In the Absence of God; Human rights cannot exist.

[Diuretic]

Diur, you'll need to be much more specific... it's hard to know what distinction you're trying to dig out of 'addressig the points and commenting'... I'm smellin' a rather poorly constructed exercise in sematics here. Which is fine at this point, because I love 'em...

I always get scolded when I get into semantics. I'll stay out of semantical discussions.

 

[mattskramer]

Super...

It should also be pointed out that my Z is on the edge of pulling into the 7s and I think that the next cold front could see that happen.

(Now for those that are wondering what the hell that means... I am responding to a point which was wholly irrelevant to the issue. That a position does not enjoy universal acceptance has absolutely no bearing on whether or not that position is logically valid and intellectually sound.

Thus the present status of my race car is as relevant to this issue as the notation that my respective position is not universally accepted.)

But I thank the member for their contribution...

I'm sorry but I thought that you were trying to prove, via deductive argument, that God exists. You can build a valid argument from false premises, and arrive at a true conclusion.

Premise: All fish live in the ocean
Premise: Sea otters are fish
Conclusion: Therefore sea otters live in the ocean

Sea otters may live in the ocean. Yet, it was not proven by the above argument.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

The existence of the universe is sefl-evident. The creation of the universe is not sefl-evident unless you dismiss out of hand M-theory and brane cosmology, the Hartle-Hawking No Boundary Condition, among other hypotheses on the origin of the universe which may propose a universe of infinite existence. One cannot dismiss them out of hand unless one is claiming such complete knowledge of the universe that one can have absolute certainty that they cannot be true.

Well in truth I don't have to excuse or include any theory to note that the universe exists, thus it was created... I'm prepared to argue however that it's creation and

M and 'brane are two theories which I believe show great promise in someday proving the existence of God, but themselves open the mind to concepts which even amongst some physicists is still hotly contested. The notion that there are infinite dimension to time, providing infinite realities bends the mind into the ideological equivalent of a brain freeze...

My position remains that the God force is infinite in scope and M and 'brane explains how God could be considered by humanity to possess Omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence...

That's interesting. Even if one accepts the premise that the universe was "created", this information should have been presented at the start of the thread. If you propose that a natural force that initiated the sequence of events leading to the current state of the universe is sufficient to define the term "God", then you would probably have very little debate since the result of that is just a semantic assertion. It is in no way recognizable as any generally accepted concept of "god" without adding a good deal more to the definition. At a minimum, I believe most any broad consensus on the definition of "God" would include consciousness or intent. Your definition of "God" would be more properly classified as agnosticism except relative to your own personal definition of "God" which is basically a relativist fallacy.

Well I stated WAY BACK that God is defined in terms which te species is capable fo understanding... you may recall where I stated that Genesis could have been laid out in a calculus... but that such would have been unrecognizable to the tribal nomads that it was intended for. Instead the creation was set in terms that human beings were able to comprehend...

I stated that I find no discrediting points in evolution to discredit creationism... that while many would patently reject my position, because they take the analogical explanations as being literal... that I have always taken to agreeing to disagree with my brothers and sisters on this point.

Now I don't have ANY doubt in my mind that the God force is entirely sentient, utterly conscious and as stated in the bible that humanity is made in the image of God... but that I am not equipped to understand the scope of his existence, but that the good news is that I am not required to, and that my ignorance is not a valid defense in not recognizing his existence and failing to love and adore him, for his tender mercies and his sacred gift that is my life.

I don't believe that humanity has he slightest handle on the scope of the universe... the idea that there are multiple dimensions and that this one started by the momentary touch of two others, which caused what we describe as 'the big bang...' correlates freakishly close to the Creation laid out in genesis... a Macro explanation laid out in simple terms... it all blows my mind.


Now with all that said friend... I've stated that the God force is just as real and just as inescapable as any other natural force. I've stated that humanity has existed for MOST of it's history with absolutely NO knowledge o the force of gravity, beyond the effects which it took as a matter of course in their daily lives... and that their ignorance did not provide them any means to avoid accounting to that force.

The same is true for the God force... it exists and you can try to ignore all you want, but you will not escape accounting to it.

That force has provided for your existence and in so doing has established bedrock principles by which each endowed with the gift of life is to operate their lives... giving each of us the freedom to choose our own path... and the inherent right to do so... a right which comes with the inescapable responsibility to not infringe on the right of others in the course of doing so.

