₦airaland Forum

goodguy:
Point of correction: I have never engaged in any debates concerning freewill on this land, though I might have participated in such topics.

I wasn't saying you were the one introducing the argument. It's only that this is the ultimate objection of theists when confronted with the problem of evil: free will

goodguy:
Now back to the topic:

Actually, someone like Seun who was once a believer will be in a better position to understand my point here. I have read your arguments on freewill and I see that you make a lot of sense. If I'm not mistaken, your arguments were based on fate/destiny and freewill. I really didn't have anything to say, that was why I decided to not to contribute.

That was the source of the argument, b
ut the same argument still aplplies to this case

goodguy:
But now, we aren't talking of destiny or fate here so I really would like you to explain what you mean by, "Free will is incompatible with an omniscient God" before I go on with my arguments.

Ok, I will try the condensed version (once more):
Omniscience means all seeing, including the future
knowledge of future events means that there is no other action possible than the one God is seeing beforehand
no other action possible equals predestination
predestination contradicts free will

Goodguy, you keep on repeating the same tired argument. Free will is incompatible with an omniscient God.
And even if free will would miraculously solve the problem of moral evil, it still does not account for the natural evil in the world (as opposed to the moral evil)

Seun:
Everyone should be happy with that. Any country wants to license this brilliant idea?

The US has already tried that one

Freedom from suffering. Definitely

Is there a reason that you would have to choose?

chrisd:
It's a miracle

And that only by assertion. It truly is a miracle

donnie:
Joftech,

We are in this world, but some of us are not of this world. We operate from a heavenly kingdom.

Whatsoever is born of God overcommeth the World!!

Beyond reproach, beyond inquiry, beyond accountability, beyond rationality.

that sums it up, doesn't it?

joftech:
You are a liar if you are a Nigerian living in Nigeria and claimed not to be disadvantaged.

Let him explain. I fear though that his reality is so far removed from ours, that he does not live in Nigeria, not even in Nairaland, but rather in fantasy-land

gracious:
Gay marriages are wrong and should not be legalized in nigeria because they are not procreative, does not agree with the traditional meaning of marriage, destroys the institution of marriage,is not religious,gay fathers are more likely to abuse their children, and it destroys the building block of civilization in a country.

Do you have any evidence in support of these sweeping generalisations?

donnie:
I am no longer in control of my life or finances...God is. And as such, i can never be broke or disadvantaged in my life!

Care to explain that statement?

Of course. Plenty of examples available (at least of heterosexuals raising 'bad' children, no indications of children in homosexual care are less well of)

dejiolowe:
risks risks risks. thatz all u guys talk about. can you achieve something without risks? if we can clone better human (better as in strong against bacterials and vira) then why not. why r u guys scared?

How on earth would you clone a better person? A clone is, by definition, genetically identical to the original person.

I completely disagree with the statement that a fertilised egg is a human being. A human being is an independent lifeform of the species homo sapiens sapiens that has obtained personhood. Personhood kicks in when sentience begins, but that's another discussion.

I am not against using cloning techniques for therapeutical reasons and for reseach (e.g. to obtain stem cells), but these 'clones' should never, ever be allowed to grow into babies for the reasons already mentioned. The risk for those embryo's to be deformed or have one or another defect is just too big, especially if you consider the fact that there is no benefit in letting those clones grow to human beings. The only purpose it can serve is to boost the ego of the person from whom the genetic material was taken, and that is not a valid reason at all.

Cool down, chrisd,

I find Singer thought provoking and I follow his reasoning to a certain extent, but he is just too consequent for my taste (I'm coming out of a Catholic country, after all ).

To set the record straight:
1. I am not against medical research, even where it involves using primates or other apes
2. I am all for genetic engineering. I don't think there is no fundamental difference with natural evolutionary processes working
3. Ethical considerations on medical research should never be driven by a priori's but rather by the consequences of the research in se, not it's potential negative applications
4. There are other elements where irrational attitudes drive the public opinion, e.g. nuclear energy, genetically modified crops. This is why I stopped my membership of Greenpeace

These new smileys make me think I'm in casino looking at a slot machine
especially these ones:

chrisd:
Singer proposes that anyone able to help the poor should donate at least 10% of their income to aid poverty and similar efforts. Of course there is a religeous attitude in him especially considering he is Jewish. I don't like that sort of thing.

As I said, he is a tad extreme, but he is consequently ethical.

nicetohave:
And to sum it up, what sucks to men is bolder, brighter and more meaningful to women

Be careful, this may very well be misrepresented (no comments about my dirty mind, please)

chrisd:
Peter singer? Singer is a founding member of the Great Ape Project, which seeks to persuade the United Nations to adopt a Declaration on Great Apes awarding personhood to non-human great apes.

I think his opinions on animal liberation are a bit extreme, but I do support this, even though I'm not going to actively campaign for it (amongst others because I see ethical deliemma's when it comes to medical research)

chrisd:
Why then bring in Adam Smith? What you mean? Organizations are based on Adam Smith Theory right, of course right.

Peter Singer's ideas have evolved a little beyond what Adam Smith came up with.

chrisd:
Result of actions should rather be be looked at at the level of society or community. I talked about that, but I started from the individual first and is very easy to project iot to some group of people. Trivial really.

Why then bring in Adam Smith?

chrisd:
Of course I assume that there is something objectively good. Look at all the human made pain in the world, think of the concentration camps or Bosnia, Yugoslavia, the gulags in Russia. I think we can do much better.

I don't dispute there is something objectively good, but how do you capture it? Good is a result of actions, it does not exist in itself. How do you arrive at good and what standard do you apply?

nicetohave:
Are you sure about that?

Yes, of course there will be exceptions, but in general, the bond between you and your child will be stronger than between you and your wife (of course, this is not an either/or situation).

nicetohave:
aint got no child birth experience (of mine own that is, ive witnessed the birth of over 300 in my short career so far though) but i used to think the bond between a man and wife is stronger than parent and child........they're both strong, just think the spousal one is stronger

I think the fact that you don't have children explains why you hold that view. If you don't have children, it's hard to explain what a parent-child bond really is.

Why do you use the individual as your only unit of analysis? happines, as a result of actions should rather be be looked at at the level of society or community.

You assume that there is something objectively good. How do you determine that?

Seun:
You're right, it is wrong. Melanin doesn't protect at all from malaria.

It is true though that carriers of the sickle cell gene have a higher resistance to malaria, and because of that we have more sicklers in subsaharan Africa.

You got cause and effect wrong, Seun. Sickle cell anemia is caused by a mutation that occured within the human populations in Sub-Saharan Africa. It arose after the spread of agriculture, so this is a very recent mutation. The mutation is only beneficial in areas where the malaria parasite thrives, that's why it is retained in the population in Sub-Saharan Africa. In other areas it provides no benefit, that's why that mutaion is selected out of the population in e.g. Europe. Sickle Cell anemeia is a recessive trait and will only cause the disease when you inherit it from both your parents. The protection against maleria occurs even when you inherit it from only one of your parents.