Life Begins at Conception

[smokydot]

In post #1531, angellous-evangellous said: "I would appreciate better thinking."

[My first thought is "and people in hell would appreciate ice water," but let's not say that.]

Good, better, best. . .

Jesus' words were characterized by truth and simplicity.

The best thinking is characterized by the same. . .and that's the standard in my book.

The arrogant intellect captiously disdains simplicity. . .preferring instead complicated, abstract concepts.

I prefer ("appreciate") the way Paul did it:

"All the Athenians and the foreigners who lived in Athens spent their time doing nothing but talking and listening to the latest ideas. . .Paul reasoned day by day in the marketplace with those who happpend to be there. . .A group of Epicurean and Stoic philosophers began to dispute with him. Some of them asked, 'What is this babbler trying to say?'. . .Then they took him and brought him to a meeting of the Areopagus (the supreme tribunal of justice), where they said to him, '. . .you are bringing some strange ideas to our ears, and we want to know what they mean.' . . .When they heard about the resurrection of the dead, some of them sneered, but others said, 'We want to hear you again on this subject.' . . . .A few men became followers of Paul and believed. Among them was Dionysus, a member of the Areopagus. . ." (Ac 17:16-21, 32-34)

"When I came to you, brothers, I did not come with eloquence or superior wisdom. . .for I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified (nothing philosophical about that--Paul eschews philosophy in favor of simple truth). . .
My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with demonstration of the Spirit's power. . .
Where is the wise man (Gentile philosophers)? . .Where is the scholar (Jewish teachers of the law)? . .Where is the philosopher of this age (Greek sophists)?
Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? . .Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified (nothing philosophical about that): a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles (Greeks). . ." (1 Co 2:1-4, 1:20-23)

Paul, I am not. . .but if plain simplicity is good enough for Paul, it's darn sure good enough for me in
post #1521, A Case for Individual Human Life Beginning at Conception.

And if truth and simplicity are good enough for Jesus' words, they are more than good enough for mine.

NB: The Scriptures of both testaments are peculiarly lacking in abstract, complicated, mystical, esoteric jargon.
God's truth is not esoteric, it is exoteric.
And that is my model for communicating truth.

Fairest Lord Jesus

http://www.youtube.com/user/sesamonte#p/u/10/2r2y3v5LxSI

Rock of Ages

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gM7gt_cSxjw

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The facts are my case. "The fact itself is the conclusion" no more than in the classic syllogism in my first response above.

This is telling, and allows me to more clearly see into your chaotic and confused mind.

You don't have a syllogism because your facts are the same as your conclusion. Not only are your facts your premises (which would work if your facts differed), but the same facts are your conclusions.

That's not the case with the classic syllogism, in which the reasoning moves forward with each premise. You can't just have three points and expect it to be a syllogism.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

My case is built on facts, as are cases in court.

The case is overturned only when the facts on which it is based are overturned.

You have not, and cannot do that.

You have quite a short memory. Your "facts" have been overturned a few times by myself (abnormal conceptions / births and the split zygote) and by others (the number of human chromosomes). At that time, your argument was destroyed (as you admit here), and you simply corrected your "facts" and tried to pretend like nothing happened, effectively saying that no matter what the facts are, your arguments are correct.

And no one would present such a childish and empty argument as yours in court. And if they did, they would - as you say - have already lost.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I can see you now, making your argument from Webster's, telling the judge definitions of words that she already knows.

 

[smokydot]

Thank God for wives. . .

If you showed errors in the past, why can't you do it now?

Callin' in the troops. . . uh huh, un huh: hamster :. . .goin' 'round the bush. . .uh huh, uh huh

What ever happened to ending your correcting on this (post #1486)?

You've got no factual refutation of post #1521, A Case for Individual Human Life Beginning at Conception.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Callin' in the troops. . . uh huh, un huh: hamster :. . .goin' 'round the bush. . .uh huh, uh huh

What ever happened to ending your correcting on this (post #1486)?

You've got no factual refutation of post #1522, A Case for Individual Human Life Beginning at Conception.

You're chasing your tail.