That people screw it up all day everyday is not a discrediting factor... that the gift is misused by one does not mean the other is subject to having his rights infringed upon.

Human rights are part and parcel of human life... they are NOT synonymous with entitlements extended by a government, a business, or a popular majority of the collective. They are the innate entitlement to live one’s life towards the fulfillment of that life and they are not subject to revocation by anyone other than that which endowed that right.

That right is inherent with the authority of that which provided it... thus human power which seeks to usurp the means to exercise it are not justified to do so, as their authority is sharply distinct and inferior to that of the Creator... the God force... God and it is the duty of every individual to jealously defend that right and the means to exercise it.

Now that's the way it is sport and while we're a peaceful people that just want to live our lives; we will kick the living shit out of any power that seeks to usurp our means to exercise our God given rights. And this includes those who ride under the banner of peace, compassion and tolerance and who inevitably are found promoting one level of cultural decay, debauchery or deviancy... and demanding that anyone that rejects their decadence is doing so from hate.

We understand our rights; we understand implicitly, completely, utterly... the basis on which our Rights rest and as such there is no undermining our resolve.

Which one should compare to the opposition who believes that rights are make believe, that their a function of human imagination, that the government determines what they are, that they're a result of social negotiations... and ad infinitum... and that this particular species of reasoning has been at the source of the inevitable tyranny, wherever it has been popularly held.

Meaning don't screw with the grown ups... keep those addle-minded notions to yourselves and TRY to understand that: IN The Absence of God... Human Rights is a concept which cannot exist.

 

[mattskramer]

Well in truth I don't have to excuse or include any theory to note that the universe exists, thus it was created.

Of course you do. Just because something exists does not mean that it was created. People say that God exists. What created God? As for the universe, it may have always existed.

My position remains that the God force is infinite in scope

Prove that God exists.

 

[N4mddissent]

If not then what stands in stead of argument here must be concluded as an abject failure.

I was not making an argument with the fallacies post. I was merely pointing out your extraordinarily excessive use of such fallacies. I provided a link to a site which defines those fallacies. Obviously I felt those definitions applicable to the text quoted in association with each fallacy. I did not realize your comprehension difficulties were so severe that when you considered the definition of each fallacy, you saw no applicablity whatsoever. Let me help.

It is absolutely wild how the positions advanced by the left are nearly impossible to accurately interpret? It's analogous to the Arabs who inevitably run to correct the misinterpretation of one of their idiots when they're caught demanding that Israel be destroyed... this based upon some idiosyncrasy within their language which doesn't translate to English.

You are attacking the person/people making the argument rather than the argument which is the essence of the Personal Attack fallacy.

I suspect that she refused to answer the question because to answer the question would highlight that such a conclusion is absurd given the infinitesimal base of knowledge which the member feels she possesses, assuming she did not project that she was in possession of more than an infinitesimal amount of the scope of all knowledge through time and space.

Here you are taking presenting the argument that she did not answer because it would be absurd, thus presenting only your conclusion when the individual had already stated that there is a possibility of the existence of god but did not feel it was probable. In more general terms, since you have admitted to generalizing all opposing views anyway, the theistic argument that atheism requires absolute knowledge to definitively say god does not exist is a straw man since the common atheistic position is that while possible, the absence of any convincing evidence does not make it probable that god, as commonly defined, exists. When one has not conclusively stated that god is an impossiblity, it is a strawman to attack them saying they require absolute knowledge. This also seems to be approaching the Burden of Proof fallacy which is very clear in that the one claiming the existence of god has the burden of proof upon them to give evidence of that existence or admit that the non-belief is reasonable. By stating that one must have absolute and complete knowledge of the universe to know there is no god, you are attempting to subtly shift the burden of proof on the one who has made no claim.

when the simple fact is that those who practice the bedrock principles inherent in God's word and intrinsic to the human rights endowed by God, tend to excel towards a fulfilled and happy life, while those that reject them tend towards a life of misery and discontent...

