What Constitutes a "Right?"

[Setarcos]

While they wanted a government free from the influences of the Church, they did not want a government devoid of religion. Many saw that as vital to the success of this nation.

Wrong. They felt that a people which held to specific interpretations of their religion was crucial because they were dishonest and cruel men who couldn't comprehend what besides hellfire could motivate people to be honest and kind to their neighbors.

Well, I guess you told me. You make an assertion with no support, and I guess that means you're right, and I am wrong.

So really, nothing you've posted refutes what I've posted.

You're challenging what, exactly? That is was their religion they thought was god? That it was their interpretation thereof that they were speaking of?

 

[Setarcos]

Mortimer Adler proved that God exists beyond a reasonable doubt.

Make a thread and present his arguments

Read his book for yourself.

Don't have to. I'm sure he has no new arguments. Apparently, you're not confident enough in his arguments to forward them.

 

[Setarcos]

Locke places his neck fully in Hume's Guillotine and pulls the cord hmself

Another unsupported assertion.

Do you even know what Hume's guillotine is?

 

[Setarcos]

FactCheck.org: Born in the U.S.A.

Even Factcheck.org contradicts itself.

What did an original look like from Hawaii in1961. Original with a 2007 stamp on it is not original.

An Authoritative Official Reproduction.

Wrong thread, dude.

 

[Modbert]

In less than a month this thread has the most posts of any thread in the politics section.

 

[AdlerianThinker]

Thomas Jefferson and James Madison and Benjamin Franklin and others would laugh dead in your face, then begin organizing the votes to make sure you did not establish a "Christian religion."

I am sure they told you that the last time you channeled them.

Please post for us all where I have called for an establishment of a "Christian religion."

You haven't, but placing your comments into a reasonable context, you would. And channeling? You have been copying and pasting from the get go, and getting it wrong from the beginning. The Founders overwhelmingly favored religious value (you have shown that) but not organized religion's influence in government (you have not demonstrated that). You are going to have to do much better.

What "reasonable" context would that be, your assumptions? I've got less than 20 posts, and you already know so much about me that you know I would support a Theocracy.

Given that I could not post links until 15 posts, where, exactly, are these "cut and pastes"?

Why on earth would I try to show that the Founders wanted religious influence in government, when I have not made, nor inferred, that claim?

I strongly suggest you sharpen your reading comprehension skills.

 

[AdlerianThinker]

T, you have just made a convoluted post that makes absolutely no sense. Either you have not read the thread or you are mentally feeble or you are lying. Those are the only possibilities.

No, another possibility is that you struggle with reading comprehension, which after your last aborted attempt, I am leaning toward.

 

[AdlerianThinker]

Wrong. They felt that a people which held to specific interpretations of their religion was crucial because they were dishonest and cruel men who couldn't comprehend what besides hellfire could motivate people to be honest and kind to their neighbors.

Well, I guess you told me. You make an assertion with no support, and I guess that means you're right, and I am wrong.

So really, nothing you've posted refutes what I've posted.

You're challenging what, exactly? That is was their religion they thought was god? That it was their interpretation thereof that they were speaking of?

Put down the bong, let the smoke clear, and try again. Dope smokers are NEVER as sharp as they think they are.

 

[Setarcos]

In less than a month this thread has the most posts of any thread in the politics section.

And Pro keeps forwarding the same bullshit that's been refuted countless times.

Not a one of them has an original argument and they all seem to think that Locke is God himself.

 

[AdlerianThinker]

Make a thread and present his arguments

Read his book for yourself.

Don't have to. I'm sure he has no new arguments. Apparently, you're not confident enough in his arguments to forward them.

That you can say that without having read it tells me that you are incapable of intellectual discourse, which just confirms my initial assessment.

How often do you need to have things spoon fed to you?

Tell your mom to send dinner down to the basement. You'll need extra time for this one.

 

[AdlerianThinker]

Locke places his neck fully in Hume's Guillotine and pulls the cord hmself

Another unsupported assertion.

Do you even know what Hume's guillotine is?

I do. I read his Treatise many years ago. Where you fail was the assertion that Locke placed his head in it and pulled the cord.

That statement is a mere opinion, with no support.

So how was I incorrect?

 

[Setarcos]

I do. I read his Treatise many years ago. Where you fail was the assertion that Locke placed his head in it and pulled the cord.

That statement is a mere opinion, with no support.

Actually, it's a fact

Here he describes his false impression of nature

....a state of perfect freedom to order their actions and dispose of their possessions and persons as they see fit, within the bounds of the laws of nature, without asking leave or depending upon the will of any other man. A state also of equality, wherein all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another; there being nothing more evident than that creatures of the same species and rank, promiscuously born to all the same advantages of nature and the use of the same faculties, should also be equal one amongst another without subordination or subjection....
The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one; and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind who will but consult it that, being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions....

He jumps from "this is how I think it is" to "it ought to be this way"


​

 

[Setarcos]

Locke and Hobbes both place their necks in Hume's guillotine and pull the cord.

See earlier in the

In Chapter 2, "Of the state of nature", Locke describes the "state of nature" in which men exist before forming governments:

....a state of perfect freedom to order their actions and dispose of their possessions and persons as they see fit, within the bounds of the laws of nature, without asking leave or depending upon the will of any other man.

Except for depending on the other man to not kill or steeal from him

Really?
So this man

was born in an equal state compared to this child

?

he was born with and possesses no more than the child prior to his induction into the social contract?



Clearly, the man knows nothing of most species' social structures. From queen ants to silverbacks, the natural state is far from equal


might makes right

The man is delusional

no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions....

Should? Wherefrom comes this should

He jumps froma gross misrepresentation of the word to prescriptive moral assertions.


Locke is a joke.

.

