In the Absence of God; Human rights cannot exist.

[PubliusInfinitum]

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

So you've opted to demonstrate a more obvious 'snatching of points from the ether'... great, that helps to demonstrate perfectly that on which your entire position rests.

"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.

Nor has anyone here, not the least of which being myself, made any such assertion... but it is a BRILLIANT illustration of "argument through ether snatching." Congrats...

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

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

... natural...

 

[9 Volt]

... natural...

Natural? I would've never guessed that. I really had no idea.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Natural? I would've never guessed that. I really had no idea.

'salright... it's a southern thing...

 

[9 Volt]

'salright... it's a southern thing...

Southern things are not unfamiliar to yours truly. My wife is one of em.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Southern things are not unfamiliar to yours truly. My wife is one of em.

HEY! Mine TOO!

You're a lucky man...

 

[Old Rocks]

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.

LOL!!!!! Ever hear of Quantum Physics?

 

[Diuretic]

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 or 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 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...



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...




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 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.

No.

Without being personal? Encroaching on your territory?

 

[LOki]

ROFL... Ain't delusion grand?

I'm not the one here that demands that their "vague 'feeling' with no real basis in actual fact" that God created the universe is proof that God created the universe, even after their proof was unambiguously refuted. That one, Cupcake, is the delusional one here.

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

There is no question being begged...

Oh really? I bet this is going to be just as satisfying as the last time.

The member simply demands that everything, the knowns and that which is unknown satisfy every facet of consideration.

Cupcake:
The Universe exists...
[The unstated, but neccessary, assertion required is: The Universe requires something to create it because. . .]
It didn't create itself... [the neccessary, but unstated presumption in this assertion is: The unverse was created.]
thus something created it.​

You see, Cupcake, you demand that we accept the assertion that something created the universe in order for you to prove something created universe; it's Question Begging to demand that we accept the act of creation in order to conclude something did the creating; it's Question Begging all around.

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

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 obvious fallacy here, Cupcake, is The Argument From Ignorance.

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

The member LOki, demands that empirical evidence must exist which proves the existance of God, . . .

Cupcake, this is an obvious lie.

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

. . . which proves the universe was created . . .

An obvious non-sequitur.

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

. . . to advance a reasonable hypothesis...

The suggestion that your hypothesis is reasonable Cupcake, is obvious disinformation.

This is simply false; it flies in the face of every advancement in human history.

I tis my pleasure to point out to you Cupcake, that demanding that the validity of a hypothesis be validated by evidence and valid logic is the primary foundation of every advancement in human history--the demand that evidence and valid logic be ignored in favor of supertion is the stumbling block placed before every advancement in human history.

Again, LOki is an atheist...

Ad-hominem.

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

. . . therefore LOki needs to BELIEVE that she, as a human being is the highest level of intelligence in the universe...

Blatant disinformation.

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

. . . 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.

Ad-hominem. Utterly baseless accustaion. Blatant disinformation.

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

LOki would never believe in God because she is too heavily invested in the disbelief.

Utterly baseless accustaion. Blatant disinformation.

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

 

[LOki]

So you've opted to demonstrate a more obvious 'snatching of points from the ether'... great, that helps to demonstrate perfectly that on which your entire position rests.

I've opted to make no such demonstration; I asked a question. Your tiresome attempts at disinformation is simply not a valid answer, Cupcake.

Nor has anyone here, not the least of which being myself, made any such assertion...

Sure you have.

. . . but it is a BRILLIANT illustration of "argument through ether snatching." Congrats...

Hardly. I can bring evidence (evidence you have provided) and valid argument to prove my postion. Now I'm just interested in having you demand that I punish you Cupcake . . . again.

 

[Abelian Sea]

It's not so much as it proof as it is stating the obvious...

So, the obvious fact is, "if someting exists, it was created," right? With the caveat that things don't create themselves, of course.

How does that not suggest an infinite timeline to you? Each thing created by something that must have existed before it, which itself must have been created by a prior thing, and so on, "all the way down," as they say.

Of course, I don't think your position really requires an Ultimate Beginning. All it really needs is something on a sufficiently grander scale than the human universe going on, to put things in perspective.

With the M-theory bit, for example, it doesn't really matter that the 'branes - the larger universe - already existed; the point is "our universe" once didn't, and was created by their intersection.

Similarly, with the idea of creation by a sentient God ex nihilo, the universe - the whole totallity - always existed, even it consisted of just God, but that doesn't really matter to us; the point is that "this universe," the particular set of conditions in which we are able to live and which encompasses what we can percieve, was created by a larger force.

