Free State Project Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Down

Author Topic: Existence of God (was Re:Rights)  (Read 13738 times)

<Patrick>

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 911
  • Radical Capitalist
    • Ayn Rand Institute
Re:Rights
« Reply #15 on: March 03, 2004, 07:54:57 pm »

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

By rejecting revealed religions and becoming a Deist?  :)

RS

Let's hear your view.
Logged
"I came here to say that I do not recognize anyone’s right to one minute of my life.  Nor to any part of my energy.  Nor to any achievement of mine… I wished to come here and say that I am a man who does not exist for others."
-Ayn Rand
http://www.aynrand.org
http://capitalism.org

Tracy Saboe

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3859
    • Rand for US Senate in Kentucky!
Re:Rights
« Reply #16 on: March 03, 2004, 07:56:35 pm »

I do like Thomas Aquinas. I've read a decent amount about him, and his writings. First, when studying theology, and christian Apologetics, and now my interest in him has been renewed more so now that I've discovered libertarianism. He was the one that started the tradition of the "Late Scholastics" (as they are commonly refered to as now.) I don't think I agree with everything he said, but he was a pretty good thinker , and defender or both liberty and Christianity. In fact the Catholic intellectual tradition has a rich history of defending liberty.  You also have St. Fransis of Assissi, Lord Acton, J.R.R. Tolkien,  just to name a few. (It's just to bad the Church itself didn't follow their advice -- but currently Pope John Paul II is doing his best to change that and bring it back towards liberty See http://www.mises.org/blog/archives/jpii_a_misesian_001575.asp .)

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

Well, that's a different question. A good book on that is actually about the Late Scholastics.

The mises institute has some good reviews about it.

Part 1)
http://www.mises.org/fullarticle.asp?record=1267&month=58

Part 2)
http://www.mises.org/fullarticle.asp?record=1270&month=58

I would just encourage you to read these reviews.

Basically my view however breaks down to the following:

I have a 2nd initial assumption (The 1st being that God exists), that the Bible is inspired by God. This is also based not on blind faith, I have reason's for believing, but on faith nonetheless.

My basic belief is that The Bible says though shalt not steal.Therefore stealing is wrong. That means we have a right to be free from the theivery of others. (Or as you say, the right to not be agressed against.)

In the same vain, the Bible says that Murder is wrong. That means we have a right to be free from somebody else killing us.  That's where the negative rights to life and property come from.

The most libertarian statement Jesus ever said was "Love your neighbor as you love yourself"
The most libertarian thing Paul wrote was this "Do onto others as you would have them do unto you." in Romains.

This is not to say that I think we necessarily need government to defend our rights, (but perhaps we do) It's ust to say that we have them.

And before anybody asks. No I'm not a Catholic.

Tracy
Logged
We agree that "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action." --George Washington

Jack Conway

Conway Supports Obamacare
Conway Supports Cap and Trade
Conway Supports Abortion
Conway’s Utilities Rate Hike Scandal
Conway is in Bed with Big Pharma
Conway is Backed by Wall Street Bankers

BillG

  • Guest
Re:Rights
« Reply #17 on: March 03, 2004, 08:00:15 pm »

can you guys pleez either take this to the religion thread or talk about rights only?

you are sullying a perfectly good geo-ghetto with all these impure thoughts...
Logged

<Patrick>

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 911
  • Radical Capitalist
    • Ayn Rand Institute
Re:Rights
« Reply #18 on: March 03, 2004, 08:12:52 pm »

I do like Thomas Aquinas. I've read a decent amount about him, and his writings. First, when studying theology, and christian Apologetics, and now my interest in him has been renewed more so now that I've discovered libertarianism. He was the one that started the tradition of the "Late Scholastics" (as they are commonly refered to as now.) I don't think I agree with everything he said, but he was a pretty good thinker , and defender or both liberty and Christianity. In fact the Catholic intellectual tradition has a rich history of defending liberty.  You also have St. Fransis of Assissi, Lord Acton, J.R.R. Tolkien,  just to name a few. (It's just to bad the Church itself didn't follow their advice -- but currently Pope John Paul II is doing his best to change that and bring it back towards liberty See http://www.mises.org/blog/archives/jpii_a_misesian_001575.asp .)

