Pro life thought experiment

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

I’m not sure what you mean by “controlled conditions.” You cannot control the conditions that lead to a miracle. That is the definition of a miracle.

No, a miracle is something that cannot be explained by natural means. And people pray for them all the time. Some claim success, too. The controlled conditions are these: “Pick a large number of people with well-known incurable conditions (Amputated limbs would work just fine). Split them into two groups. Send one group to Lourdes, and also appoint a group to pray for them”.

Already the conditions you describe violate the conditions of naturally-motivated prayer. Telling someone to recite some incantation does not count as prayer. Prayer is an earnest self-motivated reaching out to God. Similarly, the waters at Lourdes are not some some kind of Harry Potter magic. Those who think they are will likely be disappointed.

Nothing happens that they recognize as answer to prayer, perhaps. God is not a miracle vending machine.

Except that the bible claims God’s words to the contrary.

Where does the bible claim God is a miracle vending machine?

…except that God appointed the Church to lead the people with authority.

And that is what the church CLAIMS. There is no evidence outside the claim.

The evidence, as I said, is the testimony of the martyrs.

Moreover, the church has NO answers to many very important problems. It cannot even p(name removed by moderator)oint the moment of “ensoulment” - which is supposed to separate a “human” from an “animal”.

I noticed you place quite a lot of emphasis on this point, but I don’t see why this is such an important question to you. What does it matter when ensoulment happens? A developing human is human, not some other animal, before and after ensoulment.

 

[Gorgias]

Remember, the fault ALWAYS lies with the skeptic!

Not always… but in this case, yeah.

 

[jcm2017]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3854941/

 

[Scowler]

Where does the bible claim God is a miracle vending machine?

Whatever you ask in my name, it will be granted, because I will go to the father. (Matthew 18:19; Matthew 21:22; Mark 11:24; John 14:13; John 15:7) You realize that “whatever” is a generic way to express “everything”.

The evidence, as I said, is the testimony of the martyrs.

Yeah, right.

Not always… but in this case, yeah.

Not always? That will be day when the apologist understands and ADMITS that the fault is always with God, because he does not provide the necessary and personalized information for the skeptic - no matter how honestly it is prayed for.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

LeafByNiggle:

Where does the bible claim God is a miracle vending machine?

Whatever you ask in my name, it will be granted, because I will go to the father. (Matthew 18:19; Matthew 21:22; Mark 11:24; John 14:13; John 15:7) You realize that “whatever” is a generic way to express “everything”.

There is an implied condition that “in my name” assumes you are asking for what is good in the eyes of God. He will not grant us harmful thing no matter how much we clamour for them. Misunderstandings like this are why we need the Church and the guidance of the Holy Spirit to interpret scripture.
[/quote]

The evidence, as I said, is the testimony of the martyrs.

Yeah, right.

I’m still waiting for any comparable martyrdom by a group telling a lie.

 

[Scowler]

There is an implied condition that “in my name” assumes you are asking for what is good in the eyes of God.

God is supposed to be able to express himself unambiguously. If he said “whatever”, then he meant “whatever”.

I’m still waiting for any comparable martyrdom by a group telling a lie.

Since I did not accuse anyone to be a liar, you should direct this question to someone who did.

 

[jcm2017]

Idle speculation is the tool of the devil. It leads to no good. There is a difference between speculation that leads to some good and speculation that is idle, or even ill intended.
We do not have a god of the philosophers. We have a living God that is real. Morality is grounded in the real good, not subject to thought experiments.

 

[Gorgias]

Not always? That will be day when the apologist understands and ADMITS that the fault is always with God

Ahh… of course: believers are ignorant when they suggest that skeptics might potentially be in error, but skeptics are wise when they assert that God is always wrong. Nice…

 

[Gorgias]

I don’t actually think that you are as dumb as your answers indicate. But you have no intellectual integrity or honesty.

Which is it, then? Am I unfair to skeptics? Or perhaps ignorant, or just plain dense? Or merely intellecually dishonest? C’mon, now… you’ve run the gamut of insults. Can’t you just stick to one…?!?

 

[SuperLuigi]

Has everyone on here seen the response from Ben Shapiro I posted?

 

[LeafByNiggle]

But you have no intellectual integrity or honesty.

