In the Absence of God; Human rights cannot exist.

[Abelian Sea]

Things don't "always exist". They have a beginning, and an end.

The only thing that has "always existed" is God

Just what I was talking about. In one breath you say that things must have beginnings, and in the next you say that something - God - doesn't.

I know it makes sense to you, but it leaves me scratching my head.

...and the "always existed" theory for the universe has even less to back it up than the existence of God.

That is certainly true.

I'm not imagining that I know what's really going on with this whole "universe" thing, I'm just expressing doubt as to whether the "the universe must have had a beginng" idea is really self-evident.

Feel free to reject my kooky intuition, though. It certainly isn't widespread.

If you're going to go the way of the faithful, at least admit that there's nothing to support your theory, and be open that instead of believing in God, you choose to believe in your own namby-pamby theory, which has less to support it than the one you reject.

Okay:

I hearby admit that my suspicion that the matter/energy comprising the universe has always been here is not better-supported by evidence than the idea that it was created ex nihilo.

Things may have beginnings, but they are comprised of stuff that was already there. I once was not, but that of which I am physically made was there before me. It was in other forms, which now are not, a fate I will share, but my matter will survive me as it survived the forms before me.

Forms come and go, but the substance of them was there before and remains. So the aphorism that "things have a beginning and end" does not lead me to think that the base substance of the universe once did not exist.

The aphorisms that reinforce my suspicion are "you can't get something for nothing," and "each event has a prior cause."

 

[AllieBaba]

It would be intersting to see the evidence, or valid logic that demonstrates this.

What God?

I'd like to see this demonstrated--but with evidence or valid logic.

A reasonable request that will be ignored by the unreasonable; AKA the superstitious.

irony lulz.

Louis Pasteur. Look him up.

 

[AllieBaba]

Just what I was talking about. In one breath you say that things must have beginnings, and in the next you say that something - God - doesn't.

I know it makes sense to you, but it leaves me scratching my head.



That is certainly true.

I'm not imagining that I know what's really going on with this whole "universe" thing, I'm just expressing doubt as to whether the "the universe must have had a beginng" idea is really self-evident.

Feel free to reject my kooky intuition, though. It certainly isn't widespread.



Okay:

I hearby admit that my suspicion that the matter/energy comprising the universe has always been here is not better-supported by evidence than the idea that it was created ex nihilo.

Things may have beginnings, but they are comprised of stuff that was already there. I once was not, but that of which I am physically made was there before me. It was in other forms, which now are not, a fate I will share, but my matter will survive me as it survived the forms before me.

Forms come and go, but the substance of them was there before and remains. So the aphorism that "things have a beginning and end" does not lead me to think that the base substance of the universe once did not exist.

The aphorisms that reinforce my suspicion are "you can't get something for nothing," and "each event has a prior cause."

Likewise, I am left scratching my head by people who claim there is no proof of God...and then turn around and claim the universe must have always existed. Without any evidence to point to that.

I am at least honest in my faith...I recognize it as faith. I grow weary of anti-Christian blatherers who insist their own ridiculous faith in theories which have no basis in fact or truth is more substantial than mine.

 

[LOki]

Louis Pasteur. Look him up.

I did. Louis Pasteur is not God.

Try again.

 

[AllieBaba]

However, he did prove that matter does not materialize in the natural world. If you chose to have faith that it did, without the help of God, that is your perogative. Just kindly stop jeering at Christians who choose a different faith, please.

 

[Abelian Sea]

However, he did prove that matter does not materialize in the natural world.

Which implies, I think, that the matter/energy we see today either

(1) materialized supernaturally, or

(2) never materialized, which, given it current existence, means that it's always been around.

I think that the issue is unproven, but that people reject the second possibility because they find the implication of an "infinite regression" of causes to be intuitively abhorent.

Personally, I have the opposite intuition. Perhaps my mind has been warped by the over-study of mathematics, but I find the idea of a timeline that extends indefinitely in both directions to be much more natural - more intuitively appealing - than a time-line-segment with endpoints. The concept of an "uncaused cause" just doesn't pass the smell test for me, just as the infinite regression idea doesn't pass the smell test for most people.

