QuestioningMind
Well-Known Member
Exactly when does a fetus go from potential human being to a viable one?
It becomes a viable human individual when it is no longer biologically dependent upon another entity.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Exactly when does a fetus go from potential human being to a viable one?
Yes but when exactly is this and why is this the criteria? Is a newborn baby biologically dependent upon another entity? It wouldn't manage to live long alone would it...It becomes a viable human individual when it is no longer biologically dependent upon another entity.
No - not anti-science, but anti-Scientism.
Scientism being the idolatrous worship of Science as a false god that has all the answers.
And can be vainly appealed to in attempts to disprove traditional Christian beliefs.
Yes but when exactly is this and why is this the criteria? Is a newborn baby biologically dependent upon another entity? It wouldn't manage to live long alone would it...
It is when you're being dishonest - the fact that you exist proves that God does.
And how would a newborn baby get nutrients into its system without the help of another? Does it become viable when it can eat by itself?A biologically independent human individual is one that is not biologically dependent upon another biological entity in order to get oxygen, blood flow, and nutrients into its system. An entity that is biologically dependent upon another cannot be considered an individual.
So what will happen to you and other atheists if God DOES exist ?
And how would a newborn baby get nutrients into its system without the help of another?
It is when you're being dishonest - the fact that you exist proves that God does.
So - if the universe didn't create itself and wasn't created by chance - how come it exists ?
Which is, of course, a philosophical question unanswerable by science (still less by those pretending a knowledge of science).
To say that a philosophical question is unanswerable is Obscurantism or (more vulgarly) Dodging the Issue.
I am always intrigued at the attention given to philosophical beliefs, and the dogmatic confidence some have in those beliefs. Many religious beliefs are examined, criticised, ridiculed & psychoanalyzed in this forum, but not much is given to atheism The title may put some off, but since the 'folly of religion' is a constant topic here on the forum, i thought it only fair to consider the folly of atheism.
And, since there is a disproportionately high number of vocal, proactive atheists here, a light hearted look at atheism should be welcome relief from the seriousness and intensity that some display.
A false dilemma
A false dilemma is a type of informal fallacy in which something is falsely claimed to be an "either/or" situation, when in fact there is at least one additional option. (from wiki)
The dilemma presented is usually like this:
'If you cannot prove God's existence, then He does not exist!'
But, there are other possibilities, not just the 'either/or' of this dilemma.
1. God may have reasons, unknown to us, for not presenting a conspicuous presence.
2. God may reveal to some, but leave others wondering.
3. The Majesty and holiness of God may be too much for sinful man to observe, so God waits, to give opportunity to be reconciled.
4. Something has blinded the awareness of humans, so they are unable to perceive spiritual reality.
5. God does not reveal Himself, because He does not exist.
We do not have enough evidence, individually, to categorically declare one of these possibilities as 'truth!', and dismiss all others. Therefore, this argument is fallacious, based on a false dilemma.
Why must there be a first cause?SOMETHING must be the First Cause, the starting-point; and thus Uncreated.
If not, God - what ?
And how would a newborn baby get nutrients into its system without the help of another? Does it become viable when it can eat by itself?
A random quantum fluctuation. A Mathematical Proof That The Universe Could Have Formed Spontaneously From NothingScience is descriptive of the nature of our physical existence and our universe, and cannot by the nature of science to explain how it came to exist. That is the subject of philosophical and theological speculation.
You are indoctrinated.No - they are scientifically verified facts.
And how is abortion liberal or "progressive" ?? - the murder of unwanted babies is fascist in the highest degree.
So the only criteria is if they are physically connected or not? Just cut the umbilical cord and suddenly a baby is viable even though it would be dead in a few days without help?That's an example of an entity being physically dependent upon another for its survival, NOT an example of an entity being biologically dependent upon another for its survival. It becomes a viable independent entity once it is no longer biologically dependent upon another.
My greatest problem with atheism is that it is material, and they want material type of proof of God .I would make the point that just because someone has not seen or experienced something doesn't mean it does not exist. I have never seen a living octopus but I do believe that they exist. Yes, I have seen pictures but they could be Photo-shopped. I have heard of them but people lie and make up stories. So, what makes me think that they are real? Because there is enough of a group consensus for me to think so but I could be wrong. Maybe living octopuses don't exist at all. Maybe I am deluding myself.
I am always intrigued at the attention given to philosophical beliefs, and the dogmatic confidence some have in those beliefs. Many religious beliefs are examined, criticised, ridiculed & psychoanalyzed in this forum, but not much is given to atheism The title may put some off, but since the 'folly of religion' is a constant topic here on the forum, i thought it only fair to consider the folly of atheism.
So the only criteria is if they are physically connected or not?
Real evidence is objective, ie: independent of human opinion or belief. Opinions and perceptions are subjective, ie: features of the individual -- the subject.Evidence is subjective, proof is not.
I'm not angry. I'm responding to opinions already voiced, that I may agree or disagree with. That's what one does in public forums. Outside RF, in fact, issues of religion and atheism never come up.IMO, it is for several reasons:
1. Pent up anger and resentment toward God needs an outlet.. a scapegoat for relief.
2. Competing ideologies are at odds with each other, and bring sparks when they come together.
3. Reality show hysteria is morbidly fascinating. Calm reason is boring. Yelling and emotion sells.
4. Insecurities need justification and affirmation. What better way, than a flame war?