I used Appeal to Belief on this because on my initial reading I got the impression that because a lot of poeple believe that using the principles you describe their lives are happy, but on review I say that it is really more appropriate to label this a questionable cause fallacy. Not only do you not provide any evidence to support your unsubstantiated claim, but even if there was a correllation, it is a well-known fallacy to equate correllation to causation with no further evidence. The population of regions of America with the highest levels of religiosity are also the populations with the highest levels of crime, gonorrhea, and teen pregnancy. Does religion therefore cause these effects? It would be fallacious to claim so based on this correllation similar to your argument that following religious doctrine causes people to live happier lives. Appeal to consequences applies when you in making your case used the negative consequences of not accepting your premise and positive consequences of accepting your premise. It's the classic definition of the argument from consequences fallacy.

In simple terms I and millions of others have openly declared our experience of the effects of the God force...

Appeal to popularity is simply using as part of your argument the fact that a premise is widely accepted as true. Being widely accepted is not indication of its validity. (I would have thought you would have at least gotten this one...is pretty clear cut)

... and through the same species of reasoning which projects that simultaneously they can feel gravity and that they can only feel the effects of Gravity... they demand that our experience of the effects of the God force is an illusion... one which can be explained through their vast understanding of the physical sciences... which they're loathe to quantify, because to do so will expose what they claim to be a vast resource as something well south of 'teeny tiny...'

The argument from ignorance is when you state that you experience the effects of god. There is no evidence that any experience you have is the effects of god but in the absence of an explanation for those experiences, you have asserted that they are the affect of god. As far as the argument from ridicule, you try to caricature the opposing view, throw in a little attack at the end, and assert your conclusion by portraying other conclusions as silly. When in fact, you are bringing up the same pointless statements that have no bearing on the argument. For example you bring up the absolute knowledge strawman again. You provide no evidence for your claim that your experiences are the effects of god. etc...

I hope you have a better understanding now. Please work on your comprehension because I will not promise to hold your hand and walk you through concepts every time.

 

[N4mddissent]

Well in truth I don't have to excuse or include any theory to note that the universe exists, thus it was created... I'm prepared to argue however that it's creation and

M and 'brane are two theories which I believe show great promise in someday proving the existence of God, but themselves open the mind to concepts which even amongst some physicists is still hotly contested. The notion that there are infinite dimension to time, providing infinite realities bends the mind into the ideological equivalent of a brain freeze...

Actually, in M-theory, the M stands for Membrane which is shortened to "brane" and while m-theory and brane cosmology are not synonymous, they are very closely intertwined which is why I listed them separately but used no comma.

The point that you seem to be continuously leaping over is that while it is true that the universe exists, it does not necessarily follow that it was created. A universe with the cyclic model of existence need not necessarily have been "created" or at least not the multiverse. You can't escape the infinite regress problem. What "created" the creator? nothing? Then a premise that anything that exists must have been created is proven false by your own statements. If something can exist without being created, then any argument that the universe must have been created is empty.

My position remains that the God force is infinite in scope and M and 'brane explains how God could be considered by humanity to possess Omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence...

This is at odds with your earlier definition. The problem with that is that when you made the argument:

The universe exists;
Something Created the Universe;
That something is called God;
Therefore God exists.

You gave a different definition for god because it is obvious that in this example, saying that an omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent being (although I'm curious about why you left out omnibenevolent since that is more frequently cited than omnipresent) is the creator of the universe would not be logical. You defended the logic by saying the universe was created- whatever created it can be defined as god- god exists and then redefine god with characteristics I just mentioned but it has no connection to your former argument. If you had stated the universe was created-god created the universe-therefore god exists, then god is not being defined. Then you could attribute characteristics of god without it affecting your argument. However, it would disputed based on lack of evidence for your second premise which would bring us to square one. That being-

What is the evidence for the existence of god.

To prevent further misunderstanding, give us a definition of god as you understand it. Then tell us what evidence you feel leads to the conclusion that god exists.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

I'm sorry but I thought that you were trying to prove, via deductive argument, that God exists. You can build a valid argument from false premises, and arrive at a true conclusion.

Premise: All fish live in the ocean
Premise: Sea otters are fish
Conclusion: Therefore sea otters live in the ocean

Sea otters may live in the ocean. Yet, it was not proven by the above argument.

Absolutely... and thank you for the little T/V drill... they're always a good time; but you can't advance a false premise and draw a following truthful conclusion and have a sound argument.

The logical construct can't control the users means to apply sound reasoning...

