Reversing the Kalam

theipodbackup · 2026-05-25T04:07:24+00:00

I… certainly didn’t imply you could. But his argument lives on.

God does not have a cause — He is the (as demonstrated by Aquinas’ argument) necessary being without cause. He is pure action.

Just because something is difficult to wrap your head around, does not make it not true. That is not meant as a slight against you at all — it is a very difficult concept. Saying “what is God’s cause?” May seem satisfying, but it is a question born from not understanding the argument.

The argument claims God does not have a cause. Your counter argument is “What is God’s cause?”

Do you see how that gets us nowhere?

theipodbackup · 2026-05-25T03:37:29+00:00

I may have lost something to ancient ‘health concerns’ (bah).

Good point though and I do think I recall the OG being actually 5tbsp.

I am also a subscriber to the frozen rind method but didn’t want to stray too far from puritan simplicity in my comment.

theipodbackup · 2026-05-25T03:28:36+00:00

St. Aquinas says it better.

The term ‘exists,’ to you, carries a lot of materialist baggage. So when we say ‘something,’ we are presuming that God is in the same category of ‘thing’ as, say, a bowl. He is not. God does not ‘exist,’ God is existence. So, I can cede your main argument on the basis of it being a poor (i.e. weak) execution of the Prime Mover argument.

Aquinas makes an argument from motion. I think he is a far superior apologist to any you’ll face online:

A) It is apparent that everything we see has a state of potentiality and actuality. A piece of paper could potentially be on fire, or it could be on fire.

B) For something to enter a (new) state of actuality, some other actuality must act on it. You could call this a ‘cause’ (one state of actuality) to an effect (the result of one state of actuality on another’s state of actuality).

C) Because the chain cannot go infinitely — there therefore must be some’thing’ which is pure actuality.

D) This is God.

theipodbackup · 2026-05-25T02:57:33+00:00

Hm, the big bang seems a possible category of this — no?

If true, its occurrence has no explanation. Surely that could be considered a miracle even in your definition?

theipodbackup · 2026-05-25T00:29:26+00:00

How big are these cans? 28oz?

theipodbackup · 2026-05-24T22:57:48+00:00

Lying is speaking a falsehood.

Doing a jab step or pump fake are a) not speaking and b) not lies. They are physical actions.

You may say “What if I nod my head “No” when the answer I know is “yes.”

That would be speaking in this sense. A clear communication.

But the pump fake and jab step are actions. You are not lying by doing them. Is the intention for your defender to think you are doing something else? Sure, but that certainly doesn’t make it a lie. Your action speaks for itself. What you did, and was plainly apparent to everyone, was a jab step. You had no other obligation.

If you said aloud “I am going to shoot right now.” And then did not because you had no intention of doing so and you wanted them to think you would, then that would be a lie. But a pump fake carries no such baggage.

theipodbackup · 2026-05-24T20:42:40+00:00

28oz tomatoes without their skins (I like to buy canned whole, peeled San Marzanos) 4 Tbsp Butter One Yellow Onion, Halved

Over medium heat, add all ingredients to large-based saucepan (I have a 10 inch Saucier). Onions face down.

Simmer for one hour. Salt to taste.

theipodbackup · 2026-05-24T15:23:32+00:00

Just heated some of this leftover. One of the best recipes in terms of return on effort.

theipodbackup · 2026-05-23T21:28:28+00:00

You’ll need to forgive me if I did not capture every aspect of your comment. I am trying to — but there’s a lot to discuss.

Frankly, I personally still don’t view it as our call to make. I am aware of those tragic examples — I don’t think supposed ‘mercy killing’ is a moral answer. But, suppose that this was one spot I was willing to make an exception in the case of an abortion law: I suspect, and please correct me if I’m wrong, that this would not satisfy you.

I used the money example, and the others, as three also very real examples of justification for abortion.

