|
1 registered members (AndrewAMD),
642
guests, and 3
spiders. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
cause 101
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#69181
06/01/06 09:37
06/01/06 09:37
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,982
Frankfurt
jcl
OP
Chief Engineer
|
OP
Chief Engineer
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,982
Frankfurt
|
In the last time, strange claims were made about cause in several threads here, like this: Quote:
everything has a cause.
and this
Quote:
God, who is outside of cause.
However, neither the first nor the second claim was given any reasons for. In fact the first statement is plain wrong, and the second one is at least self-contradictory in its context.
First: We know that on the atomic scale things happen all the time without a cause. An example for this is nuclear decay. It's predicted by quantum theory and proven by experiment that radioactive atoms spontaneously split without any internal mechanism triggering this event:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bell%27s_theorem
Another example of an event happening without a cause is the spontaneous creation of matter out of nothing, which also happens all the time around us:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect
So, think about this when telling someone "everything has a cause" the next time. Most events in our world have no cause.
Second: Is God outside of cause?
Yes, in the sense of modern religion, where God is considered as an idea of ethics or a principle of creation. You can then assume that this principle is an axiom, and thus has no cause.
No, in the sense of a superstitious religion, which believes that one or several gods control magical or supernatural forces within the realm of our nature - for instance for creating animals out of nothing. This places God or God's force as a supernatural, physical entity within our universe. And then, when you believe everyting in our universe has a cause, your supernatural God must have a cause too (unless he's an event on an atomic scale).
This is just a little suggestion that platitudes like "everything has a cause" are not always useable as arguments in a discussion.
|
|
|
Re: cause 101
[Re: jcl]
#69182
06/01/06 12:41
06/01/06 12:41
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,900
Bielefeld, Germany
Pappenheimer
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,900
Bielefeld, Germany
|
I partly disagree. Although my reply could turn out as an affirmation!  My first thought: I disagree, because your examples are from the borders of the _possibility_ of our observations, means we have only particles and waves to measure particles and waves, means our tools to measure are as big as the measures they can't measure smaller things. We still expect that there are causes that we cannot observe, probably never can observe. Second, we are not concerned about these non-caused events, because we can observe certain conditions of probability that these events happen. Third, we know of these effects at the atomic level, but we expect to find relations of cause and effect at every higher level (chemical, biological, social). Okey, that are my first and second and third thought!  But, then I remember socail and psychological events which happen without cause. Look at the person running amok in Berlin. Unpredictabel, like the weather, like any deterministic chaos, any self-referential system... (ah, finally reached my favourite subject!  ) But, at least, we, even scientists, look at such events as the non-avoidable rest of risk.
|
|
|
Re: cause 101
[Re: jcl]
#69183
06/01/06 13:46
06/01/06 13:46
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
NITRO777
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
|
Quote:
First: We know that on the atomic scale things happen all the time without a cause. An example for this is nuclear decay. It's predicted by quantum theory and proven by experiment that radioactive atoms spontaneously split without any internal mechanism triggering this event
How do you explain the existence of radioactivity in the elements to begin with?
How did vacuum energy come to exist in the universe?
How did the resonance fields responsible for the Casimir effect come into existence?
Everything has a cause, and a beginning, regardless of your dogma.  If you cant see that everything has to have come from somewhere then I cant help you, your brain wiring works differently than mine.  In order to believe that phenomena can exist without a cause, you have to close your mind in so many ways. I find that thinking too limited and narrow minded.
Quote:
Second: Is God outside of cause?
Matter and energy couldnt have created itself. You need an original cause which is outside time,space and matter to create time space and matter. A good example is a computer, the answer to a computer's creation is not found within itself. A computer could not create itself from the inside-out.
Once again, its just a different thinking paradigm. If someone is content to live their lives without questioning where it all came from, then I envy them, I could never ignore the obvious, or distort the truth, the clarity of creation is the natural logic, there is so much intuition you have to discard in order to free yourself from God. Its ridiculous. Ignorance is bliss, and you are free to be as ignorant as you choose. Freedom to choose is the God-like nature.
