What Constitutes a "Right?"

[nodoginnafight]

Rights are defined by the entity that grants and enforces them - and different entities bestows different rights as they choose.

My bank bestows my right to access my money
My employer bestows my right to the benefits they offer
God bestows my right to serve him
U.S. Government bestows rights to income tax deductions

There are no universal rights that all human beings on the planet share - in spite of our founing fathers' attempt to define such a set - they could only actually GRANT those rights within the jurisdiction they helped create.

God can offer rights under a covenent with him - but if folks reject that covenant, they reject the rights offered too.

 

[Setarcos]

Did the universe create itself, or was it always here?

What do you mean by "create"? Do you mean "to bring into existence"? To be created, a thing must not exist, otherwise its creation would be redundant. Also there must be a conscious effort for creation to take place. That is, creation is a deliberate act.

So, if the universe "created itself", then it would first have to not exist and then, in its state of non-existence, it would have to consciously decide to create itself and then do so. This is obviously absurd, so let's move on.

Was the universe always here? What does that mean? Since when? Since the beginning? Since the beginning of what? The beginning of the universe? Well of course it was here since then, even if it's been here forever, in which case there was no "beginning". But why would such a question even be relevant? If there is nothing outside the universe, then what would there be "before" the universe? The pre-universe? I mean, wouldn't that just be the universe in an earlier form?

I don't know what any of this has to do with rights, unless we have to attach God to our rights. If God were to grant our rights, then why doesn't He protect them? Nah, I think we have to protect our own rights.

Nice way to side-step the question. Since the word "create" causes you problems, try this one:

Has the universe always been, or did it, at some point, come to be?

Or to be simpler, finite or infinite?

Define: universe

 

[Setarcos]

If one accepts the premise of your statement as irrefutable fact, then God, because he exists, and because God didn't create himself, thus something else did...

...I guess that would be God's God. Which leads to the next question, who created God's God, since he couldn't have created himself.

Did the universe create itself, or was it always here?

Who knows? This might be the billionth reincarnation of the universe.

bang, crunch, bounce?

 

[Setarcos]

If you own it you have a right to it!

A privelage is granted permissions that can be removed.

Granted by?

 

[rubberhead]

Nice way to side-step the question. Since the word "create" causes you problems, try this one:

Has the universe always been, or did it, at some point, come to be?

Or to be simpler, finite or infinite?

Well what is the universe? Is it the space which contains matter? Or is it the matter inside space? Or both?

I believe that the size of the space which is capable of containing matter is infinite, but the amount of matter is finite. However, this implies that neither will ever be proven. Let me demonstrate what I mean.

If the space is infinite, then it would be impossible to prove through observation in a finite amount of time that this is the case. It just seems absurd to me that I could go to the edge of the universe and there would be no space left to move into beyond it. And so how could we prove that there is not some distant (infinite) portion of space where there is an infinite amount of matter?

I also believe that the configurations of the matter in the universe undergo changes and sometimes change so radically that there is no predicting the outcome of an event before it occurs or tracing back before the event once it has occurred. These events (called singularities) are sometimes mistaken for "beginnings" or "ends." In some sense they are, because what is a beginning or end but a marker of human limitation? Notice that all I can state is my belief and I believe that I have done so.

If you don't want to answer the question, save both of us a lot of time, and just tell me.

Bullshit just bores me.

Uh, actually I did answer the question. If reading bores you, just tell me and I won't answer any more of your questions.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Does a Mexican citizen, in the Pursuit of Happiness, have the Liberty to cross the border into the United States to find a better job and make for himself a better Life?

That liberty is restricted by the People of the United States. He may do so through the appropriate legal channels.

The proclamations about inalienable rights endowed by a Creator, all men being created equal, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were not made with any mention of borders or nationalities. In fact, in principle, the Declaration of Independence is a moral justification for 'illegal' immigration.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Really? For that to be true, then we'd have to conclude that God is the same value as human... that God is finite, flesh and bone; is confined to one spectrum of time, to this dimension.

And to be honest I don't see that as being all that plausible... We like to believe that what our senses can observe is reality. That we have a full and complete understanding of what is... when the reality is that taken to infinity, the sum of human knowledge would fit within the space of the stuff that makes a quark look like a galaxy.

So while its cute to appeal to the notion that unknown values equal known values... its not a sound process.




Oops circular infinity... see the problem? Come to grips with the fact that there exists things we do not understand. Gravity exists... we don't know why it exists... we don't know where it comes from... and the only calculations that have ever made any sense at all of it, are those in M-Theory; which pegs gravitys origins in other dimensions.

Which FTR: where there exists entire universes that we can not see, that we can't touch... which are simultaneously infinitesimal and enormous... literally engulfing us, surrounding us... the minimum we can take from that is that we don't understand most of what there is to understand. Which not only leaves a TON of room for the existence of God... it makes such a stark certainty.

If you're going to be absurd, you could at least be brief.

