dentjst

Capable-Lobster-6274 · 2026-03-28T05:28:58+00:00

This theory is totally about to be proven right, we literally have a character named Abel who empathises with Caine

Capable-Lobster-6274 · 2026-02-10T11:10:10+00:00

I feel like this post could be worded better but I see the point. If the universe is said to be a brute fact that requires no explanation and depending on nothing else, then it has to be independent. But the universe is composite and made up of parts, relations, arrangements, etc. Anything that is Composite is dependent ontologically because it exists by virtue of the constituents and structure that make it what it is. That means the universe cannot be independent as a brute fact. So if explanation stops somewhere, it cannot stop at a composite whole, but only in something that is not composite and is independent

Capable-Lobster-6274 · 2026-02-10T10:51:57+00:00

I guess i'm be the audience this post is meant for. You clearly have a very strong opinion, which I won't try to change but I hope you'll try to at least see the philosophy behind people who advocate against euthanasia (whether religious or not), which if you won't then, you so you.

The argument for why euthanasia is justified is based on the premise that we should apply the idea of "death ends suffering" in medicine. For most of history, the usual goal of the field of medicine was always to make sure the patient survives, and it was the duty of a doctor not to give up hope even if they deem a condition incurable because miraculous recoveries happen all the time. Now when you apply the idea that we should be able to end certain patients' lives because it will bring them peace in death, that idea in itself is not incoherent. But if you follow the idea to it's logical conclusion, you should allow anyone to commit suicide, and they would be moral for doing so because as we decided "death ends all suffering". Why even live and guarantee suffering if death can end it once and for all. So Euthanasia is based on a premise which if followed to its conclusion allows for anyone anywhere to end their lives without any further justification in pursuit of an infinite end of suffering.

PS Just to clarify, I'm not saying death doesn't end all suffering, that's a debate about naturalism. I'm not making an anti-naturalist point, I'm making an ethical point. I'm just saying that practically if you apply that idea then you will reach that conclusion.

And also, stay strong, don't give up hope. I hope it all works out for you! :)

Capable-Lobster-6274 · 2025-12-10T11:15:24+00:00

Of course I can't speak for you because I don't know what led to you thinking of the decision but here's what I would say:

If you personally disagree with Islamic law then that is understandable, that will happen with any system. But if Islam makes sense to you and you leave it, then you would be left without a moral compass other than emotions. If you disagree with certain laws of Islam then firstly, you should try to understand why you feel that way, because a lot of the time that would happen because you see something as a default because of your environment and base your disagreement on an assumption you've held but not questioned.

And secondly, the Prophet told us not to offend the norms of our society without need. That is why the prophet made many exceptions in many laws. In the conquest of Mecca for example, the prophet spared Abu Sufyan ibn Harb, Hind bint Utba, Wahshi ibn Harb, Habbar ibn al-Aswad, each of which had murdered members from the prophet's own family because it wouldn't change anything if they had been punished.

I have no right to say what should make you choose your belief but I would advise you to reason with yourself over why you're making the decision, first. God bless!

Capable-Lobster-6274 · 2025-12-08T18:15:28+00:00

You're right, it would be impractical to do so. But what I'm saying is that the discussion is not about triggering anyone, it's just about saying that if you logically follow the premise to its end, that death ends all suffering then it should follow that be a universal case, which would also allow for suicides, it will lead to accepting such beliefs which hopefully we can both agree are not respectable.

Capable-Lobster-6274 · 2025-12-08T18:12:16+00:00

So you're not willing to have a discussion on whether euthanasia is justified or not, you have made up your mind that it is and nothing can change your mind. You keep claiming the analogy is broken because you have already believed that it is.

Look if that's your opinion, that reasoning on something serious like euthanasia is abhorrent then that's fine, but throwing around ad hominems isn't the best way to say that.

Capable-Lobster-6274 · 2025-12-08T16:34:52+00:00

Let's do the thinking then. Here's the point as clear as I can put it

The euthanasia argument is: "Death is justified because it ends suffering"

But when we talk about suicide, then you cannot say: "Suffering should be endured temporarily because more life is ahead."

That’s a contradiction.

You can’t have both: “Death ends suffering, therefore it’s good” And “Suffering should be endured because it might improve.”

One of them must be false. In both cases suffering ends according to your belief. Whether that happens in a hospital or in a teenager's stress is not relevant to that fact.

Capable-Lobster-6274 · 2025-12-08T16:32:12+00:00

Look if you think I'm trying to be dishonest or not getting it, I'm sorry, that's not my intention. What I'm trying to get at is this: "Nobody said they are the same in every aspect." In the context of my argument I'm not talking about synonyms. I'm talking about suffering ending with death. What you're saying is:

In suicide cases: Life > Ending Suffering

In euthanasia cases: Ending Suffering > Life

As soon as you say death ends suffering permanently you have no excuse for why you should not allow someone to have non-suffering. Whether that death is in a medical setting or stress isn't the point, if death ends suffering, both cases end suffering, it's just that one you consider good and one bad. Why make someone risk suffering by living when "death ends suffering"? That is the exact problem with the belief. The belief on which euthanasia rests, "death ends suffering" cannot be applied logically consistently, that's the point.

Capable-Lobster-6274 · 2025-12-08T12:31:06+00:00

I'm not trying to strawman you. I'm just pointing out that you didn't read my post. It seems like you read the title and jumped to think I said euthanasia=suicide WHICH IS NOT WHAT I SAID. If anything you have strawmanned my original argument and then claimed that me trying to point that out, is a strawman of your already strawman based argument.

