In the Absence of God; Human rights cannot exist.

[PubliusInfinitum]

Nothing we know can show there is a god. An appeal to ignorance? No, of course not, just a simple statement that bumps against Anselm and Aquinas and anyone else that ever advanced a teleological argument for the existence of a god.

When Sir Christopher Wren died and was buried in St Paul’s Cathedral, which he designed and built, his epitaph read:

Subtus conditur Hujus Ecclesias et Urbis Conditor, CHRISTOPHERUS WREN; Qui vixit annos ultra nonaginta, Non sibi, sed bono publico. Lector, si monumentum requiris, Circumspice.

Underneath lies buried Christopher Wren, the builder of this church and city; who lived beyond the age of ninety years, not for himself, but for the public good.--Reader, if you seek his monument, look around you

That’s a fair claim, there was the evidence all around.

But the argument that says, look at the universe, someone or something must have created it, therefore it was created by a deity, is just an assumption. It’s a matter of belief.

ROFL... Oh Diur, you absolutely kill me...

So the good Mr. Wren you claim built the church and city... I say BULLSHIT! I can show that this arch and that Wall; this street and THAT house were built at a time and place where Mr. Wren is known to be elsewhere. Thus (Using your own humanist reasoning... that this biological and that chemical and this and that physical cause and effect were responsible for : (Insert any assigned evidence of God here) thus the claim that Mr. Wren created the SPC is discredited...

See how that works?

Now you may claim that the Cathedral and surrounding architecture was a result of the guidance, leadership and or inspiration of Mr. Wren and in truth you would be correct... as such is historically incontestable; but if you break the creation of SPC down to its root elements you'll find that there were hundreds of craftsmen, apprentices, masons and carpenters scattered througout the project who individually labored under his influence and direction... now take it to the absurd and discuss the physical, biological, chemical and electrical reactions of trillions upon trillions of cells which comprised those inividuals and then focus down to an exponentially greater number of atoms... which, through very predictable processes, ultimately resulted in what would at first glance appear to be a Cathedral, but what actually amounts to a random collection of atoms in various configurations, alinged and connected, correlated and set in that which could at any moment change to something totally distinct and this a function of random happenstance... which only appears to be a function of an organized effort... an 'inspired creation.'

Get the idea?

Oh sure... you can SAY that the grave marker and the historical evidence proves C. Wren built SPC... but scientific evidence clearly shows that such COULD have occured quite naturally and definitely occured in the certain absence of one C. Wren...

 

[MichaelCollins]

Let me take a wild guess Pubus,

If you are not a teenager... you have one big chip on your shoulder?

No university education?

Probably a manual labourer (no shame in that...but for you there has always been? am i getting close?)

You werent bright enough or perhaps you didnt have the advantages that others had... that is life my son. Accept it and move on.

Your teenage writing style is not fooling anyone... the truly awful pseudo academic attempts are pitiful.

Accept your level Pubus.... maybe next life you will have more natural resources at your disposal?

Be happy in what "GOD" gave you.... stop trying to reach to the level of others ... it is clearly beyond you.

Sympathetically,

Michael

 

[Diuretic]

Hey Pub - the explanation of gravity is a theory isn't it? We know its effect but we can only theorise about it.

Same for the idea of god creating the universe. We can see it but we can only theorise about its creation. Ergo, god is a theory.

 

[WhiteLion]

Let me take a wild guess Pubus,

If you are not a teenager... you have one big chip on your shoulder?

No university education?

Probably a manual labourer (no shame in that...but for you there has always been? am i getting close?)

You werent bright enough or perhaps you didnt have the advantages that others had... that is life my son. Accept it and move on.

Your teenage writing style is not fooling anyone... the truly awful pseudo academic attempts are pitiful.

Accept your level Pubus.... maybe next life you will have more natural resources at your disposal?

Be happy in what "GOD" gave you.... stop trying to reach to the level of others ... it is clearly beyond you.

Sympathetically,

Michael

Dam you are stupid, i was in doubt, but you have removed all of that...........

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Hey Pub - the explanation of gravity is a theory isn't it? We know its effect but we can only theorise about it.

Same for the idea of god creating the universe. We can see it but we can only theorise about its creation. Ergo, god is a theory.

ROFL... GRAVITY is not a theory Diur. It is a very real natural force, for which we can only theorize its physical processes... and we do so within our intellectual means. I seriously doubt that such would be any less the case with any other element of the universe which we are inadequate to fully understand, but which is otherwise quite evident nonetheless.

Now Diur… this isn't complicated stuff, yet you seem to be wholly incapable of grasping it; which, I have to say, doesn't bode well for the notion that you're (and this includes your comrades) in an intellectual position to establish that God does or does NOT exist, now does it?