Last edited by NITRO777; 06/01/06 13:53.
|
|
|
Re: cause 101
[Re: jcl]
#69185
06/01/06 23:22
06/01/06 23:22
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Quote:
I see what you mean, but I've meant it slightly different. Who is going to fall for a trap construction like that? It's basically stating that you better believe in it on one hand, but on the other hand it claims there's no way back and the world will become more hostile.
I don't think they meant it would make the world more hostile in general, just more hostile towards christians to pressure them into not being a christian, if you will.
In fact, the bible seems to say that if everyone would 'turn back', things would become very garden of eden-ish.
edit: Maybe I'm mistunderstanding what you're saying. If you can quote the verse that might clear things up, because we might be talking about two completely different ideas.
Quote:
It seems to me you've sold your soul instead my friend.
This seemed to me, to be something of a non sequitor.
Quote:
For example push one of your keyboard's buttons. Let's assume you've pushed the button with number [1/!] Then what caused the button to be pushed and the number 1 to be displayed on screen? Was it your action of actually pressing the button or was it your mind causing you to take action? Or was it my text telling you to do so as an example? Well there you go, at least 3 possible and very true causes. One could even go further and state that the manufacturer cause the button to be made and thát made it possible in the first place to use that particular button, so infact the manufacturer caused the 1 to appear on screen. Yes, it's farfetched off course, however without the manufacturer making that button, there would be no button to push.
The reason why you won't find anything without a cause, is because a cause can be so much things.
This is logically false. All you did was denote a chain of cause-and-effect. That doesn't mean that there was no cause along the way.
Consumer demand is the cause that creates the effect of the manufacturer, who is the cause of the creation of the keyboard, you telling me to hit 1 has the effect of changing my brain waves, which has the effect of my using my brain to send an electric pulse to the muscles in my hand, the pressure of my finger on the key has the effect of a number being displayed on screen. Cause and effect. But more importantly, cause. Just because the chain of events is made up of many causes, does not mean that all of those causes are the SAME cause. Cause exists.
Quote:
The reason I've mentioned 'time' is because 1 minute is time, 2 hours is time but millions of years is also time. Time is a natural but artificial indicator or factor in order for our minds to make sure events that happen make sense in a way. The same way that we need 'causes' in order for events to make even more sense.
Yes, actions require time in a way, however you can label those required moments with anything you want, we've just agreed upon the 'seconds, minutes, hours'(there's more to it) time system. You see, it's artificial.
Maybe the way the symbolism of time in our heads is artificial, but time does exist. Otherwise we wouldn't be able to slap labels like minutes, seconds, etc onto it. If there is no time, then when did the big bang happen?
Quote:
If God exists then he would have a cause, right? Nothing can exist without cause, you've stated yourself that no rational thinking person can state otherwise.
I'll get into this when I respond to JCLs post.
Quote:
However you haven't literally seen God, so why do you believe in him anyways? We find all sorts of causes for events that have happened and none of any event you can possibly think off explicitely needs a God as cause.
Well, the universe for one, life for another. Evolutionists love to talk about thermodynamics, but apparently they have no sense of what it is if they think life can happen accidentally.
Well, actually I KNOW a lot of them don't know anything about thermodynamics when they bring up snowflakes and crystals.
Quote:
Give me one example of an event that needs a God.
You. Creation of the universe.
Quote:
First: We know that on the atomic scale things happen all the time without a cause. An example for this is nuclear decay. It's predicted by quantum theory and proven by experiment that radioactive atoms spontaneously split without any internal mechanism triggering this event:
If its spontaneous, then why can we slap absolutes like half-life onto radioactive atoms? Surely, if it just happened randomly then the value wouldn't always be constant.
Furthermore, this simply puts a gap in the chain. Some cause has the effect of matter. With matter in existence, another cause has the effect of making some material radioactive. Then, nothing has the effect of causing decay (maybe). However, you can't throw out the whole chain, just because you don't know one of the links.
