[Kamikaze]

Ya mean fate or no fate? Well assuming god exists what kind of god would play with toys that could only do what they're set to do?

(I'll make an actual argument later )

[CP5670]

true, but what about stupid things like "nuclear testing in ohio"? Are we going to do that 'cause we can  (yeah I'm twisting your point and enjoying it so  ) Or, "should" we not?

Well, why not? There is still no reason why we "should" not in the context you are speaking of. There would be consequences, but that means nothing here. The concept of "should" taken in that way has no meaning.

Free will vs. Determinism

The absence of one does not imply the other, so neither a deterministic nor a probabilistic universe would have a "free will"; this is pretty easy to show from the holistic principle.

[Kamikaze]

Originally posted by CP5670


Well, why not? There is still no reason why we "should" not in the context you are speaking of. There would be consequences, but that means nothing here. The concept of "should" taken in that way has no meaning.

Well assuming the ultimate goal to humanity is to survive then we "should" try to keep humans alive? Wouldn't "should" specify a need/obligation/action of recommendation in terms of advantage/disadvantage? (unless you want to argue that nuclear testing ohio is advantageous to humanity)

Neither one; this is pretty easy to show from the holistic principle. (a probabilistic universe without any "free will")

And what would that be? (and what exactly is "free will" in this usage anyway? The ability to choose? The ability to choose with no influence? The ability to choose without bias?)

[CP5670]

Well assuming the ultimate goal to humanity is to survive then we "should" try to keep humans alive? Wouldn't "should" specify a need/obligation/action of recommendation in terms of advantage/disadvantage? (unless you want to argue that nuclear testing ohio is advantageous to humanity)

That is what I mean; you are assuming something extra there. The "should" that was being referred to earlier was taken in a universal sense.

And what would that be? (and what exactly is "free will" in this usage anyway? The ability to choose? The ability to choose with no influence? The ability to choose without bias?)

The second "question" is what I had in mind; that is really the only way to define a free will. What would what be? (that sounded funny )

[Kamikaze]

Originally posted by CP5670



That is what I mean; you are assuming something extra there. The "should" that was being referred to earlier was taken in a universal sense.

ah, okay my bad

The second "question" is what I had in mind; that is really the only way to define a free will. What would what be? (that sounded funny )

Yeah, in the case it's the second option then there would be no free will... as I always say "free will is a myth" (and then people proceed to think I'm insane)
I was reffering to what a holistic principle was in my "what would that be" question.

[CP5670]

Oh that; that is simply the idea that everything in reality exists in the same system and thus everything is dependent on everything else. It can be summed up by saying that all is ultimately one.

[Kamikaze]

Originally posted by CP5670
Oh that; that is simply the idea that everything in reality exists in the same system and thus everything is dependent on everything else. It can be summed up by saying that all is ultimately one.

ah, so kinda like the classical "everything is relative" ?

[Sandwich]

About Stem Cell stuff, I agree with Carl - I'm not against genetic engineering per se, but it's the killing unborn babies I have problems with - same as abortion (and let's not get into that one).

Free Will vs. Determinisim is something that many people in "Christian" circles have differring views on, basically, how can Man have free will and yet biblical prophecy be true. To which I answer that that way of thinking about it is restricted by Time. Building on the fact/theory/speculation/hypothesis/hogwash/whatever-you-want-to-call-it that God is outside of Time, He can therefore see our choices at any and every given point in this thing we call Time. He knows what to us is the future simply because He exists outside of Time. We have completely free reign to do whatever we want, but He knows what descision we, from our time-bound perspective, will make in the future.

And I move that we should have a debate on debating itself.

[wEvil]

Originally posted by Carl
altering humans has nothing to do with it. it's the killing of the unborn babies that's the problem.

You can't overcrowd the world well over its carrying capacity just because of the inflexibility of your beleifs.

I can't say that unborn kid will have a bad life, but unwanted children are a greater evil.

[Tiara]

Originally posted by wEvil

I can't say that unborn kid will have a bad life, but unwanted children are a greater evil.