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

Well, that's a different question. A good book on that is actually about the Late Scholastics.

The mises institute has some good reviews about it.

Part 1)
http://www.mises.org/fullarticle.asp?record=1267&month=58

Part 2)
http://www.mises.org/fullarticle.asp?record=1270&month=58

I would just encourage you to read these reviews.

Basically my view however breaks down to the following:

I have a 2nd initial assumption (The 1st being that God exists), that the Bible is inspired by God. This is also based not on blind faith, I have reason's for believing, but on faith nonetheless.

My basic belief is that The Bible says though shalt not steal.Therefore stealing is wrong. That means we have a right to be free from the theivery of others. (Or as you say, the right to not be agressed against.)

In the same vain, the Bible says that Murder is wrong. That means we have a right to be free from somebody else killing us.  That's where the negative rights to life and property come from.

The most libertarian statement Jesus ever said was "Love your neighbor as you love yourself"
The most libertarian thing Paul wrote was this "Do onto others as you would have them do unto you." in Romains.

This is not to say that I think we necessarily need government to defend our rights, (but perhaps we do) It's ust to say that we have them.

And before anybody asks. No I'm not a Catholic.

Tracy

Ok. So basically it goes:

God exists
The Bible is the word of God and is true
The Bible implies liberty and rights
Therefore man has rights

Here are the problems:

There is no positive evidence of God's existence.

Even if God did exist, there is no proof that the Bible is his word and not just some book.

Also, does the Bible really imply liberty and rights?


Genesis 19:26 Because he disapproved of their lifestyle, God murdered all of the people in Sodom and Gomorrah except Lot and his family. He whimsically turned Lot's wife into a pillar of salt simply because she couldn't resist a natural impulse: looking back.

Genesis 38:7 Er, Judah's first born, was wicked in the eyes of the Lord so the Lord murdered him.

Genesis 38:8-10 Because he refused to impregnate his widowed sister-in-law, God murdered Onan.

Exodus 19:12 Whosoever toucheth Mount Sinai shall be killed. How about the traveler who didn't know one mountain from another?

Exodus 22:18 Thou shall not suffer a witch to live. This one little sentence led to the execution of thousands of innocent women.

Exodus 31:15 Whoever does any work on the Sabbath will be killed. Would anyone care to see this one enforced today?

Leviticus 20:10 Adulterers shall be put to death. This would include a lot of preachers I've heard about.

Leviticus 20:13 If a man lieth with another man as with a woman, they shall both be killed. This one justifies homophobia.

Leviticus 24:16 He that blasphemeth the Lord must be killed. This one violates our First Amendment rights.

Leviticus 24:21 He that killeth a man shall be killed. This passage is used by Bible believers to justify capital punishment.

Numbers 1:51 Any layman approaching the tabernacle will be killed. Note that no exception is made for the blind.

Numbers 16:31-35 As a penalty for daring to question Moses' leadership, two men, Dathan and Abiram along with their wives, children, servants and other followers (250 in all) were either buried alive or burned to death. Here again innocent victims are pointlessly and cruelly murdered.

http://www.ffrf.org/fttoday/june_july97/cable.html



« Last Edit: March 03, 2004, 08:16:45 pm by Patrick Norton »
Logged
"I came here to say that I do not recognize anyone’s right to one minute of my life.  Nor to any part of my energy.  Nor to any achievement of mine… I wished to come here and say that I am a man who does not exist for others."
-Ayn Rand
http://www.aynrand.org
http://capitalism.org

<Patrick>

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 911
  • Radical Capitalist
    • Ayn Rand Institute
Re:Rights
« Reply #19 on: March 03, 2004, 08:20:53 pm »

can you guys pleez either take this to the religion thread or talk about rights only?

you are sullying a perfectly good geo-ghetto with all these impure thoughts...