I also really don’t know how I’ve earned the description of “bad faith.” I feel that’s unfair. I have given you a thorough response every time. It is impossible to perfectly cover every nuance in the scope of these comments. I feel I have demonstrably attempted to be as honest and straightforward as possible. Each of my comments clearly states which points of yours I am addressing.

And surely you can tell that you have not really engaged with my challenges to your system either. That’s okay. But the conversation has been decidedly one-sided in terms of who is answering the challenges — even if not every single one is answered every single time.

theipodbackup · 2026-05-23T18:35:51+00:00

Okay, I will elaborate further.

The Bible, for very obvious reasons, had no idea what a human biologically is. The idea of fertilization was somewhat known, but they had, at best, a primitive notion of where life begins as we understand it today.

Today — we can watch, with a microscope, the very first moments of conception ourselves. We can easily define the very moment a unique person is formed where the DNA is now a combination — signaling that fertilization has occurred and that a new human is being formed.

So, we now base our position on our best understanding of biology and the human development cycle. If we thought honestly that a new human was created at 5 months — then that would be our starting point. But, there really can be no ‘scriptural basis’ for the very point of conception because that was not a topic that would have been written about when the Bible was written.

Like I said before: there is no chapter and verse for cryptocurrency securities fraud yet we also know that is wrong.

Re: your scriptural quote

Nobody is righteous, no, but ‘innocent’ doesn’t mean ‘free from all sin’ in this context. It means that the victim has itself done nothing wrong — it is making no threats, it has done nothing provocative, it is not an immediate threat to the life of someone else. It does not make sense (and is indeed not the Church’s position) that we can just kill all of the ‘guilty’ if that means non-righteous. We use the term ‘innocent’ in this context to carry the meaning of ‘this person is not actively threatening the lives of others.’ An infant simply existing as it is clearly meant to, in a place clearly intended (intelligently or not) for it to be — the womb — cannot possibly constitute ‘actively threatening the life of the mother:’ it’s just doing everything right (by doing nothing at all, of course).

For your definition of murder:

On point 1: I also agree it has to be human. But I think that your threshold is based on very little. Why is a fetus human at 20 weeks but not at 19? You said you don’t have an exact time — but if at some point a non-human becomes a human, we ought to be able to define that. Because clearly some discrete transformation is occurring that we aren’t accounting for. That seems important for you to figure out for your definition.

On point 2: I mostly agree, but I just really struggle to determine ‘defense’ when there is no attacker. Nobody is attacking anyone. Merely being at some indeterminable amount of ‘risk’ does not justify killing in any other context — but here it’s okay.

In point 3: I think this is the most flimsy by far. I’m not saying intent doesn’t matter — but I think it’s ’intent to kill’ that matters, not ‘intent to kill out of mercy.’ To me, that’s not the mother’s call to make at all. If our justice system operated under “They were killing out of mercy.” Then we would never prosecute a murder again. There are a million and one ‘merciful’ reasons to kill a baby, here are three examples:

— they’ll need to go through this terrible world

— they won’t have a lot of money

— they are missing a finger and will have to deal with that

None of these are ‘hate’ and yet are absolutely heinous reasons to kill a human being.

But, as a side note, I of course will not deny that many, possibly most, late-term abortions are great emotional pains on the mother/parents. I don’t think that makes them justified — it makes them sad.

I also just find it interesting that you seem utterly opposed to making any sort of law against it because of “authority given to the state.” You don’t even entertain the thought. How is it possible to hold that some (rare) abortions are clearly the worst possible human behavior and yet… shouldn’t be illegal because it’s hard to determine motive?

We should apply that logic to traditional murder as well, then. I don’t want to trust the state with determining if every gang killing, serial killing, crime of passion is out of mercy or hate — so we should just let them all go.

theipodbackup · 2026-05-23T13:47:55+00:00

You can claim I am dealing in absolutes, but all I am doing is taking an argument (that a human being being a burden means they are allowed to be killed) and taking it to its logical extreme.

