Sinkster

I agree that extreme is relative, but I do not think you can logically say that "Neighther is any more right than the other." unless you want to take the stance that morality is subjective. If someone says that it is morally right to torture childeren and someone else says that it is morally wrong are both people no more right than the other one? Clearly it would be incoherent for both to be right. So again, it all depends on what the truth about morality and ethics are. Someone is going to be more right than another person if morality is objective or even if what it means to be moral is based on general utility. Also, for those of you who believe that there is no objective morality and that I should just be tolerant of everyone else I would like to point out that the maxim of "toleration" is an objective statement that cannot be supported if morality is really subjective. Therefore, if I reject toleration as a virtue there is no grounds to say that I am doing wrong, because after all, if morality is subjective and if I believe toleration is wrong who are you to say I should tolerate anyone else's viewpoint? -Sinkster

Amen!

0:4:3 Did first hop-n-pop and jump from a cessna at 5k. Also spotted for the jump too which was my first real spot. (Usually jump from super twin otter.) Was pretty damn scary getting out that low although I know in reality it isn't low but too me it looked low! In any case I was under a fully inflated canopy by like 4,300. Also once my main was deployed I watched the jumpmaster who followed me out fall below me for a long time it was pretty freaky at that angle it looked like he was going to hit. Very cool.

Actually, the proper statement is "The love of money is the root of all kinds of evil."

As soon as possible! ;-)

Hey ya'll. I've just about signed a deal with the local master rigger at my DZ to get my first rig! I'm gonna put down 1k on it and then pay off the rest later with 3 months where there is no interest. (so I can pay off the initial 1k hehe) The rig is a Racer container with a ZP 170 as the main (forgot what kind of zero porosity canopy though) and a raven reserve and a cypress. It was actually the riggers last rig that he used himself so I know it will be in good condition and is good equipment! This is also the first time I will have to pay a balance on a credit card and it is kinda scary going on the "edge" like that but you gotta take some risks to live life I suppose! Let's hope I can afford to pay this all off and be able to get a couple jumps in every weekend hehe. BTW, the rigger is going to give me free rentals until we decide it is safe to jump a 170. I weigh about 185 and am 6'3"-6'4" which is about the riggers height so I lucked out. -Sinkster =) happily acting out his dreams

AIM: JSinkster

Agreed. There is no evidence to believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old and no legitimate reason that it must be such to be compatible with the creation story in Genesis.