I know this is a joke. But I have to point out that abstract ideas are hierarchical and thus one's views on politics are dependant on one's deeper philosophic views.
 
Logged
"I came here to say that I do not recognize anyone’s right to one minute of my life.  Nor to any part of my energy.  Nor to any achievement of mine… I wished to come here and say that I am a man who does not exist for others."
-Ayn Rand
http://www.aynrand.org
http://capitalism.org

BillG

  • Guest
Re:Rights
« Reply #20 on: March 03, 2004, 08:54:19 pm »

can you guys pleez either take this to the religion thread or talk about rights only?

you are sullying a perfectly good geo-ghetto with all these impure thoughts...

I know this is a joke. But I have to point out that abstract ideas are hierarchical and thus one's views on politics are dependant on one's deeper philosophic views.
 

can we drive all the god-commies out of the FSP please?

 ;D
Logged

demarkus

  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 243
  • I'm a llama!
Re:Rights
« Reply #21 on: March 03, 2004, 09:27:48 pm »

I think, by definition, you have to be atheist to be communist.
Logged
It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
- Voltaire

Tracy Saboe

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3859
    • Rand for US Senate in Kentucky!
Re:Rights
« Reply #22 on: March 03, 2004, 11:05:04 pm »

I apologize in advance for the LLOONNGG parethesis.

Quote

There is no positive evidence of God's existence.

There is no positive evidence for his nonexistence either.

Quote
Even if God did exist, there is no proof that the Bible is his word and not just some book.

Ditto above

As far as the rest. If God is the one who grants life, he does have a right to take it away also.

God has the ability to know the heart of man. Only God is just, and only God has the right to judge a human being.  Remember. It's his creation. He can alter it as he see's fit.

I should have said perhaps that Man has a right to not be agressed against by a fellow man.

As far as Leviticus goes, Homosexuality, Adultery, etc.  Jesus changed all that with his perfect sacrafice and resurection from the cross.  Talk to any Christian Jew, and he/she'll be able to better explain it better then I can.  But God made a new covenent with us. One based on forgiveness.

I'll try to explain.

God can only allow moral perfection in his kingdom (heaven)

The Isrealites needed to be cleansed of their sin. The sheding of blood is how that's done. This is because, "The Life, is in the Blood." (By the way, it was the discovery of this verse, by a doctor -- I forget his name -- in the middle ages, that stopped the practice of leaching. This Doctor thought, "If the life is in the blood, we shouldn't be taking it out, we should be, if anything, be trying to figure out how to put more in.") So they gave animal sacrifices.  But because the sheep, lambs, and whatever else wasn't perfect, they didn't count for much. which is why they had to continue to do it.

See in the Begining, Adom had sinned. God had given him free will. And Adom chose to disobey God. This is the doctoran of original sin.

But God wanted to give humanity another chance to choose to follow him. Jesus was that 2nd chance. Read the book of Romains, in the Bible. Paul talks about Jesus being that 2nd Adom.

Anyway, because Jesus was morally perfect, he was that perfect sacrafise.  So we wouldn't need to bound by the old Jewish LAW. So now we live under a new convenent with God. One based on forgiveness. and Love. We can now be purified by His blood, instead of needing to coninually sacrifise and do good works, etc.

So most of the Levitician law is no longer valid. On the other hand, it's still good advice.  It's good advice to eat healthy, and not eat animals that eat garbage (like Pigs, and stuff) Adultery is harmfull to your wife and kids. Homosexuality is harmfull to your self and others.  (Now I know that's not a popular stance with many PC libertarians, but AIDS started out as GRIDS, and Gay Related Rectal Syndrome, and other health problems are caused by the practice of male homosexuality. A good book on the Subject is called The Comming Plague -- It's Actually Not about AIDS or homosexuallity in particular, it's simply a long book about epidemics. But the last few chapters talk about the origins of AIDS.)

