Derivative natural rights theory
Posted on: June 7, 2013 - 11:44pm
Offline
Derivative natural rights theory
Having just re-read John Adams' Dissertation on the Canon and the Feudal Law No. I, a problematic aspect returned to the forefront: Adams' well-reasoned thought proceeds from an assertion that individuals possess "natural rights" because of the will of a creator. As an atheist, I obviously find this to be overly anthropic/teleological. My question is: Can the concept of natural rights be treated in an axiomatic manner (necessarily immune from foundational challenge), arguing "divine will" as a non-intrinsic property?
- Login to post comments
It matters because all theology is bound by the nature and constraints of human behaviour, from which theists borrowed.
Theology reflects things about us, not some cosmic system of morals. For the same reason, the rules in the bible/koran are schizophrenic.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
Surviving or persisting is NOT immoral, it is NOT moral. It is a-moral, without moral implications, consequences, or outcomes. What is so odd about that?
The "golden rule" is nothing more than a poetic way of saying, "Be nice! or you may regret it." It is part and parcel of the fact that our species is a social species. If we were not reliant on others, we would not have formulated such sayings. What is so difficult about that concept? The "golden rule" is a consequence, not an antecedent. What came first was human need to feed children and protect the family. Much later we needed to create irrigation systems to better feed a larger population. What came next were quick and easy ways to teach moral (that is, prosocial) behaviors to our offspring. Still later came surpluses - as our agriculture and husbandry skills increased - and social stratification with priests, kings, and so on and the codification of laws that reflect our morals which are a consequence of needing to live in groups.
Morals comport very well in an evolutionary world view.
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
In some places. Works even less well in a modern society than it did in history.
Yet cruel dictators tend to have short lifespans. While those who gain power by providing for their people tend to stay in power for a very long time. There has been a very clear trend in our world towards welfare democracies where power is attained by giving stuff away through government and those who rule voluntarily step down when voted out rather than require a violent revolution.
Perhaps you shouldn't get all of your information over the tv. The world is far less violent today than it ever has been. From individual violent crimes which are at all time lows in most countries to global wars. Even our wars are far less deadly than in the past.
I never said they didn't. I said that doing bad to others is not an efficient way to rule. Brute violence is not the only way to rule, and it isn't a very good way to rule. You maintain power when the population you rule believes you are making their lives better. A lot of that violence you have been seeing on your tv are violent dictators in third world arab countries that are discovering when you don't follow the golden rule other humans have a tendency to try to kill you.
I don't think it is pleasant or rewarding to rule, which is why I don't. Nor do I particularly like being ruled. Some people obviously feel differently on both accounts. What does that have to do with the golden rule?
Typical ignorant theist, throw the conversation over to something completely unrelated, make up shit that isn't true (eg the world is getting more violent) and then repeat your previous ignorance like a broken record. Such a shame, I thought this thread had possibilities to have a real intelligent discussion.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
To which I responded that if you don't offer help you are much less likely to receive it, which reduces your chances of survival. Are you a broken record or do you have something to say other than repeating already refuted arguments?
Then why did Hitler commit suicide? Why was Saddam found in a hole in the ground? Why did unions pop up during the industrial revolution?
Your argument flies in the face of reality and history. Not only is it much harder and much more expensive to force people to do things for you than it is to barter with them, it inevitably gets you killed.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
You have failed to answer my challenge. I'll repeat it: I challenge you to show me a benefit in fighting each other throughout all history instead of working together.
Note: nations are impossible without people working together.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
//A god is not necessary for words to have meaning.//
Yes he is. if you cannot account for the preconditions of intelligibility, for example the laws of logic, then any knowledge claim you make is reduced to circular absudity. Do you know everything? Can you account for something that is immaterial and absolute like the laws of logic? No doubt you will say something like they are created by the human mind, but this is quite refutable.
