• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Proof of God

ecofarm said:
To be Enlightened is to understand that our rights are derived by logic and reason, sociology. We all agree, though many violate that agreement, to observe rights to life, expression and self defense. We do this as a matter not of self preservation but species preservation. It's species based. That's why it's inalienable; it's part of us.

To be Enlightened is to understand that is where our rights come from. Our rights don't come from authorities above us. No one decides what our rights are at a universal, natural, level. We might argue about human, civil, labor and environmental rights. But the rights to life, expression and self defense are not up for debate. We all agree to them (and many violate).

Perhaps we should note the violation of a right does not negate its existence. Natural rights are inalienable, not inviolable. They get violated all the time by governments and individuals. If their violation meant their existence, there would be no such concept as injustice.

Inalienable = socially natural to the human species. Self evident = ask yourself.

Now if everytime you ask yourself, the reply is "huh?", that's on you. Class dismissed. Go be enlightened.
Click to expand...

All rights are concepts invented by human beings. There are no such things as rights in nature that exist independent of human conceptualization.
 
ecofarm said:
God is love. I can prove that exists. I can prove it's a force; it makes things happen.

A force exists that we can't see directly or quantify with metrics. It affects our lives. It's always been and always will be.
Click to expand...

Love is a concept based on human emotions. Have any space probes observed it on other planets?
 
weaver2 said:
If you can think about something then it exists for you. Nobody can tell you your concept of God doesn’t exist. Nor can you tell someone that their 11 steps of ‘whereas’ doesn’t prove their God exists for them. No one can prove or disprove the existence of God. All that can be said is that God exists for the individual or the culture that believes there is a God and He doesn’t exist for those that don’t believe he exists.


The problem is not, the existence or non-existence of God, the logic, the wording, the definitions, the types of argument, the philosophizing, the determination of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. The problem is one group of believers claiming their God is the only God and He has given them the tablet of rules everybody has to follow.
Click to expand...

If you can think about something it means your brain is functioning. It tells us nothing about the existence of anything.
 
devildavid said:
All rights are concepts invented by human beings.
Click to expand...

Of course. Rights are social agreements. They only exist in the human world and are created by humans. Some are universal agreements. Those are called natural rights because they're universal. They're not biologically natural or spiritually natural or magically naturally natural. They're socially natural as established by their universality.

You got to get a clue what people are talking about. The founders weren't idiots. When they wrote, "endowed by Creator", they meant part of mankind, inalienable. They didn't mean dependent on a deity.
 
devildavid said:
Love is a concept based on human emotions. Have any space probes observed it on other planets?
Click to expand...

Love is not merely emotion. It's acts. It's motivation. It's forgiveness. It's a lot of things. I'm not impressed by oversimplification.
 
RAMOSS said:
Anytime someone uses the words 'Self evident', not only do I not think it's 'self evident', but that person using that term can not show what they claim to be 'self evident' to be true.
Click to expand...

Existence is.
Consciousness observes existence.
Identity is...I am me, and you are you.
It's possible for humans to differentiate true from false.

These are some examples of self-evident claims. They are accepted as true in the argument, even if you reject them.

Natural rights...probably self-evident too.
As a shared observation, most people are aware of their instinct for survival. This gets codified as "right to life" when making up rules for society..it stems from our shared desire to live, and to see those we love and depend on live..and by extension we can imagine everyone feels the same (within reason).
But there's more to it. We do not have a survival instinct by accident, it resulted from it being an overall a better survival trait than without. And such things can be modeled in mathematics. Game theory has examples of such social interactions, potential rules and outcomes. When fairness, can be quantified, and trust...tit for tat, etc., it appears those rules are the case whether we believe them, or not. There's a gulf of work that has to be done to bridge the two (if it's even logically possible entirely), but there is enough there that it seems to be the case.

So these rules of game theory, that predict outcomes, we did not create them, we discovered them. And evolution also discovered them, and coded them into our DNA.
 
ecofarm said:
To be Enlightened is to understand that our rights are derived by logic and reason, sociology. We all agree, though many violate that agreement, to observe rights to life, expression and self defense. We do this as a matter not of self preservation but species preservation. It's species based. That's why it's inalienable; it's part of us.

To be Enlightened is to understand that is where our rights come from. Our rights don't come from authorities above us. No one decides what our rights are at a universal, natural, level. We might argue about human, civil, labor and environmental rights. But the rights to life, expression and self defense are not up for debate. We all agree to them (and many violate).

Perhaps we should note the violation of a right does not negate its existence. Natural rights are inalienable, not inviolable. They get violated all the time by governments and individuals. If their violation meant their existence, there would be no such concept as injustice.

Inalienable = socially natural to the human species. Self evident = ask yourself.

