Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[<Patrick>]

I happen to believe that we have God-Given rights enshrined in the 10 commandments.

Thou Shalt Not Steal!  This, by itself makes anything but the most ninarchist of governments immoral. (Not Bill's Scheme with the extra "bureuo of land tax redistribution." Georgism is NOT minarchic.)

Thou Shalt not Murder! Ditto

If nobody steals from or murders each other. We'll have liberty. So the Right to liberty is there too.

Tracy

Show me God. Prove that he exists.

No offense, but if your whole view of rights rests on faith then you don't have a leg to stand on.

[Tracy Saboe]

Show me god. Prove that he exists.

Not possible. On the other hand, you can't prove he DOESN'T exist.

To universally have a positive belief that that "NO GOD EXISTS." takes faith just as much as stating that "God DOES EXIST" takes faith.

The agnostic is the only one who can say he's faithless.

I don't really feel like talking about this now. I would simply point to a few Books on Christian apologetics.

C.S. Lewis's "Mere Christianity" Is good. He used to be an aithist.  C.S. Lewist was also quuite libertarian. We can thank Tolkien for much of that (Himself a Catholic Anarchist.)

Read also "Evedence that Demands a verdict" By Josh McDowl.

Read also "Darwin's Black Box."

There is much evidence to support the existence of God. But their isn't anyway to PROVE his existence objectively, just like you can't PROVE his nonexistence objectively. But my faith is not blind. It's based on this support.

Tracy

[Tracy Saboe]

NI, I wouldn't have even chimed in, but you were asking for "mystical" imput Not that I consider Christianity mystical but anyway.

Tracy

[<Patrick>]

Show me god. Prove that he exists.

Not possible. On the other hand, you can't prove he DOESN'T exist.

To universally have a positive belief that that "NO GOD EXISTS." takes faith just as much as stating that "God DOES EXIST" takes faith.

The agnostic is the only one who can say he's faithless.

I don't really feel like talking about this now. I would simply point to a few Books on Christian apologetics.

C.S. Lewis's "Mere Christianity" Is good. He used to be an aithist.  C.S. Lewist was also quuite libertarian. We can thank Tolkien for much of that (Himself a Catholic Anarchist.)

Read also "Evedence that Demands a verdict" By Josh McDowl.

Read also "Darwin's Black Box."

There is much evidence to support the existence of God. But their isn't anyway to PROVE his existence objectively, just like you can't PROVE his nonexistence objectively. But my faith is not blind. It's based on this support.

Tracy

The burden of proof is on he who asserts the positive. I cannot and need not prove a negative. I reject assertions that have no evidence as neither true nor false - but as arbitrary, meaningless fantasy.

The truth is established by reference to a body of evidence and within a context. The false is pronounced false because it contradicts the evidence. The arbitrary, however, has no relation to evidence, facts, or context.

An arbitrary claim is one for which there is no evidence, either perceptual or conceptual. It is a brazen assertion, based neither on direct observation nor on any attempted logical inference therefrom. For example, a man tells you that the soul survives the death of the body; or that your fate will be determined by your birth on the cusp of Capricorn and Aquarius; or that he has a sixth sense which surpasses your five; or that a convention of gremlins is studying Hegel's Logic on the planet Venus. If you ask him "Why?" he offers no argument. "I can't prove any of these statements," he admits — "but you can't disprove them, either."

The answer to all such statements is: an arbitrary claim is automatically invalidated. It is meaningless...

http://www.peikoff.com/opar/arbitrary.htm

[demarkus]

I just got a feeling of deja vu.

Were you trying to say that Tracy doesn't have rights because Tracy believes that the rights he doesn't really have came from God and, since he can't prove God existed, he can't prove he rights?

If not...what where you saying? and why?

If so....I don't think even BillG has managed such total hijacking of a thread.  

[Tracy Saboe]

NI.

On the other hand.

If you make a positive statement that "I know for certain that God doesn't exist." The burden of proof would be on you :-)

Tracy

[<Patrick>]

NI.

On the other hand.