While I would never advocate Government to enforce morality,  (This is not Christlike. The message of Christianity is one of love, and forgiveness. Not locking people up for every sin they commit. Because frankly, if that's the way it was, we'd all be dead. We all have sin. I'm not better then anybody else. In fact, as we've seen on this board, I said some pretty mean things to people at times, that I shouldn't have said, that I need to apologize to people for. I'm far from morally perfect. And now because Jesus Blood has been able to cleanse me, I can still enter his place of moral perfection, instead of facing eternal death.),

Morality still exists.

(So lets not have anybody calling me a theofascist now :) )  

By the way, this is what I meant when I was talking about natural moral law to Morpheus a while ago. Simply, if you sin, there will be natural, unpleasent consequences to your actions, simply as part of the way God designed human nature. It's best if government gets out of the way, so people can experience those consequences themselves so they can figure out the best, moral way to live for themselves, instead of difusing the cost of those consequences out on the rest of society (Like the current welfare state does).

But back to the topic at hand.

As Jesus said in one of the Gospels, "Let he who is with-out sin, be the one to throw the first stone."

Only he who is with-out sin has the right to judge another human being.  Jesus is the only one who was with-out sin. And he forgave her. However, he then told her, "Go and sin no more."

Anyway, It's perfectly moral for God to judge others.

And now since we have a direct line to Him, the Priesthood was abolished.  This is why I believe we don't need government anymore. Anarchy has been a moral Christian alternitive since "the veil was ripped in two."

I would suggest you actually read the Bible, and Some of the Gospels in the New Testement (The gospel of Mark is short and quick. The Gospel of John's a pretty easy read too. ) instead of relying on other people to tell you what to think about it. Go to the soarce. Then decide for yourself :-)

(with Apologies to our Yacht faring friend Robert) Don't trust me, or the Late Scholastics, or C.S. Lewis, or those sites you're quoting, RythemStar or Bill, or anybody else to tell you about what the Bible says, or what Christianity is all about. Find out for yourself what you think about it.
Logged
We agree that "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action." --George Washington

Jack Conway

Conway Supports Obamacare
Conway Supports Cap and Trade
Conway Supports Abortion
Conway’s Utilities Rate Hike Scandal
Conway is in Bed with Big Pharma
Conway is Backed by Wall Street Bankers

<Patrick>

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 911
  • Radical Capitalist
    • Ayn Rand Institute
Re:Rights
« Reply #23 on: March 04, 2004, 01:38:24 am »

I think, by definition, you have to be atheist to be communist.

It is possible to believe in Karl Marx's economic and political ideas yet still believe in God.

« Last Edit: March 04, 2004, 02:28:38 am by Patrick Norton »
Logged
"I came here to say that I do not recognize anyone’s right to one minute of my life.  Nor to any part of my energy.  Nor to any achievement of mine… I wished to come here and say that I am a man who does not exist for others."
-Ayn Rand
http://www.aynrand.org
http://capitalism.org

<Patrick>

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 911
  • Radical Capitalist
    • Ayn Rand Institute
Re:Rights
« Reply #24 on: March 04, 2004, 03:06:42 am »

I apologize in advance for the LLOONNGG parethesis.

Quote

There is no positive evidence of God's existence.

There is no positive evidence for his nonexistence either.

Quote
Even if God did exist, there is no proof that the Bible is his word and not just some book.

Ditto above


It (quite literally) makes no sense to say that one should believe in something because its nonexistence cannot be proven. This is nonsense...

It does, however, make sense to say that one does not believe in something because there is no evidence for its existence.


To quote Leonard Peikoff,

"If a person asserts that a certain entity exists (such as God, gremlins, a disembodied soul), he is required to adduce evidence supporting his claim. If he does so, one must either accept his conclusion or disqualify his evidence by showing that he has misinterperited certain data. But if he offers no supporting evidence, one must dismiss his claim...It is impossible to "prove a negative," meaning by the term: prove the nonexistence of an entity for which there is not evidence.