Sweet Fail!

Your statement:

Which not only leaves a TON of room for the existence of God... it makes such a stark certainty.

is irrefutably absurd. The idea that because we don't know everything that exists must mean that God exists is laughably preposterous. You could as easily claim that your premise proves that every God ever believed in must therefore exist. You might as well claim that because we don't know as a certainty whether ghosts exist that that would stand as proof that they do exist.

So, again, if you're going to be absurd, at least be brief.

 

[Intense]

Rights are defined by the entity that grants and enforces them - and different entities bestows different rights as they choose.

My bank bestows my right to access my money
My employer bestows my right to the benefits they offer
God bestows my right to serve him
U.S. Government bestows rights to income tax deductions

There are no universal rights that all human beings on the planet share - in spite of our founing fathers' attempt to define such a set - they could only actually GRANT those rights within the jurisdiction they helped create.

God can offer rights under a covenent with him - but if folks reject that covenant, they reject the rights offered too.

In Every case but Yours, Thought is a Natural Right!
Keep trying though!!!! It will come!!!!!

 

[Intense]

Does a Mexican citizen, in the Pursuit of Happiness, have the Liberty to cross the border into the United States to find a better job and make for himself a better Life?

That liberty is restricted by the People of the United States. He may do so through the appropriate legal channels.

The proclamations about inalienable rights endowed by a Creator, all men being created equal, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were not made with any mention of borders or nationalities. In fact, in principle, the Declaration of Independence is a moral justification for 'illegal' immigration.

Wrong!!!! Good try though. It is a Moral Justification for Their Natural Rights though, and though that does not include illegal entry or Trespass, it does include Equal Protection and Rule of Law. We've posted the UN Declaration Of Rights here on this thread. Good insight for a Statist.

 

[Intense]

Does a Mexican citizen, in the Pursuit of Happiness, have the Liberty to cross the border into the United States to find a better job and make for himself a better Life?

That liberty is restricted by the People of the United States. He may do so through the appropriate legal channels.

The proclamations about inalienable rights endowed by a Creator, all men being created equal, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were not made with any mention of borders or nationalities. In fact, in principle, the Declaration of Independence is a moral justification for 'illegal' immigration.

Thats why we grant Visa's!!! Due Process.

 

[AdlerianThinker]

To appeal to 'God' or 'Nature' or some other metaphysical vagueness is to attempt to avoid being responsible for your own actions and the state of the world around you. The secular humanist realizes that Man is responsible for the state of Man and Man alone can change that state. The humanist places the burden squarely upon Man to decide for himself what liberties are worth protecting at what are worth surrendering for peace and safety. The humanist realizes that if he wishes to protect his liberties and ensure for himself a state of relative freedom, peace, and security, he must be willing to defend all of his neighbors and their liberties and property and be able to trust them in turn. Realizing the natutre of the cosial contract, ther humanist- a liberal of the purest sort-sets his mind to determining what terms and conditions best serve the interest of peace, of safety, and of liberty for himself, fully aware that if he is not willing to fight for his neighbor's liberties, there will be noone to fight for his.

The center of the humanist's universe is himself.

Good luck with that.

John Locke Philosophy bastardized by a Nerd.

Let's hold on to everything but the reference to the Supreme Being.

How do we take the essence out of the two Great Commandments without referencing them directly.

The Humanist's First Commandment:
You shall have no other Man before me......

 

[AdlerianThinker]

Wait. The 'pursuit' of happiness is the inalienable right, but the actual attainment of the object of one's pursuit is not??

Civil marriage is not a religious institution. Civil marriage is a legally recognized union. If marriage is the pursuit of happiness, then it's an inalienable right. And since it's also, as the document says, self-evident that all men are created equal, then for the state to recognize heterosexual marriage but not same sex marriage is to impose an inequality of access to an inalienable right.

Marriage isn't a union that's supposed to be recognized by the state. Marriage was always religious, no matter what religion you subscribed to.

If you want to solve this whole gay marriage headache, just remove marriage licenses, and allow for contracts to be created between the two parties, no matter which genders are marrying.

Proposing an absurdity is no answer. Civil marriage isn't going anywhere.

Absurdity to you is not an absolute.

 

[AdlerianThinker]

Wait. The 'pursuit' of happiness is the inalienable right, but the actual attainment of the object of one's pursuit is not??

Civil marriage is not a religious institution. Civil marriage is a legally recognized union. If marriage is the pursuit of happiness, then it's an inalienable right. And since it's also, as the document says, self-evident that all men are created equal, then for the state to recognize heterosexual marriage but not same sex marriage is to impose an inequality of access to an inalienable right.

RUnnnn FORREST! RUuuuuUUUN!


Homosexuals are created equal with everyone else; and they're equally free to make the choices which become their lives and the responsbility for which they are fully, solely bear.

One is entitled to pursue the fulfillment of one's life... and there are absolutely NO guarantees... why would there be, what possible purpose could that serve?


