What Constitutes a "Right?"

[AdlerianThinker]

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.

My first question was of the yes or no variety. As was the second.

That you chose, instead, to be pedantic indicates you are waffling. The highlighted parts above are qualifiers. The use of a qualifier is not enough to indicate dishonesty. The use of eight, in such a short passage, is a cluster of high significance.

So you answered a yes or no question with at least 8 qualifiers, and expect this to treated as an honest response?

Move along, citizen.........

 

[Diuretic]

You can believe what you like. The fact is that the existence of God has not been proven here or anywhere else. The same old arguments are trotted out and dressed up for contemporary viewing, whether it be from Anselm or Kalaam. They are simply mind experiments and word games which amount to nothing in terms of proof. To claim otherwise is rank stupidity.

How facile. "If you don't think like I do you're an idiot" is as juvenile as it gets.

Juvenile? Man it's a clinical DELUSION.

The existance of God has been proven time and again... and every bit as much as has any other force of nature.

What these idiots want to project is the common misnomer that God is 'supernatural.' God is nature, thus there's nothing more 'natural' than nature.

The greatest irony in all of this is how the anti-theist come to the table on the premise that their position is empirical... that their's is a position which rests on science; when in truth, their position rests upon humanist left-think... OKA: pseudo-science.

The existence of God has been proven?

 

[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.

My first question was of the yes or no variety. As was the second.

That you chose, instead, to be pedantic indicates you are waffling. The highlighted parts above are qualifiers. The use of a qualifier is not enough to indicate dishonesty. The use of eight, in such a short passage, is a cluster of high significance.

So you answered a yes or no question with at least 8 qualifiers, and expect this to treated as an honest response?

Move along, citizen.........

Maybe what I'm saying is no one who is at all informed will give you a yes or no answer. Actually, I'd argue that no one who is at all informed would expect a yes or no answer. Good luck on your Turing test by the way.

 

[Setarcos]

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.

My first question was of the yes or no variety. As was the second.

That you chose, instead, to be pedantic indicates you are waffling. The highlighted parts above are qualifiers. The use of a qualifier is not enough to indicate dishonesty. The use of eight, in such a short passage, is a cluster of high significance.

So you answered a yes or no question with at least 8 qualifiers, and expect this to treated as an honest response?

Move along, citizen.........

That you attack a poster for answering your loaded and dishonest question as clearly as possible proves that you are not interested in honest discussion.

 

[AdlerianThinker]

How facile. "If you don't think like I do you're an idiot" is as juvenile as it gets.

Juvenile? Man it's a clinical DELUSION.

The existance of God has been proven time and again... and every bit as much as has any other force of nature.

What these idiots want to project is the common misnomer that God is 'supernatural.' God is nature, thus there's nothing more 'natural' than nature.

The greatest irony in all of this is how the anti-theist come to the table on the premise that their position is empirical... that their's is a position which rests on science; when in truth, their position rests upon humanist left-think... OKA: pseudo-science.

The existence of God has been proven?

Yes indeed. And no proof against forthcoming, despite numerous requests.

Having seen the various arguments for God's existence, I have had my faith reaffirmed, not that such was needed.

What I have not seen is a convincing argument that God does not exist, thus his existence is proven.

What else do you expect of a subjective argument?

 

[AdlerianThinker]

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.

My first question was of the yes or no variety. As was the second.

That you chose, instead, to be pedantic indicates you are waffling. The highlighted parts above are qualifiers. The use of a qualifier is not enough to indicate dishonesty. The use of eight, in such a short passage, is a cluster of high significance.

So you answered a yes or no question with at least 8 qualifiers, and expect this to treated as an honest response?

Move along, citizen.........

Maybe what I'm saying is no one who is at all informed will give you a yes or no answer. Actually, I'd argue that no one who is at all informed would expect a yes or no answer. Good luck on your Turing test by the way.

It is good to see that the dissembling I had predicted has come to pass. Even Einstein was capable of giving yes/no answers to yes/no questions.

Clusters of qualifiers only tells me you are ducking the question, as you feel it pins you down, somehow.

