I am an atheist thread 2

[Socrates4Jesus]

…Further specific points from the my last post in the last thread on this topic:

“You’ve also still got quite a task ahead of you if you want to demonstrate how Alexander the Great could NOT have heard about this particular prophecy. I mean, not only do you have to account for everybody that he would have spoken to, but also all the people that the people he spoke to had spoken to, etc. (ugly sentence alert!)” …

Phooney:

I’m still willing to look at any evidence you have that Alexander the Great actually did get his hands on a copy of Ezekiel’s writings or had any contact with Jewish rabbis at all. Modern historians discount any such stories of Alexander the Great meeting Jewish religious leaders as complete fables or fabrications that have no hint of truth. If you disagree with these modern historians, i’d like to see what evidence you have to support your view.

Baring any such evidence, i’d have to trust what scholars who stake their reputations on being right about history say over your speculation. I’m sure you can appreciate this, as i’m assuming you are not an historian yourself.

Now, if you found something in the Bible that was not accurate about fishing, well, i’d certainly trust your opinion. If you want to make some claim about history, i believe i’d be completely reasonable in asking you to quote some respected historian who agrees with you.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

…Further specific points from the my last post in the last thread on this topic:
…“It certainly may have been a lucky guess as well, as we all know that the books of the bible weren’t the only writings that could have been in there. Perhaps it was chosen out of many potential prophecies simply because it had come true.” …

Phooney:

I’m still willing to look at any legitimate prophecy in the Bible you can find that is obviously false. I’ve been searching the text for many years and have found none. You would think that of all the hundreds of predictions in the Bible someone would be able to find at least one that is false, wouldn’t you? Since there is not one of hundreds that is false, what does that tell you about the authors’ claims that God gave these predictions to them?

If you cannot think of one untrue prophecy in the Bible, perhaps you might do the world a favor and begin searching for one. When you find it, you could write a book and show the world how Moses and Peter are wrong and how Judaism and Christianity are built on a foundation of lies. I’d be extremely interested in examining what evidence you find to see if what you say is true.

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

…However, I don’t think we ever came to any agreement regarding the city being thrown into the sea rather than the sea rising up over the city, no agreement about “found”, combined with the uneccesary repetition found in the prophecy instead of specific prophetic information, I could just as easily state here that we agreed that the prophecy was far too vague for the purposes of “valid prophecy”! …

If your point is that we disagree as to what the author’s true intentions were when he wrote the book of the Ezekiel, i would say that is a fair assumption, and we can agree to disagree. In this case, i hope you would appreciate that my interpretation is one that is not unreasonable.

If your point is that you have proven false a specific prediction of the prophet Ezekiel, i’d think it worthwhile to take another look at your arguments. If this is indeed your assertion, and you want to take the time to revisit the prophecies of Ezekiel 26, please check out this link and give me the verse number of a verse that has the false prediction and a brief explanation of why this verse does not accurately write ancient history before it happened.

biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=33&chapter=26&version=31

 

[Socrates4Jesus]

… Also, hopefully something with a specific date, preferrably right down to the minute and second (this level of detail should be well within the capabilities of an all knowing God, I hope), but I understand if it is as vague as just the date."

There are two predictions of which i’m aware regarding dates. One gives the exact number of days the Jewish people would be in captivity before they were allowed to return to ancient Palestine, another gives the exact number of days until the time Jesus rode into Jerusalem. Both would take much time to discuss, and a little preparation on my part. If you have the patience and the time, let me know which of these prophecies you’d be willing to examine. There is also the prediction that gives the exact name of the king who would give the order to allow the Jewish people to return to Palestine, which i mentioned in the previous discussion thread.

An alternative would be the prophecies of the ancient city of Babylon, which would take less time to discuss and might be more interesting, as they are related to the recent events in Iraq, as well as to events of the past. There are also the many predictions of Jesus in Isaiah, chapter 53. These might be a more enjoyable, and certainly less tedious, topics of discussion.

Let me know if any of these areas of prophecy interest you, or if you would rather discuss something else.

 

[_A]

I don’t understand why you can’t concede, that man in the totality of his history, has established moral absolutes; it can be conceded from a totally secular viewpoint; and, I don’t think it advances your argument to deny the obvious.