If you dont have an ultimate non infinite regressive standard then there is no knowledge claim that you can make that can be measured to any degree of certainty.
to 'understanding' the inherent fallabilism of human conceptions that pollutes everything we might call reasonable belief, waka.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
//Yes, yes, now you're starting to get it. Thought is an abstract noun that encompasses a range of mental processes we dimly understand and morality is a label for a group of human behaviours governed by how pro-social behaviours make us feel. //
No, my comment was somewhat sarcastic, because I knew you were going to try and reduce thought to chemical reactions, movement of atoms, mental processes etc.
But this is only partially correct. Thought requires preconditions of intelligibility external to the mind like the laws of logic which are observed and interpreted by the mind and not created by the mind. In order for those chemical reactions to work there had to be prexisting states of induction and correct standards of reasoning (laws of logic). Could the laws of logic have existed before there were minds around to think them up???? Did the law of non contradiction (a law of logic) exist before there were minds to think it up??? Can you account for the laws of logic which are immaterial and absolute?
THis reminds me of the CS Lewis statement which is apropo and reads as follows:
**Supposing there was no intelligence behind the universe, no creative mind. In that case, nobody designed my brain for the purpose of thinking. It is merely that when the atoms inside my skull happen, for physical and chemical reasons, to arrange themselves in a certain way, this gives me as a byproduct, the sensation I call thought. But if so, how can I trust my own thinking to be true? Its like upsetting a milk jug and hoping that the way it splashes itself will give you a map of London. But if I cant trust my own thinking, of course I cant trust the arguments leading to atheism, and therefore have no reason to be an atheist, or anything else. Unless I believe in GOD. I cannot believe in thought: so I can never use thought to disbelieve in GOD.**
Yes, I was being cheeky, too. I'm enjoying this thread. I don't agree the thrust of your arguments but it's a sophisticated position you hold anyway and it goes to the heart of many difficult questions.
You consider god a precondition, waka. How would you define this god? What are its properties?
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
Hi AE,
//It's a false dichotomy to suggest that one of 2 opposite human behaviours is the only driver of human evolution, particularly when human evolution is not entirely understood. //
Never said it didnt work AE. I did say it doesnt work well. In fact I ended many of my posts with "Again, the Golden Rule does not comport well with the evolutionalry world view"
//Do argue pro-social behaviour has never, ever contributed to human survival in the past and present?//
However with that said it is an interesting challenge I havent considered before so I will take a stab at it just for shits and gigles.
pro-social behaviour has never, ever contributed to human survival in the past and present BECAUSE: it allows the weak, slow, sick, timid, and all those who carry undesireable genes and traits to infect the gene pool that is desireable and more conducive to survival. Thereby wasting valuable resources , time and degrading or perhaps even hariming the progress and potential of the society as a whole.
HI Vastet,
//To which I responded that if you don't offer help you are much less likely to receive it, which reduces your chances of survival//
Reduces my chances of survival? Why should I accept that premise? Maybe it saves me time, effort and resources which enhances my surviability. Maybe it gets rid of that persons genes contributing to a stronger gene pool???
//Then why did Hitler commit suicide? Why was Saddam found in a hole in the ground?//
Sure but they also were at the top of the mountain. They had money, food, power etc. Whats wrong with committing suicide anyway given the evolutionary worldview? C'mon your gonna die anyway. Live as best as you can no matter the cost. Get yours while you still can.
HI AE
//theology is bound by the nature and constraints of human behaviour//
interesting but i would rearrange this to say man is bound by the constraints of nature and that theology is a belief that nature is a subset of the supernatural evidenced by pre-existing immaterial absolutes like the laws of logic.
Yes.
Because it is demonstrably true.
More likely you and your mother both would have died during childbirth. Or your grandmother. Or her mother. Or her mother. Or her mother. Any one of which means you don't exist.
Or maybe you'd both get real lucky and live, only to be taken down by smallpox, or measles, or the flu, or fever, or a thousand diseases that we've marginalised or wiped out completely by working together.