Besides, that post reflects the factual corrections that you accepted from other readers of this thread.

 

[smokydot]

In post #1531, angellous-evangellous said: "I would appreciate better thinking."

[My first thought is "and people in hell would appreciate ice water," but let's not say that.]

Good, better, best. . .

Jesus' words were characterized by truth and simplicity.

The best thinking is characterized by the same. . .and that's the standard in my book.

The arrogant intellect captiously disdains simplicity. . .preferring instead complicated, abstract concepts.

I prefer ("appreciate") the way Paul did it:

"All the Athenians and the foreigners who lived in Athens spent their time doing nothing but talking and listening to the latest ideas. . .Paul reasoned day by day in the marketplace with those who happpend to be there. . .A group of Epicurean and Stoic philosophers began to dispute with him. Some of them asked, 'What is this babbler trying to say?'. . .Then they took him and brought him to a meeting of the Areopagus (the supreme tribunal of justice), where they said to him, '. . .you are bringing some strange ideas to our ears, and we want to know what they mean.' . . .When they heard about the resurrection of the dead, some of them sneered, but others said, 'We want to hear you again on this subject.' . . . .A few men became followers of Paul and believed. Among them was Dionysus, a member of the Areopagus. . ." (Ac 17:16-21, 32-34)

"When I came to you, brothers, I did not come with eloquence or superior wisdom. . .for I resolved to know nothing while I was with you except Jesus Christ and him crucified (nothing philosophical about that--Paul eschews philosophy in favor of simple truth). . .
My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words, but with demonstration of the Spirit's power. . .
Where is the wise man (Gentile philosophers)? . .Where is the scholar (Jewish teachers of the law)? . .Where is the philosopher of this age (Greek sophists)?
Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? . .Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified (nothing philosophical about that): a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles (Greeks). . ." (1 Co 2:1-4, 1:20-23)

Paul, I am not. . .but if plain simplicity is good enough for Paul, it's darn sure good enough for me in
post #1521, A Case for Individual Human Life Beginning at Conception.

And if truth and simplicity are good enough for Jesus' words, they are more than good enough for mine.

NB: The Scriptures of both testaments are peculiarly lacking in abstract, complicated, mystical, esoteric jargon.
God's truth is not esoteric, it is exoteric.
And that is my model for communicating truth.

Fairest Lord Jesus

YouTube - sesamonte's Channel

Rock of Ages

[youtube]gM7gt_cSxjw[/youtube]
YouTube - Rock of Ages

 

[angellous_evangellous]

You're not addressing the issue.

 

[smokydot]

You'd think including your input would be considered a good thing. . .

If you showed errors in the past, why can't you do it now?

. . .callin' in the troops. . . uh huh, un huh. . .: hamster :. . .goin' 'round the bush. . .uh huh, uh huh. . .

What ever happened to ending your correcting on this (post #1486)?

You've got no factual refutation of post #1521, A Case for Individual Human Life Beginning at Conception.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

You'd think including your input would be considered a good thing. . .

If you showed errors in the past, why can't you do it now?

You have corrected yourself but not your argument, revealing that you think that no matter what the facts are, your argument stands.

I'm not going to bother pointing out more errors, because you've repetitively done this.

 

[smokydot]

You have corrected yourself but not your argument, revealing that you think that no matter what the facts are, your argument stands.

I'm not going to bother pointing out more errors, because you've repetitively done this.

That works for me!

 

[angellous_evangellous]

That works for me!

Now we can discuss your circular reasoning - a topic which you've completely avoided.

I've shown that your "major premise" is also your "conclusion" in your imaginary syllogism.

The reason for this, I think, is that you cannot tell the difference between your "facts" from other "facts." So the zygote is the person is the human being, and so forth. So you think biology proves this simply because biology describes the process (which you don't understand at all).

This leads to the second error: the syllogism has to have premises that are related and build to the conclusion. Your minor premise and conclusion are simply restatements of the major premise.

 

[smokydot]

Heh, heh. . .been there, done that. . .not goin' 'round that bush again. . .

. . .callin' in the troops. . . uh huh, un huh. . .: hamster :. . .goin' 'round the bush. . .uh huh, uh huh. . .