You have read about, and thought about this ‘moral absolutes’ idea for quite a while. It is new to me, and dropping names like Kant is not going to convince me of anything either. I am not familiar with his work.
What I gather is that you think some things are universally, inarguably good.
To me that sounds quite wrong. Could be that I misunderstand your point, though. Could you state something that is universally, inarguably ‘good’? Then we can see if there are situations where this proves to be false.

“reason” in and of itself, posits moral universals.

I don’t think they are universal. It may be that everyone currently on the planet agrees, but the world keeps changing in ways difficult to predict.

From a secular point of view, civilization, has, established certain moral paremeters, if for no other reason than, it propagates man’s survival.

Different civilizations can have wildly different ‘moral parameters’, as well as many which are similar.

The fact that a “few” Islamic and obviously irrational facists, commit “honor killings” in the name of “justice” in a certain time period, and are considered by 99.9% of the world population to be barbaric in doing so, is no argument. In fact, it’s a denial of reality and reductionist to the point of absurdity. Yes, rational people have decided through the centuries what is moral and what isnt, Kant, for one correlated much of this thought; and we have a large body of eithical philosophy to articulate it. And there is concensus, surprise of surprises, it only required rationality, not a theistic belief. Yes, I believe that a limitless Intelligence imprinted the natural law in our mind, but one doesn’t have to believe that to accept moral absolutes.

Until I have a better understanding, I will keep asking for specific examples. What are we getting at with your (and others’) notion of ‘moral absolutes’?

If your ultimate argument is unmitigated skepticism, then fine, nothing whatsoever can be known…

This is, of course true. I can accept some things as ‘true enough’, though. For example, I don’t accept the ‘law’ of gravity as true, but if making a prediction or construction I will operate under the assumption that the law of gravity is true.

but accepting the body of moral philosophy handed on to us, does not make you a theist.

I don’t have any background in philosophy and kan’t quote authors or their works, for the most part. I do have a philosophy of my own about such things, though. I will try to articulate it here.
If you have an idea, you can convey it to me with dialog. It may take an unreasonable amount of dialog, but I think it is among the best ways to convey ideas.
If you think that some moral element is universal, or even global, then say what it specifically is, and we will examine it further, you and I. We don’t need Kant or any others, I think we are bright enough to figure this out between us.

 

[_A]

@AOk, A, I have a hypothetical for you. Let’s take two individuals, one of them is a practicing Catholic, goes to church every Sunday, is on the church vestry, helps raise money for the church, blah, blah, blah. However, away from church tends to be rather selfish, cheats others in small ways, gossips at work, doesn’t challenge his intellect and generally tends to put himself first in most daily situations.

The other individual is an atheist. He feels he has to be intellectually honest on all accounts. His thirst for truth motivates his life and challenges him daily, he reads, he debates, he searches, partly out of an innate intellectual curiosity, partly because he wants meaning, whatever that turns out to be. He lives his life trying to be fair with others, trying not to use others as a means to an end to his own advantage.

Suddenly both men die. Which one is closest to God, (if we assume for argument’s sake that God exists)? Christian theology would say the atheist. Sorry to offend any Christians out there; but that’s what Christian doctrine teaches.

"Not everyone who says, “Lord, Lord” will enter; or take the example in the NT where Our Lord tells the story of two brothers, one states he will not follow the commandments, the other one assures Jesus he will. Of course, the reverse takes place when they actually get out in the world. It didn’t matter what they were saying, it was what they did that proved or disproved their faith.

If we allow that Jesus is God, then He is “Truth.” If someone is *genuinely *seeking truth in his life, he cannot be lost! To the extent that you want truth, you are in union with the “Truth”, Himself. (You may have an important Friend, after all,

Merry Christmas, A!

Three merry ho’s to you also! I am falling way behind on this thread, since I am on vacation (limited access). I will catch up, though it may be the new year before I have a full and proper connection.
Thank you all for your patience!

 

[_A]

excellent, from my science training I know that all you do is faith and belief!

Where did you get your ‘science training’?

This comes from an effort to prove a truth in a scientific method, which cannot be done. No one can prove the earth or sun will exist tomorrow as we know it, yet do we all not live with a faith and belief tomorrow will be like today?

No. Many humans examine patterns of change and attempt to predict future change.

This imposes a logic problem, if it is only her business then would others who choose to kill not have the same rights as her?