 

[WhiteLion]

In the Absence of God; Human rights cannot exist. True, GOD created humankind/mankind, and with that creation, a freewill, the will or right to Live for HIM or the will or right to reject HIM, with that said, wouldnt one think that Human(God Created) rights(freewill to except or reject HIM) come from GOD??? Ive never ever heard of anyone claiming GOD made me do it, or made me serve him, on the other hand, i have heard people quote the clich'e "the devil made me do it" OMG THAT's TO DAM SIMPLE lol...You cant change blatant learned or aquired ignorent arrogance...

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Of course you do. Just because something exists does not mean that it was created.

Are you sure you want to stick with that? I mean I ran across a lovely little Conk shell in my back yard a couple of days ago... it exists and was unquestionably created

People say that God exists. What created God?

We're told that we were created in his image, so perhaps it was a preceding God... What's the relevance?

As for the universe, it may have always existed.

Well it may have... but 'always' is a term used by a species which can't really fathom 'aways' and again... what's the relevance?

Prove that God exists.

Sure, I'll be happy to do so. But before we begin, just layout the scope of 'prove'... tell me what you mean by 'prove'; explain what you will and will not accept in considering the argument.

 

[MichaelCollins]

Can EVERYONE please stop replying to PUBUS.

She is clearly not very bright...and she clearly NEEDS this forum...spends 12 hours a day writing the same thing every single day.

At first i thought that she was a teenager...from the writing style and the desperately superficial arguments and pseudo intellectualism... however i now fear that the problem is real and that she will never grow out of it.

She must be an american jesus freak... untravelled, close-minded, and simply intellectually not up to debate or reason.


So to the rest of the forum.... try not to feed her sickness.

 

[cjcord]

@ White Lion: have you defined pundent for me yet? I'm still confused on that one...

Yeah as it happens I DO have something you might be able to explain...

First I'd like you to answer the question: Of the sum of all knowledge, throughout the scope of time and space, what percentage of that knowledge do you believe you personally possess?

(Again, for example you can use the following percentages, but feel free to quantify using your own if none of these work...)

<1%, 10%, 25%, 50%, 75% or 99.999999~%...?

I could not possibly answer that question as I am not so foolish as to believe that I, or any other thinking person, has any idea what amount of unknown variables there might be in the universe. I am also realistic enough to know that there are many more people in the world who know a great deal more than I do, which is why I ask questions and truly consider the answers. I am not closed minded, nor are my views absolute. As I learn and grow, my views may change, that, to me, is the purpose of life. But in doing so, I have gained logic and intellect, that allows me to observe and recognize fact versus opinion.

I cannot credit anything as fact unless it is proven to be fact in my reality. Concepts can be theorized, as can philosophies and religion, but I am not going to tout them as fact without concrete evidence.

OH and one other thing: What does Gravity 'feel like'? Again this is not a query which seeks to learn of the brains reaction to a change in the bodies normalized state... which can be described as an awareness of the effects caused by a change the BODY makes relevant to the constant state of the force known as gravity... but is a question which seeks to gain knowledge of what gravity itself feels like. As it seems that you or one of the Comrades made the statement that you or they could 'feel gravity' and no one's bothered to answer that, at this point; preferring instead to obfuscate and avoid any judgment on their failure to support that statement.

This one is simpler to answer. When one says they can feel gravity, they always mean they feel it's effects. Gravity is not tangible, so it cannot be considered to have a texture. I foolishly assumed you would understand this, but as I stated before, I will be more careful in my wording next time. Gravity is a force, but one that can be easily demonstrated. Not so with a "God" force. You may choose to give examples of a God force, but I can assure you all of those examples can be explained by scientific means.

If you then respond by once more asserting that the fact that any of this can be explained at all- is proof of God; I will have to once more point out that discrediting human ability to explain natural phenomenon is likening us to mindless bodies on a string.

If you admit that intellect means ability to reason and function, you are hereby supporting my point that all can be explained scientifically.

Explaining away all minute details of the universe as yes, being explainable, but ultimately being of God is a cop out. If all is, as you believe, evidence of God, there is no point in discussing anything, or learning anything, or knowing anything at all. We could all be content being blind to our surroundings content in the knowledge that God has it under control, nothing to see here.

 

[WhiteLion]

Of course you do. Just because something exists does not mean that it was created. People say that God exists. What created God? As for the universe, it may have always existed.



Prove that God exists.