All I have, though, is intuition and suspicion. I am not claiming that I know which possibility is the true one. I am claiming that neither possibility is self-evidently so.

edit: I forgot the third possibility: that Louis was wrong and that stuff can just appear out of nowhere for no reason. Personally, I find that idea to be even more intuitively obnoxious than that of a supernatural being causing stuff to appear out of nothing - at least there's still some causality going on there - and it's even less substaintiated by evidence than either of the first two, but I thought I should mention it in the interest of completeness.

 

[LOki]

However, he did prove that matter does not materialize in the natural world.

No he didn't. You invited me to read about him, now I invite you to. Enjoy!

If you chose to have faith that it did, . . .

Which I'm not asserting . . .

. . . without the help of God, . . .

What God?

. . . that is your perogative.

I guess that's that, then.

Just kindly stop jeering at Christians who choose a different faith, please.

Oh, let me assure you that I don't participate in cannibalism.

 

[AllieBaba]

"Shortly after Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859, Pasteur began to challenge the idea of spontaneous generation—the foundation of the evolutionary view on the origin of life. Pasteur’s simple, but elegant swan-necked flask experiments not only put to rest the organic life-from-non-life idea, but also set the foundation for the law of biogenesis: life only comes from life."

Louis Pasteur?s Views on Creation, Evolution, and the Genesis of Germs - Answers in Genesis

Although today we understand that living things can only be produced by other living things, the idea of spontaneous generation was entrenched in the minds of man throughout most of history.

Spontaneous Generation of Life: Microbiology Discoveries Challenged Abiogenesis & Led to Germ Theory

 

[LOki]

"Shortly after Darwin published On the Origin of Species in 1859, Pasteur began to challenge the idea of spontaneous generation—the foundation of the evolutionary view on the origin of life. Pasteur’s simple, but elegant swan-necked flask experiments not only put to rest the organic life-from-non-life idea, but also set the foundation for the law of biogenesis: life only comes from life."

Louis Pasteur?s Views on Creation, Evolution, and the Genesis of Germs - Answers in Genesis

Although today we understand that living things can only be produced by other living things, the idea of spontaneous generation was entrenched in the minds of man throughout most of history.

Spontaneous Generation of Life: Microbiology Discoveries Challenged Abiogenesis & Led to Germ Theory

Yeah. So now you see what I mean.

 

[AllieBaba]

Not really, but it's all good.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Really? Prove this fact. This should be simple for you, do it.

Yep... The Universe exists... I'm here to testify to that... It didn't create itself... thus something created it. And that sis... PROVES IT CONCLUSIVELY.


Again all the opposition can do is advace flaccid little demands that God doesn'y exist because they're not convinced... All LOki is interested in doing and all LOki has EVER been interested in doing is dragging the discussion into a debate on whether or not God exists.

But that isn't what this thread is about... this thread is about the thesis that IN THE ABSENCE OF GOD: HUMAN RIGHTS CANNOT EXIST.

And this thread has conclusively proven that IF GOD DOES NOT EXIST, THEN "HUMAN RIGHTS" IS LITTLE MORE THAN A WHIMSY OF WHATEVER POWER IS UP AT ANY GIVEN MOMENT SAYS THEY ARE.

As without God, all human rights CAN AMOUNT TO is the opinion of the respective individuals and the means to exercise what the Godless individual says their rights are, is wholly dependent upon the power of those individuals to do so.

A Godless individual will always shrink from the threat of death, because in their mind this life is all they have... thus they will not take the risks which are imbedded responsibilities of divine human rights.

Of course God does exist, our human rights ARE endowed from God and they rest upon his ultimate authority...

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

To those who question why the Universe hasn't always existed, I say that science shows that such is not the case. The theory is that the matter which comprises the universe exploded from a singular point...