 

[cjcord]

ROFL... GRAVITY is not a theory Diur. It is a very real natural force, for which we can only theorize its physical processes...

Hm. Let me reread...

Originally Posted by Diuretic
Hey Pub - the explanation of gravity is a theory isn't it? We know its effect but we can only theorise about it.

Yeah...seems like he said what you said. Sorry, just needed to clarify that you had no reason to be so hostile when you just validated his point. You both agreed the explanation of gravity is a theory. No need to tease one another about it

 

[LOki]

ROFL... GRAVITY is not a theory Diur.

But the explaination (which Diuretic was CLEARLY referencing) is, you pedantic dipshit.

 

[N4mddissent]

Not true. Animals do not have a conscience as we recognize it. A mother in the animal world will desert her offspring to starve or freeze in order to save herself, because as far as instinct goes, she has a better chance of survival on her own than a baby.

Yes, and sometimes in the human world a mother will do the same. Read up on infanticide in South America. But it is very common for an animal, especially a mammal to die protecting their young.

If it was just pure instinct, we wouldn't sacrifice ourselves for others, unless it was absolutely necessary for the perpetuation of the species. Since our species is never in danger and hasn't been for ages, and since it's never a "me or thee" thing with babies these days, the instinct theory falls all to shit.

You are operating under the assumption that altruism is not instinct. Plus, every sacrifice that is made is not necessarily only made in situations in which the perpetuation of the species is at risk. It could be the perpetuation of the group that is at risk. Additionally I do not dismiss the cultural element of human development having the ability to supersede instinctual behavior, but at its root human cultural is heavily influenced by instinctual drives.

Animals don't go to war for principle. Principles are alien to them. And man has always had principles. It's what separates us from animals, and it's another indicator that there is a god.

Unfortunately, no animal has the higher level reasoning possessed by humans (at least not to the degree possessed by humans.) Animals will compete for resources which is the driving force behind most human war, often times with priniciples being a cultural overlay to the underlying motivation.

It's worth noting that you chose to ignore the salient query...

That's because your query made no sense to me. Instincts are manifestations of what? A successful survival strategy?

And I'd be very interested in seeing your math which might support your implied conclusion that human/animal instinct, along with the human conscience is distinct and impenetrably isolated from any influence beyond the internal chemical and biological operations of which it is comprised...

We know that human conciousness (and animal instinct, etc...but I'll stick with human consciousness since it's the more salient point here) is affected by chemical and biological operations. That is without doubt except among the most dedicated ignorant.
We know that with brain death the individual no longer possesses any physical indication of consciousness. We know that alterations to the brain can alter consciousness including personality, memory, and sensation. We know that mood can be altered chemically. In summary, there is a wealth of evidence that chemical and biological processes are involved in consciousness. If you wish to go further and suggest there is something else involved, then the burden falls upon you to show evidence that the influence you suggest is present. This is the teapot in orbit problem. If you claim there is a teapot in orbit around the sun, you have the burden of providing evidence as it is not reasonable to demand everyone else prove there is not.

What I hear you saying is that you are in possession of sufficient knowledge to conclude that the universe is absent any force which is typically referred to as God and as such, the human brain is the epitome of intelligence in this here universe...

Then you were hearing what you expected to hear. I am saying that I have not been provided with sufficient enough evidence to accept the postulate that there exists such a force. And it certainly does not follow that the human brain is the epitome of intelligence in this here universe. However it is the highest form of intelligence for which we have evidence.

How anyone can come to such a conclusion with full knowledge of the existence of the leftist ideology is absolutely astounding. It defies reason... The fact that the species has survived DESPITE the existence of such is itself, yet ANOTHER example which rest in evidence of the ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY that the human species survives only through divine intervention.

Thank you for providing us with an attempt at humor with can be categorized as an epic fail.

And this notion that one can make a case that rights=/=instinct from the examples of the lower species is again... more evidence of the certainty that God protects the dimwitted. Using an insect as an example of altruism ... are you kidding? It’s not even a fair example to set in contrast... a bee has no sentience... it doesn't reason... its entire existence is driven on instinct.

An ad hominim attack followed by a statement making my point. You are quite correct that an insect has no sentience. It has no concept of god or morals or rights. Yet it still behaves in an altruistic fashion. Ergo- altruistic behavior (which we may interpret as rights or principles) require nothing more than instinct.

regressing from the understanding of unalienable individual rights based upon the innate authority of that which established humanity's self evident distinction from the animal kingdom

The authority which combined the 2A and 2B chromosome? The only "self evident" distinction between humanity and the rest of the animals is a more highly developed brain.

I am curious to know what specific characteristics you would use to form a line between humans and animals.