The reason is the fact that existence exists, and ONLY existence exists. A thing that exists is something; it is an entity in the world; as such, it has effects by which men can grasp and prove it - either directly, by perceptual means, or indirectly, by logical inference. But a nonexistent is nothing; it is not a constituent of reality, and it has no effects.

If [God], for instance, does not exist, then he is nothing and has no consequences. In such a case, to say: "Prove that there is no [God]," is to say: "Point to the facts of reality that follow from the nonexistence of [God]." But there are no such facts. Nothing follows from nothing.

All thought, argument, proof, refutation must start with that which exists. No inference can be drawn from a zero."

The burden of proof is on he who asserts the positive.
« Last Edit: March 04, 2004, 03:56:29 am by Patrick Norton »
Logged
"I came here to say that I do not recognize anyone’s right to one minute of my life.  Nor to any part of my energy.  Nor to any achievement of mine… I wished to come here and say that I am a man who does not exist for others."
-Ayn Rand
http://www.aynrand.org
http://capitalism.org

<Patrick>

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 911
  • Radical Capitalist
    • Ayn Rand Institute
Re:Rights
« Reply #25 on: March 04, 2004, 03:09:32 am »

Quote
I would suggest you actually read the Bible, and Some of the Gospels in the New Testement (The gospel of Mark is short and quick. The Gospel of John's a pretty easy read too. ) instead of relying on other people to tell you what to think about it. Go to the soarce. Then decide for yourself :-)

I have read some of it. No offense, but I thought it was a bit ridiculous.  :-\
Logged
"I came here to say that I do not recognize anyone’s right to one minute of my life.  Nor to any part of my energy.  Nor to any achievement of mine… I wished to come here and say that I am a man who does not exist for others."
-Ayn Rand
http://www.aynrand.org
http://capitalism.org

Tracy Saboe

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3859
    • Rand for US Senate in Kentucky!
Re:Rights
« Reply #26 on: March 04, 2004, 04:50:28 am »

I apologize in advance for the LLOONNGG parethesis.

Quote

There is no positive evidence of God's existence.

There is no positive evidence for his nonexistence either.

Quote
Even if God did exist, there is no proof that the Bible is his word and not just some book.

Ditto above


It (quite literally) makes no sense to say that one should believe in something because its nonexistence cannot be proven. This is nonsense...

It does, however, make sense to say that one does not believe in something because there is no evidence for its existence.


To quote Leonard Peikoff,

"If a person asserts that a certain entity exists (such as God, gremlins, a disembodied soul), he is required to adduce evidence supporting his claim. If he does so, one must either accept his conclusion or disqualify his evidence by showing that he has misinterperited certain date. But if he offers no supporting evidence, one must dismiss his claim...It is impossible to "prove a negative," meaning by the term: prove the nonexistence of an entity for which there is not evidence.

The reason is the fact that existence exists, and ONLY existence exists. A thing that exists is something; it is an entity in the world; as such, it has effects by which men can grasp and prove it - either directly, by perceptual means, or indirectly, by logical inference. But a nonexistent is nothing; it is not a constituent of reality, and it has no effects.

If [God], for instance, does not exist, then he is nothing and has no consequences. In such a case, to say: "Prove that there is no [God]," is to say: "Point to the facts of reality that follow from the nonexistence of [God]." But there are no such facts. Nothing follows from nothing.

All thought, argument, proof, refutation must start with that which exists. No inference can be drawn from a zero."

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


However it is also a positive assertion for one to say "God doesn't exist." To make any positive statement, one way or the other, is to make a statement based on faith. So if an aithiest said, "Their's no such thing as God." The burden of proof would be on him to make it as well.

Regardless, like I've said several times, my faith is not blind. There is evidence that supports though doesn't necessarily prove the existence of God. Again, read the link by Charels Thaxton I gave you.

I don't believe in Gremlins, and things because their isn't any evidence whatsoever for their existence. On the other hand there IS existence for God.  Evolutionary theories are dieing even at liberal IVY League Universities like Princeton.  