Do you guarantee your kids happiness?

What DO you guarantee?

Why should the law allow heterosexuals the inalienable right of the 'pursuit of happiness' embodied in a legally recognized, civilly supported marriage, and deny homosexuals the same?

The "Pursuit of happiness" is not an absolute right. One can not do whatever one pleases.

 

[AdlerianThinker]

Depends on what "rights" you are talking about. Rights for gay to marry is not a civil right or a human right. They are entitled to human right as human but no special treatment because they are gay and want to marry.
There is nothing in the constitution they gives them the right to marry.

There is no 'special treatment' involved in allowing gays the right to legally marry. Allowing gays that right simply eliminates the 'special treatment' that heterosexuals are getting.

It IS special treatment. A privilege granted them for meeting certain requirements.

If gays cannot meet those requirements, then they do so by choice.

 

[AdlerianThinker]

Well what is the universe? Is it the space which contains matter? Or is it the matter inside space? Or both?

I believe that the size of the space which is capable of containing matter is infinite, but the amount of matter is finite. However, this implies that neither will ever be proven. Let me demonstrate what I mean.

If the space is infinite, then it would be impossible to prove through observation in a finite amount of time that this is the case. It just seems absurd to me that I could go to the edge of the universe and there would be no space left to move into beyond it. And so how could we prove that there is not some distant (infinite) portion of space where there is an infinite amount of matter?

I also believe that the configurations of the matter in the universe undergo changes and sometimes change so radically that there is no predicting the outcome of an event before it occurs or tracing back before the event once it has occurred. These events (called singularities) are sometimes mistaken for "beginnings" or "ends." In some sense they are, because what is a beginning or end but a marker of human limitation? Notice that all I can state is my belief and I believe that I have done so.

If you don't want to answer the question, save both of us a lot of time, and just tell me.

Bullshit just bores me.

Uh, actually I did answer the question. If reading bores you, just tell me and I won't answer any more of your questions.

Pedanticism bores me. If that's all you got, then by all means, don't bother me.

That you provided an answer is not the same as answering the question.

 

[AdlerianThinker]

Does a Mexican citizen, in the Pursuit of Happiness, have the Liberty to cross the border into the United States to find a better job and make for himself a better Life?

That liberty is restricted by the People of the United States. He may do so through the appropriate legal channels.

The proclamations about inalienable rights endowed by a Creator, all men being created equal, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were not made with any mention of borders or nationalities. In fact, in principle, the Declaration of Independence is a moral justification for 'illegal' immigration.

How so? This ought to be amusing.

 

[Setarcos]

Does a Mexican citizen, in the Pursuit of Happiness, have the Liberty to cross the border into the United States to find a better job and make for himself a better Life?

That liberty is restricted by the People of the United States. He may do so through the appropriate legal channels.

The proclamations about inalienable rights endowed by a Creator, all men being created equal, life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were not made with any mention of borders or nationalities. In fact, in principle, the Declaration of Independence is a moral justification for 'illegal' immigration.

1) Objective moral values have yet to be demonstrated to exist

2) I don't fall for the FF hypocritical rhetoric

3) Actually, it outliens the justification for their own war for independence or revolution

 

[Setarcos]

Rights are defined by the entity that grants and enforces them - and different entities bestows different rights as they choose.

My bank bestows my right to access my money
My employer bestows my right to the benefits they offer
God bestows my right to serve him
U.S. Government bestows rights to income tax deductions

There are no universal rights that all human beings on the planet share - in spite of our founing fathers' attempt to define such a set - they could only actually GRANT those rights within the jurisdiction they helped create.

God can offer rights under a covenent with him - but if folks reject that covenant, they reject the rights offered too.

In Every case but Yours, Thought is a Natural Right!

So now you can decide who has what 'natural rights'? You just proved that you don't even believe your own rhetoric

 

[Setarcos]

If you don't want to answer the question, save both of us a lot of time, and just tell me.

Bullshit just bores me.

Uh, actually I did answer the question. If reading bores you, just tell me and I won't answer any more of your questions.

Pedanticism bores me. If that's all you got, then by all means, don't bother me.

If attention to detail, accuracy, correctness, and clarity bore you, perha[ps you should stay out of intellectual discussion

 

[rubberhead]

That you provided an answer is not the same as answering the question.

Your questions:

Did the universe have a beginning? Is the universe infinite?

My answers:

The universe occasionally has singularities which, depending on which side of them you are on temporally, may appear to be beginnings or ends and so might as well be considered so for our purposes because we cannot penetrate them.

I believe that the universe (matter and the space that contains it) is "infinite" in the sense that there is an infinite amount of space for things to occupy. However, I believe that the amount of things is finite. However, I also believe that you can break things into infinitely small parts, so in a sense the amount of things is infinite as well.

This is what I've already said, so I'd love to know how these are not answers to your questions.