wrong, they simply will not see ra[color=#000000]p[/color]e as detrimental to human well-being.
In fact r[color=#000000]ap[/color]e victims (if we can even call them that) in this possible world will only judge [color=#000000]rap[/color]e at worst in the same way one will regard a person talking to him against his will.
They will not feel violated at all neither will they think the ra[color=#000000]pi[/color]st evil. At most they'll think of him as merely an annoying chap.
Also if someone came around and started arresting rapists, the people will think him sick and desperately evil for denying them their right to r[color=#000000]ap[/color]e

No I haven't and I can't until I know what it is. Since you know what it is, why don't you tell me?

Lol, seriously? I hope you know that you have just said is that you can't accept that a person intended to do something until you know exactly what the particular intent is.

So when you read a book, you cannot accept that the writer intended to write it the way he wrote it. The writer must first give you his purpose for writing in detail before you can accept that he had any intent at all?

Do you listen to yourself sometimes?

Logicboy03: SMH....comparing present day liberal principles on abortion to Nazism?

They are both leading to the murder of millions of people

You are silly. We know how people behave when they are empty of thought

Yes, they behave like Nazis and Liberals

#unfollowing

You won't be missed