What makes it so obnoxious to you?
i saw it, but by the time I saw it there were a good dozen replies after it and I am too-easily distracted.
-
Animals are non-sentient, but even so, “ownership” of an animal is imperfect (I believe that this is covered by several libertarian theorists). In explicitly granting us free will (and by respecting our choices), God renounces ownership. He has the power to physically do anything with us, of course, but He has voluntarily granted the authority to make choices to us.
-
Christian theology posits two realms, spiritual and physical. God can be spiritually everywhere without literally colliding with all of our atoms, but in the initial act of creation (via the big bang, or whatever else), His labor was mixed with those atoms. The spiritual component of humans (the soul or spirit) reflects his nature. The chief fault in trying to qualify God’s omnipresence is to look at it in traditional terms of the scarcity of space. God can be everywhere at once without displacing other objects. It is, in fact, somewhat required for Him to know all things. He simply falls outside of those bounds by definition.
“Animals are non-sentient”
Where did you get that idea? Humans are animals.
And even with dogs or other non-human animals this is certainly not true.
Sentience means the ability to feel or percieve. Certainly, if you try to hurt most animals, they’ll feel pain. And perceive who did it and react in the manner appropriate to such pain to avoid it.
Thanks for all the links Eric080.
Eric080, I have to be honest and blunt with you here: I believe you have attributed certain things to Dr. Craig that are unsupportable and I am wondering why? For example, you stated that he supports “cutting off funding for stem cell research”, which is patently false. Did you just conveniently omit from your post that what he REALLY said (and I agree with) is that he supports cutting off funding for EMBRYONIC stem cell research (which kills an innocent, non-consenting human being). or did you not listen all that well?
You also distorted the point Dr. Craig was making in the first video re: peoples’ desire at times to use Jesus as the pretext for their POLITICALLY-MOTIVATED SPECIAL INTERESTS. In this case, he merely used those who want “universal health-care” as one example and feminists as another. Dr. Craig never once stated “universal health-care = bad” nor did he state that “Jesus doesn’t approve of feminism”. Dr. Craig did not state his own position on either of these issues in the video. His own personal position was simply not the point he was making, as any reasonably intelligent person could ascertain.
I could say more on the first four points of your “list” (since those are the only ones I have looked into/listened to) but I will leave it at this since Dr. Craig’s personal philosophy (real or perceived) is not the subject of this thread. My response should not be construed as a defense for everything Dr. Craig stated (e.g. the “go vote” part, as I believe voting to be one of the inherent problems of statism), nor should my statements be construed to be my making him out to be a libertarian. I simply don’t possess the knowledge to come to that conclusion and I am therefore unqualified to say one way or the other at this time.
Pardon me, I truly meant “sapient,” but I think you likely knew that.
No problem. I hope you didn’t find my gentle reminder (at least, that’s what I meant it as) to be obnoxious.
What do you mean by “‘ownership’ of an animal is imperfect”? Also, by “animal” do you really mean “non-human animal”? Because, as John Ess points out, people are animals strictly speaking.
Also, how do you define “sentient”?
If God is omnipresent, then we’re all a part of God, right? So then there’s no distinction between us doing something and God doing it. How does free will exist here?
Earlier it seemed you were saying that every atom is a part of God. Is that not what you meant to say?
How can God be everywhere at once without displacing other objects? It seems the only logical way to satisfy that question (if you will) is to say that God is everything. This seems to be the case with both realms posited by Christian theology.
Autolykos,
A few questions…
If you create something does your existence manifest itself in your creation? or if you carve something a certain way does your signature so to speak manifest itself in your creation?
Can you envision any concept to describe creating artificial intelligence without having to teach your creation? If you created artificial intelligence and provided the initial programming do you think your creation would be bound or confined to the programming you provided? Do you think this line of thought would extend to perception of reality? Would your creation be constrained to any physical based on how it’s creator perceives reality? Would your creation be constrained to any limits or laws of nature based on the materials used in creating it? If you provided the initial programming would you feel like your presence was in your creation?
That’s fine, you can be honest and blunt with me any day . To be honest, I kind of have an axe to grind with him for a few reasons (fair or unfair perhaps). But saying that, I think it’s reasonable to take this body of examples and infer that he is a standard, run-of-the-mill conservative. It’s certainly hinted at. That is all I said if you read the last sentence of my post. It’s not an indictment, it’s just laying out what I believe supports my belief that he is a Rick Warrenesque clone.
It would be the height of hypocrisy if Craig really meant that interpreting Jesus in a certain way was wrong solely for political interests. This is something that a religious person can’t do. After all, they assume that morality is divinely mandated by their deity (not all but many theists; however, especially Craig who believes strongly in the Moral Argument). For Craig to lecture us on how gay marriage should not be legal or how abortion (or embryonic stem cell research, an embryo is sufficient for these types of stem cells within a week of being fertilized) is murder because embryos have souls would be invoking religion as a defense of a political stance. He is doing the exact same thing as any feminist Christian or those believing health care is a right who are Christians are doing. The only difference is the interpretation of Christian ethical teachings. So attributing some kind of ulterior motive of “twisting” Jesus’ teachings are pointless because they actually think that is “what Jesus would do,” so to speak.