To jump from a false premise (a lie about the natural state of things) to a prescriptive ought is doubly fallacious.

Locke's assertions do not stand

 

[Setarcos]

Does not exist in a state equal to

The world is far from fair and equal

 

[AdlerianThinker]

In a nutshell, Adler's argument goes thusly:
He had to make an initial assumption, in order to not beg the question of God's existence. That assumption was the existence of a supreme being as the exnihilating preservative - not creative - cause of the universe's everlasting existence.

The premise that the cosmos is radically contingent, and needs an efficient cause of its continuing existence, cannot be proven with certitude, but beyond a reasonable doubt.

Once that is done, we can then consider the alternative assumption, that the cosmos have not always existed, but came to be out of nothing. Based upon that assumption, the statement "God exists" can be made with certitude, for it is impossible that something van come from nothing without exnihilating creative cause.

He does state that since we cannot make the alternative assumption until we have first found reason to believe in God, on the basis of our initial assumption of an everlasting cosmos, that conclusion cannot be proven with certitude, but can be beyond a reasonable doubt. (How to Think About God, pp149-150)

In the end, until such measuring devices are created that will let us measure the supernatural, the existence of, or non-existence of, God cannot be done with certitude. I am convinced, beyond a reasonable doubt, that He does. You are convinced, beyond a reasonable doesn't that He doesn't. As you can no more prove His non-existence as I can His existence, with certitude, then at best it is a push within this argument.

Given the irrational comments you have directed to those of faith, I put out no hope that you will be able to set such aside and discuss this rationally.

So be it.

 

[AdlerianThinker]

I do. I read his Treatise many years ago. Where you fail was the assertion that Locke placed his head in it and pulled the cord.

That statement is a mere opinion, with no support.

Actually, it's a fact

Here he describes his false impression of nature

....a state of perfect freedom to order their actions and dispose of their possessions and persons as they see fit, within the bounds of the laws of nature, without asking leave or depending upon the will of any other man. A state also of equality, wherein all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another; there being nothing more evident than that creatures of the same species and rank, promiscuously born to all the same advantages of nature and the use of the same faculties, should also be equal one amongst another without subordination or subjection....
The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one; and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind who will but consult it that, being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions....

He jumps from "this is how I think it is" to "it ought to be this way"


​

You are attempting to assert, as fact, an allegorical construct. Yet when others do so with the Bible, your head spins. You also assert that your conclusion is fact, when in fact, it is a conclusion.

Hypocritical much?

 

[AdlerianThinker]

Locke and Hobbes both place their necks in Hume's guillotine and pull the cord.

See earlier in the

In Chapter 2, "Of the state of nature", Locke describes the "state of nature" in which men exist before forming governments:
Except for depending on the other man to not kill or steeal from him

Really?
So this man

was born in an equal state compared to this child

?

he was born with and possesses no more than the child prior to his induction into the social contract?



Clearly, the man knows nothing of most species' social structures. From queen ants to silverbacks, the natural state is far from equal


might makes right

The man is delusional

Should? Wherefrom comes this should

He jumps froma gross misrepresentation of the word to prescriptive moral assertions.


Locke is a joke.

.

To jump from a false premise (a lie about the natural state of things) to a prescriptive ought is doubly fallacious.

Locke's assertions do not stand

You have not proven it a lie. Stating it as such is not establishing the veracity of the claim.

Thus your conclusion is flawed.

 

[AdlerianThinker]

Does not exist in a state equal to

The world is far from fair and equal

You are applying an artificial criteria. Both are alive.

Do you assert that the baby in the first does not deserve to live?

 

[Setarcos]

The premise that the cosmos is radically contingent, and needs an efficient cause of its continuing existence, cannot be proven with certitude, but beyond a reasonable doubt.

Demonstrate that "the universe" cannot continue to exist without an outside agent and that such an outside agent is a conscious entity.

Also, define "the universe"

Once that is done, we can then consider the alternative assumption, that the cosmos have not always existed, but came to be out of nothing.

False dichotomy. It might have arisen from another thing. See the Nambla-Colt model ("quantum foam) and M-Theory (branes).

Based upon that assumption, the statement "God exists" can be made with certitude, for it is impossible that something van come from nothing without exnihilating creative cause.

Define "god". If "God" is merely whatever exists "before" our outside of that which we percieve, then the term is meaningless and to use it it to be dishonest, as the purpose is clearly to ascribe to the unknown quantity X whatever attributes one's preferred religion ascribes to deit(y/ies) withjout demonstrating the existence of any such entity.

He does state that since we cannot make the alternative assumption until we have first found reason to believe in God

'
That's not "finding a reason". That's seeking an argument fit to fit the desired assumption and it is intellectually dishonest. All his argument really does is argue that there might or might not be some unknown agent(s) which effect(ed) the formation or continued existence and working of the "universe"- while refusing to define even "the universe".

, on the basis of our initial assumption of an everlasting cosmos, that conclusion cannot be proven with certitude, but can be beyond a reasonable doubt. (How to Think About God, pp149-150)

A "conclusion" in which nothing is defined, reached through unsubstantiated assumptions in which nothing is defined amounts to nothing at all except lever yet dishonest sophism.

. As you can no more prove His non-existence as I can His existence, with certitude, then at best it is a push within this argument.

You can't argue that anything exists when you refuse to define it. Many gods have been disproven- Helios and El/YHWH among them. That's why deism sprang up- it is an attempt to define deity in such a (meaningless) way that the meaningless (non)-definition makes it impossible to test for the existence of such an entity.

You claim to want rationality, yet the arguments you have forward are both irrational and extremely dishonest in nature,

 

[Setarcos]

Do you assert that the baby in the first does not deserve to live?

You're the only want asserting whether either :"deserves to live" or not