Ther IS archeological and papyrilogical evidence for the physical reserection of Jesus.

My faith, is not Blind.

Let's think about something else.

"Prove to ME that George Bush exists." Do this using deductive, or inductive logical reasoning.

You can't do it. All you can do is show me pictures of his existence. You can show me Television aperences, you can show me Photographs, you can show me his signiture,

Heck, you can even take me to meet the guy, and I can even shake his hand.

But that still doesn't prove either inductively, or deductively his existence.

"Prove to me the guy who'se shaking my hand is Bush."

Well, you can show me likenesses, you can show me DNA matches of Bushes DNA when he was a Baby, you can do all sorts of things. But that still wouldn't prove that the guy I'm shaking hands with is Bush. somebody forged his Baby DNA. He had plastic surgery, he's wearing a discize of some kind.

The fact is, in the end all you have are witness testamonies. The doctors their saw the baby who'se DNA was taken and catologed it. I take their word that they're not lieing. This act of trusting that somebody is being honest is called faith. Other witnesses saw this same person grow up, and that it's the same person that you know as George Bush today. But you don't have deductive or inductive logical Proof. You have witness testamony.

Well, that's all you have for the existence of Jesus and his physical resurection. But, at the same time, that's all you have for the existence of Aristotle, or Tiberius, or King George III.  You can't prove to me that any of these people existed by only using deductive or inductive logical reasoning. All you have is the witness testamony that's found in the historical record. You have faith that all those people who witnessed the historical events weren't crazy, or liers.

You see, this "absurdity" argument you have, is nothing more then an easy intellectual out, to give you an excuse to be intellectually lazy so you don't half to think about these big things. Please seriously think about this.

Logged
We agree that "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action." --George Washington

Jack Conway

Conway Supports Obamacare
Conway Supports Cap and Trade
Conway Supports Abortion
Conway’s Utilities Rate Hike Scandal
Conway is in Bed with Big Pharma
Conway is Backed by Wall Street Bankers

Tracy Saboe

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3859
    • Rand for US Senate in Kentucky!
Re:Rights
« Reply #27 on: March 04, 2004, 04:50:53 am »

Part 2
Whenever I think about this, I always wonder if, 1000 years from now, people will look back on 911, and say "it never happened" Prove it. It's a fake. After all, we currently have the technology to reproduce 911 with special effects and stuff, that would look realistic. I'm sure a hundread years from now, it would be no problem. But then people will dig up all the historical records. They'd look at writings of contemporaries to the time period, they'd look at all the evedence and then (hopefully) conclude that all of us couldn't have halucinated the exact same event.

In fact Paul writes in 1st Corinthians. "There were 300 people who say Jesus. Don't believe me. Ask them." Archeological and papirlogical (papyrous) evedence puts all of Pauls letters were written prior to 90 A.D.  -- with-in living memory of Jesus, his reserection, and his assention. (Unless you don't believe in our current understanding of both ancient Linguistics and  Radio-Carbon dating two seperate methods of dating ancient manuscripts -- which, is entirely possible I supose.) One wonders why he would say such a thing, that would get him killed, if their weren't actually 300 witnesses for others to ask? Was the Apostel Paul insain? Did some other pernisious person of the time period write letters in Paul's name? There was a person called the Apostel Paul. Archeological evedence shows all the cities that Luke Chronicaled in the book of Acts did exist at the time.  Was Luke also insain? Or did some other evil nefarious genious make false historical records? But then how come non-Biblical sources like Romain, and Greek, government documents and letters of the time period also confirm these missionary trips of Paul and Luke's?

Was there some evil nefarious conspiracy to delude several thousand people to make them all think that Jesus had rison from the dead when they really hadn't? Do you really think it's possible to delude that many people? Especially when the Romain and Jewish authorities hated these rumers of Jesus' resurection? Why would they deliberately do something to propagate something they hated?  Do you think the Apostles would have been able to concoct such an elaborate scheme deluding all those people? Or were all those people just in on it too? But then, if they all knew it was a lie, what's the point of proclaiming it as truth when they knew it meant sertain death? Were Peter, John, and the other early Christians insain? Extra Biblical sources (including anti-Christian sources like Jewish and Romain) don't paint them as insain. Were they just part of a conspiracy too?