What's more "M-theory" suggests that what we percieve as the universe occured from two dimensional membranes momentarily touching... which is one of those rare moments which proves that we not only don't know most of what 'is' but we really don't even know that we don't know.

LOki, for instance, needs to stand on emperical proof... or she simply will not recognize the existance of God... despite LOki being in possession of a infinitesimal fraction of the full scope of knowledge of which the universe is comprised. Meaning that LOki feels that she is in possession of sufficient knowledge to understand what the creator is... and she firmly believes that her means to reason is sufficient to comprehend that which is necessary to test for God's existance, thus since she can't comprehend the means to test for God's existance, God can't exist... Which is precisely the same as the Gravity analogy I spoke to 20 pages ago; wherein the early human beings were unable to comprehend an invisible 'force' we now recognize as gravity... but their ignorance of a means to test for gravity or even the intellectual prowess to recognize that they were being pulled towards the center of the earth by a force which their senses could not detect... did not change the certainty that gravity was in fact all around them.

It should be noted that the majority of the scientific community doesn't believe that there are more dimensions than the one we perceive through our innate senses. So given that, it serves reason that where the multi-verse exists and the scientific community rejects the existance of the multi-verse... it's fairly unlikely that the scientific community will come to learn much about it.

Yet mathematically, the Multi-verse does exist and it is offering explanations in levels of specificity regarding the origin of this, our universe, which were thought impossible to realize just 10 years ago.

So now given the multi-verse, we find that it may well be quite possible for a being that lives vastly 'larger' than that we're capable of comprehending, to slip through time and space in ways that make the human brain hurt just thinking about it.

Truly its a function of perspective... do you realize that even as you sit reading this, that the majority of your body is little more than a vaccum of space which exists between the atoms that make up the elements of your body? A space not unlike that which is right outside your window only a few miles over your head... You just don't think about that which to you appears to be solid, whole and tangible; but there is no physical bond between the atoms which comprise the elements which comprise the material that is your body... they are believed to be held together by a force which we do not fully understand. So there is space between every atom... and that space is little more than a void... to the best of our knowledge. If you could stand on the surface of an atomic nucleus, say normalized to the scale of that which you present standing on the earth... you could not see the atoms which we think of as being tightly bound together... they would appear much the same as the stars appear. Just try to get your head around that...

Just imagine that our universe is merely one dimension within infinite dimensions... Dimensions which extend inward and outward; and we exist within this universe biologically equipped to perceive only that which is relevant to our existance through our biological senses... Senses which are truly little more than receiving systems to detect what appears to us to be a braod array of energy; from very long waves detected by our body hair and chest cavity, through our ears which pick up the spectrum just above that of our body hair, to our eyes which pick up a sliver of energy which we think of as light... And that's it... after that we're clueless... Sure we're all REAL PROUD of our technology, but it's just a feeble extension of our own humble senses; extending our means to sense beyond our own biological limitations. This inner-space is very similar to outer space... and we know very little about that inner space... and we don't know enough to even begin to know what questions to ask, to get to where we can ask some questions that might lead us to the answers. Yet there is no limit to the people who demand God doesn't exist because we can't show his existance through emperical data...

Now the hysterical part is... THOSE PEOPLE FEEL VERY STRONGLY THAT THEY ARE THE ENLIGHTENED ONES... (Which to be perfectly honest is my favorite part.)

All of which serves only to change the subject from the certainty established through this thread: that IN THE ABSENCE OF GOD... HUMAN RIGHTS CANNOT EXIST.

 

[LOki]

Yep... The Universe exists... I'm here to testify to that... It didn't create itself... thus something created it. And that sis... PROVES IT CONCLUSIVELY.

Begging the Question Cupcake. Refuted CONCLUSIVELY.

(WARNING: HOLDING ONE'S BREATH WHILE WAITING ON CUPCAKEINFINITU TO SUPPORT HER POSITION WITH EVIDENCE OR VALID LOGIC WILL RESULT IN CERTAIN DEATH!)

