Ireland legalized abortion: what do YOU think about this?

[United Muscovite Nations]

1) Thinking isn't necessarily an observation. It is simply a thought, and the thought is self-evidence that the empirical world exists. But it is pure reason, not observation of the material world. The thought's existence cannot be proven empirically, the thought simply is.

2) If it is functionally identical, why have no other species done thing that we have?

Actually, you can prove thoughts exist empirically, using an MRI to scan a persons brain.

Because they lack opposable thumbs, sufficient bodily structure and overdeveloped brains in a single package.

But there are many animal species that do things that we do, like taming wildlife, building artificial structures, making and using tools ect.

The thought is what brought the MRI into existence. The thought predates the empirical.

[Dooom35796821595]

And how would you prove that?

With these premises:

1) The Universe came into existence.
2) Time and space are parts of the universe
3) Therefore, time and space did not "always"* exist
4) Therefore, something must exist outside of time and space
5) If something exists outside of time and space, then all events take place simultaneously for it
6) Therefore, that something would have "always"* existed, and could not have been created by any other phenomenon, because time does not exist for it to have been created in.

*"always" in this case, is nebulous, because we are talking about the absence of time, which we cannot conceive of.

Ok then, in order.

No it didn’t.

They’re not.

They never did.

Can’t exist outside of nonexistence.

Nothing exists.

It’s all in your head.

[United Muscovite Nations]

With these premises:

1) The Universe came into existence.
2) Time and space are parts of the universe
3) Therefore, time and space did not "always"* exist
4) Therefore, something must exist outside of time and space
5) If something exists outside of time and space, then all events take place simultaneously for it
6) Therefore, that something would have "always"* existed, and could not have been created by any other phenomenon, because time does not exist for it to have been created in.

*"always" in this case, is nebulous, because we are talking about the absence of time, which we cannot conceive of.

Ok then, in order.

No it didn’t.

They’re not.

They never did.

Can’t exist outside of nonexistence.

Nothing exists.

It’s all in your head.

What's the Big Bang then?
Most physicists would disagree.
See above.
Then how did existence come into existence?
If nothing exists and it is all in my head, then I still exist.

[Dooom35796821595]

Ok then, in order.

No it didn’t.

They’re not.

They never did.

Can’t exist outside of nonexistence.

Nothing exists.

It’s all in your head.

What's the Big Bang then?
Most physicists would disagree.
See above.
Then how did existence come into existence?
If nothing exists and it is all in my head, then I still exist.

Imagine reality is a video game, with you being the player character. Sleep is the pause screen, ect. It’s all in your head, objective reality doesn’t exist as you know it.

[United Muscovite Nations]

What's the Big Bang then?
Most physicists would disagree.
See above.
Then how did existence come into existence?
If nothing exists and it is all in my head, then I still exist.

Imagine reality is a video game, with you being the player character. Sleep is the pause screen, ect. It’s all in your head, objective reality doesn’t exist as you know it.

That is what solipsists (the most radical anti-existence philosophers) say, but even the solipsists acknowledge that they themselves exist.

[Godular]

In order for it to be at all coherent, it must be responding to something that has been observed. Without any form of spatial or temporal awareness, there is no means of proving anything whatsoever.



Incorrect. It is a thought arrived at after observing the world empirically.



Incorrect. You cannot know of a material world without observing it.



Synapses activate and deactivate. Memory centers are triggered. You respond to the stimulus of my post by posting a reply.



Explain to me how what we do is special. In the grand scheme of things, our grasp of computers and mathematics and 'technology' is just a more refined version of a vulture using a rock to break an ostrich egg.

1) wrong, even if I existed in a void, with no other thing, with no sensory perception, I would still be capable of thought.

No you wouldn't. You'd have nothing to base your thoughts off of. You're looking at 'thought' through the lens of somebody who has already had experience. If you were to exist in nothingness, you'd have no means of developing a coherent thought because you'd have nothing to start with. Literally 'nothing' to start with.

2) That we are capable of empirical and creative reasoning. We are capable of understanding the world in an abstract way.

