Baby Theresa

Nice picture jr. What we are doing in this case is inferring characteristics of a 3d based on our 2d. But from our 2d perspective the spread and decay of the pattern will certainly be explained from a 2d perspective only - we wouldn't know of the "passing through" which invokes an unknown 3d (that would invoke the supernatural - God forbid!) We would come up with an explanation which is strictly 2d. A spot in 2d could expand and decay without causing us any intellectual trouble at all (think a 2d singularity) "Legal" (man plays God) and "medical" (man plays God) and...(fill whatever definitions you like here). "When a person marks..." is a case where the person themselves play God - closer to the acuality perhaps - for at least it is their own life they play God with. But no less playing God. You can approach this from the standpoint of "what does" or you can approach it from the standpoint of "what doesn't"... constitute life. But you will never arrive at a zero. And if you decide (as I think you must) that you can't arrive at zero..Then what?Play God?Edited by iano, : format

Agreed. I'm not sure if this means that you're against the transplanting of vital organs altogether, but my earlier point still stands. We still need to know when a person is dead so that me may bury them and pay our respects [or depending on your culture burn them (Greeks), eat them (Callatians), etc.]. Life processes continue within every body indefinitely, so some understanding of the life of a person as a whole must be reached. I don't think anyone knows what the "actuality" of life is, so the only possible route is to define life on our own terms.Maybe you want to reply, "Use the Bible to understand the actuality of life," but as I mentioned before, there are consequences to taking the Bible too literally (to see what I mean, see the reply to the last quote for Message 24.). Not to mention that even if we did use only the Bible, we'd run into even greater problems of disagreement with interpretations of its meaning. I'm sure that you don't believe burying the dead is playing God (I've yet to see the Grim Reaper at the hospital, so it looks like we need to be the ones to declare that a person is dead), so please clarify your position on the definition of life.If you do believe that burying the dead is playing God (because we cannot define death if we cannot define life), we are left with the option of either playing God or promoting an extremely unsanitary environment.

jmrozi1 writes

quote:

---

A philosopher needs to be nothing more than a student of philosophy to claim this title.

---

Not true.

quote:

---

A reverend, on the other hand, needs to be ordained.

---

Again, not true.

You're right, of course. It's all determined by the hats.

You can be ordained to be a minister or reverend over the internet nowadays, that is if you even bother to get ordained at all. Many people just start calling themselves minister or reverend.

Please explain this the fallacy of my statements. The first definition for a philosopher using Encarta (http://encarta.msn.com/...res/dictionary/dictionaryhome.aspx) is precisely what I have stated - It reads:
1. somebody who studies philosophy: somebody who seeks to understand and explain the principles of existence and reality.For a reverend, it reads:
1. of clergy: relating or belonging to the Christian clergy, and clergy reads: those ordained in church: the body of people ordained for religious service, especially in the Christian church.First off, damn I'm good (I hope you can forgive a little arrogance because these definitions are almost exactly as I argued). But secondly, if you're not going by the generally accepted definition of these concepts, please explain the fallacy of using Encarta for the definition.Edited by jmrozi1, : added first sentence

So, let me get this straight. Do you agree or do not agree that you can be ordained to be a minister or reverend over the internet?By the way, look up the word hypothesis using your dictionary source there and tell us what's wrong with their given definition.You can also look up the word scientist and tell us if there's anything deceiving about that definition.Edited by rgb, : No reason given.

rbg writes: Agree. You can also get a teaching degree online, courtesy of Phoenix University.As far as your suggestions, I found the following:hypothesis:
1. theory needing investigation: a tentative explanation for a phenomenon, used as a basis for further investigationscientist:
expert in science: somebody who has scientific training or works in one of the sciencesscience:
1. study of physical world: the study of the physical and natural world and phenomena, especially by using systematic observation and experimentI'm afraid you have overestimated me - I carefully viewed these definitions, as well as the previous ones, and was unable to find anything wrong or deceiving. To me the definitions seem to be perfectly logical explanations considering the primary usage of the words. My gut tells me that you see an inconsistency with the intended and actual usage of these words, so I'm curious to see your side explained.

jmrozi1 writes

quote:

---

Agree. You can also get a teaching degree online, courtesy of Phoenix University.

---

The difference is with the Phoenix program you have to do some work. Being ordained online takes little more work than fill in the blanks.

quote:

---

hypothesis:
1. theory needing investigation: a tentative explanation for a phenomenon, used as a basis for further investigation

---

In a scientific sense, the definition of hypothesis appears to be synonymous with theory. This is apparent when the dictionary states:The hypothesis of the big bang is one way to explain the beginning of the universe.

quote:

---

scientist:
expert in science: somebody who has scientific training or works in one of the sciences

---

Just so you know, technicians are rarely referred to as scientists. Again, this definition is deceptive and depreciates what it means to be a scientist.

quote:

---

science:
1. study of physical world: the study of the physical and natural world and phenomena, especially by using systematic observation and experiment

---

Has science been reduced to a single sentence? This is a little sad.My point is dictionaries are great, but reality rarely fits what dictionaries state.

Fair enough. If what you are saying is that by definition a reverend will need to be more qualified to claim his title than a philosopher, but in reality the opposite is usually the case, then I think it would be appropriate for someone else to defend their qualifications because I tend to agree with this.Now all I have to do is backtrack a few pages and find out where we stemmed off to find out how all of this fits into the big picture...
And here we have it: The "moral" experts that were called to decide on Theresa's fate were mostly religious leaders. The original question was whether the parents and physicians or moral experts were right. The status of the debate is now that both I and rgb have attacked not only the conclusions of the moral experts but their qualifications in general to make this type of decision.