I think everything whittles down to some kind of assumption, but the cogito for Descartes is more powerful than most. The idea behind "cogito ergo sum" was that it was an undeniable truth that escapes even extreme doubt. (like doubting that 2+2 = 4 even) In full, here is the famous quote as best I can remember it: "Therefore, after considering everything very thoroughly, I must finally conclude that the proposition, "I am, I exist" is necessarily true whenever it is put forth by me, or conceived in my mind." The point is that even if a supremely powerful evil being was trying to trick Descartes into thinking he doesn't exist in the very act of deception the evil being would acknowledge Descartes' existence. This truth is almost impossible to deny which is why Descartes started out his philosophy by first showing an EXTREME skepticism of everything and then seeing if there was anything at all that could be trusted no matter what. Then once Descartes could not possibly doubt that he really exists he goes on to describe what "this puzzling I" (himself) really is. Which he starts by calling himself "a thinking thing" and builds from there. The attempt to build a philosophical system from the ground up which can escape exteme doubt was a phenomenal achievement and could only happen if a single non-deniable truth (no matter what not even if a god was trying to trick us) could be established and build upon. This is one reason why Descartes is usually considered the father of western philosophy. Now, you are definately correct in saying that if the root of the tree can be shown to be corrupt then the rest of the tree is as well--which is why it's trivial to attack the weak points of any philosophy instead of focusing on the strongest areas. So yes, if you don't agree with the starting point then the rest falls apart. Of course if you don't agree that you even exist I am somewhat worried for you because I don't know if it would be possible to stay sane as such an extreme skeptic. =) This kind of argument would probably flame on for a long time and I have papers to write, but I can say that there is sufficient evidence to believe that the Bible is the Word of God and that Jesus really is/was who he said he was enough to enable one to have faith in that God. Many people will disagree that there is sufficient evidence of course, but it's worth investigating to see for yourself in my opinion, because after all it is your eternal soul in the balance if it is true. I also believe that if you pray and God is really real then you will see results so that can't hurt either and it's worked for me. I can also suggest reading "Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis, a former atheist, and one of the best apologeticists (brilliant man) of the last century. It is definately not some dumbed down televangelistic tear-jerker mood-music altered piece of propaganda, but instead takes a thorough and objective look at the subject. That is entirely possible. You just have to decide for yourself. *Side Note*: However, it couldn't be both "Budda" and "Allah" and "Christian God" because of the conflicting doctrines. Some people say that all roads lead to God. Like follow Budda or Allah or whoever and you will get there. This cannot be true by necessity and definition because each of those preach a totally different and conflicting way to salvation. To say all are true is like saying it is both raining and not raining at the same time (in the same exact area) which is a logical impossibility in *any* possible universe. So only one can be right, or none at all. Take your pick. The point was that the chain *must* stop somewhere, so if God was just a link it would be pointless and wouldn't be the same God that was proposed as the solution. The God of the solution must have certain properties to make it work--perfection and infiniteness. But, you are right that it is an assumption that that God exists, but the belief was that a particular God was the only solution to the dilemma. Of course, as seen from previous posts, many people will disagree. To be honest, I don't care what you believe. But I do care about *you* which is why I post these messages (and because I hate to be bested in an argument which is true too so I know I'm far from perfect!!!!) since I believe in salvation by grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone. I just want everyone to be at the big DZ in the sky. That is all. =) Ok, I go eat pizza and read about skydiving now. hehe. l8r -Sinkster P.S. As a side note I don't have very many churchy friends because so many are so critical and legalistic and most importantly, don't accept me for who I am. I prefer to hang out with skydivers, 'sinners', and blue collar workers because those types usually don't give a d*mn about status or how you look or act or fit in with the herd--so I can be myself. And I accept them for who they are too. I don't proselytize or evangelize unless people ask about those kind of things. I also figure that if there is nothing different (in a good way) about me worth asking about then my faith is probably not worth much anyway.

0:2:3 First 2 way on first jump (10th total) and first tracking dive and first 2 way exit while grabbing onto someone's chest strap if that counts hehe. Did tracking dives both jumps. Learned a lot. Flew into burble of other jumper and got to see the affects and also controlled my fall rate to get back to him when he got above me heheh. =) Did some turns and stuff too. You could say it wasn't *quite* tracking the whole time heheheheh "watch out here i come!" hehe. Fun fun fun!

Yes, consider the following identity: e^(i*pi) = -1 This is a true statement that is provable using current mathematical axioms and theorems. No empirical evidence is needed to prove that equation. That's what I mean. There are different kinds of knowledge. Demonstrative knowledge such as math and ethics is one kind of knowledge while empirical knowledge like how an orange tastes is experiential. What kinds of knowledge really exist is a great source of debate among philosophers though. (ex. synthetic or analytic a priori or a posteriori knowledge) Just to give you another example: Descartes believed that all knowledge gained through the senses was not to be trusted and that reason is the prime source of truth while David Hume believed that all knowledge was based on sensory experience and that "reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions." This is the classic rationalism vs empiricism debate. There are also other beliefs about knowledge, but those are the most clear cut. Soren Kierkegaard is one example of a philosopher who definately does not fit in either camp. I think I have shown that there is at least some good evidence for the existence of God. You are right that they are definately not undeniable proofs, but rather they provide some rational reasons to believe in God. At the very least I hope I have shown that it is not irrational to hold religious beliefs and convictions. The thread started with an accusation that Bush was basically stupid for having moral convictions about cloning, so part of this was rejecting that accusation. That's what made me reply in the first place. -Sinkster