Without a cause for matter, then there's nothing to be made radioactive, so indirectly it still has a cause. But this is somewhat beside your point. Either way, from researching it further, some people said there was a cause for it. And no, not on creationist websites where I doubt they would even care about the subject.
Unless of course you're right about matter being made spontaneously. But let's take a look at that.
You've simply clouded the problem. I take it, from reading your links, that you say matter can be spontaneously created by black holes with virtual particles? This doesn't sound like matter being created from nothing. It just sounds like slapping a scientific theory on the statement, "Matter comes from the great beyond!" In a sense.
Quote:
Second: Is God outside of cause?
Here's the problem I've noticed that materialists have. By your very nature, you're so convinced that all there is, is the universe, that you can't even imagine anything beyond it. Just consider it in a rhetorical fashion for a moment.
However, you keep speaking of God in the sense that he was created, by Himself, along with the universe. Which makes absolutely no sense. You talk as if He plays by the rules of our universe, which He would not.
In essence, you've said that things can happen without a cause. Ignoring for the moment that we may not know the cause, this just takes us back to the original problem, because without the universe already in existence, we find that none of these causeless events even occur.
Of course, I could have been reading those links wrong. I would have had to have followed a hundred links in order to completely catch up on something that you seem to be fairly familiar with. Which I may well do, I found it all mildly fascinating.
Quote:
Look at the person running amok in Berlin. Unpredictabel, like the weather, like any deterministic chaos, any self-referential system...
That doesn't mean we can't partially grasp it. Certainly we can find what in the brain triggers deviant behavior, though we may not be able to completely grasp it or predict it. There are some things we'll never know. Humans don't act strange, become serial killers, or what-have-you for no reason. There's a cause for it. We won't be able to nail stuff like that, and the weather down anytime in the near future because its so absolutely complex. But we can at least grasp the basic cause-and-effect relationship.
Though I tentatively, generally agree with what you said in your post besides that.
Anyway, whether or not these things really happen for no reason at all, still doesn't disprove my point. They happen, because something caused the universe to exist in which they can happen for no reason. This isn't a direct relationship, but its still a requisite.
Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 06/01/06 23:25.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: cause 101
[Re: NITRO777]
#69186
06/01/06 23:36
06/01/06 23:36
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
Quote:
Everything has a cause, and a beginning, regardless of your dogma. If you cant see that everything has to have come from somewhere then I cant help you, your brain wiring works differently than mine. In order to believe that phenomena can exist without a cause, you have to close your mind in so many ways. I find that thinking too limited and narrow minded.
Ok, so where does your God come from? What caused it to be allpowerfull? Assuming it has always been around is proof of limited thinking and narrow mindedness if you ask me.
But I do partly agree with you, it's hard to grasp the fact that something might not have a cause at all, however it's questionable if this fact is in your religion's advantage or not...
Quote:
Matter and energy couldnt have created itself. You need an original cause which is outside time,space and matter to create time space and matter.
Time doesn't require a creation, it would be there even if there's no universe with events or no space at all, it just would be useless, space doesn't need a creation either, can there be something like anti-space or no-space? (an object blocking a certain amount of space, still indicates the existence of space in that particular area.) If there ís anti-space, then it's irrelevant, since we can only move through space, not anti-space. As for matter, if there's time and space and things can spontaniously come into existence simply because they can (no cause or no visible or provable cause), then I still don't see a reason for any God to be involved in the process. It's not obvious at all unlike you've stated. How did God create matter? Did he clap his hands and voíla, there you go the universe was born? A theory involving a God has the same problem, creating matter from nothing, assuming there was nothing before there was something.
Quote:
Anyway, whether or not these things really happen for no reason at all, still doesn't disprove my point. They happen, because something caused the universe to exist in which they can happen for no reason. This isn't a direct relationship, but its still a requisite.