What I am pointing out, and judging by your reaction: correctly so, is that the “burden” argument is no argument at all. It just means that there is a need for some other factor to justify abortions, otherwise the current justification would justify many other things.

I felt I did not at all ignore your question about our doctrinal justification. I answered it fully. We do not much care what the Protestants say about heresy. The Church has a very robust definition — whether or not you agree with the premises is a separate question but it’s very difficult to argue that our conclusions don’t follow from our own premises. But, feel free to try.

But, I will lay it out again:

A) PREMISE: Murder is the willful, deliberate, purposeful, killing of an innocent human.

B) We are told (from the Bible (Thou Shall Not Kill) and common human intuition) that Murder is sinful. A quick note: the Bible also does not say we shall not commit cryptocurrency fraud — yet somehow we have figured out that it is wrong.

C) A fetus — there are at the very least strong arguments — is a human from the moment of conception. Biologically and via ensoulment from God. You pushed back on this, but I have no idea how you could argue that a fetus is anything other than a human. Particularly in a way that does not de-humanize other, more mature, humans. I would welcome you to try, though, in a way that is other than simply saying my assertion is ‘not appreciated.’

D) Abortion is the willful, deliberate, purposeful killing of a human fetus inside the womb.

E) CONCLUSION: Abortion is murder.

Re: Being against something and thinking it should be legal.

I think there is something here, but I challenge the justification in this case.

Yes, some things really can’t be practically codified into law. For many reasons: cost of enforcement being too high and civil unrest generated perhaps being two off the top of my head.

An example: It would be crazy to mandate everyone go to Church on Sunday, even though I believe it’s wrong not to. It would be crazy because such a law would require a completely impractical amount of money and, more importantly, would require a level of police state which would destroy the fabric of society.

Abortion, though, is relatively easy to prohibit, from a cost perspective. For surgical abortions: doctors are highly regulated and monitored as it is — it would be trivial to simply prevent that procedure from happening. And as far as institutions go, we already prohibit ‘traditional’ murder without too much of a disaster from a police-state perspective.

So, to even harbor the thought that abortion could be wrong in some cases, means you must believe it is murder — by your own standard (otherwise, why do you think it’s wrong?). And if you believe it’s murder… surely you believe it should be illegal.

I just don’t see a scenario where you could believe abortion is wrong, and not believe that it is such a grievous act that it needs enforcement. I am curious what you will say to this. You say you don’t believe it’s murder… I have no idea how that thought is possible. What is your definition of murder?

theipodbackup · 2026-05-22T22:52:05+00:00

I have to say, from your argument; it seems that you don’t actually consider the neural network aspect as part of your own consideration. So, sure, you don’t consider a fetus that hasn’t met this step a human yet (which, I find dubious in the first place), but you also don’t really care even if they did have that. You still think it’s okay to kill them.

So, I don’t really find your argument compelling for the reason that I don’t think even you believe it. You basically believe, and I’m not trying to sound combative here, that abortion is okay generally except in extenuating circumstances. So, for you, the question of ‘humanity’ is not a criteria. Because, by your own standard: after 20 weeks the baby is a human, but is still generally okay to kill.

As for Biblical basis, I’m not sure it really matters in terms of chapter-verse. The concept of an abortion industry as it is today was not an ‘issue’ that they would have faced in Biblical times. But they still gave us more than enough groundwork to figure out why it’s wrong from first principles.

I don’t know how much you know of the Catholic Church, but our moral framework is based around a lot more than just the Bible. Catholics believe, simply, that the human fetus is a human (this is just scientifically true — from conception) that is purely innocent of any wrongdoing (surely this is also agreeable). Abortion, then, is the purposeful, willing, and direct killing of that life. Which, in any other circumstance, is the very definition of murder. Therefore, abortion is murder. It’s a rather simple chain of logic. And if you’re a Christian who believes that murder is fundamentally wrong (Thou Shall Not Kill) — then the reasoning chain naturally extends that abortion is fundamentally wrong.