Again all the opposition can do is advace flaccid little demands that God doesn'y exist because they're not convinced...

Again, all that the superstitious can do is advance their unfounded assertions as proven fact, with that "proof" residing in no evidence or valid logic, but solely founded upon fallacy.

(WARNING: HOLDING ONE'S BREATH WHILE WAITING ON CUPCAKEINFINITU TO SUPPORT HER POSITION WITH EVIDENCE OR VALID LOGIC WILL RESULT IN CERTAIN DEATH!)

All LOki is interested in doing and all LOki has EVER been interested in doing is dragging the discussion into a debate on whether or not God exists.

But that isn't what this thread is about... this thread is about the thesis that IN THE ABSENCE OF GOD: HUMAN RIGHTS CANNOT EXIST.

Utter nonsense. I've pointed it out to you a number of times Cupcake, and you refuse to grasp this: I've stipulated the existence og God for you--yet you STILL CAN"T BRING A VALID ARGUMENT TO SUPPOERT YOUR FATUOUS POSITION!

(WARNING: HOLDING ONE'S BREATH WHILE WAITING ON CUPCAKEINFINITU TO SUPPORT HER POSITION WITH EVIDENCE OR VALID LOGIC WILL RESULT IN CERTAIN DEATH!)

And this thread has conclusively proven that IF GOD DOES NOT EXIST, THEN "HUMAN RIGHTS" IS LITTLE MORE THAN A WHIMSY OF WHATEVER POWER IS UP AT ANY GIVEN MOMENT SAYS THEY ARE.

This thread is utter FAIL at proving this.

(WARNING: HOLDING ONE'S BREATH WHILE WAITING ON CUPCAKEINFINITU TO SUPPORT HER POSITION WITH EVIDENCE OR VALID LOGIC WILL RESULT IN CERTAIN DEATH!)

As without God, all human rights CAN AMOUNT TO is the opinion of the respective individuals and the means to exercise what the Godless individual says their rights are, is wholly dependent upon the power of those individuals to do so.

Refuted.

(WARNING: HOLDING ONE'S BREATH WHILE WAITING ON CUPCAKEINFINITU TO SUPPORT HER POSITION WITH EVIDENCE OR VALID LOGIC WILL RESULT IN CERTAIN DEATH!)

A Godless individual will always shrink from the threat of death, because in their mind this life is all they have... thus they will not take the risks which are imbedded responsibilities of divine human rights.

Baseless assertion.

(WARNING: HOLDING ONE'S BREATH WHILE WAITING ON CUPCAKEINFINITU TO SUPPORT HER POSITION WITH EVIDENCE OR VALID LOGIC WILL RESULT IN CERTAIN DEATH!)

Of course God does exist, our human rights ARE endowed from God and they rest upon his ultimate authority...

(WARNING: HOLDING ONE'S BREATH WHILE WAITING ON CUPCAKEINFINITU TO SUPPORT HER POSITION WITH EVIDENCE OR VALID LOGIC WILL RESULT IN CERTAIN DEATH!)

 

[Diuretic]

Pub - a mere assertion isn't proof. Even the great St Thomas Aquinas couldn't prove the existence of God, he constructed a valid argument - in terms of logic - for the existence of God, an elegant argument that probably improved upon Anselm's proof, but both Anselm and Aquinas essentially said the evidence for God is the existence of the universe.

Well, no it isn't.

We simply don't know. Believe what you will but don't puff your chest out thinking you've proven anything because you haven't. And without being personal I'd suggest that if Anselm and Acquinas can't do it then you're not going to have a snowball's chance in Hell of doing so.

Simply saying something doesn't make it so. That's toddler logic.

 

[LOki]

To those who question why the Universe hasn't always existed, I say that science shows that such is not the case. The theory is that the matter which comprises the universe exploded from a singular point...

A massless point, without any energy, that didn't exist in the first place? This is the theory that you demand science asserts?