This criticism assumes that for the proof to work motion must be assumed to have a purpose or plan. It may be true that Aquinas saw all motion as having a purpose behind it but the argument is not dependent on that. It only points out the obvious that a "thing cannot move itself". I do not see anything in there that says the movement must have a purpose or plan. It only shows that because of this, there must be a source for the first movement. As far as the wet patch of grass goes, you will note that whatever the cause, there still had to be a cause external to the grass itself. Not only that, but each of those causes had to have a cause to ad infinitum to some kind of original source. I can only assume that what you meant for the criticism of this proof is that the original source doesn't have to be God. Yet, whoever wrote that criticism fails to realize that to satisfy the requirements and escape the infinte regression the source must be "something which is necessary and owes its necessity to no cause outside itself". This is why God fullfills this requirement. Here the criticism is better and more clear because it is saying "just because there cannot be an infinite regression, doesn't mean God had to be the source." (This must have been what the first criticism was saying as well!) I can definately give you that, but then there still has to be some kind of source that has the properties of "something which is necessary and owes its necessity to no cause outside itself." See above. It still seems that to propose God as the source is more rational for the following reason. For God we can say that he always existed because by the very definition He is an infinite being which implies always existing. For the universe, we know that it as a certain age (astronomers estimate 12.5 billion years), therefore, it cannot have always existed. In this way, it makes more sense to say that God made everything instead of it just popping into existence for no reason at all. At least Christians have a complete and coherent (within the framework) explaination for how we got here, who we are, and why the world is the way it is. But again, everything whittles down to assumptions so one always must be made, like it or not, for anyone. Who said the universe has been around infinitely? See above. Really, if you look at the criticisms you posted they do admit that there is sufficient proof to believe that there has to be a source with *particular characteristics* to stop the infinite regressions. They just don't believe that it had to be God. Really, it seems to be a worse paradox and absurdity to believe that the universe just popped into existence for no reason because it does not fullfill that requirement for a source that is "something which is necessary and owes its necessity to no cause outside itself." Actually, the argument is not that given objects (tennis balls, children, etc.) must be made by something more perfect, but that their qualities insomuch as they are good and bad are only defined as being more or less perfect because of a continuum of perfection that already exists containing a maxiumum of all the values which is God. So therefore God must exist as a source to satisfy this maximum. Since we believe the children to be better than the parents we must have some notion of how they are better outside of how their parents are. This notion of goodness is dependent on a context of good and Aquinas says that it is also dependent on a maximum of those values. Therefore, says Aquinas there must be something "which is truest, greatest, noblest, and consequently most fully in being." While the argument still assumes that there must be a maximum, it is not as absurd as you characterize it to be. But, you are right that this one is difficult to accept. (and fully understand :-) ) You could have simplified this by just saying that "the first proof is circular because it assumes intelligent design." This criticism is correct because the only way to support the fifth proof it is to show that there is some kind of intelligent design to the universe instead of just random chance like I said in a previous post. BTW, nice Santa Claus analogy. Good example of using mockery to ridicule a position. In any case, I think it can be agreed that all proofs or theories or beliefs always ends up with assumptions of some sort. This is also like how theories or theorems in math are dependent on the axioms on which they are based. It is my belief that the existence and reality of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is self evident, but many people will obviously disagree. Still, as an American, I am proud to be a citizen of a nation who's declaration of independence was inked with the words "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." -Sinkster

lol. Honestly, I love my professors. Especially the short old guy from India with a full face beard. hehehe. The dude has so much tenure that he stopped caring what people thought long ago. I *almost* feel sorry for the hapless freshmen and sophomores who somehow end up in his classes! -Sinkster Side note after posting and visiting your site: wow nice credentials! that's awesome! You have my respect for what it's worth. One thing that I appreciate about academia and academics--whatever they believe--is their desire and never ending quest for knowledge. A very admirable trait in my opinion. Plus they are good sources to leech info from so I try to hang around them when possible.

Who knows? That's like a cartoon figure asking where his creator was before the page he was drawn on was made and inked. How could the 2 dimensional being even hope to comprehend? Some things we will never know this side of eternity. Yet, not knowing this does not invalidate the possibility of God, it just doesn't add anything either. -Sinkster

The answer is that God always existed. That is, He has no point of origin but always was. That's the answer and is a necessary belief for God to work out at the source of everything. BTW, there are somethings which are nothings. For example, cold is the absence of heat and darkness the absence of light. This doesn't affect any argument but I thought you might enjoy pondering what it means if anything like I did. hehe -Sinkster

Yeah it's great! I even got to bust out of newbie status from this thread! BTW, I hope you guys don't think I'm just some kind of stodgy, uptight, and nitpicky professor . My passion for what I believe (and the people that it affects most importantly) is strong enough to where it doesn't matter (I hope), but I do also know how to have fun and would gladly jump with anyone here! I for one am thankful for the freedoms that we have where we can all get together and argue and believe whatever we want without the secret police knocking our door in. -Sinkster