 

[WhiteLion]

ROFL... GRAVITY is not a theory Diur. It is a very real natural force, for which we can only theorize its physical processes... and we do so within our intellectual means. I seriously doubt that such would be any less the case with any other element of the universe which we are inadequate to fully understand, but which is otherwise quite evident nonetheless.

Now Diur… this isn't complicated stuff, yet you seem to be wholly incapable of grasping it; which, I have to say, doesn't bode well for the notion that you're (and this includes your comrades) in an intellectual position to establish that God does or does NOT exist, now does it?

Doesnt the Bible say that all things are held together by the hand of GOD. Colossians 1:17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together(atom bonding??). Does a hell of lot for gravity id say


That would indicate that there's some order(GOD) to the universe. Wait a second i could be wrong but didnt Einsteins 2 law of thermodynamics state in base that all things go from order to chaos. If it were the other way around wouldnt it be paradoxal??? The order(GOD) created planets move outward into an orbital holding pattern, stars moving out in an ever increasing expantion(chaos) from origins of order(creator GOD)....i will study more...ILL BE BACK!!!

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Hm. Let me reread...



Yeah...seems like he said what you said. Sorry, just needed to clarify that you had no reason to be so hostile when you just validated his point. You both agreed the explanation of gravity is a theory. No need to tease one another about it

ROFL.. First, don't be sorry Mate... I am quite used to it. Dimwits are as common as typos.

Second, you're dead wrong...

He must certainly did NOT say that Gravity was a very real force of nature. What's more he did NOT say that the theory of just how gravity works, serves human purposes and helps to satisfy our curiosity... but IN NO OTHER FREAKING WAY DOES HUMANITIES LIMITED SCOPE OF UNDERSTANDING OF JUST HOW GRAVITY WORKS AFFECT GRAVITY...

Meaning EINSTEIN, THAT GRAVITY EXISTS DESPITE WHETHER OR NOT YOU BELIEVE IN IT; GRAVITY EXISTS DESPITE YOUR INABILITY TO FULLY UNDERSTAND IT; GRAVITY EXISTS IN THE ABSENCE OF CONCLUSIVE PROOF TO THE SATISFACTION OF EVERY HUMAN BEING ON EARTH THAT IT EXISTS...

Just as God exists and does so without regard for humanities limited intellectual means to grasp his existance.

 

[cjcord]

.....yikes. Who's the asshole who said gravity didn't exist! Come on now, don't be a jerk- stand up and admit your idiocy!

Seriously...no one argued it's non existence, with or without our understanding...You're giving yourself a heart attack over something that no one said...

 

[Diuretic]

ROFL... GRAVITY is not a theory Diur. It is a very real natural force, for which we can only theorize its physical processes... and we do so within our intellectual means. I seriously doubt that such would be any less the case with any other element of the universe which we are inadequate to fully understand, but which is otherwise quite evident nonetheless.

Now Diur… this isn't complicated stuff, yet you seem to be wholly incapable of grasping it; which, I have to say, doesn't bode well for the notion that you're (and this includes your comrades) in an intellectual position to establish that God does or does NOT exist, now does it?

As I said, it took humans hundreds of years to come up with a reasonable explanation as to how gravity can be explained. At the moment humans are not capable of proving or disproving the existence of a god.

 

[Diuretic]

Doesnt the Bible say that all things are held together by the hand of GOD. Colossians 1:17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together(atom bonding??). Does a hell of lot for gravity id say


That would indicate that there's some order(GOD) to the universe. Wait a second i could be wrong but didnt Einsteins 2 law of thermodynamics state in base that all things go from order to chaos. If it were the other way around wouldnt it be paradoxal??? The order(GOD) created planets move outward into an orbital holding pattern, stars moving out in an ever increasing expantion(chaos) from origins of order(creator GOD)....i will study more...ILL BE BACK!!!

Hell of a leap of faith there big.

How do we know the universe isn't totally chaotic anyway? We see patterns because we want to see patterns. Anyway assuming all that is fine but using the deity to explain it is just one idea. It's not scientific, it's more guesswork but that doesn't matter. Believers don't need proof.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Believers may not need proof, but proving it would probably make you a believer.

 

[cjcord]

see, the most interesting thing here is that some people are getting very upset with the line of discussion. Repeated statements of "God said" or "God created" are disturbing. because that's not proof. Of anything.
God didn't say...the bible did. That's not god. That's a human writing something down and claiming it's from God. Do you really have no issue with this? How can you claim anything from the Bible is from God? Did God tell you this himself? Or is it just something you read? Alice in Wonderland tells me alot too when I read that book, she's rather clever. But I think I would think hard before quoting her dialogue as proof of anything. Especially as it isn't her, it's Charles Dodgson.