What's more "M-theory" suggests that what we percieve as the universe occured from two dimensional membranes momentarily touching... which is one of those rare moments which proves that we not only don't know most of what 'is' but we really don't even know that we don't know.

"M-theory", however, does not contain within it some excuse to fabricate fact from imagination and demand that it is known phenomena, or that lack of imagination for phenomenae undiscovered is refutation of actual evidence that does not require imagination for validation.

LOki, for instance, needs to stand on emperical proof... SNIP

This folks, is that tedious part Cupcakes post where she engages the intellectually dishonest disinformation engine that belches forth a smog of specious conclusions based on nothing but ad-hominem and strawman fallacies, non-sequiturs, misinformation, and sadly, lies.

In the example here truncated, Cupcake returns to an accusation flatly refuted, namely: ". . . LOki feels that she is in possession of sufficient knowledge to understand what the creator is... and she firmly believes that her means to reason is sufficient to comprehend that which is necessary to test for God's existance, thus since she can't comprehend the means to test for God's existance, God can't exist..." An accusation that in either instance it was brought, was accompanied by any quote as evidence, or valid argument to demonstrate it's validity.

Then in an ironic [pointless, and long-winded] twist, Cupcake demands that where human knowledge has failed to understand specific mechanisms of nature, it is precisely within that ignorance of fact; that lack of evidence, that deficiency in valid logic; that validates a condition of imagination so rarified of reason that it becomes the valid proof for the existence of the invisible, magical leprechaun, existing in an invisible, magical place, that must neccessarily have created the universe.

Which brings us back to the conclusion of Cupcake's disinformation session that offers this utterly baseless denial of reality:​

All of which serves only to change the subject from the certainty established through this thread: that IN THE ABSENCE OF GOD... HUMAN RIGHTS CANNOT EXIST.

WARNING: HOLDING ONE'S BREATH WHILE WAITING ON CUPCAKEINFINITU TO SUPPORT HER POSITION WITH EVIDENCE OR VALID LOGIC WILL RESULT IN CERTAIN DEATH!

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Begging the Question Cupcake. Refuted CONCLUSIVELY.

ROFL... Ain't delusion grand?

There is no question being begged... The member simply demands that everything, the knowns and that which is unknown satisfy every facet of consideration. The simple fact is that there is much our species does not know and most of that is comprised behind layers of knowledge of which which we do not even possess the means to know what needs to be asked to find the answers.

The member LOki, demands that empirical evidence must exist which proves the existance of God, which proves the universe was created to advance a reasonable hypothesis... This is simply false; it flies in the face of every advancement in human history.

Again, LOki is an atheist... therefore LOki needs to BELIEVE that she, as a human being is the highest level of intelligence in the universe... but to be fair she would want to frame it to reflect that for her to 'believe' there must be evidence on which her belief can rest... which is, in and of itself a lie. LOki would never believe in God because she is too heavily invested in the disbelief.

Please follow this link to the a new thread where we will examine the depth of the atheist investment...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/64088-if-god-came-to-you.html#post892683

It'll be a gas...

 

[-Cp]

is your scenerio insinuating that to be human one MUST believe in God? and is this God the one YOU decide is proper?

Human rights have less to do with God and more to do with common decency. You can be a good and decent person and not believe in God. You can also respect your fellow man and not inflict your will upon him without believing in God.

Where does one's sense of "Common decency" from from if we're all from pond-scum?

 

[AVG-JOE]

Pub - a mere assertion isn't proof. Even the great St Thomas Aquinas couldn't prove the existence of God, he constructed a valid argument - in terms of logic - for the existence of God, an elegant argument that probably improved upon Anselm's proof, but both Anselm and Aquinas essentially said the evidence for God is the existence of the universe.

Well, no it isn't.

We simply don't know. Believe what you will but don't puff your chest out thinking you've proven anything because you haven't. And without being personal I'd suggest that if Anselm and Acquinas can't do it then you're not going to have a snowball's chance in Hell of doing so.

Simply saying something doesn't make it so. That's toddler logic.