Or maybe you'd be extremely lucky and not get sick, but you'd be killed or enslaved by a local warlord.
The possibilities are endless, and the vast majority end with you dead, if you were lucky enough to be born in the first place.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Just proves my point even further. Even the most powerful assholes get killed for being assholes. What chance do you think you'd have?
What kind of stupid question is that? Just because I'm going to die I should kill myself? What twisted minds theists have.
Now let me throw it back in your face: You're going to live forever in heaven anyway, why not sacrifice yourself to save someone and guarantee a front row seat?
That's what I'm doing. I just don't have your depraved sense of morality telling me to be a dick to anyone and everyone. I happen to like having fun, which is rather difficult when everyone despises you. How do you live with yourself anyway?
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Any knowledge claim anyone makes is, ultimately, based on things assumed to be true. Not to mention that meaning is ascribed to words in a circular and arbitrary manner.
Of course not. For example, I don't know why you asked me a question you already knew the answer to.
The "laws of logic" are concepts thought up by people to describe certain aspects of reality. The reality the "laws of logic" accurately describe (our universe) was indeed around before people were.
HI AE
//I'm enjoying this thread.//
Ditto Dude! It is fun. Just wish guys like you were on my team. But I know those kinda changes only come in the quietness of ones own heart and not in a heated debate.
//You consider god a precondition, waka. How would you define this god? What are its properties?//
Hehehe this is where the real fun begins...........I believe in the Christian GOD. I presupose him. I start with him. I cannot evidence my way to him, rather without him I cannot make sense of evidence. When two people have two opposing worldviews they will interpret the same evidence according to those worldviews and so the argument is never resolved. The atheist will say "look around the world. see there is no evidence of GOD." The theist will say, "look around the world, see there is nothing but evidence of GOD" The battle is not over evidence. The battle is over our presupositions. I submit that if you dont start with the Christian GOD then any knowledge claim or evidence you make will be reduced to circular absurdity thereby exposing your argument as fallacy. Why not believe in other gods you will ask? Because only the Christian GOD is able to withstand certain logical requiremnets that enable the argument to reach outside of its own circularity, which is what you would expect of an all powerful being. I have to date found no other religion or dieity that can do this. This however is a whole other conversation.
//What are its properties?//
Ill give a couple for now.....Absolute & immaterial(spiritual). These are part of the nature of GOD, like the laws of logic which are also absolute and immaterial. His nature, of which the laws of logic are apart, is nature. It permeates us and allow those chemical reactions in the brain to make sense.
got to get some sleep. Sorry Icouldnt respond to everyone.
An entity can be omnipotent, absolute, and immaterial/spiritual without being the Christian God.
How do you figure? I'd be tearing my hair out just trying to define stuff like omnipotent, immaterial, spiritual. Discounting such inherited 'qualities' could 'only' apply to the christian god.
Hope you are well, by the way.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
How so ? As compared to what ? Any specific or particular examples you could cite ?
Dude - seriously. Pro-social behaviour has never, ever, contributed to our communal survival? Hell, your mum would have smothered you at the point of your first poo-stained cry. This cannot be true - our survival shows it is not true. Humans are more complex than this. We die for our little ones, for our family, for our people.
Such stuff is really fundamental. Really fundamental. Tell me. I have a baby due - my partner is 38 weeks. 38 weeks. Should I follow my instincts and do everything, everything, to support her and our little unborn girl, or is this just a game without feeling? Should I turn my back, seriously?
When you become a dad, as you will waka, should you not be entirely prepared to give everything of yourself on account of your own child? And is this human, not religion? The slow and the sick? I am a 45yo bloke who carries his mum and his family, carries them all like a man does, with no questions, no whining, no bullshit. And does it fiercely. Fuck appreciation. Fuck thanks. And fuck me. This is what being a man means. What does universal altruism mean to you?
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
This is the ontological argument for the existence of God. It was first invented by St. Anselm of Canterbury, a Benedictine monk in 1078, who later became Archbishop of Canterbury 1093-1109.