I don't see how that's important. A gorilla can make rudimentary pictures of birds and recognizes that a heart is also a symbol of love. An elephant recognizes that its reflection in a mirror is actually a reflection and not some other elephant in the phantom zone. It would appear that abstract concepts and creativity are not limited to humanity, therefore using them as a distinguishing factor would very apparently be an incorrect path.

[Dooom35796821595]

Imagine reality is a video game, with you being the player character. Sleep is the pause screen, ect. It’s all in your head, objective reality doesn’t exist as you know it.

That is what solipsists (the most radical anti-existence philosophers) say, but even the solipsists acknowledge that they themselves exist.

They would say that, those badly written characters.

[United Muscovite Nations]

1) wrong, even if I existed in a void, with no other thing, with no sensory perception, I would still be capable of thought.

No you wouldn't. You'd have nothing to base your thoughts off of. You're looking at 'thought' through the lens of somebody who has already had experience. If you were to exist in nothingness, you'd have no means of developing a coherent thought because you'd have nothing to start with. Literally 'nothing' to start with.

2) That we are capable of empirical and creative reasoning. We are capable of understanding the world in an abstract way.

I don't see how that's important. A gorilla can make rudimentary pictures of birds and recognizes that a heart is also a symbol of love. An elephant recognizes that its reflection in a mirror is actually a reflection and not some other elephant in the phantom zone. It would appear that abstract concepts and creativity are not limited to humanity, therefore using them as a distinguishing factor would very apparently be an incorrect path.

1) We are capable of abstraction. I would exist, and that would be enough to have thought, because I could observe myself.

2) Then those creatures perhaps are deserving of special treatment for their natures as well.

[United Muscovite Nations]

That is what solipsists (the most radical anti-existence philosophers) say, but even the solipsists acknowledge that they themselves exist.

They would say that, those badly written characters.

I think you've badly misunderstood what I meant by "self-evident" and haven't actually been taking any of what I've said seriously and are substituting your own strawman idea of it to avoid confronting that we must accept circular reasoning in some form for our experience of the world to be coherent, as Hume said.

[Godular]

No you wouldn't. You'd have nothing to base your thoughts off of. You're looking at 'thought' through the lens of somebody who has already had experience. If you were to exist in nothingness, you'd have no means of developing a coherent thought because you'd have nothing to start with. Literally 'nothing' to start with.



I don't see how that's important. A gorilla can make rudimentary pictures of birds and recognizes that a heart is also a symbol of love. An elephant recognizes that its reflection in a mirror is actually a reflection and not some other elephant in the phantom zone. It would appear that abstract concepts and creativity are not limited to humanity, therefore using them as a distinguishing factor would very apparently be an incorrect path.

1) We are capable of abstraction. I would exist, and that would be enough to have thought, because I could observe myself.

But that would defeat the point you're trying to make that thought exists without observation. You must first have a starting point in order to have an end point. If there is nothing for you to perceive then there is nowhere for you to start from.

2) Then those creatures perhaps are deserving of special treatment for their natures as well.

But if there is no functional distinction between us and those other creatures, and THEIR nature did not come from any specific point, then as we are like them, so too are they like the next creatures down the line. A crow using a rock to break open a snail, an octopus figuring out how to open a jar, these are pretty special compared to the next creatures down our arbitrary line.

[United Muscovite Nations]

1) We are capable of abstraction. I would exist, and that would be enough to have thought, because I could observe myself.

But that would defeat the point you're trying to make that thought exists without observation. You must first have a starting point in order to have an end point. If there is nothing for you to perceive then there is nowhere for you to start from.

2) Then those creatures perhaps are deserving of special treatment for their natures as well.

But if there is no functional distinction between us and those other creatures, and THEIR nature did not come from any specific point, then as we are like them, so too are they like the next creatures down the line. A crow using a rock to break open a snail, an octopus figuring out how to open a jar, these are pretty special compared to the next creatures down our arbitrary line.

1) As I said, my own existence is a starting point enough. I can think about myself.

2) Some research into how much of that is abstract philosophizing and how much is instinct is obviously required, but it's an interesting thought.