Not even a single shred? I find that perplexing because even among the atheists I talk to most at least agree that there cannot be an infinite regression in a causal line. There must be an original source. (argument 2) Most even agree that it takes something "actual" to bring out the "potentiality" in something else as well. For example it takes an "actual" fire or heat to bring out the "potential" fire from a block of wood. Here also there cannot logically be an infinite regression. There must be something that is fully actual--in that it is perfect, infinite, and always was and never will change. (argument 1) The third argument is also similar to the second except that it relates to an infinte regression of existence instead of efficient causes. In other words, there had to be something that always existed by it's own nature in order for the things that exist now to be here. The fourth is disputable in that you could argue that a combination of lesser "greatnesses" could combine to make the greatest greatness. :-) Finally, the fifth can be argued against by holding a position that states that there is no intellegent design and that it only *appears* that way and that random chance somehow formed it all. I can give you the last two, but really, can you honestly think of any effect that did not have a cause related to it? For example, how did you get here? The how did your parents get here? Then how did their parents get here? This cannot go on ad infinitum. Even if you trace it back to chemicals coming together in some cosmic goo or whatever those things themselves must be traced back to some kind of origin. So to say that those arguments do not have a "single shred" of proof seems to be stretching it. Now, if you meant *empirical* proof such that I must taste, touch, smell, see, or hear it... well that is more difficult to produce and open to interpretation since experience is pretty much subjective. Of course, by the same token there is no direct empirical evidence to prove that the square root of 5 is an irrational number but we know it is through reason alone. And I'm sure you'd say the same about Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Voltaire, Hume, Kant, Nietzsche, Hegel, and Rousseau as well. (unless you agreed with them) Aquinas has a pedigree at least on par with most of those listed. Also, just because you may not understand what they are saying doesn't make it "bafflegab" either. At least make an effort to criticize the arguments directly (which I have done for you a little) instead of making an unfounded blanket assertion about it. As for the age of the earth, I don't know. Using radiometric dating it appears to be 4.6 billion years old and may very well be. As for how it was formed I believe God created the heavens and the earth like the Bible says. Now, how long that took and what methods God chose to use who can say aside from what science can tell us. Ummm, so Aquinas' arguments contain logical fallacies? Please illustrate what they are and which ones. Just posting a link to a site about logic, and a list of possible fallacies means nothing. Philosophers don't care what you think unless you can tell them why. Just posting an "opinion" as you say it is not a very good rebuttal. The objections I just raised to the last two are decent examples of a rebuttal. (although I do have counter replies =) ) When Aquinas said "-- which all call God" he was not necessarily talking about the Christian God, or the Islamic God, or the Jewish God. That has no bearing on the arguments for the existence of *a* God which has the characteristics necessary to serve that role. Aquinas wasn't saying that everyone sees God the same way, what he was saying was that the resulting conclusion of his arguments was that there must be a divine being that has certain characteristics. What people think has no bearing at all on the validity of the arguments. Therefore, it takes more to back up the claim of God being the Christian God. Still, if one were to analyze what it means to be a perfect and infinite being (which is what God has to be to make the argument fit), you find that the characteristics of omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, benevolence, infinite, always existing, and creator of all things are non-arbitrary and necessary attributes. This alone eliminates many religions and fits the Christian God quite nicely. The rest is a story for another time as my fingers grow tired and one could write a book about such things. My suggestion is to study some of the historical facts about the life of Jesus and the Apostles as well as pray knowing that if there is a God (like the Christian one) then He will answer you. I believe that if you really seek, you will certainly find something even if it is not exactly what you might expect. However, like I said earlier, faith always plays some kind of role and I know I could not follow or believe in God without faith. -Sinkster