It’s often called the ‘a-priori proof’ devised through a ‘logical’ exercise (or fallacy) rather than empirical evidence, contained in Anselm’s Proslogion written in 1078. In his work he suggests that, ‘if the greatest possible being exists in the mind, it must also exist in reality'. Therefore ‘to conceive of God without existence is to contradict oneself – it is tantamount to conceiving a supremely perfect Being devoid of a supreme perfection’.
Of course this ‘proof’ never really convinced anyone at the time, notably a contemporary of Anselm’s, Brother Gaunilo, also a Benedictine Monk, along with Thomas Aquinas who both wrote in-depth critiques of his argument. It didn’t convince Pascal, Hume, Kant, Nietzsche or even Bertrand Russell either, mainly because it only convinces those already convinced, need I say more!
Oh, but Peggotty, you haven't given Mr. Barkis his proper answer, you know.
Charles Dickens
There is no such thing as an "evolutionary worldview" evolution is a question of fact not opinion or worldview, either it exists or it doesn't. There is overwhelming evidence that it does in fact exist. Saying there is an "evolutionary worldview" is as nonsensical as saying there is a "gravity worldview" or a "round earth worldview".
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
//I challenge you to show me a benefit in fighting each other throughout all history instead of working together//
The point is that people HAVE fought each other throughout history for their own benefit such that it is. They are fighting each other for their own gain, such as it is. They will continue to fight each other for their own gain/benefit. Its already been done. Its already happening. It will continue to happen. What maty be a benefit in your eyes may not be a benefit to soemone else. Maybe the beneift is freedom to have a more productive society? What does it matter, they fight.
//Note: nations are impossible without people working together.//
Note: Many nations have FORCED their people to fight against their will.
//Just proves my point even further. Even the most powerful assholes get killed for being assholes. What chance do you think you'd have?//
Many of those assholes have lived long lucrative lives without being killed too. so what?
//What kind of stupid question is that? Just because I'm going to die I should kill myself?//
No, Im just not establishing or affixing value or as much value to living as you seem to be. It is a sarcastic if not rhetorical question.
//Now let me throw it back in your face: You're going to live forever in heaven anyway, why not sacrifice yourself to save someone and guarantee a front row seat? //
Christians have done so all throught history.
//I happen to like having fun, which is rather difficult when everyone despises you. How do you live with yourself anyway?//
Dude! I dont despise you. I APPRECIATE you taking the time to debate. My sincere APPOLOGIES if I made you feel despised. Examples given are just senarios nothing more.
//Any knowledge claim anyone makes is, ultimately, based on things assumed to be true.//
Agreed, also know as an Ultimate Standard. The debate is not over evidence, but who has the ultimate standard capable of 1.reaching outside its own plane of circularity and 2. validating its claims to knowledge.
//Of course not. For example, I don't know why you asked me a question you already knew the answer to.//
Because it will prove useful as we go. If you dont know everything how then can you know anything for certain?
//The "laws of logic" are concepts thought up by people to describe certain aspects of reality. The reality the "laws of logic" accurately describe (our universe) was indeed around before people were.//
If the lol were around before people were then they could not be created by people. Thet are however observed and recognized.
The laws of logic are not concepts thought up by people, but rather correct standards of reasoning OBSERVED by people and required for coherent thought to take place. In other words if we did not have these preconditions of intelligibility like the laws of logic, or say the uniformity of nature on which to observe and rely, thought would have no place, or value. Im not sure it would even be possible. If thought were merely atomic motion or chemical reactions in the brain who is to say there could be any correct standards of reasoning given that different people have different chemical reactions. Chemical reactions in the brain is only a small part of the equation concerning thought.
Therefore, how does an atheist account for the immaterial absolute laws of logic??????
//An entity can be omnipotent, absolute, and immaterial/spiritual without being the Christian God.//
COngratulations! You just became a theist.
