List of reasons to believe God exists?

[GrandizerII]

A child 10 minutes before birth has little or no rights and can be terminated.

Which country or state is this legal?

Exactly. Theologians. Nobody outside religious circles takes them seriously.

Thanks for the example of Genetic Fallacy.

Yeah, you're right, maybe I should go a little easy on people known for peddling bullshit.

[Amarok]

Did i mention the Vogt Objection are almost identical to Luke Barnes (a theist who is actually a scientist ) tried using in a debate with Carroll . And Carroll spanked him too .

https://www.premierchristianradio.com/Sh...uke-Barnes

[Catholic_Lady]

And when you're done read why Sean Carroll is wrong about pretty much everything: HERE

I watched wally's video (scene from Will Hunting), not the one hour thing that someone else posted.

Neo, I went ahead and read this article: https://strangenotions.com/learning-mora...l-and-ted/

Good stuff. Thanks for posting.

[Neo-Scholastic]

where can I find Mr Vogt's analysis of Professor Carroll's interpretation of quantum field theory?

Probably in the same place you'll find Carroll's groundbreaking work on macroeconomics or Pre-Raphaelite art history.

[GrandizerII]

From that article on morality:

It's also worth noting that despite examining several different moral theories in his book, from constructivism, to instrumentalism, to consequentialism, to virtue-ethics, to utilitarianism, Carroll never gives serious consideration to the theistic view. He never considers God to be the objective ground of morality. This is likely because Carroll presumes poetic naturalism is true, and thereby precludes God from the outset.

That's because the theist view of morality is basically a vacuous one. It doesn't say anything about morality other than God is the ground for morality. Theists themselves then have to decide the specifics regarding morality, and so end up still being in the same boat as non-theists trying to figure it out.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Abortion advocates have elevated a right of the mother in favor of the right of the child. Subjective
A child 10 minutes before birth has little or no rights and can be terminated. 20 minutes later-- murder. Subjective
If a pregnant mother is murdered, someone can be charged with a double-murder. If the mother kills the baby, it's okay. Subjective.

Oh, it gets worse that those! The pro-abortion arguments rest entirely on the legal (subjective) interpretation of personhood - the same one that assigns personhood to corporations.
And the pro-abortion arguments dismiss the objective scientific fact that from the moment of conception the fetus is a distinct human being.

[Succubus]

where can I find Mr Vogt's analysis of Professor Carroll's interpretation of quantum field theory?

Probably in the same place you'll find Carroll's groundbreaking work on macroeconomics or Pre-Raphaelite art history.

Dodge noted.

[The Grand Nudger]

Abortion advocates have elevated a right of the mother in favor of the right of the child. Subjective

No, they haven't..this is one of many reasons that your opinion is wrong.  Nor is anything above an issue of subjectivity in the first place.  So that's twice you were factually wrong and there's nothing subjective about it.

A child 10 minutes before birth has little or no rights and can be terminated. 20 minutes later-- murder. Subjective

Where, Hell-holistan?  Now you're not only factually wrong you're being intentionally duplicitous..and -still- haven;t managed to point out any subjectivity.  You just keep typing the word.

If a pregnant mother is murdered, someone can be charged with a double-murder. If the mother kills the baby, it's okay. Subjective.

You mean..there's no difference between murder and killing?  You seem to think otherwise elsewhere..and yet again, you've failed to establish any subjectivity.  

You did, however, in each and every case, use the term "subjective" as a placeholder for what you found to be "wrong". This is -why- you cannot competently comment on objective morality (or in this case objective statements regarding legality). You don't know what it is. You take and communicate whatever it is you think a fairy said to be the definition of objective and right...and whatever you don't agree with to be the definition of subjective and wrong. Your failure, and frankly the failure of your religion these past centuries..in this regard..holds a mirror up to and explains the failure of those who respond as reactionaries -to- that failure by denying the existence of any moral facts. Your mistake precipitates and fuels their mistake.

A productive and informative conversation about objective morality and the relationship between non optimal decisions -could- be had using the legality of abortion as a foil for the process of moral decision-making..but not with you or anyone who has codifed their moral response by the assumption of your commonly shared misapprehensions.

[GrandizerII]

Abortion advocates have elevated a right of the mother in favor of the right of the child. Subjective
A child 10 minutes before birth has little or no rights and can be terminated. 20 minutes later-- murder. Subjective
If a pregnant mother is murdered, someone can be charged with a double-murder. If the mother kills the baby, it's okay. Subjective.

Oh, it gets worse that those! The pro-abortion arguments rest entirely on the legal (subjective) interpretation of personhood - the same one that assigns personhood to corporations.
And the pro-abortion arguments dismiss the objective scientific fact that from the moment of conception the fetus is a distinct human being.

There is also the objective scientific fact that, at conception, it is still a fertilized egg, not a fetus ...

[Neo-Scholastic]

It doesn't say anything about morality other than God is the ground for morality. Theists themselves then have to decide the specifics regarding morality, and so end up still being in the same boat as non-theists trying to figure it out.

Having some kind of universally applicable ground for morality is a difference that makes a difference with respect to human dignity, something that is either merely asserted or missing entirely from non-theistic moral systems. Also, it is very important to have agreement that something is before having a discussion about what something it. Otherwise, you're just talking past one another.