It is *her *business as long as it is in *her *body. To suggest anything else would be enslaving the pregnant woman. I know that slavery is allowed and accepted in the bible, but I am firmly opposed to it.

There may be an apparent contradiction Frankly I think the flood story actually is more difficult at least in theory. However given time I think you can come to understand why two different writers wrote things which appear so opposite by the way (btw) I do not think you meant Deuteronomy 20:9 ( maybe 20:13?) close ( )

I am sorry, I misquoted. The one I meant, which I have lost now, is the one that says that if children are bad to their parents, they should be killed.

hell is actually defined as the absence of God/heaven/after life however you wish to say it. In the earlier comment (Deuteronomy 20)those who chose to love were allowed to defend themselves even withoffensive means against those who chose not to love.

Showing a huge lack of respect for human life.

Today the church teaches there is enough security to protect us, so we can usually avoiding kill others for our protection. The actual rules concerning killing have not changed in the Catholic Church. In Judaism which is our heritage there are (or were) different rules however we believe this is part of why Christ came to earth. Yes, one of my issues is how any atheist knows when to kill or not kill or when to intervene to prevent others from death? Note the abortion/killing mentioned above

To me, a babies life doesn’t start (in the ‘legal’ sense) until it lives independently of it’s mother.
I will not support slavery.

 

[_A]

I was thinking along the line of various medical studies where the conclusions are contradictory. For example, one study says that certain foods are good for the heart while at the same time, another study says that they aren’t. I assume that they are subject to the same strict requirements of statistically sound scientific research, so why the difference?

I would have to guess that the evidence is still being collected and assembled. That there is not a clear answer yet doesn’t mean much to me.

 

[_A]

Now, do you mean my faith, or do you mean my Faith?

It’s the clarity of religious terms that makes it so easy to discuss them.

 

[_A]

Your previous related post implied that the only reason someone would be motivated to do something good for someone is if they were bullied into it. My motivation for the things I do (and the things I aspire to do) is my love for God. Plain and simple - Love begets love.

With such rewards and penalties in place, it will be very difficult to show that they have not affected your choice.

 

[_A]

everything has a cause

except the one

Don’t you see how your second statement falsifies your first? The statement kind of goes up in a puff of smoke.

 

[_A]

Well, I’m not really into “praying contests”.

Also, there would not really be any common ground if, for example, I prayed for your eternal soul and you prayed for my eternal soul. You don’t believe in a God to pray to, and you don’t believe in prayer. Even if you did believe in God, you don’t believe in a loving God.

(One prayer I like to use is the Divine Mercy novena:
ewtn.com/devotionals/mercy/novena.htm
This is the novena passed on to us from St. Faustina, who was mentioned by the poster mmm1.)

Plus, you don’t believe I have a soul. Even if somehow you came to accept that I had a soul, I suspect that you wouldn’t *care about *my soul in the same way I care for your soul.

The thing is, even though I am not a believer, every prayer said would have the same effect. The measurable effects would be identical between us.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Where did you get your ‘science training’ ?

four universities and two colleges two degrees, I would be happy to look at your proof what would you like to proof?

No. Many humans examine patterns of change and attempt to predict future change.

excellent, and the future is based on today’s physics (right) so tell me about my day which will occur tomorrow, or a basketball game’s result before they play. It sounds easy enough however it turns out to be beyond human capacity

It is *her *business as long as it is in *her *body. To suggest anything else would be enslaving the pregnant woman. I know that slavery is allowed and accepted in the bible, but I am firmly opposed to it.

slavery? well it is a unique argument however rather weak. Is the unjust murder only the business of the killer and victim? I notice you had to dismiss the earlier question rather than answer it. Maybe I could give you an easier version? After 5 months of pregnancy a baby can surely be sustained outside its mother, so from that time to the time of natural birth the woman could have the baby simply removed by a doctor and she could walk away while the baby lives a health life without her. Yet your logic claims she may kill this baby. This baby is not truly dependent on her as it can live without her. So the bottom line is tell us how any atheist including your self can determine when the action of killing switched from moral to immoral

I am sorry, I misquoted. The one I meant, which I have lost now, is the one that says that if children are bad to their parents, they should be killed.

Leviticus Chapter 20:9 “Anyone who curses his father or mother shall be put to death; since he has cursed his father or mother, he has forfeited his life” is this what you referred to? Leviticus has many strict laws

Showing a huge lack of respect for human life.To me, a babies life doesn’t start (in the ‘legal’ sense) until it lives independently of it’s mother. I will not support slavery.