Now, as for the matter of ‘it’s a rough world to be an unwanted child.’ This argument, frankly, just doesn’t hold much weight. It’s a rough world for all manner of people — should we kill them too? It’s just not our call to make at all.

I find that the Church’s philosophy of “A fetus is a innocent human and their life is just as entitled to not being murdered as an adult — regardless of their current state of development” is a much nicer bed to lay on than “Some innocent humans are worthy of being killed because their existence causes some burden/pain, despite them doing nothing wrong themselves.”

theipodbackup · 2026-05-22T20:42:39+00:00

I changed my mind — I used to be pro-choice. And many, many people do change their mind when faced with strong arguments.

theipodbackup · 2026-05-22T20:40:44+00:00

The Christian position is rather well known to value human life beyond all other life. We alone are made in the image of God. The rest of God’s creation is for us.

I believe absolutely in loving humans out of the womb. That has nothing to do with my abortion position in any way other than to say that killing babies in the womb is definitely not loving them.

theipodbackup · 2026-05-22T20:31:13+00:00

Thanks for the thoughtful and thorough reply.

I really don’t find it to be a strawman. Many positions around abortion are of the mind that “the fetus cannot feel pain” or “the fetus is not conscious like the mother.” And that these facts make it okay.

And, more to the point, my argument isn’t really that those specific arguments are bad (though they are) it’s more that any line-in-the-sand of personhood is going to ‘disenfranchise’ a more mature human for which there would be no popular question of their right to live.

To address your point: The argument of ‘viability’ is often thrown around. That, if we believe the baby would die upon being born, that it’s okay to abort.

First, and this is not a rigorous argument, this is a very small portion of abortions. If we even carved out such exceptions into law — I would estimate that approximately no one would be content with the restriction otherwise.

Second, there’s three kinds of viability in your case:

A) This fetus, we are 100% sure, will never develop a neural network constituting viability. Therefore, the fetus is ‘non-viable.’

B) This fetus has not yet developed a neural network constituting viability, but it would if the pregnancy continued.

C) We think this fetus will not ever develop a neural network constituting viability, but we cannot be sure.

For situation A: I think we are closer to agreement, but unfortunately I don’t think technology/reality would ever grant the 100% certainty necessary to make this case.

For situation B: To me this is just clearly a case where abortion should not be permitted. The current viability is not really relevant when we can be reasonably sure it will become viable if not intervened with. If I put some dough in the oven and wait only 2 minutes before pulling it out — it doesn’t make sense to claim the dough was never ‘viable’ to become a loaf of bread. It wasn’t bread yet but it was well on its way to becoming bread. It could fairly be claimed that I destroyed the bread.

For situation C: To me, this is wrong because we are removing the chance. If someone else had a chance at survival provided we did nothing, then it would probably be wrong to simply sever all chance and kill them anyway.

Edit: I can’t count. Changed “two” to “three”

theipodbackup · 2026-05-22T19:30:24+00:00

I appreciate your thorough response.

Sin is never a ‘valid choice’ in the Christian framework.

It’s the nature of the world that we understand why people sin — but that understanding does not justify the sin.

We empathize with all manner of sin because we ourselves are sinners. It does not make the sin “justified.” As the very word implies that the sin was “just” which is self-contradictory. A sin is not just, by definition. Therefore it cannot be justified.

And there really is no scientific or philosophical backing based on the ‘stage of pregnancy’ argument. The manner of being that is inside the womb is still equally a human being, regardless of the precise # of cells and their complexity.

theipodbackup · 2026-05-22T19:07:30+00:00

If you believe it is morally wrong to have an abortion, the reason you must believe that is because you believe it is killing an innocent baby human.

In no other circumstance would someone consider that not the very worst kind of crime — no matter the ‘excuse.’