Ahem... Its usually the parent who turns evil. If you don't want a child use a condom and the pill. If it fails THEN its a problem. If one doesn't take these measures it is their responsibility. Many parents won't take that responsibility though. And that is one more sin of humanity to add to the rest of the sins of our stupid race .

But don't blame it on the children.

[wEvil]

i wasnt blaming the child, i was saying abortion on a non-sentient bundle of cells is in no way a greater evil than the likelyhood of the aforementioned child growing up to be something bad.

[Tiara]

Originally posted by wEvil
i wasnt blaming the child,

Ok,sorry. I misunderstood you

i was saying abortion on a non-sentient bundle of cells is in no way a greater evil than the likelyhood of the aforementioned child growing up to be something bad.

That is just the problem. WHY do they have to grow up into something bad? I see governments spend BILLIONS on military campaigns, new airplanes, etc. But have we truly forgotten ourselves? Have we truly become so selfish that nobody cares about oneother? If only a fraction of the amount of money went to the unwanted children I just know that many of them would lead a normal life.

[Black Wolf]

Originally posted by Knight Templar
I beleive it's the next step foward in Medical Technology and advancement.

Painfully off what little single topic we have here, but I believe that medicine will soon evolve into the use of genetically modified viruses, designed to fix problems instead of cause them. I mean, think about what they do - they go in, modify a cell on the genetic level, then make that cell replicate. So what if that cell that they modified went from, say, cancerous to healthy? Or from a cell with, say, parkinsons or Alzheimers to healthy? If we could do it well enogh, the possibilities are endless...

[Sandwich]

Originally posted by wEvil
...i was saying abortion on a non-sentient bundle of cells is in no way a greater evil...

Bad choice of definition there - humans only achieve self-sentience after a few months, if not years.

[an0n]

Originally posted by Sandwich
Bad choice of definition there - humans only achieve self-sentience after a few months, if not years.

Self-sentience is retarded. Isolating yourself from the natural order just means that once you're dead, you're twice as ****ed as if you'd remained at one with nature.

Isolationist retards.

*feels no need to explain himself or his reasoning to you heathenous, unnatural, unenlightened hypocrits*

*gives everyone the finger and walks off*

[Tiara]

Originally posted by Sandwich


Bad choice of definition there - humans only achieve self-sentience after a few months, if not years.

That has not been scientifically proven. I believe that every animal including humans are sentient from the day thay are born. Human babies will yell if screamed against, etc... And in my eyes show signs of self sentient. They know they are here... alive...

Its a matter of standards... What do you see as self-sentient? Many people think many different things.

[CP5670]

Even if they are "sentient," what difference does that make?

[wEvil]

ok...well, how about when they learn some basic arithmetic then?

[CODEDOG ND]

I'm going to take the stance of it should be illegal.  Why?  I'll make an example of CP.  Lets say they found a way to take your spine and cure the king from some fatal illness.  And deeming you not important to society they told you they were going to have to kill you and take your spine.  Would you have a problem with that?  I think so.

Q)  Well we are talking about the unborn here!

So?  If it has the potential to become a functional person there is something wrong.  These so called 'fetuses' could be the man/woman that discovers a cure for cancer, light-speed travel, or a number of things.  I find it oddly distrubing that abunch of people claiming something over in some far away country is immoral and unjust when they perfectly agree with killing the unborn, or could be pro-choice for that matter.

Abortion?  

Same thing.  Hey, you have to pay the coinsquences for your actions here.  

Q)  Well what if they were raped!

So?  It's not your fault(unless your the raper), but it's like falling and breaking your arm.  You still have to wear the cast.  And you can give children up for adoption that seems far better than killing them.

[CP5670]

I think I would, but I would probably not be able to do anything about it, and thus my opinion would not matter. What I think is of no importance whatsoever from the society's point of view, where we are interested in the whole alone. (i.e. I would try to resist, but they are equally "right" in going about their objective) Simple as that.

Also, the dirt on the ground has the potential to become a person as well; does that mean we cannot experiment with it?

And I'm not the one who's complaining about conquering other nations; quite the contrary, in fact.