But the baby remains depended on others for several years so do the parents remain able to kill their children until they abandon there children? Is a baby one month old really that less depend than a baby in the seventh month of pregnancy?

 

[mgrfin]

@oneGODoneCHURCH

“I can not provide any physical evidence of GOD other that I see him in all of creation. In the evil or bad of the world”

So only circular reasoning?

“GOD Bless May you someday find more that what science can offer you”

First I guess somebody will have to show me that there IS another method other than our material senses through which we can learn anything at all before they will be able to show me that there are other things that are findable that cannot be found by science. Ironically, they would probably have to use science to demonstrate this.

God is Spiritual. How is any of that CSI stuff going to work - like DNA, fingerprints, forensic evidence. You’ve been watching too much tellie.

Physical evidence? You could point to the universe of proof of a Divine Creator, but living ‘down under’ you don’t see much of it, do you?

peace

 

[_A]

God is Spiritual. How is any of that CSI stuff going to work - like DNA, fingerprints, forensic evidence. You’ve been watching too much tellie.

So then you admit that there is not one bit of empirical evidence in favour of your belief. Good. Now just how much respect do you think you have earned for your belief?

Physical evidence? You could point to the universe of proof of a Divine Creator,

You would as easily point to the universe as proof of invisible pink unicorns.
You can do a much better job of pointing to the universe as proof of heaps of evidence which contradicts the bible.

but living ‘down under’ you don’t see much of it, do you?

peace

Is that some sort of slight against those living ‘down under’?
I hope I have misunderstood.

 

[_A]

four universities and two colleges two degrees, I would be happy to look at your proof what would you like to proof?

I would like to proof manuscripts for beginner humourists. What does that have to do with anything?Six schools and 2 degrees. I noticed how you still have not really said where you got your science training.

excellent, and the future is based on today’s physics (right) so tell me about my day which will occur tomorrow, or a basketball game’s result before they play. It sounds easy enough however it turns out to be beyond human capacity

I would say that you are mistaken. Bookkeepers bet their hard-earned dollars and you better believe that they gather facts to turn into ‘odds’. The fact that such a business is possible shows that tomorrows game is subject to predictions based on collected facts.

slavery? well it is a unique argument however rather weak.

When the infant does in fact survive outside of the mother, it has it’s own life. Trying to give rights to something wholly inside another person infringes on the rights of that other person. It is never acceptable to tell a woman that she is not in charge of her own body. Until a fetus is not only viable outside the womb, but surviving outside the womb in fact, it is part of the mothers’ system, and under her control wholly.

Is the unjust murder only the business of the killer and victim?

‘Murder’ is a legal term which describes a crime against a legal person. You are trying to give legal person status to a part of another person. This would (and does) result in slavery, because if a woman gets pregnant, she **must **carry the baby to term. What if she would rather not?

After 5 months of pregnancy a baby can surely be sustained outside its mother, so from that time to the time of natural birth the woman could have the baby simply removed by a doctor and she could walk away while the baby lives a health life without her.

Let’s walk through it. Make it ‘worst-case’. The woman is a few days from delivery. She goes in to the hospital and demands that the baby be aborted.
You are the Doctor.
What do you suppose you would do?
If it were me, I think that at that late stage I as a Doctor would have her put under, remove the baby. Send the baby to ICU for some close observation, and address the Mother’s mental health issues / decide if criminal charges are in order.
Just how many late-term abortions do you think are done? Do you think late-term abortions are done for the mother’s convenience?
Do you think that women should be denied abortions for any reason? Who should look after the baby in the case that abortion is refused?

Yet your logic claims she may kill this baby.

Of course it does. Just as it says that you or I may kill this baby. Logic would suggest that if a woman decides that she wants the baby out of her, that she can get it done, and there is little by way of force which can stop her.
I think the best that can be done is to have medical professionals minimizing the damage.

This baby is not truly dependent on her as it can live without her. So the bottom line is tell us how any atheist including your self can determine when the action of killing switched from moral to immoral

Killing is not moral or immoral, as far as I can tell. Everyone I have ever investigated kills to live.