What ever happened to ending your correcting on this (post #1486)?

You've got no factual refutation of post #1521, A Case for Individual Human Life Beginning at Conception.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Heh, heh. . .been there, done that. . .not goin' 'round that bush again. . .

. . .callin' in the troops. . . uh huh, un huh. . .: hamster :. . .goin' 'round the bush. . .uh huh, uh huh. . .

What ever happened to ending your correcting on this (post #1486)?

You've got no factual refutation of post #1521, A Case for Individual Human Life Beginning at Conception.

Repeating yourself like this isn't helping your case.

Facts aren't arguments. If the logic of the argument fails, it doesn't matter what the facts are.

You are poorly representing your facts and your cause by obstinately insisting that a poor argument is correct despite its obvious lack of thought.

 

[smokydot]

It's not an argument. . .it's a case.

Been there, done that. . .not goin' 'round that bush again. . .

. . .callin' in the troops. . . uh huh, un huh. . .: hamster :. . .goin' 'round the bush. . .uh huh, uh huh. . .

What ever happened to ending your correcting on this (post #1486)?

You've got no factual refutation of post #1521, A Case for Individual Human Life Beginning at Conception.

 

[smokydot]

The only problem I have with what you're saying, is hour you're saying it. Anybody ask me, life began with multicellular organisms 1.8 billion years ago - everything else is just else. This is because of my "field of expertise" being mathematical theology - and wondering if the function of all is merely pure number. I have a head full of stuff to validate such an hypothesis - now, it seems the biggest problem is that, as a writer, the entire scope of my potential readership is cursed with a fear of death. A fear that I contend has no basis in fact - but fact, itself, is largely a function of what people believe.

Everybody says "death," yet there is not a single voice - a single I - that speaks to what death actually is. Any time I attempt to sympathize with the public, and simulate a loss of "I," the only fear I actually feel is loss of complexity. Therefore, I assume that I must first the contention that death has never begun - it is a conclusion based upon erroneous assumption.

It is not really for mathematical theology to say anything, but rather to remove the unnecessary complications brought about by what has already been said. That the only gospel "I" seek to leave behind is the clarity of my conception - and conception began 13.7 years ago.

My case is concerning each individual human life, not human life in general.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

It's not an argument. . .it's a case.

hmmm that's funny. You no longer think that it's a syllogism? [Which obviously, it's not].

It's also not a case. I don't think that you know what that word means.

 

[smokydot]

angellous_evangellous said in post #1557:

--"You're the one claiming to have a syllogism, but your major premise, minor premise, and conclusion are all essentially the same statement."

Goin' 'round and 'round the same ole bush again.

Then the following classic syllogism is guilty of the same.

Major premise: All cats are animals.
Minor premise: Tabby is a cat.
Conclusion: Therefore, Tabby is an animal.

You require a lot of the obvious to be explained to you.

--"You aren't addressing the major premise, so your argument is still circular."

Major premises are a given. There's nothing to "address." If you don't agree with the biological facts of the major premise, then show that they are not facts.

--"I'm sure repeating yourself sounds productive when you're just spinning your wheels."

Now that's the pot calling the kettle black! . .how many times have you gone around this same ole bush. . .just chasin' your tail. . .

--"Here's another issue. You think that you have facts,"

Then show the biological facts presented are not facts.

--". . .but you're too lazy or incompetent to look any farther than Webster."

Webster produces a biology book? . .is that the one you use?
Webster has nothing to do with the biological facts of the case. . .and you know it.

--"Sure, Webster can give basic definitions, but he cannot teach you broader mechanics of human development or teach you how to reason effectively."

Looks like he also can't teach you the standard meaning of words.

Assumes facts not in evidence, regarding Webster. My grandmother can also give basic definitions, but neither have anything to do with this case.

The biological facts of the case do not come from definitions. . .and you know that. . .you are misrepreseting, again.

--"So you have short definitions that really don't help you think in the biologically correct way that you assume."