It will always take at least some type of leap of faith to believe in God. In fact the Bible says "without faith it is impossible to please God." Nevertheless, like I said, there is a lot of proof out there for the existence of God. So, to give you an idea, here are some general proofs for the existence of God, but this is not meant to be an all inclusive list by any means. Thanks go to St. Thomas Aquinas for first pointing them out. =) I answer that it can be proved in five ways that God exists. The first and plainest is the method that proceeds from the point of view of motion. It is certain and in accord with experience, that things on earth undergo change. Now, everything that is moved is moved by something; nothing, indeed, is changed, except it is changed to something which it is in potentiality. Moreover, anything moves in accordance with something actually existing; change itself, is nothing else than to bring forth something from potentiality into actuality. Now, nothing can be brought from potentiality to actual existence except through something actually existing: thus heat in action, as fire, makes fire-wood, which is hot in potentiality, to be hot actually, and through this process, changes itself. The same thing cannot at the same time be actually and potentially the same thing, but only in regard to different things. What is actually hot cannot be at the same time potentially hot, but it is possible for it at the same time to be potentially cold. It is impossible, then, that anything should be both mover and the thing moved, in regard to the same thing and in the same way, or that it should move itself. Everything, therefore, is moved by something else. If, then, that by which it is moved, is also moved, this must be moved by something still different, and this, again, by something else. But this process cannot go on to infinity because there would not be any first mover, nor, because of this fact, anything else in motion, as the succeeding things would not move except because of what is moved by the first mover, just as a stick is not moved except through what is moved from the hand. Therefore it is necessary to go back to some first mover, which is itself moved by nothing---and this all men know as God. The second proof is from the nature of the efficient cause. We find in our experience that there is a chain of causes: nor is it found possible for anything to be the efficient cause of itself, since it would have to exist before itself, which is impossible. Nor in the case of efficient causes can the chain go back indefinitely, because in all chains of efficient causes, the first is the cause of the middle, and these of the last, whether they be one or many. If the cause is removed, the effect is removed. Hence if there is not a first cause, there will not be a last, nor a middle. But if the chain were to go back infinitely, there would be no first cause, and thus no ultimate effect, nor middle causes, which is admittedly false. Hence we must presuppose some first efficient cause---which all call God. The third proof is taken from the natures of the merely possible and necessary. We find that certain things either may or may not exist, since they are found to come into being and be destroyed, and in consequence potentially, either existent or non-existent. But it is impossible for all things that are of this character to exist eternally, because what may not exist, at length will not. If, then, all things were merely possible (mere accidents), eventually nothing among things would exist. If this is true, even now there would be nothing, because what does not exist, does not take its beginning except through something that does exist. If then nothing existed, it would be impossible for anything to begin, and there would now be nothing existing, which is admittedly false. Hence not all things are mere accidents, but there must be one necessarily existing being. Now every necessary thing either has a cause of its necessary existence, or has not. In the case of necessary things that have a cause for their necessary existence, the chain of causes cannot go back infinitely, just as not in the case of efficient causes, as proved. Hence there must be presupposed something necessarily existing through its own nature, not having a cause elsewhere but being itself the cause of the necessary existence of other things---which all call God. The fourth proof arises from the degrees that are found in things. For there is found a greater and a less degree of goodness, truth, nobility, and the like. But more or less are terms spoken of various things as they approach in diverse ways toward something that is the greatest, just as in the case of hotter (more hot) which approaches nearer the greatest heat. There exists therefore something that is the truest, and best, and most noble, and in consequence, the greatest being. For what are the greatest truths are the greatest beings, as is said in the Metaphysics Bk. II. 2. What moreover is the greatest in its way, in another way is the cause of all things of its own kind (or genus); thus fire, which is the greatest heat, is the cause of all heat, as is said in the same book (cf. Plato and Aristotle). Therefore there exists something that is the cause of the existence of all things and of the goodness and of every perfection whatsoever---and this we call God. The fifth proof arises from the ordering of things for we see that some things which lack reason, such as natural bodies, are operated in accordance with a plan. It appears from this that they are operated always or the more frequently in this same way the closer they follow what is the Highest; whence it is clear that they do not arrive at the result by chance but because of a purpose. The things, moreover, that do not have intelligence do not tend toward a result unless directed by some one knowing and intelligent; just as an arrow is sent by an archer. Therefore there is something intelligent by which all natural things are arranged in accordance with a plan---and this we call God.