Leviticus Chapter 20:9 “Anyone who curses his father or mother shall be put to death; since he has cursed his father or mother, he has forfeited his life” is this what you referred to? Leviticus has many strict laws But the baby remains depended on others for several years so do the parents remain able to kill their children until they abandon there children? Is a baby one month old really that less depend than a baby in the seventh month of pregnancy?

Yes, and the bible quote about killing children who curse their parents shows that even good old Yahweh doesn’t mind killing kids (if they curse their parents). Why are you so upset about babies who have not been born?
Does the bible describe when a human life begins? Does it suggest that it begins with the spermatazoa, or later, after one combines with an egg?

 

[oneGODoneCHURCH]

I would like to proof manuscripts for beginner humourists. What does that have to do with anything?Six schools and 2 degrees. I noticed how you still have not really said where you got your science training.

I would say that you are mistaken. Bookkeepers bet their hard-earned dollars and you better believe that they gather facts to turn into ‘odds’. The fact that such a business is possible shows that tomorrows game is subject to predictions based on collected facts.

When the infant does in fact survive outside of the mother, it has it’s own life. Trying to give rights to something wholly inside another person infringes on the rights of that other person. It is never acceptable to tell a woman that she is not in charge of her own body. Until a fetus is not only viable outside the womb, but surviving outside the womb in fact, it is part of the mothers’ system, and under her control wholly.

‘Murder’ is a legal term which describes a crime against a legal person. You are trying to give legal person status to a part of another person. This would (and does) result in slavery, because if a woman gets pregnant, she **must **carry the baby to term. What if she would rather not?

Let’s walk through it. Make it ‘worst-case’. The woman is a few days from delivery. She goes in to the hospital and demands that the baby be aborted.
You are the Doctor.
What do you suppose you would do?
If it were me, I think that at that late stage I as a Doctor would have her put under, remove the baby. Send the baby to ICU for some close observation, and address the Mother’s mental health issues / decide if criminal charges are in order.
Just how many late-term abortions do you think are done? Do you think late-term abortions are done for the mother’s convenience?
Do you think that women should be denied abortions for any reason? Who should look after the baby in the case that abortion is refused?

Of course it does. Just as it says that you or I may kill this baby. Logic would suggest that if a woman decides that she wants the baby out of her, that she can get it done, and there is little by way of force which can stop her.
I think the best that can be done is to have medical professionals minimizing the damage.

Killing is not moral or immoral, as far as I can tell. Everyone I have ever investigated kills to live.

Yes, and the bible quote about killing children who curse their parents shows that even good old Yahweh doesn’t mind killing kids (if they curse their parents). Why are you so upset about babies who have not been born?
Does the bible describe when a human life begins? Does it suggest that it begins with the spermatazoa, or later, after one combines with an egg?

The unborn child has been given legal rights. This has been established in court. If the unborn child was not a human life then Scott Peterson would not be in jail right now for the murder of his wife and unborn child. I have heard of other case with the same result If someone can be convicted of a double murder in the case of a mother and unborn child then under the argument in favor of allowing abortion we are now saying sometime it a life and sometime it not.

I would be willing to concede 30 or more ago a woman may have gotten pregnant without knowledge or ability to prevent it ( I do not condone birth control, but for the sake of argument ) Today there is way to much know and ability to prevent an unwanted pregnancy to validate abortion.

Peace in the Lord.

Scott

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I would like to proof manuscripts for beginner humourists. What does that have to do with anything?Six schools and 2 degrees. I noticed how you still have not really said where you got your science training.

yes I would prefer to avoid that if you do not mind.

I would say that you are mistaken. Bookkeepers bet their hard-earned dollars and you better believe that they gather facts to turn into ‘odds’. The fact that such a business is possible shows that tomorrows game is subject to predictions based on collected facts.

I suspect we are not truly communicating on this issue. Are you familiar with the concept of an asymptotic approach? it simply is not really zero at some point we simply apply limit theory and move on.

When the infant does in fact survive outside of the mother, it has it’s own life. Trying to give rights to something wholly inside another person infringes on the rights of that other person. It is never acceptable to tell a woman that she is not in charge of her own body. Until a fetus is not only viable outside the womb, but surviving outside the womb in fact, it is part of the mothers’ system, and under her control wholly.

‘Murder’ is a legal term which describes a crime against a legal person. You are trying to give legal person status to a part of another person. This would (and does) result in slavery, because if a woman gets pregnant, she **must **carry the baby to term. What if she would rather not?