Youre trying to borrow from my worldview in order to defeat my worldview.
Did you notice, that in order to make your knowledge claim you had to appeal to an immaterial entity or as I call it -a diety?
Hi AE
//Hell, your mum would have smothered you at the point of your first poo-stained cry// llololol ya i had my moments.
Your question is well conceived and as I admitted earlier it is one I havent considered before. Just taking a late night stab at it and offering a possible alternative thats all. Get rid of all the undesireable genes and society benefits even more. The overall point is evolution attempts to describe how we survive it doesnt tell us why we should or ought to survive.
//When you become a dad, as you will waka, should you not be entirely prepared to give everything of yourself on account of your own child? And is this human, not religion? The slow and the sick? I am a 45yo bloke who carries his mum and his family, carries them all like a man does, with no questions, no whining, no bullshit. And does it fiercely. Fuck appreciation. Fuck thanks. And fuck me. This is what being a man means. What does universal altruism mean to you? //
Congrats on the baby by the way. I have two kids myself. I have no doubt your a good father and person. I also have no doubt that the world is full of atheists who are far better persons than many many CHristians. The difference is that in the Christian Worldview it doesnt matter how many good deeds you do. There is no degree of goodness that will save the Christian. Try as we may, we stumble, fumble and fail constantly. And, if any Christian says he is a better person, he instanly-in the saying -proves himself the lesser. This idea of CHristianity appeals to me. It gives me reason for my hope. I dont find that in evolution.
If you think me discussing god(s) makes me a theist, then I think it's best if I stop communicating with you.
And yet people work together more often than they fight each other. Even when people fight each other, they are working together with other people. So your point is irrelevant.
People working together forced other people to work for them.
Again it is proven that working together is more beneficial than working against each other.
So where's your point?
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Name some so I can show you they were working together with other people.
It's a stupid question that presupposes I don't value my own life.
Then why aren't they all dead? Don't try and tell me there's a lack of opportunity, strife is all over the place.
You missed my point. If you're an asshole, people despise you, and you have to constantly watch your back. Doesn't sound like an enjoyable life to me.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
//How so ? As compared to what ? Any specific or particular examples you could cite ?//
Sure, Ill give a quick example....
Buddhism: One of its tenets is the will to be void of all desire. But this in itself is a desire. It blows itself up and fails the test of its own standard or logic so to speak.
INteresting. Ill have to read up on Anselm. Im not sure I agree with him either.
//It’s often called the ‘a-priori proof’ devised through a ‘logical’ exercise (or fallacy) rather than empirical evidence //
Do you require empiricle evidence for the existence of GOD? If so, what empirical evidence do you have that empirical evidence is the only path to knowlege?
Very sorry to hear it. I was enjoying the conversation with you- truly. But surely you see my point which was- ( If you dont believe in GOD(s) then you cant use examples of their existence to argue they dont exist.)
It is not my desire to demean, despise, or personally criticise you. Lets just have an honest debate and search for the truth.
//Even when people fight each other, they are working together with other people.// Noooo! Really? You mean people use other people to fight and dominate other people?
//People working together forced other people to work for them.//
I rest my case:
[[evolution attempts to describes how we survive, it fails to give us reason why we should survive]]
Hi AE
//to 'understanding' the inherent fallabilism of human conceptions that pollutes everything we might call reasonable belief, waka.//
Are you certain that there is no certainty?
Lacking a belief in something is not at all the same as denying its possibility outright. I don't have to believe in god(s) to recognize some god concepts are more likely to be real than others. Furthermore, I don't have to believe in god(s) to understand which attributes are specific to a given god concept, and which attributes are common to many.
I thought you already found the truth.
hi blacklight,
you still havent answered my questions:
1 If you dont know everything how can you know anything for certain?
2. HOw do you account for the immaterial absolute laws of logic? ........ Mind you, im not asking for your definition of the LOL. Im asking you where they came from.