If you make a positive statement that "I know for certain that God doesn't exist." The burden of proof would be on you :-)

Tracy

Depends on what you mean by "God." If you claim that a being called "God" exists who has miraculous and impossible powers that contradict the very nature of reality, then I can say that you are wrong.

Did God "create" the universe?

Does God have the power to make the impossible possibe?

[<Patrick>]

I just got a feeling of deja vu.

Were you trying to say that Tracy doesn't have rights because Tracy believes that the rights he doesn't really have came from God and, since he can't prove God existed, he can't prove he rights?

If not...what where you saying? and why?

If so....I don't think even BillG has managed such total hijacking of a thread.  

No. I think Tracy has rights, I think we all do. I am saying that a defense of rights must be grounded in logic and observable facts about human nature.

I think any attempt to base rights on mystical beliefs does more harm than good for the defense of rights.

Also, I started this thread, so I don't think I can hijack it...  

[<Patrick>]

NI, I wouldn't have even chimed in, but you were asking for "mystical" imput Not that I consider Christianity mystical but anyway.

Tracy

And the input is indeed appreciated. I want to know WHY you think what you do about rights.

[demarkus]

I tried to explain it but I just couldn't do it. I need to find the words.

The burden of proof is on he who asserts the positive.

It is the person to whom the assertion is made that determines what constitutes a valid proof.

[<Patrick>]

I tried to explain it but I just couldn't do it. I need to find the words.

The burden of proof is on he who asserts the positive.

It is the person to whom the assertion is made that determines what constitutes a valid proof.

I wouldn't say that. But in order to convince anybody of anything it would be a good idea to try and prove it to them relative to facts they already know.

What "The burden of proof is on he who asserts the positive" means is that all knowledge is gained by reference to evidence, not the lack of it.

Knowledge is positive, not negative. All knowledge is based on the observation of things that exist, not on the non-observation of things that don't exist.

Thus the definition of "possible" is not "cannot be disproved": it is "some evidence exists that it is true"; the definition of "true" is not "cannot be disproved", but "can be proved"; and the definition of "false" is not "cannot be proved", but "can be disproved".


http://www.thoughtware.com.au/philosophy/philref/PHILOS.26.html

[Tracy Saboe]

Depends on what you mean by "God." If you claim that a being called "God" exists who has miraculous and impossible powers that contradict the very nature of reality, then I can say that you are wrong.

Suppose, you were an artist and made a painting, and followed a certain motif. Now suppose that you decided at one point to interupt that motif. To the "people" inside the "painting" it would certainly look strange and
perhaps contradict the laws of their known reality. But you are the God of your painting. You can change your own rules if you want to. That's all a miricule is. God is the one who made the physical laws the govern this universe. He can certainly choose to suspend his own laws on occasion if he chooses too.  I suggest you read  Miracules again, by C.S. Lewis for a further discussion if you are interested.

Did God "create" the universe?

Yes

Does God have the power to make the impossible possibe?

That depends on your definition of impossible. If by impossible you mean, "Contradict the physical laws of nature," then yes.

If you mean can God make a = not -a then NO. God is bound by the laws of logic. In fact when you read in. the Gospel of John Chapter One verse 1. "In the beginning was the logos[/], and the logos[/] was with God, and the logos[/] was God."  Logos is the actual greak word that is translated in many Bibles as "word." So God IS Logic. And as such, he is bound by the laws of logic, in as much as He is bound by Himself. (And this is why many mystics, don't like christianity, because it believes in reason and logic) St. Fransis of Assissi, did quite a bit of Christian Apologetic work, and talked about this.

And the input is indeed appreciated. I want to know WHY you think what you do about rights.

My Believe in God is rooted in the Bible. Ultimately, I know God exists because in prayer I've talked to him, and he to me.  I've experience His Love. But their isn't any Objectivist way for me to deductively or inductively PROVE his existence to anybody else. In much the same way that a witness to an event can't PROVE that the event took place.

That being said, there is quite a bit of physical evidence that supports my belief in God, in Jesus, and in his physical resurection from the dead.

