God-given rights?

Page 15 of 16 [ 251 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 Next

Previous topic | Next topic

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

17 Mar 2011, 3:09 pm

JWC wrote:

My purpose here is not to give insight into modern mathematical theory. It is to explain that rights cannot be based on god, because he does not exist. Any concept based on non-existence is false.

If you want to trade insults; I find your insight into concept formation, epistimological hierarchy, induction and deduction just as underwhelming.

you very well might, but I am empirically correct. I ride with Hume.

ruveyn

JWC
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Feb 2011
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 740
Location: Macondo Wellhead

17 Mar 2011, 3:10 pm

@ruveyn:

Indirectly, through the use of abstract concepts which are built upon a foundation of perceptual truths.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

17 Mar 2011, 3:13 pm

JWC wrote:

@ruveyn:

Indirectly, through the use of abstract concepts which are built upon a foundation of perceptual truths.

this is a trivial observation. Ultimately everything starts with perception. So what?

All the perception in the world will not tell you how to do String Theory or superdimensional differentiable manifolds. You must use logic and a formalism to do it.

ruveyn

JWC
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Feb 2011
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 740
Location: Macondo Wellhead

17 Mar 2011, 3:15 pm

Quote:

I ride with Hume.

How does that make you empirically correct?

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

17 Mar 2011, 3:19 pm

JWC wrote:

Quote:

I ride with Hume.

How does that make you empirically correct?

Hume was right on the money.

Induction is not a logically valid mode of reasoning, there is no perceivable necessary connection between a cause and an effect and there is no empirical basis for assuming nature is uniform. We assume that in order to do science, not because we know it is true.

Hume pretty well trashed any value in metaphysics. My hero!

ruveyn

JWC
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Feb 2011
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 740
Location: Macondo Wellhead

17 Mar 2011, 3:22 pm

Quote:

This conversation is not about String Theory or superdimensional differentiable manifolds, it is about the existence of god as the source of rights. Since god is not perceivable, he cannot exist.

JWC
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Feb 2011
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 740
Location: Macondo Wellhead

17 Mar 2011, 3:27 pm

@ruveyn:

The fact that you value a destroyer over a creator speaks volumes.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

17 Mar 2011, 3:35 pm

JWC wrote:

@ruveyn:

The fact that you value a destroyer over a creator speaks volumes.

Are you a Randroid?

In any case, I probably have read Atlas Shrugged more times than you (about 10).

ruveyn

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

17 Mar 2011, 3:37 pm

JWC wrote:

it is about the existence of god as the source of rights. Since god is not perceivable, he cannot exist.

The issue with this post is twofold.
1) The topic wasn't about the truth or falsehood of any particular religious dogma, but merely whether one could support rights from within the framework of any chosen dogma. I wasn't, for purposes of this conversation, even interested in the literal existence or non-existence of God.
2) By the standard you have put forward, formal mathematics does not exist. However, we use it every day, and it is recognized as legitimate and having great importance. So, the standard you have established is not useful for arguing against anything.

_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

JWC
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Feb 2011
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 740
Location: Macondo Wellhead

17 Mar 2011, 3:39 pm

@ruveyn:

I guess you could call me that. Most of us prefer the term Objectivist.

I'm really glad you've read Atlas Shrugged 10 times. You should read, OPAR and The Logical Leap, as well.

ryan93
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Apr 2009
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,315
Location: Galway, Ireland

17 Mar 2011, 3:41 pm

JWC wrote:

@ruveyn:

The fact that you value a destroyer over a creator speaks volumes.

Oh please, stop with the rhetoric. People like Godel, Hume, and Descartes were incredibly important figures, and they advanced our knowledge by telling us what we can know.

Quote:

Since god is not perceivable, he cannot exist.

A doesn't imply B here. And most Theists would argue he can be percieved, although with difficultly. If something is impossible to detect, it does not mean it does not exist. String theory postulates the existence of strings that are on the order of 10^-31 m long (correct me if I am wrong), and although we cannot detect them know does not mean they do not exist.

_________________
The scientist only imposes two things, namely truth and sincerity, imposes them upon himself and upon other scientists - Erwin Schrodinger

Member of the WP Strident Atheists

Last edited by ryan93 on 17 Mar 2011, 3:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

17 Mar 2011, 3:42 pm

JWC wrote:

@ruveyn:

I guess you could call me that. Most of us prefer the term Objectivist.

I'm really glad you've read Atlas Shrugged 10 times. You should read, OPAR and The Logical Leap, as well.

I am in the process of reviewing Harriman's book right now. So far I have concluded the following:

where he was correct he was not original and where he was original he was not correct. Harriman is basically superficial and he has has fully grasped the significance of quantum theory.

But that is another matter. Once I have reviewed it I will post my review on one of the objectivist forums and/or on Amazon

ruveyn

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

17 Mar 2011, 3:43 pm

ryan93 wrote:

JWC wrote:

@ruveyn:

The fact that you value a destroyer over a creator speaks volumes.

Oh please, stop with the rhetoric. People like Godel, Hume, and Descartes were incredibly important figures, and they advanced our knowledge by telling us what we can know.

Imagine; without Godel we would still be tilting at the windmill of trying to prove ZF.

_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

JWC
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Feb 2011
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 740
Location: Macondo Wellhead

17 Mar 2011, 3:45 pm

@Orwell:

God must exist in order to be the source of rights.

Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

17 Mar 2011, 3:48 pm

JWC wrote:

@Orwell:

God must exist in order to be the source of rights.

True. But the existence of God is a separate argument that can go elsewhere. I was interested in seeing how or why people could justify the stance of God being the source of rights, from within a theistic framework. It didn't have to be one I shared.

_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

JWC
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 28 Feb 2011
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 740
Location: Macondo Wellhead

17 Mar 2011, 3:50 pm

Quote:

Good for you, I'm sure your opinions on the subject will be equal to that of Hume's

Page 15 of 16 [ 251 posts ] Go to page Previous 1 ... 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 Next

Jump to:

God-given rights? Post Reply New Topic

God-given rights?