A person who is confident of their position would need no such tactics.

The Universe is finite. It was exnihilated by God.

I will hold that belief until proof otherwise is given, and I am convinced of the veracity of the proof.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

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 law has absolutely nothing to do with one's unalienable right to pursue the fulfillment of one's life. I do not consult the law about my rights... I exercise my rights within the scope of my sacred responsibilities to not infringe upon the means of others to exercise their rights... and so far the law, serving sound moral principle, serves justice and it all works itself out.

Where a law usurps my means to exercise my rights I ignore that law... and contest that law as I go about exercising my rights.

Of course with Leftists in power, the law is beginning to turn from sound moral principle; as in the Hussein policy which stripped contract law of it's teeth and usurped the rights of many people who were performing on their contracts... in numerous elements of the US Economy.

I don't ask the law to validate my marriage... granted I did file for a license 30 years ago... and I've enjoyed a minimal venue of privileges that the law provides for marriage.

But if the law didn't provide for such, it wouldn't have changed anything... I'd still be married to the same woman... still have the same kids; and our family would still be sanctioned by God.

Homosexuals who want to co-habitate are not being prevented from doing so... they're not being fired because they're queer... granted they might well be fired because they were 10 minutes early, or because they wore a brown buttondown shirt... or because it's Tuesday and the coffee is at half pot... but not because they're queer.

And sure... their behavior would never be sanctioned by God... But there is no doubt in my mind that where one man loves another and tends to their well being in love and friendship... God sanctions that relationship.

But Homosexuals do not qualify for marriage... PERIOD.

The Homosexual, just like everyone else is endowed by God with the unalienable right to pursue the fulfillment of their lives... and where they choose wisely, they find fulfillment and where they choose poorly, they suffer the consequences.

For those homosexuals that want to be married... where they choose a person of their same gender to marry... they chose poorly and where they need public sanction for the fulfillment of their lives... they will always remain in perpetual want.

 

[Diuretic]

Juvenile? Man it's a clinical DELUSION.

The existance of God has been proven time and again... and every bit as much as has any other force of nature.

What these idiots want to project is the common misnomer that God is 'supernatural.' God is nature, thus there's nothing more 'natural' than nature.

The greatest irony in all of this is how the anti-theist come to the table on the premise that their position is empirical... that their's is a position which rests on science; when in truth, their position rests upon humanist left-think... OKA: pseudo-science.

The existence of God has been proven?

Yes indeed. And no proof against forthcoming, despite numerous requests.

Having seen the various arguments for God's existence, I have had my faith reaffirmed, not that such was needed.

What I have not seen is a convincing argument that God does not exist, thus his existence is proven.

What else do you expect of a subjective argument?

I don't think you can conclude that because there is no convincing argument that God doesn't exist, therefore He does exist. I think the only thing you can conclude is that there is no convincing argument that God doesn't exist.

I've read some of the major arguments for God's existence. They range from fairly straightforward to quite sophisticated. But in the end they amount to arguments which are probably valid in logical terms but that's about it. There's no hard evidence to prove God's existence. And I have to say as far as I know there is no way to prove - objectively - God's existence. However for believers that doesn't matter, as you indicate.

 

[Mister T]

What I have not seen is a convincing argument that God does not exist, thus his existence is proven.

Can you prove I'm not god? Thus, it's proven that I am.

Can you prove Thor, TIPU, FSM doesn't exist? Thus, their existence is proven

 

[Intense]

What I have not seen is a convincing argument that God does not exist, thus his existence is proven.

Can you prove I'm not god? Thus, it's proven that I am.

Can you prove Thor, TIPU, FSM doesn't exist? Thus, their existence is proven

In Your Mind Yes.

 

[Mister T]

So your god only exists in your mind?