Oh, so now it's the definitions that are too short to be true. . .this is absurd! . .the man argues even with the dictionary!
Sorry you don't like the standard definitions for words in the English language. . .that's nothing more than just not wanting to be subject to objective standards. . .you want the freedom to use your own subjective standards so you can't be accountable to an objective standard outside yourself. . .that way nothing ever gets nailed down, and you get to endlessly maneuver in some foggy gray area.. . .it's not about inadequate definitions for you. . .it's about objective standards that don't allow all the gamey maneuvering.

--"You yourself have claimed that facts are your argument."

The facts are my case, post #1521, A Case for Individual Human Life Beginning at Conception.

--"That is circular reasoning, because the fact itself is the conclusion."

Show that the classic basic syllogism is circular reasoning in my first response above.
No wonder you don't get it. . .you don't get the simplest syllogism. . .oh yeah, but then simplicity is not your thing (see post #1550).

My case is built on facts, as are cases in court.

The case is overturned only when the facts on which it is based are overturned.

You have not, and cannot do that.

Therefore, the Appeals Court overturns the lower court's dismissal of the case, due to the lower courts stated prejudice.

Goin' 'round and 'round the same ole bush again. . .been there, done that, not doin' it again. . .time to dance. . .

The emperor has no clothes.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

angellous_evangellous said in post #1557:

--"You're the one claiming to have a syllogism, but your major premise, minor premise, and conclusion are all essentially the same statement."

Goin' 'round and 'round the same ole bush again.

Then the following classic syllogism is guilty of the same.

Major premise: All cats are animals.
Minor premise: Tabby is a cat.
Conclusion: Therefore, Tabby is an animal.

You require a lot of the obvious to be explained to you.

--"You aren't addressing the major premise, so your argument is still circular."

Major premises are a given. There's nothing to "address." If you don't agree with the biological facts of the major premise, then show that they are not facts.

--"I'm sure repeating yourself sounds productive when you're just spinning your wheels."

Now that's the pot calling the kettle black! . .how many times have you gone around this same ole bush. . .just chasin' your tail. . .

--"Here's another issue. You think that you have facts,"

Then show the biological facts presented are not facts.

--". . .but you're too lazy or incompetent to look any farther than Webster."

Webster produces a biology book? . .is that the one you use?
Webster has nothing to do with the biological facts of the case. . .and you know it.

--"Sure, Webster can give basic definitions, but he cannot teach you broader mechanics of human development or teach you how to reason effectively."

Looks like he also can't teach you the standard meaning of words.

Assumes facts not in evidence, regarding Webster. My grandmother can also give basic definitions, but neither have anything to do with this case.

The biological facts of the case do not come from definitions. . .and you know that. . .you are misrepreseting, again.

--"So you have short definitions that really don't help you think in the biologically correct way that you assume."

Oh, so now it's the definitions that are too short to be true. . .this is absurd! . .the man argues even with the dictionary!

Sorry you don't like the standard definitions for words in the English language. . .that's nothing more than just not wanting to be subject to objective standards. . .you want the freedom to use your own subjective standards so you can't be accountable to an objective standard outside yourself. . .that way nothing ever gets nailed down, and you get to endlessly maneuver in some foggy gray area.. . .it's not about inadequate definitions for you. . .it's about objective standards that don't allow all the gamey maneuvering.

--"You yourself have claimed that facts are your argument."

The facts are my case, post #1521, A Case for Individual Human Life Beginning at Conception.

--"That is circular reasoning, because the fact itself is the conclusion."

Show that the classicbasic syllogism is circular reasoning in my first response above.
No wonder you don't get it. . .you don't get the simplest syllogism. . .oh yeah, but then simple is not your thing (see post #1550).

My case is built on facts, as are cases in court.

The case is overturned only when the facts on which it is based are overturned.

You have not, and cannot do that.

Therefore, the Appeals Court overturns the lower court's dismissal of the case, due to the lower courts stated prejudice.

Goin' 'round and 'round the same ole bush again. . .been there, done that, not doin' it again. . .time to dance. . .

The emperor has no clothes.

Pathetic.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

It's not an argument. . .it's a case.

A case IS an argument, Sherlock.