First of all their's the Creation Evolution debate. I already mentioned "Darwin's Black Box" But their are actually quite a great many scientist who think that the theory of evolution falls quite short (BTW, I don't care much for the Creation Research Institute, but their are quite a few Intelegent Design groups out there.). I would encourage you to read up on Complexity and information theory. Thaxton has a decent summery of it here http://www.arn.org/docs/thaxton/ct_newdesign3198.htm

Another good book is called, "Show me God." Written by Fred Hereen (Heeren? I'm not sure) And he interviews scientists, many of them aithiests and agnostics (Fred Hoyle, Robert Jastro, etc.) to support his thesis, that

1) The big bang implies a beginning, therefore something must have started it (incidently it's funny but many times aithiests and recent creationists have found themselfs fighting on the same side trying to refute the Big Bang theory)  What started it? Various anthropic Principles take just as much faith (if not more) then simply believing that it was done by God. Indeed, read my article
http://ed.augie.edu/~tosaboe/cosmo.html

2ndly, there is quite a bit of evedence in the Historical record that the charectors and events described in the Old Testament actually happened. In fact when the aithiest Archeologist William Buckley, actually set out to prove that the old testement was all a myth,  he was startled at the accuracy of the old testiment in telling him where these various ancient cities were. The same is true with the New Testement. I really don't feel like getting into it that much here, but again I would encourage you to read, "The NEW Evidence that Demands a Verdict" by Josh McDowel

The 3) the historocity of Jesus resurection.

Do you realize how many extra-Biblical and even anti-Christian writings of the time mention Jesus resurection? The Jewish Talmud, and Romain historians of the time talk about it. Another interesting book is "Eyewitness to Jesus" about transcripts of the book of Mathew that are dated to be pre 70 AD In fact most of the Gospels were written prior to 70 A.D. (Well, some more liberal scholars think Mathew was written a little later, and the John was written around 90. But they were all written with-in living memory of Jesus Death.

These historical events are documented in the litterature. Now I can't PROVE them to you, anymore then I can prove to you deductively that I have a puppy (short of sending you a picture).

Jesus was a real person.  He claimed to be the son of God, knowing full well that he risked certain death by doing it. So either he was an insane liar, or was evil incarnate, or he actually was who he said he was.  The same with the apostels. What's the point of risking certain death by proclaiming, "He's Alive," when they new it meant ceratin death by both the Jews and the Romains. Do you think they would do that if they really knew it was a lie? Do you think they were just all insane? All of them?  The Romain and Jewish writings of the time do not describe the apostels as insain. Especially since they didn't even understand that Jesus had said he was going to resurect in three days. They thought he was talking about "the final reserection" So they wouldn't have even bee nable to make it up even if they wanted to.

So anyway,  I still encourage you to read "The New Evedence that demands a verdict." And C.S. Lewis's books "Mere Christianity" and "Miracules." "Darwin's Black Box" will also cause to to start asking questions. I really don't feel like getting into it here.

But suffice it to say that I believe God does exist. And my faith is not blind. I have reason to Believe the Bible, simply because it works to live in a way which the Bible tells us too, but also because of its historical, and internal (It's not self contradictory) accuracy. God then is the one who gives us our rights. Their really isn't any way to PROVE that we have them naturalisticly -- even though many objectivists have done their best.

I have a friend who calls himself a Christian Objectivist. I'll ask him is it's OK, and perhaps I can get you in touch with him if you want. He'd probably be able to comunicate more on your level then I can.

Tracy Saboe

[<Patrick>]

Depends on what you mean by "God." If you claim that a being called "God" exists who has miraculous and impossible powers that contradict the very nature of reality, then I can say that you are wrong.

Suppose, you were an artist and made a painting, and followed a certain motif. Now suppose that you decided at one point to interupt that motif. To the "people" inside the "painting" it would certainly look strange and
perhaps contradict the laws of their known reality. But you are the God of your painting. You can change your own rules if you want to. That's all a miricule is. God is the one who made the physical laws the govern this universe. He can certainly choose to suspend his own laws on occasion if he chooses too.  I suggest you read  Miracules again, by C.S. Lewis for a further discussion if you are interested.