Far from a direct relationship off course, besides, stating something exist simply because it can, is no cause on itself, only an observation. It doesn't prove and might not be possible to prove wether or not the existence of the universe and those things that happen without a cause are infact related. Let alone the fact wether or not any of those things were created in the first place.
Cheers
Last edited by PHeMoX; 06/01/06 23:45.
|
|
|
Re: cause 101
[Re: PHeMoX]
#69187
06/02/06 00:35
06/02/06 00:35
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
This line of argument is absolutely pointless. You guys see the universe as the be all and end all. You can't even rhetorically consider anything outside of the universe. Your version of imagining something 'outside' the universe is to say that it has physical properties, which would place it squarely 'within' our universe.
I think we've reached a stand still because this is one area science can't directly touch, and it comes down to our worldview. I say that there's something universally incomprehensible as an outside cause to our universe. You apparently can't even imagine this concept, and instead keep trying to throw physical properties on something upon which physical properties cannot be thrown.
Look at what you're doing. When you try to consider a God, who is physical in no way. You start adding physical properties to him. You can't look beyond the shroud of our existence, and I think that explains your worldview a bit (for better or worse, I don't know). To you, even hypothetically there cannot be anything except what's in our universe.
However, you can't escape that matter must have a cause. Reality doesn't just pop out of thin air. If you follow this to its obvious conclusion, then you might understand something about the nature of God. But you mentally cannot. What is blocking you from doing this, even from within the safe confines of rhetoric (which means considering alien ideas doesn't have to offend your beliefs), I don't know. Its almost as if you've purposefully cut yourself off from a certain line of thinking. Although, perhaps some of it has to do with the fact that you're more interested in proving me wrong, than considering other viewpoints.
I have no problem looking at things from your viewpoint. I used to agree with you, there was a time I said to myself, "We're alone in the universe." That was when I became an atheist after being a 'christian' (I put it in quotes because I believed in God, but I didn't really have a reason to care that he existed so I just smoked weed and had sex all the time). Its easy for me to consider the universe as being all there as (although I don't see it that way generally), and I can grasp the way you look at the world. But you guys seem to be unable to do the opposite. It would be the equivelant of you saying that God doesn't exist because matter can create itself out of absolute nothingness. And my counterargument being, "What, is matter sitting off in heaven somewhere? Is it incomprehensible?" I couldn't possibly argue your point that way, because all I'm doing is creating a strawman by not looking at things other than from within my static worldview. Obviously I'm not even talking about the same matter you are, because I'm putting your matter within my worldview, and it conflicts.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: cause 101
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#69188
06/02/06 01:12
06/02/06 01:12
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
There's no point in wanting to 'prove you wrong', that's not my motivation, it's my argumentation.
Yes, you could say that different worldviews don't even allow to see other views correct, because you can't believe in 2 worldviews at the same time and use the right 'beliefs' accordingly. I disagree though, that this makes the debate pointless. We see a lot of pros and cons for both worldviews, which is good. A lot of arguments have passed through against God, but also some arguments against evolution have passed through. (yes, this is meant purposely biased, because it's my personal judgement at the same time. ). Being objective is relative, because our worldview defines our opinions, being convinced about something doesn't really aid in this. We just have to live with that, I nonetheless encourage you to go on with this debate.
Cheers
|
|
|
Re: cause 101
[Re: PHeMoX]
#69189
06/02/06 02:46
06/02/06 02:46
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
NITRO777
Expert
|
Expert
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 3,010
analysis paralysis
|
Quote:
Ok, so where does your God come from? What caused it to be allpowerfull? Assuming it has always been around is proof of limited thinking and narrow mindedness if you ask me.
No I am not limited in thinking of an unlimited God. This thread is for talking about the infinite and God is infinite,by the very definition of God. There are no limits on my mind.
Quote:
Time doesn't require a creation
Perhaps, but time as we know it needed a creation. All the laws that govern nature and the universe depend upon time as we know it. For example the speed of light would be impossible to calculate without a time referential.
However God has no beginning, so He doesnt have the same concept of time as we do.