And coming back to evidence, it certainly does appear that there was a Big Explosion, and explosions are awfully suspicious, suggesting that there's a larger game afoot. If such an explosion did occur and is in fact all-encompassing (as it physically appears to us to be), then in all likelyhood nothing that happened before it would have a detectable effect afterwards, so in practice it does mark the beginning of "our universe." In this sense our world was indeed created by larger forces about which we know almost nothing. Whether or not the "whole universe" (which would include whatever caused the explosion) always existed or not is interesting to think about but not, I think, terribly relevant to this specific discussion.

*nod* Ulitmately, I agree with your thread title, using the definition of God as, basically, "whatever that larger pattern is, of which we and the world we know are a part and product." I just like dancing with the devil in the details sometimes.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

So the question becomes 'are those who reject the Opening Premise coming to the table with an open mind, or are they so throughly invested in their atheism that they will reject the existance of God, thus the validity of God given human rights without regard to the amount of or the level in terms of authority and the volume of evidence provided which would lead to the conclusion that God does exist.

I submit the following...

One day you walked into your home and found a person standing there; a person which you instinctively trusted... and that person revealed to you that they were God incarnate; God in human form; that they had heard your queries and had decided for reasons known only to them, to stand before you and convince you...

At last any and all evidence which you requested as 'conclusive, empirical proof was laid out before you...

You could touch it, see it in your mind’s eye; see it in unprecedented detail in as many ways as you could think of; you are presented the answers to questions regarding everything from 'what is time, why are we here, is there a hell and am I on the register; everything from who killed JFK to where Elvis is and that most important of all human puzzlers...'where do socks go when you put them in the washer and they don't come out;' you're given all of the time and answers to all of your questions until you simply can no longer advance a query of doubt... all of the evidence which you require is presented; matter is created from the ether, you’re transported through time, in thousands of dimensions, seeing history play out in thousands of ways...; whatever flitters through your mind is answered instantly…; all of the demonstrations, the insight, the mind blowing facts, the full blown demonstrations of the origin of the universe, presented in a vision, which you learn was actually you witnessing as it happened, having literally been taken back to that point to witness it yourself… as well as in mathematical terms which you were suddenly, instinctively able to grasp... proof, in finality and conclusively that God was precisely as he had been described all of your life; but which you had rejected for whatever reason... with the only condition (to which you agreed) being that you could not call a witness...


What would you do?

I would declare that I am an enemy to that evil, tyrannical bastard god of torture and human suffering, and I'd do my level best to destroy that vain, sadistic, bloodthirsty prick.

SO there ya have it friends, a first class incontestable illustration of the irrational, closed mindedness which exemplifies atheism and the individual atheist. There mind is closed to the very notion of God's existance... and where given a scenario wherein they agree that they are convinced of God's existance, as God is described in the Holy Scriptures, their reaction is irrationality which is simply out of scale; off the chart insane.

Thus, once again, the premise that IN THE ABSENCE OF GOD, Human RIGHTS CANNOT EXIST is conclusively proven true... As without an authority which rests above that of Humanity, the very notion of what is and is not a human right boils down to nothing more than the opinion of the individual themself or whatever stands as human power at any given moment... and as anyone can plainly see, the opinion of the individual is easily an readily dismissable and rests on absolutely nothing beyond the power that the holder of that opinion can project by way of enforcing thier opinion.

Thank you kids... it's been a blast!

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

So, the obvious fact is, "if someting exists, it was created," right? With the caveat that things don't create themselves, of course.

How does that not suggest an infinite timeline to you?

I've made no statement which woul suggest that's my reasoning.

I've stated that Whatever created the Universe, is God. I haven't defined God. Ihave absolutely no earth'y clue what God is, beyond that whatever God is, he is that which possesses power incomprehensibly vast that that which the human race posseses... And that through his creation of the human race, the human race owes God their/ our greatfullness and that to deny that, is absurd.

What God is, where God came from... it's all meaningless. What is NOT meaningless is that God created humanity and endowed humanity with the unalienable right to pursue the fulfillment of that right; a right which comes with the sacred responsibility defend that right and to not exercise that right to the detriment of another's right to do the same, who necessarily has the same responsibility as I have with my rights...


Any questions?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

I've opted to make no such demonstration; I asked a question. Your tiresome attempts at disinformation is simply not a valid answer, Cupcake.

Sure you have.

Hardly. I can bring evidence (evidence you have provided) and valid argument to prove my postion. Now I'm just interested in having you demand that I punish you Cupcake . . . again.

Yet you've spent weeks in this thread providing nothing but empty denials and fallacious argument.