Did God "create" the universe?

Yes

Does God have the power to make the impossible possibe?

That depends on your definition of impossible. If by impossible you mean, "Contradict the physical laws of nature," then yes.

If you mean can God make a = not -a then NO. God is bound by the laws of logic. In fact when you read in. the Gospel of John Chapter One verse 1. "In the beginning was the logos[/], and the logos[/] was with God, and the logos[/] was God."  Logos is the actual greak word that is translated in many Bibles as "word." So God IS Logic. And as such, he is bound by the laws of logic, in as much as He is bound by Himself. (And this is why many mystics, don't like christianity, because it believes in reason and logic) St. Fransis of Assissi, did quite a bit of Christian Apologetic work, and talked about this.

And the input is indeed appreciated. I want to know WHY you think what you do about rights.

My Believe in God is rooted in the Bible. Ultimately, I know God exists because in prayer I've talked to him, and he to me.  I've experience His Love. But their isn't any Objectivist way for me to deductively or inductively PROVE his existence to anybody else. In much the same way that a witness to an event can't PROVE that the event took place.

That being said, there is quite a bit of physical evidence that supports my belief in God, in Jesus, and in his physical resurection from the dead.

First of all their's the Creation Evolution debate. I already mentioned "Darwin's Black Box" But their are actually quite a great many scientist who think that the theory of evolution falls quite short (BTW, I don't care much for the Creation Research Institute, but their are quite a few Intelegent Design groups out there.). I would encourage you to read up on Complexity and information theory. Thaxton has a decent summery of it here http://www.arn.org/docs/thaxton/ct_newdesign3198.htm

Another good book is called, "Show me God." Written by Fred Hereen (Heeren? I'm not sure) And he interviews scientists, many of them aithiests and agnostics (Fred Hoyle, Robert Jastro, etc.) to support his thesis, that

1) The big bang implies a beginning, therefore something must have started it (incidently it's funny but many times aithiests and recent creationists have found themselfs fighting on the same side trying to refute the Big Bang theory)  What started it? Various anthropic Principles take just as much faith (if not more) then simply believing that it was done by God. Indeed, read my article
http://ed.augie.edu/~tosaboe/cosmo.html

2ndly, there is quite a bit of evedence in the Historical record that the charectors and events described in the Old Testament actually happened. In fact when the aithiest Archeologist William Buckley, actually set out to prove that the old testement was all a myth,  he was startled at the accuracy of the old testiment in telling him where these various ancient cities were. The same is true with the New Testement. I really don't feel like getting into it that much here, but again I would encourage you to read, "The NEW Evidence that Demands a Verdict" by Josh McDowel

The 3) the historocity of Jesus resurection.

Do you realize how many extra-Biblical and even anti-Christian writings of the time mention Jesus resurection? The Jewish Talmud, and Romain historians of the time talk about it. Another interesting book is "Eyewitness to Jesus" about transcripts of the book of Mathew that are dated to be pre 70 AD In fact most of the Gospels were written prior to 70 A.D. (Well, some more liberal scholars think Mathew was written a little later, and the John was written around 90. But they were all written with-in living memory of Jesus Death.

These historical events are documented in the litterature. Now I can't PROVE them to you, anymore then I can prove to you deductively that I have a puppy (short of sending you a picture).

Jesus was a real person.  He claimed to be the son of God, knowing full well that he risked certain death by doing it. So either he was an insane liar, or was evil incarnate, or he actually was who he said he was.  The same with the apostels. What's the point of risking certain death by proclaiming, "He's Alive," when they new it meant ceratin death by both the Jews and the Romains. Do you think they would do that if they really knew it was a lie? Do you think they were just all insane? All of them?  The Romain and Jewish writings of the time do not describe the apostels as insain. Especially since they didn't even understand that Jesus had said he was going to resurect in three days. They thought he was talking about "the final reserection" So they wouldn't have even bee nable to make it up even if they wanted to.

So anyway,  I still encourage you to read "The New Evedence that demands a verdict." And C.S. Lewis's books "Mere Christianity" and "Miracules." "Darwin's Black Box" will also cause to to start asking questions. I really don't feel like getting into it here.