You can ask me what God's cause was, and then ask where that came from, and then ask where that came from for an infinte amount of times but eventually you have to settle on an original cause which has existed from time immemorial.
So hopefully you can understand the point that I am trying to make when I say that the original cause would have to had been seperate from the effect.
God would have been seperate from time as we know it. As a matter of fact according to the Bible, time is almost meaningless to God, because the Bible says that "a day is like a thousand years to the Lord"
So as you said, time does not have to be created. But time for US started with the point in time in which this universe came into existence.
Quote:
space doesn't need a creation either
Once again, our space needs a creation. The Bible talks about heaven and hell. Neither of these places exist in "our space" or "our universe".
Quote:
As for matter, if there's time and space and things can spontaniously come into existence simply because they can (no cause or no visible or provable cause), then I still don't see a reason for any God to be involved in the process
Because all matter couldnt have spontaneously generated, there has to be a source.
Once again, if your mind can only accept what you can observe, or what you have knowledge of I really think you are limited. I am not condemning you for this limited thinking, I am just pointing out that for me personally I must allow my thoughts the freedom of faith and belief. To me personally, I would be denying intuition and instinct within my own mind, and I dont like to deny my mind
We Christians do not deny science at all, becuase that also would be a limit. We accept science, but we accept God also, which we perceive as superior to science.
It is really a question of who or what God means to you. You say that you have no God, yet you most certainly do. Listen carefully: "Whatever you accept as the final authority is your God" So you accept science and observation as the final authority in your lives. Science determines your world view. Thereby science influences your action, your decisions, and your speech.
Christians also accept science, but we do NOT accept it as final authority. We recognize that science is limited and incomplete and often wrong. We recognize that science cannot give us all the answers. Especially answers about our origins. So we accept the God of the Bible as the final authority, so He is our God.
Taking my example further, there are many many people on the earth who dont consider cosmology or abiogenesis at all. They neither have Judeo-Christian God, NOR science for their final authority. Maybe they have their girlfriend for their final authority, maybe their school peers, maybe their jobs, sports, etc etc
Christians have all those things also, but we consider them as idols if they come before the final authority of the Bible, because Christians see the Word Of God itself(contained within the Bible) to be God. In other words we consider the Word of God as God Himself. THere is no seperation between what God said and who God is. So an atheist might take science to be his "word of god".
So to make a long story short you trust Newton, Einstein and Darwin as the final authority. We Christians also trust those guys, but not as the final authority.
But we dont condemn you for your beliefs, sometimes I get a little angry if things dont go my way, just like everyone else, but I dont hold any grudges and at the end of the day I think every ones opinion is important.
But yes I do feel bad if you cannot see what I consider the limitless wonders of God, and I feel that you are trapped to a meaningless worldview which I am powerless to help you overcome.
Science is your god, and your god cares nothing for you.
|
|
|
Re: cause 101
[Re: NITRO777]
#69190
06/02/06 06:32
06/02/06 06:32
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Quote:
Assuming it has always been around is proof of limited thinking and narrow mindedness if you ask me.
Yes! Thank you! You've just inadvertently said exactly what I've been trying to say all along. [Adding time to a God who created time] is proof of limited thinking and narrow mindedness if you ask me. I just wouldn't have been so harsh about it. 
Quote:
Time doesn't require a creation,
Ok. So nothing exists for all eternity because there is no time. Then somewhere in this eternity, time comes into existence. Let's examine the logic of this problem.
Time doesn't exist, neither does matter, or space. All of these things were created sometime just slightly before the big bang. But if time doesn't exist then automatically that means nothing exists for eternity (matter and space have to be created at the same time as time). There's no two ways around this. Nothing exists eternally (that's a long time), but then within the eternal nothingness (which includes no time) time comes into existence. How can time not exist for eternity, and still exist as we comprehend it? By the very nature of time not existing at any given point before time, it cannot exist. In fact, its logically impossible to even entertain the idea.
Time is eternal? Then that sucks because thermodynamics would dictate that the universe became useless to life an eternity ago. Yet here we are. Not to mention that eternal time still explains nothing.