Nice post, dude. Too bad it fell on ears too clogged with personal pride to hear, let alone comprehend.

-Joe

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Pub - a mere assertion isn't proof.

Clearly... What assertion do you feel I've made which stands as such an error in reasoning?

Even the great St Thomas Aquinas couldn't prove the existence of God, he constructed a valid argument - in terms of logic - for the existence of God, an elegant argument that probably improved upon Anselm's proof, but both Anselm and Aquinas essentially said the evidence for God is the existence of the universe.

Yep...

Well, no it isn't.

It isn't? Golly... that seems to look VERY close to an assertion absent substantiating evidence. Now are you advancing that as a function of faith or of fact?

We simply don't know.

Ahh... so it's faith. Fine... No doubt this faith rests upon the lack of empirical evidence... So back in the day, you'd have fallen into the camp which said that 'we really don't know that there is an invisible force pulling all matter towards the center of the earth...' Fair enough. Meaning that you wouldn't have been saying 'that there were NO forces beyond your senses that effected your world,' but instead you simply did not have sufficient knowledge to even know what questions might potentially lead to a better understanding of the potential of such forces... But you wouldn't have challenged those who may have been postulating the existance of such forces, based upon their own instincts and personal observations... I gotcha...

Believe what you will but don't puff your chest out thinking you've proven anything because you haven't.

It's not so much as it proof as it is stating the obvious... Surely you do not contest that the universe exists... and do you have some evidence which would tend towards the indication that the universe was not created? Can you state a case for where the matter of which the universe is comprised just 'was'... can you explain the energy which drives the universe? Did it too just exist with no beginning?

LOL... You can't even begin to contemplate that, can you? Yet you're prepared to conclude that God does not exist based upon the absence of empirical evidence... when you can't even begin to explain that IF the universe has no beginning, how such is even possible... One would think that such a conclusion must reside from the mind which would have such answers...

And without being personal I'd suggest that if Anselm and Acquinas can't do it then you're not going to have a snowball's chance in Hell of doing so.

Why is that? Now without being personal, please be as specific as your intellectual limitations allow...

Simply saying something doesn't make it so. That's toddler logic.

That's true and a position upon which we can both agree...

However, I can't help but to detect a brazen implication in there... so with that said, which position of mine do you find that has been advanced on nothing more than my having said so.

Again... without being personal, please be as specific as your intellectual limitations allow.

 

[9 Volt]

Clearly... What assertion do you feel I've made which stands as such an error in reasoning?



Yep...



It isn't? Golly... that seems to look VERY close to an assertion absent substantiating evidence. Now are you advancing that as a function of faith of fact?





Ahh... so it's faith. Fine... No doubt this faith rests upon the lack of empirical evidence... So back in the day, you'd hve fallen into the camp which said that 'we really don't know that there is an invisible force pulling all matter towards the center of the earth... Fair enough. Meaning that you wouldn't have been saying 'that there were NO forces beyond your senses that effected your world,' but instead you simply did not have sufficient knowledge to even know what questions might potentially lead to a better understanding of the potential of such forces... I gotcha...



It's not so much as proof as it is stating the obvious... Surely you do not contest that the universe exists... and do you have some evidence which wuld tend towards the indication that the universe was not created? Can you state a case for where the matter of which the universe is comprised just 'was'... can you explain the energy which drives the universe? Did it too just exist with no beginning?

LOL... You can't even begin to contemplate it can you? Yet you're prepared to conclude that God does not exist based upon the absence of evidence... when you can't even begin to explain that IF the universe has no beginning, how such is even possible... One would think that such a conclusion must reside from the mind which would have such answers...




Why is that? Now without being personal, please be as specific as your intellectual limitations allow...




That's true and a position upon which we both can agree...

Now, I can't help but to detect a brazen implication in that... so with that said which position of mine do you find that I have advanced on nothing more than my having said so.

Again... without being personal, please be as specific as your intellectual limitations allow.

Hey Publius, Just wondering what the N in ROFLMNAO stands for.