But suffice it to say that I believe God does exist. And my faith is not blind. I have reason to Believe the Bible, simply because it works to live in a way which the Bible tells us too, but also because of its historical, and internal (It's not self contradictory) accuracy. God then is the one who gives us our rights. Their really isn't any way to PROVE that we have them naturalisticly -- even though many objectivists have done their best.

I have a friend who calls himself a Christian Objectivist. I'll ask him is it's OK, and perhaps I can get you in touch with him if you want. He'd probably be able to comunicate more on your level then I can.

Tracy Saboe

You sound kind of like a Thomist. Do you like Thomas Aquinas?

Anyway, as far as rights go, let's assume for the sake of argument that you could provide positive proof for the existence of God.

How do you know that he endowed us with rights? Other religions will tell you that God expects us to do as we are told, to obey THEIR holy book. Why is your particular version of faith (sorry) any better than theirs?

Why is it that in times and places dominated by religion there is/was no concept of individual rights? (Europe in the year 1200, Iran or Saudi Arabia today, etc.)

How do you go from the existence of a creator to the idea of rights?

[RhythmStar]

>>How do you go from the existence of a Creator to the idea of rights?

By rejecting revealed religions and becoming a Deist?  

RS

[<Patrick>]

Suppose, you were an artist and made a painting, and followed a certain motif. Now suppose that you decided at one point to interupt that motif. To the "people" inside the "painting" it would certainly look strange and
perhaps contradict the laws of their known reality. But you are the God of your painting. You can change your own rules if you want to. That's all a miricule is. God is the one who made the physical laws the govern this universe. He can certainly choose to suspend his own laws on occasion if he chooses too.  I suggest you read  Miracules again, by C.S. Lewis for a further discussion if you are interested.

This type of God would be metaphysically possible, but there is still no positive evidence for his existence, thus no reason to believe in him.

Did God "create" the universe?

yes

By universe do you mean space, time, matter, etc. or do you mean the very totality of existence?

Although there is no positive evidence for it, it's metaphysically possible for the "universe" as we know it  - our little part of existence - to have been created by someone or something.

What is NOT possible is someone or something creating existence AS SUCH. You cannot go outside of existence to "somewhere else." There is nowhere else to go. Thus existence can have no cause and no alternative. It simply IS.

That depends on your definition of impossible. If by impossible you mean, "Contradict the physical laws of nature," then yes.

If you mean can God make a = not -a then NO. God is bound by the laws of logic. In fact when you read in. the Gospel of John Chapter One verse 1. "In the beginning was the logos[/], and the logos[/] was with God, and the logos[/] was God."  Logos is the actual greak word that is translated in many Bibles as "word." So God IS Logic. And as such, he is bound by the laws of logic, in as much as He is bound by Himself. (And this is why many mystics, don't like christianity, because it believes in reason and logic) St. Fransis of Assissi, did quite a bit of Christian Apologetic work, and talked about this.

I mean that one cannot make A non-A by waving some magic wand. To exist is to exist as something. So even if your God did exist he would still be bound by the laws of logic.

If you agree with this then your view of God would have to be a God who is not all-powerful in the widest sense. An omnipotent god could make A non-A.

My Believe in God is rooted in the Bible. Ultimately, I know God exists because in prayer I've talked to him, and he to me.  I've experience His Love. But their isn't any Objectivist way for me to deductively or inductively PROVE his existence to anybody else. In much the same way that a witness to an event can't PROVE that the event took place.

If it's rooted in the Bible then prove the Bible is true... Every religion has its holy book and every religion claims that their book is the "word of God." So what makes your book better than their books?

The big bang implies a beginning, therefore something must have started it (incidently it's funny but many times aithiests and recent creationists have found themselfs fighting on the same side trying to refute the Big Bang theory)  What started it? Various anthropic Principles take just as much faith (if not more) then simply believing that it was done by God. Indeed, read my article

The big bang may have been the beginning of what we call the universe but there can be no beginning of existence as such. Existence cannot magically spring forth from non-existence.