You can't use the excuse that the universe goes through phases. Heat (the thermodynamic kind) came into being an eternity ago along with time (in other words it was eternal). But that means that no matter how far back in time you go, thermodynamics has caused the universe to run out of 'juice'. We can never be in any stage other than lifelessness in this universe if time is eternal. We missed the 'living' stage of the universe infinity ago. In fact, if we travelled back a trillion years and then stopped for a second, and travelled back a trillion years over and over again, even if we were immortal and could do this as long as we wanted to...we could never go back in time far enough to reach a point in which the universe was inhabitable because there's still an infinite amount of time before that for heat to become 'evenly distributed', and thus life cannot exist.
In fact, this just goes to show that you can't apply infinity to the physical universe without running into far too many problems that can't be solved. Infinity only exists in math.
Time was created.
Quote:
space doesn't need a creation either, can there be something like anti-space or no-space?
No, nor would that have anything to do with space being created. However, where does space come from. Does it just like to pop up out of nothing? At what point does no space at all (that means no room for anything, nothing blocking it, nothing at all) at what point does no space become space? How does this happen?
Quote:
As for matter, if there's time and space and things can spontaniously come into existence simply because they can (no cause or no visible or provable cause), then I still don't see a reason for any God to be involved in the process.
Well, then given the hypothetical and inevitable nothingness before there was matter we know scientifically that matter cannot come into existence. In our physical universe, nothing begets nothing. Its only the truth within the confines of our universe.
Quote:
It's not obvious at all unlike you've stated. How did God create matter? Did he clap his hands and voíla, there you go the universe was born? A theory involving a God has the same problem, creating matter from nothing, assuming there was nothing before there was something.
Again, you're ignoring the obvious conclusion that God is in no way shape or form, part of this universe. The contradiction lies in your camp only. If I'm inside the watch, I don't say the watchmaker didn't make it, just because anything outside the watch would have to be made out of watch parts. In fact, the creator outside the watch is very different from the watch. He has nothing to do with it, except that he created it.
We don't specifically know God's nature, because he doesn't have a nature in a sense. We do know the nature of the universe, and we do know that it inevitably has a creator. I'm going to keep on finding ways to phrase this until you can finally understand which peice of the puzzle you're missing here. Because there's something right in front of your eyes that you're JUST missing. But we'll get there together. Love is patient, after all.
I don't think its a coincidence that whenever you try to 'patronize' me and come up with a model of God, it always includes something physical (you contradict yourself). As if it bears any relevance to God. You literally cannot even give God the correct attributes. How could God have existed forever? That's putting time on Him, which is irrelevant. The answer is he hasn't existed forever, because there is no time from his perspective. Its illogical to ask the question in the first place.
How is he living in some dark room? Now you're putting space on God. Which he would obviously not be confined to. Logically, the creator of space, would not be living in space to begin with. It would be absolutely impossible. So why can't you consider this? How can he create something that he would have to live in, in the first place?
You (maybe not you specifically, but I mean in general atheists) give Him human characteristics, like a beard, and say that He's just fuming like some child with a temper tantrum. I don't think these irrational, illogical views are a coincidence. They obviously would have nothing to do with God, but people can't help but associate them with God because they're so stuck thinking only in terms of the universe. Believe me, the universe is great. I think a better understanding of the universe was part of God's plan for us. But when you become trapped in that understanding, and start thinking that there can be nothing else except this universe (despite obvious scientific contradictions), I think you've left the realm of reason. Surely, whether or not you believe in God, you should be able to consider what God would be like if he exists. Why then does it seem impossible for any of you to do that? That isn't meant to be a leading question. I believe beyond the shadow of a doubt that He does exist. Yet I'm able to imagine what it would be like if he didn't. I have to do it every time I talk to you guys or we would never be able to have a debate.
Anyway, this is a long post, and I'm tired and need sleep. Good night.
Last edited by Irish_Farmer; 06/02/06 06:34.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
|