Please discuss the issues and not each other.

 

[JamesATyler]

Yeah, but for some reason I don’t feel the same way about 1000 embryos in a jar as I do about 1000 growing babies in the womb of 1000 pregnant women. Can anyone explain why these two things are not the same and why everyone seems know that already? The only thing I can figure is the embryos are not growing. When I think of a pregnant woman, i don’t think to myself, “I wonder if that is an embryo or a baby”. If I hear a woman is pregnant, she’s having a baby.

I think the question skews things. No one is trying to stop the death of embryos. We want to stop the death of growing babies. In 10 years, he could have figured it out. It only took me the time to write this post.

The embryos are not alive.

 

[simpleas]

Yeah, but for some reason I don’t feel the same way about 1000 embryos in a jar as I do about 1000 growing babies in the womb of 1000 pregnant women. Can anyone explain why these two things are not the same and why everyone seems know that already? The only thing I can figure is the embryos are not growing. When I think of a pregnant woman, i don’t think to myself, “I wonder if that is an embryo or a baby”. If I hear a woman is pregnant, she’s having a baby.

I think the question skews things. No one is trying to stop the death of embryos. We want to stop the death of growing babies. In 10 years, he could have figured it out. It only took me the time to write this post.

The embryos are not alive.

According to the Church they are alive

CCC
2274 Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.

This may be an interesting read on the subject,

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/abortion/child/alive_1.shtml

 

[BornInMarch]

If I save the embryos then is there, or will there ever be, a way for them to be born (such as artificial wombs)? If so I’ll save them instead because 1,000 children are more important than any 1. Though it won’t be an easy decision.

 

[JamesATyler]

According to the Church they are alive

CCC

2274 Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.

This may be an interesting read on the subject,

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/abortion/child/alive_1.shtml

Ok fine. They are 1000 persons who are not alive because they were taken from the womb and frozen. I will save the 5 year old. He has life in him presently. The other 1000 persons have as much life in them as a dead person in the morgue. No cellular activity kind of life. I think you could say they are presently dead already. Or am I misunderstanding the scenario. I presume these are not living babies in tiny test tubes somehow. Cellular life I mean.

Yeah, I just went back to the Twitter feed and read it. They are in a frozen container. Frozen people are dead. Save the 5 year old. His scenario is not hard. Try this one. You burst in and spot 1000 frozen children and 1 that is still alive. Which do you save?

 

[Gorgias]

They are 1000 persons who are not alive because they were taken from the womb and frozen. I will save the 5 year old. He has life in him presently. The other 1000 persons have as much life in them as a dead person in the morgue. No cellular activity kind of life. I think you could say they are presently dead already. Or am I misunderstanding the scenario.

Yes, you are misunderstanding the scenario.

Yeah, I just went back to the Twitter feed and read it. They are in a frozen container. Frozen people are dead.

Then I’d recommend that you go back and read it again – you missed the part where he says that they’re viable human embryos. That means “not dead”.

 

[JamesATyler]

Then I’d recommend that you go back and read it again – you missed the part where he says that they’re viable human embryos. That means “not dead”.

I saw that it reads “viable embryo”. I also saw that they are “frozen”. You assert that these frozen, yet viable embryos are living matter? I disagree.

 

[Gorgias]

I saw that it reads “viable embryo”. I also saw that they are “frozen”. You assert that these frozen, yet viable embryos are living matter? I disagree.

Then what, pray tell, do you believe that “viable” means in this context?

 

[JamesATyler]

Then what, pray tell, do you believe that “viable” means in this context?

It means they can be brought back to life.

 

[Gorgias]

Gorgias:

Then what, pray tell, do you believe that “viable” means in this context?

It means they can be brought back to life.

Actually, it means “capable of survival.”

Notice, though, that your assertion is quite different:

You assert that these frozen, yet viable embryos are living matter?

Frozen people are dead.

See… your (mistaken) take on it is that they are “dead.” Viable doesn’t mean “capable of resurrection” so much that it means “capable of surviving.” Perhaps resuscitation is the better way for you to think of it, rather than resurrection.

The embryos are not “dead” (or else they would not be viable); they are in a state of suspended animation. Therefore, they are alive.