I think I'm going to go to bed soon though, I've enjoyed this exercise, though I apologize for turning an abortion thread into a four hour argument about the nature of evidence.

[Dooom35796821595]

They would say that, those badly written characters.

I think you've badly misunderstood what I meant by "self-evident" and haven't actually been taking any of what I've said seriously and are substituting your own strawman idea of it to avoid confronting that we must accept circular reasoning in some form for our experience of the world to be coherent, as Hume said.

No, I think I reject circular logic as a fallacy, and accept empirical evidence and medical science as fact that can change with new evidence, and that there are some things that we can’t comprehend or explain. And that you failed to justify your objections by stating what is and isn’t true.

ASSUMING DIRECT CONTROL.

You will surrender your potential against the growing void. We return, and you will rise.

[United Muscovite Nations]

I think you've badly misunderstood what I meant by "self-evident" and haven't actually been taking any of what I've said seriously and are substituting your own strawman idea of it to avoid confronting that we must accept circular reasoning in some form for our experience of the world to be coherent, as Hume said.

No, I think I reject circular logic as a fallacy, and accept empirical evidence and medical science as fact that can change with new evidence, and that there are some things that we can’t comprehend or explain. And that you failed to justify your objections by stating what is and isn’t true.

ASSUMING DIRECT CONTROL.

You will surrender your potential against the growing void. We return, and you will rise.

By accepting empirical evidence, you must accept circular logic, because empirical evidence cannot be proven except with empirical evidence.

[Godular]

But that would defeat the point you're trying to make that thought exists without observation. You must first have a starting point in order to have an end point. If there is nothing for you to perceive then there is nowhere for you to start from.



But if there is no functional distinction between us and those other creatures, and THEIR nature did not come from any specific point, then as we are like them, so too are they like the next creatures down the line. A crow using a rock to break open a snail, an octopus figuring out how to open a jar, these are pretty special compared to the next creatures down our arbitrary line.

1) As I said, my own existence is a starting point enough. I can think about myself.

And how would you know you exist if you cannot observe anything? You would have nothing to compare, nothing to determine spatial dimension or even cause and effect. You would have no means to distinguish between existence and nonexistence. You cannot think absent of perception.

2) Some research into how much of that is abstract philosophizing and how much is instinct is obviously required, but it's an interesting thought.

I think I'm going to go to bed soon though, I've enjoyed this exercise, though I apologize for turning an abortion thread into a four hour argument about the nature of evidence.

It's all instinct. That ours is substantially more refined is spiffy, but hardly special in a cosmic sense.

[Dooom35796821595]

No, I think I reject circular logic as a fallacy, and accept empirical evidence and medical science as fact that can change with new evidence, and that there are some things that we can’t comprehend or explain. And that you failed to justify your objections by stating what is and isn’t true.

ASSUMING DIRECT CONTROL.

You will surrender your potential against the growing void. We return, and you will rise.

By accepting empirical evidence, you must accept circular logic, because empirical evidence cannot be proven except with empirical evidence.

No, I accept there are things we do not, and may never know.

[Godular]

By accepting empirical evidence, you must accept circular logic, because empirical evidence cannot be proven except with empirical evidence.

No, I accept there are things we do not, and may never know.

Oh yeah, that reminds me! I was gonna throw my hat in on that six points thingie...

1) The Universe came into existence.
2) Time and space are parts of the universe
3) Therefore, time and space did not "always"* exist
4) Therefore, something must exist outside of time and space
5) If something exists outside of time and space, then all events take place simultaneously for it
6) Therefore, that something would have "always"* existed, and could not have been created by any other phenomenon, because time does not exist for it to have been created in.

1. What exactly constitutes the universe?
2. Time is a human construct, and we haven't even fully figured out what 'space' is.
3. If we cannot fully describe what space is, how can we know if it didn't exist at some point?

Points 4-6 rendered invalid.

[United Muscovite Nations]

No, I accept there are things we do not, and may never know.

Oh yeah, that reminds me! I was gonna throw my hat in on that six points thingie...