It would boggle your supposively intellectually rationalizing mind.. You still wouldnt get it. Can you imagine nothingness, a great starting point?? take the big bang theory, what jump started it if nothing existed, how can you start something with nothing??? a vast void with no color no atoms and no time continuum???ok lets open this can of worms or this pandora box.....Im ready are you all.....

 

[cjcord]

Pundent, supposively...you're killing me here, truly. I think I'm getting hives.

But just for entertainment value- what is Matt is correct. What if it has always existed? What can of worms are being opened? And may I suggest Firefox? it has this nifty feature that underlines words you have spelled incorrectly. I bet your comments might be taken a bit more seriously if you used real words

 

[WhiteLion]

@ White Lion: have you defined pundent for me yet? I'm still confused on that one...



I could not possibly answer that question as I am not so foolish as to believe that I, or any other thinking person, has any idea what amount of unknown variables there might be in the universe. I am also realistic enough to know that there are many more people in the world who know a great deal more than I do, which is why I ask questions and truly consider the answers. I am not closed minded, nor are my views absolute. As I learn and grow, my views may change, that, to me, is the purpose of life. But in doing so, I have gained logic and intellect, that allows me to observe and recognize fact versus opinion.

I cannot credit anything as fact unless it is proven to be fact in my reality. Concepts can be theorized, as can philosophies and religion, but I am not going to tout them as fact without concrete evidence.




This one is simpler to answer. When one says they can feel gravity, they always mean they feel it's effects. Gravity is not tangible, so it cannot be considered to have a texture. I foolishly assumed you would understand this, but as I stated before, I will be more careful in my wording next time. Gravity is a force, but one that can be easily demonstrated. Not so with a "God" force. You may choose to give examples of a God force, but I can assure you all of those examples can be explained by scientific means.

If you then respond by once more asserting that the fact that any of this can be explained at all- is proof of God; I will have to once more point out that discrediting human ability to explain natural phenomenon is likening us to mindless bodies on a string.

If you admit that intellect means ability to reason and function, you are hereby supporting my point that all can be explained scientifically.

Explaining away all minute details of the universe as yes, being explainable, but ultimately being of God is a cop out. If all is, as you believe, evidence of God, there is no point in discussing anything, or learning anything, or knowing anything at all. We could all be content being blind to our surroundings content in the knowledge that God has it under control, nothing to see here.

That was an honest typo its punditit was an intended satire spoof...

 

[cjcord]

THANK YOU! I was getting very concerned >.<

 

[cjcord]

hey- here's another suggestion, for everyone...

if you quote a post, but you don't intend on referring to the entire thing, it's considered good netiquette to <snip> the bits you don't need. Saves server seconds, I'm sure the mods and admins would approve!

 

[eots]

something can not come from nothing...big bang...blah.. blah..blah...evolution.. blah.. blah...we could not and would not of developed..the intelligence and abstract reasoning we have if it did not exists before us and had no purpose...we pathetic humans can essentially take earth...dirt...breath life into and create crafts like the space shuttle capable of reaching for the heavens...just as god has done with us

 

[MichaelCollins]

something can not come from nothing...big bang...blah.. blah..blah...evolution.. blah.. blah...we could not and would not of developed..the intelligence and abstract rezoning we have if it did not exists before us and had no purpose...we pathetic humans can essentially take earth...dirt...breath life into and create crafts like the space shuttle capable of reaching for the heavens...just as god has done with us

What a deeply simplistic, unreasoned and weird post.

You sound like a 7 year old.

 

[WhiteLion]

Pundent, supposively...you're killing me here, truly. I think I'm getting hives.

But just for entertainment value- what is Matt is correct. What if it has always existed? What can of worms are being opened? And may I suggest Firefox? it has this nifty feature that underlines words you have spelled incorrectly. I bet your comments might be taken a bit more seriously if you used real words

You honestly sound troubled lol, and i honestly didnt expect you to reply nor understand. To be that petty is to be that stupid cjcord, If you want to go from point a to point b you have to have a point of origin "A". You just dont stand there you move out to point b or final destination or maybe to destinations unknown. Or you could just stay at point of origin and not move but this wouldnt benefit anything and still in the state of nothing. Therefore it all started from an origin vantage point dummy....may i suggest a good psych doc ???if your that petty you need some meds bro

 

[eots]

What a deeply simplistic, unreasoned and weird post.

You sound like a 7 year old.

oh please elaborate...