 

[Intense]

You All Keep Arguing a Point that is not Provable either way. Our Faith In God is based on a Theory that Cannot currently be Proved or Disproved Factually. We can Reason, We can accept or deny the Premise. I feel God's Presence, God's Hand Every Day, and am Content with that. I am unable to Prove to Someone something that He/She is either not ready or unable to Accept. I am not Required to do so. I am Required to Live My Life as best Able, in Principle. Faith takes us far beyond what we can prove. The Focus is the Relationship, above All else. The Fruits we Discover and share, still benefit, whether the source is recognized by others or not.

 

[Intense]

So your god only exists in your mind?

No. My God is Real in My Mind. Who is to say more than that?

 

[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.

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

You misunderstand - I say there are NO "natural" rights.
The idea that God endorses a set of political rights is absurd and decidedly unBiblical.

 

[Mister T]

So your god only exists in your mind?

No. My God is Real in My Mind. Who is to say more than that?

And mine is real in my mind- and he commands that your god and all his people be locked away


Since you admit that there's no proof your god exists outside of your own head, you can't appeal to it in debate. otherwise, we all appeal to another god that says something else and we're all right. Such an absurdity highlights the flaw in your reasoning in this thread.

You're left with only material sciences to argue your point.

 

[Mister T]

You All Keep Arguing a Point that is not Provable either way. Our Faith In God is based on a Theory that Cannot currently be Proved or Disproved Factually. We can Reason, We can accept or deny the Premise. I feel God's Presence, God's Hand Every Day, and am Content with that. I am unable to Prove to Someone something that He/She is either not ready or unable to Accept. I am not Required to do so. I am Required to Live My Life as beast Able, in Principle. Faith takes us far beyond what we can prove. The Focus is the Relationship, above All else. The Fruits we Discover and share, still benefit, whether the source is recognized or not.

It can be disproved, actually. You assertions say your god wrote a book and your god is perfect and his book is perfect,. Any flaws, lies, misinformation, or inconsistencies in that book disprove your religion.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

Gay (or straight) love and the desire to marry do not qualify as 'pursuit of happiness'? An inalienable right?

Name some things that do qualify as 'pursuit of happiness'.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Juvenile? Man it's a clinical DELUSION.

The existance of God has been proven time and again... and every bit as much as has any other force of nature.

What these idiots want to project is the common misnomer that God is 'supernatural.' God is nature, thus there's nothing more 'natural' than nature.

The greatest irony in all of this is how the anti-theist come to the table on the premise that their position is empirical... that their's is a position which rests on science; when in truth, their position rests upon humanist left-think... OKA: pseudo-science.

The existence of God has been proven?

Yes indeed. And no proof against forthcoming, despite numerous requests.

Having seen the various arguments for God's existence, I have had my faith reaffirmed, not that such was needed.

What I have not seen is a convincing argument that God does not exist, thus his existence is proven.

What else do you expect of a subjective argument?

That something cannot be proven not to exist is proof that it does exist is sheer idiocy.

By your logic, then, every god that ever existed in the beliefs of any culture that cannot be proven NOT to exist MUST THEREFORE EXIST.

That, among other things, would prove that monotheism is WRONG.

 

[NYcarbineer]

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.

What then is the meaning of pursuit of happiness as expressed as an inalienable right in the Declaration of Independence?

Marriage is a civil right according to the SCOTUS. Why is gay marriage excluded from that?

 

[Intense]

So your god only exists in your mind?

No. My God is Real in My Mind. Who is to say more than that?

And mine is real in my mind- and he commands that your god and all his people be locked away


Since you admit that there's no proof your god exists outside of your own head, you can't appeal to it in debate. otherwise, we all appeal to another god that says something else and we're all right. Such an absurdity highlights the flaw in your reasoning in this thread.

You're left with only material sciences to argue your point.

You and Your God's Command Just Violated My Natural Rights.
You can't enforce your set Limits, so they must not be limits at all, just smoke.
I appeal to My God as an Act Of Faith. That makes it No Less Legitimate. What is Illegitimate is Your Argument, because My Appeal as an Act of Faith, is No Concern of Yours at All, It's none of Your Business. What I Believe is not Your Jurisdiction, just as what You believe is not mine. My faith in God is no Less Valid because I can't Prove it to You on Paper. You are corrupted by your own reasoning.