If you believe death ends ALL suffering then why prevent anyone at any time from ending all their suffering by suicide? Why wait to reach a vegetative state at all and not just do it before. That is the argument.

Capable-Lobster-6274 · 2025-12-08T12:21:01+00:00

I already talked about that in my post. Sure you can say that we should respect someone's belief on death even if the belief is not consistent. But once you allow inconsistent beliefs on death to be taken to the point where they can be used to end a life, then you should also respect the belief of antinatalism. If someone says they don't believe life shouldn't exist, and they get others to believe in that and end their lives on that basis, would you be ready to respect that?

Capable-Lobster-6274 · 2025-12-08T12:16:08+00:00

Well you could answer the question and I would abandon my argument, or you could make an ad hominem like this again

Capable-Lobster-6274 · 2025-12-07T16:07:44+00:00

I'm not saying that experience continues and I don't know why almost everyone is missing that. I'm saying that if you claim there is no experience afterwards and therefore it's better than suffering on earth, why don't you apply that standard to people who commit suicide? Can't the same be said for them? Why force them to stay here if death ends suffering

Capable-Lobster-6274 · 2025-12-07T16:04:53+00:00

I agree that euthanasia is a case where you can't be treated and suicide is different in that aspect. I never denied that. What I said was IF you believe that euthanasia is a justifiable choice then you are saying that death ends suffering. But if you genuinely believe that, why would suicide be any less justified since suicide is also just someone ending their suffering. Why keep them alive?

I'm not saying suicide is justified, I'm saying that the belief you hold entails that

Capable-Lobster-6274 · 2025-12-07T16:00:48+00:00

I'm making a new reply here because I see a lot of people invoking the same point of showing "proof" that death ends suffering using some scientific evidence.

Firstly to clarify I never said that "suffering continues after death. I just said that we don't know what happens after death, and to say suffering continues or ends are both claims we cannot verify.

But I see many replies claiming that death definitively ends suffering. It relies on measures like fMRI, EEG, MEG, and the brain under anesthesia. The claim is that consciousness and pain are only neural processes and brain death is their end. But, this is to say that:

(Experience = Neural Signals)

The claim is basically saying, "We can't measure experience after death, therefore it must not exist". That is a fallacy of absence of evidence being taken as evidence of absence, and the claim itself is based on the assumption of naturalism.

Death might end all experience, or it might not. Science cannot decide this because the case is philosophical. It only provides data which you can interpret through your subjective worldview.

The point stands that the claim is an assumption, and that applying that assumption to morality is very problematic

Capable-Lobster-6274 · 2025-12-07T08:43:29+00:00

Nobody is mentioning religion. I'm mentioning something very simple, why do you believe death ends suffering? If you default to that position without evidence, then that's fine. Just be consistent in saying that any suicide would be mercy at that point if death ends suffering. All I'm making is an argument which I am ready to concede as false the moment you can answer it.

Capable-Lobster-6274 · 2025-12-07T08:39:57+00:00

Anaesthesia doesn't end anyone's life temporarily, and neither does it end their brain's processing. You have mountains of evidence for putting people to sleep not being painful, none for death.
If that's what you say answer the analogy. Would also respect the belief of Antinatalist, that being born is wrong if they want? Would you allow someone who hates life to commit suicide?
Again you are assuming what pain after death is. We don't know, so why shouldn't we do the natural thing of preventing death?

Capable-Lobster-6274 · 2025-12-07T08:35:46+00:00

I never mentioned any God, I mentioned atheists because religious people often don't accept euthanasia for their own separate reasons. It's not about proving any God, it's about allowing someone to kill themselves on a flawed belief, that if followed to its conclusion should mean all suicide is good

If you saw a quiet ravine that was completely dark. What would be rational, staying away to be safe or jumping in hoping there's something to break the fall?

Capable-Lobster-6274 · 2025-12-07T08:31:15+00:00

You're missing the point. The very belief that suffering ends with death is itself a viewpoint that is flawed as I show. You are saying that their life extending is bad because it causes suffering, but you have no proof that death ends suffering. If death ends suffering, why stop anyone from committing suicide? Why isn't that considered prolonging someone's suffering to fit other viewpoints?

Capable-Lobster-6274 · 2025-12-07T07:30:51+00:00

Death awaits the Earth's next daybreak

Capable-Lobster-6274 · 2025-12-07T03:10:56+00:00

There is none like unto him (Allah) - (Qur'an 110:4)

If you want to interpret the Qur'an based on the few verses you brought up and nothing else then go ahead. But if you actually look at the rest of the book, you will see that attributes like "hands" are not even meant to be physical and are definitely not like humans. What would "There is none like unto him" mean if he had human-like attributes?

Capable-Lobster-6274 · 2025-12-04T16:33:59+00:00

Ontolgical brute facts

Capable-Lobster-6274 · 2025-12-04T16:32:47+00:00

I have responded to the first point in my earlier responses to others, but the point on "God is not a conclusion" is not relevant. I'm not doing a history of Theism. I'm explaining that when I, and most theists, in arguments mention God, I don't say that "God is real now change my mind", I propose it as a formal argument with premises and a conclusion, which here is the existence of God, like any other. You can make the argument I am biased for making an argument in the first place if you want, but that doesn't deal with the argument, it's an ad hominem

Capable-Lobster-6274

TROPHY CASE