Since when is there a why? Science doesn't and doesn't even attempt to discuss why's. That's for philosophers with too much time on their hands.
Science describes what and where and when and how. That's it. There is no why in science. Why is a personal question that everyone has a different answer to.
Evolution describes what happens when life exists, where it happens and how it happens. It doesn't try to explain why, because why isn't applicable or provable.
Read this to see how asking why is incoherent:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/why_do_we_exist_incoherent
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Prove logic and it's rules are immaterial. Because everything I know about logic suggests it is VERY material. It depends completely on the laws of physics (explanation of observed physical processes), in combination with physical entities (us). Without either one, there is no logic.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
not - that's the whole point. 'Certainty; is always questionable and new data constantly impacts on what might be called reasonable belief. I do think your epistemology, based in part on the law on non contradiction and the assertion empirical evidence can't prove thought is a physical process, does trade on an assertion that somehow an undefinable supernatural god resolves all these questions with certainty.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
This statement is incorrect. Humans evolved long ago in very small groups with little contact. The idea that what applies to a global population of 7 billion also applies to a past population of 10,000 is very hard to support. Things are also more complex than you allow. Caution is a useful trait at times. Aggression was more useful in past times. Empathy is more useful in current times. These traits vary across human populations and different characteristics benefit from changing conditions. Every person is a genetic ecosystem and evolution is occurring across multiple simultaneous levels. Simple rules don't seem to apply.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
I'm not convinced it's worth the effort. I'm sure other people on this board will be happy to answer those questions, though.
//Evolution describes what happens when life exists, where it happens and how it happens. It doesn't try to explain why//
mmmmmmmmm ya thats what I just said.
//It doesn't try to explain why, because why isn't applicable or provable.//
Apparently, for some worldviews, it isnt answerable either. If there is no "why", then there are no morals.
Wrong. Why we exist is irrelevant to morality. Worldviews are irrelevant. "Why" literally is incoherent. Making up a why doesn't make it why, because there is no why.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
hi vastet
//Prove logic and it's rules are immaterial use everything I know about logic suggests it is VERY material//
Can you hold it? Can you put it in bag? Can you taste it? Is there a place I can go to visit it?
//It depends completely on the laws of physics (explanation of observed physical processes), in combination with physical entities (us). Without either one, there is no logic.//
NOOOOO thats completely backwards. Physics (in fact ALL OF SCIENCE) requires certain preconditions of intelligibility those preconditions include laws of logic and the uniformity of nature. IF you dont have these you cant even have coherent thought much less physics.
Those chemical reactions in your brain arent enough to form coherent thought. They need uniformity or consistency in nature and in reasoning. If you release an apple from your hand then it will fall to the ground everytime. Observing this lets you begin to formulate physics. They had to pre-exists so that man could think. So that he could make sense of his observations. Tell me, how do you account for the uniformity of nature???????? Do you think that is material as well?
//'Certainty; is always questionable // Are you certain?...................Not trying to berate you or be cute, as I have come to have quite a bit of respect for you, but it makes the point.
//assertion empirical evidence can't prove thought is a physical process// NO, thats not what I am saying. Thought is in part a physical process, but you need external preconditions of intelligibility to make thought work.
//that somehow an undefinable supernatural god resolves all these questions with certainty. // He ABSOLUTELY does, and if you will indulge me in answering the questions below (along with a few more to come) you will see how. We will get there......
If you dont know everything how can you know anything for certain?
IF you dont know everything, and logically speaking, would it be possible, however improbable, that the Christian God could exists?
A mere demonstration that you do not comprehend the argument, not proof that logic isn't completely dependant on physical existence.
Prove it. You can't, because you're wrong.
Again, prove it. Again, you can't, because you're wrong.
No, we need that in order to invent logic and science as working disciplines. You're the one who has things backwards.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
No it won't. You need to brush up on your understanding of multiple sciences. Like, all of them.
I said that already. So did others.
Prove that thought requires consistency. You just keep digging yourself into a bigger hole.