Anyway, I agree that government shouldn’t fund embryonic stem cell research, but obviously not for the reasons Craig suggests; I don’t want the government funding anything
I appreciate your honesty and candor in admitting this Eric080. As far as the rest of your post goes, perhaps the subject will come up some other time and we can have a dialogue on those things. Honestly, my mind (and body) is getting very tired at this time and I’m going to call it a night; it’s difficult enough for me to think clearly when I am well-rested and alert! Lol!
This is exactly what you’re looking for.
James Redford. Jesus is an Anarchist: A Free-Market, Libertarian Anarchist. Procesos de mercado: revista europea de economía política, ISSN 1697-6797, Nº. 2, 2009. p. 263-324.
Download .pdf here: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1337761.
Though I am using the quote from a post by Eric080 I am curious as to know how others (including Eric080 if he’d like) are able to reconcile the NAP with support of embryonic stem-cell research? It appears to me to be inconsistent to state that one is morally opposed to the government funding this reasearch, yet supportive of it in the private sector. Am I missing something?
Because blastocysts don’t have rights.
Really? Since human beings have a right to food, water and air and human blastocysts are human beings, it logically follows that human blastocysts have a right to food, water and air. Otherwise, you are equivocating on the word “blastocyst”. A blastocyst is not merely a thing, it is a stage.
I think trying to convince christians of ancap should be treated the same as any one else. I would try to keep the biblical religious aspect out of it and try to come from a more academic perspective.
The church and state have always had a relationship. With out the state the church in some countries would get a lot smaller, it is through state contributions that a lot of the churches can continue to exist. I know in the UK churches are on some of the best land. The land would be valuable if it did not have a centuries old church on it. I am not suggesting that we start building on church land, I am just saying.
I’m not sure what you mean by “[my] existence/signature manifest itself in [my] creation”. Certainly my creation (i.e. the re-arrangement of resources) wouldn’t exist were it not for me. However, I wouldn’t say that I’m present in my creation per se, as my creation isn’t literally a part of me.
Yes, I can envision a concept to describe creating artificial intelligence without having to teach it. But that concept (learning) would mean that I couldn’t predict exactly how or when artificial intelligence would be reached – only that it could be reached somehow at some point in the future. Whether the AI would be bound to its initial programming depends on the nature of that initial programming. For example, would it involve code that can modify itself? I would say, though, that the AI would certainly be constrained to the limits or laws of nature – just as we are. Aside from these things, my presence wouldn’t literally be in the AI, as I wouldn’t literally feel what it feels or think what it thinks.
John, a blastocyst may be a necessary stage of becoming human, but it does not follow that it is therefore a human. A sperm cell is a necessary condition of creating a human being, but sperm cells are not “half human.” A sperm cell is a sperm cell in the same way a blastocyst is a blastocyst. Sure it may develop into a human being and it is a necessary precursor to creating a human being, but a clump of cells with no identifiable form and no central nervous system it isn’t any different than a skin cell.
If you’re going to say “human blastocysts are human beings”, you have to define a human being. I probably disagree on your definition.
Wow! I didn’t even give a definition yet and you already probably disagree? Eric080, I just heard something close. Your mind. I think you are already predisposed not to consider certain things. That seems less than intellectually honest and you seem to have a habit of this. I am quickly losing what respect I may have had for you.
A woman’s emotional needs are neither obscure, incoherent, or in anyway difficult to provide- its quite easy when you get over the idea that men are “emotionally distant”, men aren’t. Being emotionally powerful doesn’t mean to act like a woman either. Its quite easy to be the bad boy/lover and the provider, I don’t understand this psychological impossibility. Perhaps more accurate would be “What I want is sex and everyone knows it, and I get frustrated between the girls I’ve met because they can’t decide if I’m there type, they’re probably schizo’s”. (But this all goes real off-topic so if you wanna continue this conversaton I’ll try to do it privately)
Good grief, John. If that is your measurement for endowing a person with respect, then I don’t necessarily care for your endowment. I induced that you and I probably have different definitions of what it means to be human based on your statement that a blastocyst is a human being. I have taken your position into account (derived from that statement) and estimated that, if you were to formalize what you think of a human being as being, I would probably disagree with it. That’s an absolutely justified line of reasoning.
Also, please don’t say that I am close minded about what being a human being would constitute. That’s not the discussion you are criticizing me over. I’d be willing to talk about that, but you are calling me close-minded because I made an assessment that we may differ on the definition, a simple statement in the context of that larger discussion. I even put the quantifier “probably” in front of it.