Bring your evidence sis and confine your argument to the opening premise... This thread is not discussing the existance of God, THIS THREAD is discussing the certainty that if God does not exist, then human rights are a concept without a viable foundation, as they rest on little more than the whimsy of a popular majority or the means and intent of whatever power happens to be in place at any given time. Which isn't worth jack shit...

 

[N4mddissent]

Bring your evidence sis and confine your argument to the opening premise... This thread is not discussing the existance of God, THIS THREAD is discussing the certainty that if God does not exist, then human rights are a concept without a viable foundation, as they rest on little more than the whimsy of a popular majority or the means and intent of whatever power happens to be in place at any given time. Which isn't worth jack shit...

Let me ask this. Is slavery a violation of human rights?

 

[LOki]

SO there ya have it friends, a first class incontestable illustration of the irrational, closed mindedness which exemplifies atheism and the individual atheist.

Oh Cupcake, how precious. I accept your premise that your God exists, and it's "closed mindedness which exemplifies atheism and the individual atheist."

There ya have it friends, a first class incontestable illustration of the irrational, closed mindedness which exemplifies a retard.

There mind is closed to the very notion of God's existance...

Except where God's existence is honestly stipulated to advance the premise.

There ya have it friends, a first class incontestable illustration of the irrational, closed mindedness which exemplifies a dishonest retard.

. . .and where given a scenario wherein they agree that they are convinced of God's existance, [ed. LOki: But closed minded about it!] as God is described in the Holy Scriptures, their reaction is irrationality which is simply out of scale; off the chart insane.

Here friends, the dishonest retard, after having accused the victim of her dishonesty of needing to beleive that he, as a human being is the highest level of intelligence in the universe, now stands here and demands she knows precisely how God was described to him all of hislife, and has the temerity to then judge that his reaction to facing that God as irrationality which is simply out of scale; off the chart insane.

This from the exact same retard that authored this:

God's authority stands above that of ANY HUMAN POWER... thus the endowment from God rests upon an authority superior to ANY HUMAN POWER. Meaning NO HUMAN POWER CAN TAKE AWAY THE ENDOWMENTS PRESENTED BY GOD... You and your social negotiation of what my rights may or mat not be has absolutely NO BEARING ON WHAT MY HUMAN RIGHTS ARE... and where you infringe on my right to exercise those rights, it is my sacred duty to defend those rights and to do so to the extent of my means...

You will NEVER pass a law which gives you the right to strip me of my God given rights; you will NEVER establish a COURT which determines that my God given rights are invalid... period.

See how that works? Where God exists and he exists in me... You and your supercilious ideology will NEVER control me; you'll NEVER strip me of my rights and I and those who believe as I do will NEVER CONCEDE to any legislation or any judicial decree that would otherwise attempt to do so...

We don't ask for your opinion of what our rights are... we don't accept any opinion that you may offer and we will defend ourselves from such a threat to our rights which you may mount upon the certainty that our fight is righteous; that our reasoning is sound and that the scope of our very existence is designed for no other purpose than to destroy you.

What's more, given the incontestable veracity of our position; the insurmountable validity of our reasoning and the purity of our cause... our ranks will swell with those whose instincts are naturally drawn towards righteousness... thus your human authority to tyrannize a free people will not long endure..​

Retarded irrationality which is simply out of scale; off the chart insane.

Thus, once again, the premise that IN THE ABSENCE OF GOD, Human RIGHTS CANNOT EXIST is conclusively proven true...

Proven without a single valid argument or bit of evidence--ain't delusion grand?

As without an authority which rests above that of Humanity, . . .

Even an imaginary authority? How very authoritarian of you.

See Cupcake, I told you that the superstitious (like yourself) have far more in common with leftists than humanists do.

. . . the very notion of what is and is not a human right boils down to nothing more than the opinion of the individual themself or whatever stands as human power at any given moment...

Only if rights are not real in the first place, and/or opinion, unvalidated by reality can be considered valid--you know, like the existence of a supreme authority traditionally called God.

. . . and as anyone can plainly see, the opinion of the individual is easily an readily dismissable and rests on absolutely nothing beyond the power that the holder of that opinion can project by way of enforcing thier opinion.

Yes.

Obviously then, the premise that IN THE ABSENCE OF GOD, Human RIGHTS CANNOT EXIST is conclusively proven utterly and uncontestably FALSE.

Thank you kids... it's been a blast!

It sure has.

 

[LOki]

Yet you've spent weeks in this thread providing nothing but empty denials and fallacious argument.

Of course, you won't demonstrate this with evidence. You will refuse to bring these "empty denials" to light; you will certainly not produce these "fallaciuos" arguments. The fact is that you're just lying now.

Bring your evidence sis and confine your argument to the opening premise...