Nature is not uniform. Whatever gave you that ridiculous notion?
Of course nature is material. EVERYTHING is material. One day not too long from now it will be possible to download YOU into a computer, and all along the way you'll be denying your brain is wholly responsible for your every thought, and the world will giggle at your ignorance.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Like what? Do you have evidence of this?
You can't.
No, because the Christian God is self contradicting so if you are relying on standard logic as accepted by humans the Christian God is logically impossible. If you throw logic out the window and if absolutely everything we have observed is false the Christian God might be possible, but that raises the question why he would put us in an environment where any reasonable person would eliminate his existence as a rational possibility and then expect us to believe in him anyway. Since we don't have any basis to believe that all of our observations are completely false and fabricated, the most rational thing to do is to believe that the Christian god does not exist. (Note: there are a number of deities that would be logical possibilities and would be consistent with most of our observations. The Christian God could only exist if everything humans have observed for the last 2000 years is a complete illusion and doesn't actually exist, which is on par with believing that we are part of the Matrix and slightly less believable.)
As such I can state with an extreme amount of confidence that the Christian God does not exist. I have as much confidence in that as I do that gravity is going to prevent me from floating away when I step outside tomorrow. Sure, it is possible that gravity might not exist when I wake up tomorrow and I will float into the treetops, but it would mean that all human observations of gravity have been wrong and it would be rather irrational for me to believe it is possible without evidence.
If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X
OKAY !!!
Please allow me to say
It is highly Imperative YOU, that is you yourself learn to use the Quote function Click the button on the posts you want to quote, then click "Go Advanced." The click will open a reply field where you can add your part of the post and trim down the quotes if you only want to include part of the message. Or simply look at the lower left hand corner of the post. Notice the words edit ;; reply ;; quote. Right mouse click the quote button if you are wanting to quote another's comments.
wakawaka wrote:
Know, many of us often will cut-and-paste a quote from someone manually. This is to you advantage to know this. Notice how others posts are different from your own. It is easier to read, being in a little box (instead of slash marks) ? Please INSTEAD of the slash marks, please, K?
Please allow me to show a simple demonstration
The following is a random block of texts or words, you can cut-en-paste:
Since the 1570s все, Egypt's pharaohs had been buried in rock-cut tombs in the Valley of the Kings, on the west bank of the Nile. Rulers hoped their tombs would be safe from robbers, but almost all the tombs were robbed of their rich goods. However, in 1922, British archaeologist Howard Carter found Tutankhamun's tomb virtually intact. The shrine room had four gilded shrines, holding the king's coffin and mummy with a solid gold mask. The other rooms contained jewelry, furniture, golden statues, and musical instruments. Archaeologist Howard Carter entered the annals of history in 1922 when he discovered the final resting place of the young 18th dynasty Egyptian pharaoh Tutankhamun. Tutankhamun's tomb
[ Quote ] Since the 1570s все, Egypt's pharaohs had been buried in rock-cut tombs in the Valley of the Kings, on the west bank of the Nile. Rulers hoped their tombs would be safe from robbers, but almost all the tombs were robbed of their rich goods. However, in 1922, British archaeologist Howard Carter found Tutankhamun's tomb virtually intact. The shrine room had four gilded shrines, holding the king's coffin and mummy with a solid gold mask. The other rooms contained jewelry, furniture, golden statues, and musical instruments. Archaeologist Howard Carter entered the annals of history in 1922 when he discovered the final resting place of the young 18th dynasty Egyptian pharaoh Tutankhamun. Tutankhamun's tomb [ /Quote ]
By moving the brackets closer, You 'quote' the text or comments made by others.
[ Quote ] . . . . . [ /Quote ]
Please Try it for yourself, the length of the quote is IRRELEVANT not necessary; until you get the hang of it. ' [ ' . . . ' ] ' WITHIN the brackets. It would be a better time and much livelier time if you'd STOP using the slash marks (we all have to do it)!