Let’s walk through it. Make it ‘worst-case’. The woman is a few days from delivery. She goes in to the hospital and demands that the baby be aborted.
You are the Doctor.
What do you suppose you would do?
If it were me, I think that at that late stage I as a Doctor would have her put under, remove the baby. Send the baby to ICU for some close observation, and address the Mother’s mental health issues / decide if criminal charges are in order.

thank you for writing this it is closely related to the issue which concerns me. At one point it is the mother’s decision at another point it is not. So how did you decide? As mentioned earlier small children are dependent on their mother so is she a slave? Why does she not have the authority to kill the dependent baby to end her slavery? Why can she kill a month earlier but not now? A month earlier the baby could live without the mother and same is true a month after birth, in both cases a substitute person is needed, but not the biological mother.

Just how many late-term abortions do you think are done? insert: none by moral people] Do you think late-term abortions are done for the mother’s convenience?[insert: I can not think of a reason to do such an act] Do you think that women should be denied abortions for any reason?[insert: ectopic pregnancies cause death, so faced with the option of 2 deaths verses 1 you have a real option however, the objective is not abortion but to reduce deaths.] Who should look after the baby in the case that abortion is refused?[insert: society is more than capable]

Of course it does. Just as it says that you or I may kill this baby. Logic would suggest that if a woman decides that she wants the baby out of her, that she can get it done, and there is little by way of force which can stop her.
I think the best that can be done is to have medical professionals minimizing the damage.

It seems we are all over the place, first it was her alone, then you mentioned the doctor refusing her, now it seems ‘medical professionals’.

Killing is not moral or immoral, as far as I can tell. Everyone I have ever investigated kills to live.

are you saying there should be no murder charge, or am I mixing issues?

Yes, and the bible quote about killing children who curse their parents shows that even good old Yahweh doesn’t mind killing kids (if they curse their parents). Why are you so upset about babies who have not been born? [insert: they are humans]
Does the bible describe when a human life begins? Does it suggest that it begins with the spermatazoa, or later, after one combines with an egg?

not in the context your asking, the church holds as we do not know we must assume it occurs from conception.

 

[_A]

The unborn child has been given legal rights.

In some places this is the case. In some places, the catholic church has caused laws to be passed forbidding abortion (Nicaragua, for example) . This does not make the law correct.
It isn’t right to have someone enslaved as an incubator when she doesn’t want to. What possible right could you have to stop her? If you try, she is likely to find another way to achieve her end. This is where back-alley abortions and worse find fertile soil.

This has been established in court. If the unborn child was not a human life then Scott Peterson would not be in jail right now for the murder of his wife and unborn child.

The fact that your local laws are a little backward ( as are many of mine) does not mean that they are correct.

I would be willing to concede 30 or more ago a woman may have gotten pregnant without knowledge or ability to prevent it ( I do not condone birth control, but for the sake of argument ) Today there is way to much know and ability to prevent an unwanted pregnancy to validate abortion.

Abortion doesn’t need ‘validation’. If a woman wants to have the pregnancy terminated, how on earth do you force her to do otherwise? Trying to get in the way brings an unwanted baby into the world. Whose is responsible for that child?

 

[_A]

yes I would prefer to avoid that if you do not mind.

Check - no reported science training.

Are you familiar with the concept of an asymptotic approach?

No.

At one point it is the mother’s decision at another point it is not. So how did you decide?

When the infant is living outside of the mother, it is it’s own person. Until then, the rights of the pregnant person apply.

As mentioned earlier small children are dependent on their mother so is she a slave?

Nope, she is only a slave to her own will.

Why does she not have the authority to kill the dependent baby to end her slavery?

She can walk away from an infant. Leave it at a hospital and flee.

Why can she kill a month earlier but not now?

As I pointed out, with you or I as doctor in a health facility, a late-term pregnancy would be ‘aborted’ by c-section.

are you saying there should be no murder charge, or am I mixing issues?

I was asked if killing was wrong. I answered as exactly as I could, given the vague phrasing. If you care to ask a more specific question, I will be glad to try to answer.

not in the context your asking, the church holds as we do not know we must assume it occurs from conception.

Why not assume that it occurs before that? How is ‘conception’ such an important event? Is ‘conception’ the moment that the egg is fertilized? Is it marked by the hardening of the eggs shell, or by the first cell division?