In reply to: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If Descartes proves he exists and after a long tortured argument then decides that because Descartes exists then God exists -- what happens after Descartes ceases to exist? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Descartes' proof is not dependent on Descartes' existence. If you will notice in my outline of his argument the proof for the existence of God is based on the nature of causality, not the existence of Descartes. What you're saying is similar to saying that the theory of relativity is dependent on the existence of Einstein. If you want to attack that part of the argument then all you have to do is attack the notion of causality. If I were you, I'd have used the Induction Problem posited by Hume to say that Descartes notion of causality is flawed since there is no necessary connection between causes and their effects. There are other arguments against Descartes', but you would have to know more about the argument to present them. The reason Descartes' starts with the "cogito" is to gain an Archimedian Point from which to build the rest of his philosophy. The "cogito" is a starting point that is meant to be impervious to any kind of extreme doubt. That's why I mentioned it to give a complete picture of Descartes' reasoning for FallingMarc. Most (God bless them) religious people may not require proof for the existence of God, but I believe in the Christian God because of the extensive proof of His existence. Faith will always obviously play a role, but faith does not necessarily mean believing in what is not real or possible, but rather trusting in a God that you have already established to be real based on an understanding on history, science, mathematics, philosophy, and the nature of the world. I suggest reading Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis for a complete chain of reasoning for belief in the Christian God. C.S. Lewis, himself an athiest, did not want to believe -- but after careful study -- he decided that there was no other way. Also, who are you to judge Descartes for deciding not to release his own work so as not to end up in shackels or worse? Does that make his arguments any less right? Your attack is known as ad hominem because it does not address the issue, but rather the character of Descartes. It is a logical fallacy. Or perhaps I am just as wrong as Descartes if I don't camp out in front of abortion clinics and prevent entry so I can get arrested. I guess my convictions just aren't great enough. Descartes' important point about the mind/body distinction was by demonstrating that, he showed good reason to believe that we have immortal souls that continue on after our body is dead. So, a person is not a person until they start to think? Then when does someone begin to "think" as you call it? This is a huge problem for you because it is arguable that even a newborn baby does not think yet. I mean really, they can't even talk, all they do is cry and make funny sounds and poop themselves. They can't even walk. Drats! Who knows? Let's just f*ck it and do what's best for us! -Sinkster

To answer FallingMarc's question: One argument for the "realness" of the physical world comes from Descartes' Meditations on First Philosophy and is based on the following chain of reasoning. First Descartes proves he exists (cogito ergo sum), then he goes from there and proves the existence of God based on the principle that an effect cannot be more perfect than a cause and since we have the idea of God, only God can be the cause. (SUPER simplified btw obviously and Descartes provides other proofs as well) Then, Descartes argues that the properties of God are not arbitrary and that to be a perfect being would mean to be perfectly good since evil implies imperfection and is in fact only brought to light in the context of a standard of good. Therefore, since God would have to be perfectly good He would not deliberately deceive us about the nature or truth of the existence of the physical world. That's one "proof" in a super nutshell. =) heh

In reply to: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- haven't read all the posts here, but as I skim through, the big religious debate is going on. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So where is the religious debate again? If you're referring to me know that I am arguing from a purely rational standpoint. Ethics and religion are not necessarily bound. -Sinkster

While I agree that neither of us is going to prove to the other one whether or not a cloned embryo is really a person, I believe that we can know the greater underlying truth (although many people will argue that nothing can be *totally* proven (i.e. does the world even exist or are we in The Matrix (although I can prove that indeed the physical world exists and is not a deception based on pure reason and a LONG argument :)) and that we can reasonably decide when life truly begins. Of course, as you pointed out, why should anyone care what I believe unless I can give some rational reason for those beliefs? However, I have given you numerous arguments as to why cloning and abortion are morally wrong and why life should be defined as beginning at conception. These arguments are based on not only the philosophical implications, but also scientific evaluations. Yet, even if I am mistaken scientifically, my philosophical arguments are still critically damaging because they are independent of whether or not I'm right about what we still don't know scientifically. The burden of proof is on your side because of your challenge to the fact that even though every properly functioning embryo will become a baby you still don't want to define an embryo as a life. Just saying that there is no fact of the matter as to when life begins is not a very good argument. -Sinkster "Just because we can doesn't mean we should."