The deeper you look into it, the more absurd denying the events in the New Testament seem. In fact, I would posit that it take more faith to not believe that Jesus rose from the dead then to believe that he did.  At least if we were to apply the same standards of abductive and historical proof, that we use to verify any other historical event.

If you don't believe the Bible look at extra-Biblical sources of the same time period, many of which are antagonistic to Christianity.  Again. PLEASE read "The New Evedence that Demands a Verdict" by Josh McDowel.

I would also remind you of Aristotles dictum. This is known as the internal evidence test, and is used whenever studying a document from the past. And that is: If the document is logically consistant, that is, it doesn't contradict itself, the benifit of the doubt should go to the validity of the historical document, and that the burden of proof is on the skeptic.

That being said, I strongly encourage you to be skeptical. I think most people aren't skeptical enough. Most people are only skeptical of the side they disagree with.  We need to try and be skeptical of all sides of any subject.

No, you can't prove it deductively or inductively. But you don't need to prove something deductively or inductively in a court room. Typically court rooms depend on witness testomony -- as well as verifyable forensic/type facts. Of course you then depend on the witness testinomy of the forensicists when you read their reports. Or you could do all that stuff yourself on your own. But you still wouldn't be able to PROVE your finding to somebody who doesn't trust you. For all they know, you tampered with the evidence.  This is why atternies try to ask lots of questions of witnesses. To see if their stories are internally consistant. If they are, then they assume it's a credible witness. Perhaps it's a bad assumption. But it's still an assumption. Such an assumption is an act of faith.
Quote
I have read some of it. No offense, but I thought it was a bit ridiculous.

No. That's quite allright. You should be skeptical. In fact I encourage it. God gave us brains for a reason. To think, to question, to make our own desisions about things.

Read my other article about Consciousness
http://ed.augie.edu/~tosaboe/consciousness.html

Along with the Cosmology one I alreayd told you about
http://ed.augie.edu/~tosaboe/cosmo.html

And also, take a look at the Thaxton Article I meantion. About information and complexity theory.
http://www.arn.org/docs/thaxton/ct_newdesign3198.htm

Please, Please think about the absurdity stance of yours. Realise you do many many things everyday, based on things you believe but can't be PROVEN by deductive or inductive logic.  But that doesn't mean those things are irrelevent, or absurd. I would hate for you to die, and then wish you had thought more about it.  What if you died, and then discovered the existence of God was relevent for yourself, and discovered that you were an eternal being? Especially after years of calling it absurd.

Seriously, I would hate for that to happen to you. So please think about. I say this, not to sound upidy, or prove I'm better then anybody else (because I'm not -- Believe me.), but because I genuinely care about you.

Tracy Saboe
Logged
We agree that "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action." --George Washington

Jack Conway

Conway Supports Obamacare
Conway Supports Cap and Trade
Conway Supports Abortion
Conway’s Utilities Rate Hike Scandal
Conway is in Bed with Big Pharma
Conway is Backed by Wall Street Bankers

<Patrick>

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 911
  • Radical Capitalist
    • Ayn Rand Institute
Re:Rights
« Reply #28 on: March 04, 2004, 03:36:51 pm »

Quote
However it is also a positive assertion for one to say "God doesn't exist."

No. It is a NEGATIVE assertion for one to say that God does NOT exist.

A positive statement, by definition, is positive...

Quote
"Prove to ME that George Bush exists." Do this using deductive, or inductive logical reasoning.

You can't do it. All you can do is show me pictures of his existence. You can show me Television aperences, you can show me Photographs, you can show me his signiture,

Heck, you can even take me to meet the guy, and I can even shake his hand.

But that still doesn't prove either inductively, or deductively his existence.