So secure are you in your lies and disinformation campaign, that you are sure no one will have noticed that I already have; and that you have affirmed my position. Provided that the nature of reality is that it is objective, rather than subject to conciousness or perception; provided that you are a human being; provided that you are real; provided that rights are real; provided that the nature of your rights is that they are inherent to your being, and indissociable from your being; then your rights are in no way contingent upon the existence of God--they exist fully, without God.

Unless Cupcake, you wish to continue to demand that this thread be a discussion regarding the existence of God.

This thread is not discussing the existance of God, . . .

Except for the explicit presumption of the opening premise, correct Cupcake?

But since this thread is not discussing the existence of God, then we're done.

. . . THIS THREAD is discussing the certainty that if God does not exist, . . .

This thread is not discussing the existance of God

You really must make up your mind, Cupcake.

. . . then human rights are a concept without a viable foundation, . . .

If rights are real and inherent, then they are a concept with a real foundation in reality; a reality that you have already, loudly and proudly, stipulated is independent of human concepts regarding it.

. . . as they rest on little more than the whimsy of a popular majority or the means and intent of whatever power happens to be in place at any given time. Which isn't worth jack shit...

Whatever, Cupcake. As usual, your litte bullshit exposition has little to do with my position.

 

[Abelian Sea]

So, the obvious fact is, "if someting exists, it was created," right? With the caveat that things don't create themselves, of course.

How does that not suggest an infinite timeline to you?

I've made no statement which woul suggest that's my reasoning.

I was kinda working from statements like this one:

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.

Clearly, it's obvious to you that the universe didn't always exist. I see that I made a leap by concluding that it's obvious to you that "it exists" implies "it was created" in all cases, but I have to wonder, if you admit the possibility that something can exist without having been created, how is it obvious, a priori, that the universe isn't such a thing?

Of course, that's a little off topic here. Your argument doesn't depend on the whole totality of existence having a beginning, just the bit that we're aware of and that effects our lives, and there is ample evidence that that world hasn't always been around in such a way. It just throws me the way you talk about "the universe" (which I imagine encompasses a bit more than we're currently aware of) and seem to think it self-evident that it has a finite history. Maybe I'll start a seperate thread about it.

I've stated that Whatever created the Universe, is God. I haven't defined God. Ihave absolutely no earth'y clue what God is, beyond that whatever God is, he is that which possesses power incomprehensibly vast that that which the human race posseses... And that through his creation of the human race, the human race owes God their/ our greatfullness and that to deny that, is absurd.

What God is, where God came from... it's all meaningless. What is NOT meaningless is that God created humanity and endowed humanity with the unalienable right to pursue the fulfillment of that right; a right which comes with the sacred responsibility defend that right and to not exercise that right to the detriment of another's right to do the same, who necessarily has the same responsibility as I have with my rights...


Any questions?

No, that's pretty clear. The only quirk I see besides what I was just talking about is that you speak as though God is (was?) a person, but I don't think that's vital to your premise and it does make the grammar simpler.

 

[WhiteLion]

I was kinda working from statements like this one:



Clearly, it's obvious to you that the universe didn't always exist. I see that I made a leap by concluding that it's obvious to you that "it exists" implies "it was created" in all cases, but I have to wonder, if you admit the possibility that something can exist without having been created, how is it obvious, a priori, that the universe isn't such a thing?

Of course, that's a little off topic here. Your argument doesn't depend on the whole totality of existence having a beginning, just the bit that we're aware of and that effects our lives, and there is ample evidence that that world hasn't always been around in such a way. It just throws me the way you talk about "the universe" (which I imagine encompasses a bit more than we're currently aware of) and seem to think it self-evident that it has a finite history. Maybe I'll start a seperate thread about it.



No, that's pretty clear. The only quirk I see besides what I was just talking about is that you speak as though God is (was?) a person, but I don't think that's vital to your premise and it does make the grammar simpler.

Jesus the Christ was GOD manifested in the flesh;

John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. Is this to intellectualist nah, to fundamentalist nah, RIGHT BETWEEN THE EYES you betcha... You people been chasing PubliusInfinitu like dogs chasing their tails in a circle lol and thats about as far as youll get with Pub, because of all of your rationalizations you could never come to the understanding of the truth(without GOD nothing's possible, with GOD all things are possible, all things are held together by the hand of GOD(ATOMS))its kinda like the fine lines between insanity and genius somethings are better left alone. You cant see GOD as he is, it would literally melt you like a blast furnace, thats why he came in the form of HIS son Jesus the Christ which was and is the foremost author of Human Rights......

 

[Diuretic]

big - if anyone is rationalising I'm afraid it's poor old Pub. Your role seems to be relegated to one of enabling him.