In reply to: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pretty obvious. Then again, would I have cared? I'm thinking no. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Well I would have cared because then I wouldn't have gotten to experience the wonders of skydiving. =) In reply to: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Why should my life or any one else's be dictated by those people's beliefs? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Consider the following experiment: I take a normal US quarter, flip it, and let it rest in the back of my hand. Yet, I do not see whether it ended up heads or tails. I just stick it right back into my pocket. Let's also say that you believe that it was heads while I believe that it was tails. Now, there is no way that we will ever be able to know what the truth really is no matter how vehemently we both believe that we are right. Nonetheless, there is still a fact of the matter about whether or not the coin was heads or tails up. In other words, just because it might not be possible to know the truth about something doesn't mean there is no truth about it. The fact that someone has a belief about something says nothing about the truth or falsity of that claim. Yet, there is still a truth value. Many people believe that murder is wrong do you think those beliefs are valid? If not, why? The same applies to this cloning issue except we need to know why we either consider it right or wrong. I have given reasons for my belief but I have yet to hear a compelling one from the other camp. In reply to: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No. It's not "Better to err on the safe side." That's clearly the weak way out. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Is it really so weak to not want to accidentaly kill an innocent human being? If that is weakness then so be it. Furthermore, if morality is simply serving the greater good can you tell me what that really means? Is that an average or an overall value? For example, if the murder of 1 million people results in a greater overall happiness (they were depressives you see) would it be right? In this way, the doctrine of morality as the greatest good for the greatest number (otherwise known as act or rule utilitarianism) destroys the very notion of individual rights and justice as I said before. As for the having to live life in a wheel chair because we didn't clone humans, I can honestly say that I would rather stay crippled than condone such an immoral act as murder. But then again, to me, a moral life is more important (not that I am perfect, far from it) than convenience or happiness. Emmanuel Kant put it best when he said "Do that through which thou becomest worthy of being happy." -Sinkster

How about I just point out the fact that you wouldn't be around right now if someone had decided you were nothing more than a bunch of cells at that point and decided to go ahead and terminate you because it was convenient. Also, how do you define when "life" begins? If it's not conception then what is it, when consciousness begins? And if it is consciousness then how do you measure it? I mean heck, if there are measurable brain waves at 6 weeks is does that mean the fetus is conscious? As someone who has done research into artificial intelligence, cognitive science, and philosophy of the mind, I can tell you that you will get a different version of what consciousness is depending on who you ask. Better to err on the safe side. One last argument, each fetus and embryo also has the potentiality to grow to an adult given that nothing abnormal disrupts them. A sperm or egg does not have the same potentiality, but because normally they will not become anything (given a passive approach allowing nature to run its course and because only the critical combination of genes allows a human to be created) there is no reason to worry about lost eggs or spilled seed. However, a fetus or embryo will surely become an adult so long as the due course is allowed to occur for that to happen. Why can it then be right to rob someone of their potential? (above argument could otherwise be known as the "Teleological Argument Against Abortion or Cloning" for you philosophers.) -Sinkster

I applaud Bush for his decision to preserve human dignity and re-affirm the unconditional worth of each and every human being. I'm sure most people feel the same way about the worth of a human and that when we argue it is over whether or not an embryo is really a human or not. After all, this is the same thing with abortion. No one (sane) will agree that killing an innocent person is right, yet the argument is not over that principle but rather over the particulars of whether or not a fetus is really a person. Yet, when one carefully and rationally weighs the point at which someone becomes a 'person' it seems clear that abortion or the growing of embryos is wrong. You see, how can you call something that has a heart at 18 days, and its own eyes, spinal cord, nervous system, liver and stomach in 4 weeks a group of underdeveloped cells? Furthermore, according to Monnica Terwillager, a counselor at a pregnancy resource center in Los Angeles, the EARLIEST abortions are done at her clinic at six weeks! How can it be possible for it to be morally right to destroy something which at this point has all the internal organs of an adult, an determinable sex, registers measurable brain waves, and has formed fingers, feet, and toes?! Ok, obviously this thread is not about abortion alone, but the issue came up because it is very closely related to the cloning issue. All I can say is think again about at which point you want to draw the line between a "bunch of underdeveloped cells" and a human being. I know some of you will say that it's right because of the likely greater benefit of lives saved. Yet, consider the possibility that some scientists decide that they can kill you and use the parts to save 6 other people. Does the greater life benefit make the murder right? Of course not. Remember, morality is more than about just what benefits us and society as a whole. If this was the case there would be no reason to affirm individual God given rights as in the Declaration of Independence because the meaning of justice would be reduced to nothing more than a mere calculation of maximal benefit to the state. -Sinkster "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."