You forget that direct sense experience is the foundation of all induction and deduction...If you don't think meeting someone and physically seeing them in front of you is proof of their existence then I feel sorry for you. ;)
 
Quote
Please, Please think about the absurdity stance of yours. Realise you do many many things everyday, based on things you believe but can't be PROVEN by deductive or inductive logic.

You attack a strawman--it is not just inductive and deductive logic, there is more.

Logic is only part of the wider concept of Reason which includes the direct evidence of the senses. I do many things every day based on Reason. I base my actions on sense perception, inductive logic, deductive logic, probablity, trial and error, etc.

Quote
You see, this "absurdity" argument you have, is nothing more then an easy intellectual out, to give you an excuse to be intellectually lazy so you don't half to think about these big things. Please seriously think about this.

I have been thinking about these issues for years and years. Intellectually lazy? Philosophy is my main interest and I spend a great deal of time thinking about it.
« Last Edit: March 04, 2004, 03:52:45 pm by Patrick Norton »
Logged
"I came here to say that I do not recognize anyone’s right to one minute of my life.  Nor to any part of my energy.  Nor to any achievement of mine… I wished to come here and say that I am a man who does not exist for others."
-Ayn Rand
http://www.aynrand.org
http://capitalism.org

Tracy Saboe

  • FSP Participant
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3859
    • Rand for US Senate in Kentucky!
Re:Rights
« Reply #29 on: March 04, 2004, 05:26:50 pm »

Patrick, I'm simply saying that all we have for past events is witness testomony, or the people who wrote and documented things back then.

Witness testomony is not proof. And it could never be construde as such.

Of course I realize that sensery experience is a form of reason. In fact, it's called abductive logic.

But just because you can't directly experience or see something yourselve doesn't mean it's not real. Other people can also experience things. They can tell you about their experiences.  If you choose to believe them. You believe them based on faith (unless they take you and show it to you so you can see for yourself) however this faith is not blind. You believe them (or lack thereof) based on previous encournters with this person, and your own experiences.

If you Disbelieve them. You've also taken a positive stance on something.  The positive statement is "I believe you're lieing" But yet their really is no way to prove that they're lieing.

"I believe God doesn't exist" Is just as much a statement based on faith as "I believe God DOES exist." But their really is no third alternitive. There is evidence that possibly supports both views. You have to look at the evidence, and deside for yourself which evidence is more compelling.

By not choosing which one you believe. You are effectively by default choosing to believe that God doesn't exist. I would hate for you to die and realize their is no third choice like you thought. It's like binary. Either their is or it isn't. Their is no absurd.

You don't like my positive assertion.

But by the same token it's also illogical to state a universal negative. "Their's no such thing as _____" How do you know? Prove it.

However if I have personally experienced ______, then I know it exists. And it's proof enough to me.  But if you didn't see it, I still couldn't prove its existence.

It's like Einstien once said, "No amount of experiments can prove me right. But it only takes one to prove me wrong."

Speaking of Which. The theory of relativity is only a theory. It hasn't been PROVEN. But does that mean it's absurd? Of course not. In spite of the fact that it hasn't been proven, we can use these theories to help us function better in our increases in technology and whatnot.

By the same token. If somebody doesn't believe in God. They are effectively stating.

"We were created through Evolution."  This is a positive assertion. The burden of proof is then on the Evolutionist to prove it. However this hasn't been done. And in fact Darwinian and Neo-Darwinian theories are on quite shakey ground. You can't PROVE that we evolved from Apes, or whatever.  So in effect, the Aithist IS stateing a positive.

This is why the burden of proof rest on any person who makes an absolute/universal assertion -- whether that be negative of positive. Because when you make a Universal negative assertion, you are in fact making a different possitive one.

Tracy
Logged
We agree that "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action." --George Washington

Jack Conway

Conway Supports Obamacare
Conway Supports Cap and Trade
Conway Supports Abortion
Conway’s Utilities Rate Hike Scandal
Conway is in Bed with Big Pharma
Conway is Backed by Wall Street Bankers
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Up
 

anything