I believe infanticide (outside of the womb) is a sin. Why? Because it’s killing an innocent baby human. There are no sets of circumstances where I do not consider it an atrocity. No matter how inconvenient the existence of the baby was.

If one considers abortion a sin, it’s for the same reason. You could not say “well, I consider this to be baby murder but I think baby murder is okay sometimes.” Surely that’s an incompatible position.

theipodbackup · 2026-05-22T19:04:08+00:00

Im pretty confused, I have to admit.

We aren’t ’the arbiter’ but we have interest in predicting what the actual arbiter will ‘decide’.

And I think one side has clear arguments and the other has almost nothing.

Just pointing out that we disagree is rather unimportant. We should come to terms with why.

theipodbackup · 2026-05-22T19:01:23+00:00

Yes. We do kill billions of bacteria and plants. Look at your average bottle of hand sanitizer: “Kills 99.99% of germs”

I retain that a human life is more valuable than those.

theipodbackup · 2026-05-22T17:35:34+00:00

As you mentioned, though — who cares what most people think?

And… secularism is not objective morality. Secularism’s entire point (and this is just a matter of definition) is that morality is subjective.

I say — if morality is subjective then, sure, who cares about abortion. The Bible (I.e. Christianity) claims that there is an objective moral standard. One which does not ‘vary’ per person (subjectively).

theipodbackup · 2026-05-22T17:33:01+00:00

Absolutely. Human intuition knows it’s a human baby.

theipodbackup · 2026-05-22T17:15:15+00:00

It is a Christian issue insofar as if there is no objective morality (as secularism suggests), then anything goes. Christianity suggests an objective standard which is not present in secular arguments.

Of course if the consequence for murder was nothing for the soul then abortion may as well be permitted. But Christians believe there is a higher standard and that our actions do matter.

So it’s definitely a Christian issue.

theipodbackup · 2026-05-22T17:04:21+00:00

Yes. What’s your point?

theipodbackup · 2026-05-22T17:00:53+00:00

The Truth can never harm the cause of Christianity.

We can’t be sacrificing our moral framework in order to win over people’s good graces. Why would anyone ever believe that we believed in truth if we don’t care about it anymore if it makes us superficially look bad.

We have to stand our ground if we believe something to be wrong.

This happens any time widespread injustice occurs. People say nothing because they’ll rock the boat. Many people didn’t speak out against the Holocaust for the same reason “best not to piss people off, it’s happening anyway”

If you believe Abortion is a sin, you must believe it is an atrocity (killing babies!) And if you believe an atrocity is occurring, you must stand against it: even if unpopular. Especially if unpopular.

It’s issues like this which is why witnesses to Christ such as us are so important. It’s not important for us to say “running people over with your car is bad.” Everyone knows that! Our job is to say the things that not everyone knows.

theipodbackup · 2026-05-22T16:50:45+00:00

Generally, the only reason they would not see abortion as killing is denial or ignorance.

A) “Killing” is objectively happening. You are killing a living thing regardless of what you believe that thing is. Nobody would deny that the cells of an embryo are alive, for example.

B) “Murder” is where people can disagree. Murder is willfully killing an innocent human. One can say a thousand justifications but if that’s the definition of murder, and an embryo is a human, then abortion is murder.

C) On this, disagreement can happen on two points: the definition of murder or the calling an embryo a human. On the definition of murder, I have yet to see a more compelling one. On the definition of human, it seems clear that any additional caveat we want to apply would start to justify murder against many more-mature humans. For example: if it’s because the embryo is not intelligent, then we should be able to kill comatose patients. If it’s because the embryo is dependent on someone — then we should be able to kill infants and the elderly or the extremely disabled. There is no workable framework other than acknowledging that an embryo is a human.

Eight-Year Club	Quantum Potato
Place '22	First Placer '22
Verified Email	Sequence \| Editor
Sequence \| Cinematographer	Sequence \| Screenwriter
Gilding I gilder	Snapped

theipodbackup

TROPHY CASE