So if you want to be technical- God says nothing, people do. If you want to debate things, at least get facts straight.

 

[N4mddissent]

YET GRAVITY EXISTED! DESPITE OUR HAVING NO EVIDENCE

Were people flying off the earth in 1500 B.C.E ? Did I miss something?
Not conceptualizing gravity as a force which results in the attraction of objects is not the same thing as not having evidence. People were aware of the effect long before the effect was crystallized in the concept we know as gravity. Once the concept was fully realized, its effect was able to be quantitatively measured and its effects understood and predicted whatever mysteries remain as to its mechanism. The measurment is the key. Many aspects of quantum physics are not understood, but they can be measured to a high degree of precision. How would you define the effects of the force "God" and how would you measure it?

 

[N4mddissent]

That would indicate that there's some order(GOD) to the universe. Wait a second i could be wrong but didnt Einsteins 2 law of thermodynamics state in base that all things go from order to chaos.

Actually the second law of themodynamics states that over time entropy will increase in a closed system. Entropy really has more to do with energy, but equating chaos and entropy is a common misconception. It does not rule out individual instances of spontaneous order within that system as long as the entropy of the overall system increases over time.

 

[AllieBaba]

Hell of a leap of faith there big.

How do we know the universe isn't totally chaotic anyway? We see patterns because we want to see patterns. Anyway assuming all that is fine but using the deity to explain it is just one idea. It's not scientific, it's more guesswork but that doesn't matter. Believers don't need proof.

Not according to the Chudnovski brothers, who have distilled pi out to something like 2 billion places. They both believe in God. They believe to understand pi is to see the face of God.

And although the NUMBER pi is random...when charted, it creates an earth landscape which looks like the desert land of Eastern Oregon...or the Middle East.

Chudnovsky Brothers

This shows a crude landscape of pi:
http://www.optimnem.co.uk/artwork.php

But I've seen the ones that go out much further, by the Chudnovski brothers and printed in the book "Panic in Level Four"...and it looks like the Painted Hills of Oregon. Or the terrain of Afghanistan and Iraq.
Painted hills oregon pictures - Live Search Images

BTW, I live in that area.

 

[Diuretic]

Believers may not need proof, but proving it would probably make you a believer.

But I wonder if the proof might yet prove to disappoint...cue Peggy Lee, "Is That All There Is?"

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

But the explaination (which Diuretic was CLEARLY referencing) is, you pedantic dipshit.

Yeah witless... I read it too. I read it the first time, than I read it again when you're comrade pointed it out and now I've read it yet again and it is still the same fallacious train-wreck it was the first time.

Let's go to the video tape:

Hey Pub - the explanation of gravity is a theory isn't it? We know its effect but we can only theorise about it.

Same for the idea of god creating the universe. We can see it but we can only theorise about its creation. Ergo, god is a theory.

Note the text which I've highlighted... Notice jackass, where the subject is 'the explanation of gravity' and his conclusion that such is a theory... He thens uses that conclusion that the explanation for gravity being a theory is a basis to conclude that God is a theory... NOT THE EXPLANATION OF GOD... But God...

Now I realize that you're a solid rock of intellect... so I'll carry ya slow here...

IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT THE THEORY WHUCH HUMANITY IS WORKING ON WHICH EXPLAINS GRAVITY IS A VALID LOGICAL BASIS ON WHICH TO CONCLUDE THAT THE EXISTANCE OF GOD IS A THEORY...

You see sis, God, like gravity is a self evident force in Nature... thus GOD's existance is not set into doubt, because a pack of half wits, not unlike yourself... irrationally need to reject the evidence of that force of nature and do so, through the hysterical means of observing the minutia relevant to the physical sciences and declare from the observable or predictable cause and effect that they fully understand the full scope of universal time and space; which would be fairly necessary for one to delcare with any level of credible certainty that God does not exist.

Like gravity, God's existance does not rely upon your belief that God exists or not. And like gravity, your disbelief or ignorance will not spare you from accountability to its laws; again, this is DESPITE and wholly without regard to your position regarding God's existance.

Now I can't dumb it down to any level below this one girls... If you can't handle the discussion, then walk around the campus and find someone that you REALLY FEEL.... isn't a complete fucking idiot and talk him into posting something approaching an argument.

(But don't get your feelings all setup for anything but more of the same rhetorical ass beating that you've experienced here, thus far. As its long been my experience that there isn't a truly bright humanist on the face of the earth. In fact, the first sign of a complete dumbass... They're a humanist... Anywho, work it out anyway ya feel ya need to. But don' trot out these dullwitted non sequiturs as reason... they really are a waste of time.)