1) The Universe came into existence.
2) Time and space are parts of the universe
3) Therefore, time and space did not "always"* exist
4) Therefore, something must exist outside of time and space
5) If something exists outside of time and space, then all events take place simultaneously for it
6) Therefore, that something would have "always"* existed, and could not have been created by any other phenomenon, because time does not exist for it to have been created in.

1. What exactly constitutes the universe?
2. Time is a human construct, and we haven't even fully figured out what 'space' is.
3. If we cannot fully describe what space is, how can we know if it didn't exist at some point?

Points 4-6 rendered invalid.

1) Space-time
2) In some respects, but it's also a quality of the universe. The past objectively happened, as did the future, and gravity has been shown to affect when these things happen, meaning that time isn't arbitrary, but is actually a quality of the universe.
3) Because we cannot observe beyond it.

[Godular]

Oh yeah, that reminds me! I was gonna throw my hat in on that six points thingie...



1. What exactly constitutes the universe?
2. Time is a human construct, and we haven't even fully figured out what 'space' is.
3. If we cannot fully describe what space is, how can we know if it didn't exist at some point?

Points 4-6 rendered invalid.

1) Space-time

Still can't fully define it. There are a great deal of incongruous properties of space-time that defy our capacity to properly quantify it. For instance, the prevailing model establishes the following:

1. The universe started at a single point.
2. The universe has always been and is still this single point.
3. This point is infinitely large.
4. This point is expanding.

If our definition of space experiences these very dichotomous traits, then there is no reason for us to presume that the 'time' aspect of it can be treated any differently. For instance, even though we have some idea as to how 'old' the universe is, we might still be surprised to find that the universe has simply always been, is infinitely old... and getting older.

2) In some respects, but it's also a quality of the universe. The past objectively happened, as did the future, and gravity has been shown to affect when these things happen, meaning that time isn't arbitrary, but is actually a quality of the universe.

Really? I say that the universe began Last Tuesday, and that all of our memories of stuff that happened before were simply constructed along with the rest of the universe.

3) Because we cannot observe beyond it.

That doesn't prove anything. As a matter of fact, it rather disproves anything you claim about it.

Enough of this threadjack though. The simple fact of the matter is that you're not going to prove to us that some cosmic outside-of-space monkey exists and says that we have a responsibility to care for offspring. If we look at how nature behaves, it would seem to rather readily contradict such an idea. Any claims of objective morality are similarly contradicted.

[Katganistan]

The collection of cells argument is ridiculous, after all, we are also a collection of cells.

Yes, but a biopsy is not a person.

[Thermodolia]

The collection of cells argument is ridiculous, after all, we are also a collection of cells.

Yes, but a biopsy is not a person.

Well not yet anyway.

[Godular]

Yes, but a biopsy is not a person.

Well not yet anyway.

Clone, clone of my own... with its Y chromosome turned to X...

[Katganistan]

It can, actually. If the fertilized ovum fails to implant it is expelled in the exact same process.

No, it cannot. Do you not know what a Period is?

I'm pretty sure I do, and it is entirely possible for a fertilized ovum NOT to implant, and for the uterine tissue to break down and expel from the uterus via the vagina.

It's also entirely possible for a fertilized ovum to implant somewhere it shouldn't, like a fallopian tube, and have to be removed before it kills the woman carrying it.

[Minzerland II]

Then they shouldn't be Christian if they don't wanna be controlled by the Church.

People do not have to follow every word or dictate of a religion to be a part of it. And with some of the shit catholic church has been involved in, the more Christians who reject its control the better.

Lol

[Olthar]

Good job, Ireland. Have a good star.

[FelrikTheDeleted]

Then they shouldn't be Christian if they don't wanna be controlled by the Church.

People do not have to follow every word or dictate of a religion to be a part of it. And with some of the shit catholic church has been involved in, the more Christians who reject its control the better.

If you don’t have any intention to follow your religion, then why be apart of that religion? (Inb4 I’m told, “the social benefits”. In which case I’d tell them to fuck off, the entire concept of religious nominalism is an insult to any devout follower and to the religion itself).