If god hates abortion, why make women get pregnant when they don't want to be?

Yawn all you like, you are still incorrect.
Fact is, my perception is my choice is made of free will; the fact that you observed my choices changes everything, if that future is not predetermined and I make a different choice it would be impossible for you to travel forward and see the choices I made as that future would not exist.

Yes it does, just because you don't understand that observation has an effect (double-slit experiment) doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

<Mod Edit>

 

A claim not proven by any of your posts.
You make a choice out of free will; this choice will always be of free will regardless of who observes it.

 

A claim well proven, if you had bothered to actually look up the double-slit experiment and had even an ounce of logic capability .. but please do continue to post in ignorance, its actually quite amusing.

 

How cute, a personal insult. You should be proud of yourself

You're the one that hasn't refuted the fact that 70% of women who become pregnant after
being raped choose to keep the child.

It's very clear. God wrote his word, not man, and gave it to us and he sent his son to save
us from our sin.

Cop out answer. You know exactly what I mean. This time I'll be more specific. How did life
come from non-living matter. All you've given is a theory. Please, stop with the prevailing theory.
By the way, the usual answer "we don't know" is another cop out. Put up or shut up as they say.

 

No, my comment shows that you don't understand freewill, or refuse to acknowledge what it
is. God has clearly given man freewill. His knowing the future that doesn't negate that fact and
you have yet to refute that fact. Your answers appear to be web searches that you don't read
before posting. Okay, you might read the title of the article. You certainly don't read the articles.
They don't say what you hope for them to say.

If anyone should look up the double slit experiment it's you. It has no correlation whatsoever
with free will. Quick! Do a web search and read it this time. You might learn something.

 

Nah no insult, I really do feel sorry for the kids.

Yep I know you don't want to accept the reality that liveactionnews lie, twist and misrepresent, which I ample proved, or the fact that the study they cite is a study done on 37 women, no where near enough of a data base to formulate a country wide statistic .. but of course feel free to continue believing what ever you wish.

Really, if it is "very clear" then you should have no problem producing the proof of your claim .. please do so, or is it more likely that you can't and just repeat the mantra you are indoctrinated in?

I answered your question, if you now want to move the goalposts (a fallacy) then that is up to you, as far as I am concerned your question was answered fully. There is a plethora of scientific studies and research that supports the theory of Abiogenesis, where as there is little to nothing that supports the God of gaps fallacy.

 

The only thing I refuse to acknowledge, due to lack of evidence, is that there is a god and that god gave man free will, and I read everything I cite.

the double-slit experiment is very relevant to this debate, what it shows is that the mere observation of an event has physical consequences to the end result ie. the ability to step into the future and see decisions made causes that future to become set ergo my decisions at present are predetermined by the future the person has already seen regardless of whether they interact with me in the present time, if I were somehow to make a different decision in the present to what they have seen in the future, then they could not have stepped into the future to see anything because that future would not exist .. a temporal paradox.

Hopefully that has enlarged your education, though I doubt it.

 

Which theory would that, be since there are at least 10 major theories. They can't all be correct but they could all be wrong. Theory = your religious belief.
The idea that life could begin because, random elements aligned by chance, sounds like a scientific fairy tale to me, or the Age Of Aquarius.
Sing with me now.
When the moon is in the Seventh House
And Jupiter aligns with Mars
Make the magic minestrone soup
And play on our sitars

 

Abiogenesis is a theory in itself, and please do show where I say I actually believe any of the theories . .that's the problem when you jump into a discussion without bothering to read the string of comments, you tend to get it all wrong . .for your information -

Post #430 by Prunepicker - "Explain abiogenesis. That would be a good start. "
Post #435 by Fugazi - "http://study.com/academy/lesson/abio...-evidence.html"
Post #439 by Prunepicker - "This article explains nothing as to how abiogenesis came about." Note Prune picker did not ask "how abiogenesis came about.", he moved the goalposts (fallacy) when his original question was answered.
Post #442 by Fugazi - "You did not ask "how abiogenesis came about", good grief do you even know what you write .. you wrote "Explain abiogenesis." : Post #430, now you want to move the goalposts .. yet another fallacy for you.

From the link I supplied "Abiogenesis is a scientific theory which states that life arose on Earth via spontaneous natural means due to conditions present at the time. In other words, life came from non-living matter. ""
Post #454 by Prunepicker - "Cop out answer. You know exactly what I mean. This time I'll be more specific. How did life
come from non-living matter."

Anyone can see that PP didn't like the correct answer they were given and so their ego couldn't take it hence the moving the goalposts fallacy - https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/129/Moving_the_Goalposts

 

Nice tap dance. I notice you guys like to throw the word scientific around, so it's not just a theory it's a "scientific" theory.........ooooooooooooooooooo. It sounds so much better that way. Just another way of saying they don't know. Or they could say 'our best guess is', but they'd actually say 'our best scientific guess is'. They don't want to admit that they don't know. It requires faith and belief which makes it a religious tenet. You guys think you can hide your belief in faery tales by calling them "scientific".

 

Do you think by not quoting who you are responding to means your comment will go unnoticed?

I guess you didn't read my response or if you did you ignored it, this isn't about whether
Abiogenesis is correct or not ... I was asked a question to which I gave a factual response, the other person didn't like the answer so moved the goalposts, which I'm sure you know is a fallacy.

 

This personal insult was reported to the moderators.

70% of women who become pregnant after being raped keep the baby. You can't provide any evidene
that this is false.

I did provide evidence. You're indoctrination must not allow for you to accept facts that you
deem inaccurate.

Please provide evidence that God doesn't exist. Or are you going to do your usual cut and run
because you can't provide anything whatsoever.

You've answered nothing but YOU keep moving the goalpost because you can't answer my questions. Or
maybe you fear being found out to be wrong with your indoctrination, as you put it.

Once again, put up or shut up.

 

Then you must concede that you're trying to discuss a topic you know nothing about. By the
way, the evidence has been provided. It's up to you to provide evidence to the contrary. The
evidence I provided is solid. Yours is non existent or personal opinion. Of course you won't
dare try to answer this. I understand.

You've provided no evidence that you do. In fact your posts clearly show that you don't.

No, you're wrong again. It has nothing to do with freewill, no matter how you deliberately
twist the information in favor of your indoctrination.

 

Due to excessive flame baiting, this thread is now closed.

Shangrila
Moderator