Now if everytime you ask yourself, the reply is "huh?", that's on you. Class dismissed. Go be enlightened.
Click to expand...

The problem that series of statements is that it relies on a series of metaphysical concepts that can not be shown to be true, and then trying to define things into place. First is 'rights'.. and then claiming is it derived by logic and reason. Well, is it? Can you show that it is more than so called philosophers proclaiming their opinion is true?

That is what each and every one of those concepts are. Opinions that philosophers pretentiously proclaim to be true. You can't show it is more than anything man made up with his imagination.
 
Mach said:
Existence is.
Consciousness observes existence.
Identity is...I am me, and you are you.
It's possible for humans to differentiate true from false.

These are some examples of self-evident claims. They are accepted as true in the argument, even if you reject them.

Natural rights...probably self-evident too.
As a shared observation, most people are aware of their instinct for survival. This gets codified as "right to life" when making up rules for society..it stems from our shared desire to live, and to see those we love and depend on live..and by extension we can imagine everyone feels the same (within reason).
But there's more to it. We do not have a survival instinct by accident, it resulted from it being an overall a better survival trait than without. And such things can be modeled in mathematics. Game theory has examples of such social interactions, potential rules and outcomes. When fairness, can be quantified, and trust...tit for tat, etc., it appears those rules are the case whether we believe them, or not. There's a gulf of work that has to be done to bridge the two (if it's even logically possible entirely), but there is enough there that it seems to be the case.

So these rules of game theory, that predict outcomes, we did not create them, we discovered them. And evolution also discovered them, and coded them into our DNA.
Click to expand...

THose are the claims.

Now, break it down and prove it with something more than 'it's self evident'
 
Mach said:
Existence is.
Consciousness observes existence.
Identity is...I am me, and you are you.
It's possible for humans to differentiate true from false.

These are some examples of self-evident claims. They are accepted as true in the argument, even if you reject them.

Natural rights...probably self-evident too.
As a shared observation, most people are aware of their instinct for survival. This gets codified as "right to life" when making up rules for society..it stems from our shared desire to live, and to see those we love and depend on live..and by extension we can imagine everyone feels the same (within reason).
But there's more to it. We do not have a survival instinct by accident, it resulted from it being an overall a better survival trait than without. And such things can be modeled in mathematics. Game theory has examples of such social interactions, potential rules and outcomes. When fairness, can be quantified, and trust...tit for tat, etc., it appears those rules are the case whether we believe them, or not. There's a gulf of work that has to be done to bridge the two (if it's even logically possible entirely), but there is enough there that it seems to be the case.

So these rules of game theory, that predict outcomes, we did not create them, we discovered them. And evolution also discovered them, and coded them into our DNA.
Click to expand...

That's why I note it is based in species survival, not merely individual survival. It's kinda about the guy with the next big idea making it to that point. If the time makes the man (I believe so), then it's even more important.

We, as a species, could blip were it not for social instinct and resulting agreement to observe rights to life, expression and self defense (however self serving).
 
devildavid said:
All rights are concepts invented by human beings. There are no such things as rights in nature that exist independent of human conceptualization.
Click to expand...
I invented my instinct for survival?
I invented the outcomes of certain game theory strategies we model?

(no)
 
RAMOSS said:
THose are the claims.

Now, break it down and prove it with something more than 'it's self evident'
Click to expand...

Ask yourself (and everyone you ever meet):

1. Do you agree to observe the right to life in order to preserve it for yourself.
2. right to expression.
3. right to self defense.


Everyone, throughout time and place, answers 'yes'. These rights are (socially) natural via universality and driven by species survival. Many violate, private and government, but our rights remain. Only in this belief can there exist a concept of injustice.

Getting this is called "being Enlightened". It's the roots of self government, the Enlightenment. It had political, science and other implications.

Our rights come from social science, not anyone's decree. That's the heart of the Enlightenment.


I'll give an example. On Star Trek (presumably all versions), there's a moment when someone in the crew remarks, "they're/you're/I'm Enlightened". They mean operating under our paradigm in regard to natural rights.

To be Enlightened is to understand that we, as individuals, don't decide others rights.
 
Last edited:
OldFatGuy said:
Mud Pie (from the Hotel Statler Restaurant in Philadelphia, home of the original Mud Pie, 1927)

A layer of chocolate pie crust
A layer of slow cooked chocolate pudding (made from Belgian non-alkaloid tempered chocolate)
One double fudge brownie
Hershey's chocolate syrup
Two scoops of Dreiser's double chocolate ice cream, half melted
Another layer of chocolate pudding
Another layer of Dreiser's double chocolate ice cream
More Hershey's chocolate syrup
Two tablespoons of either Orange brandy or Cherry brandy
Fresh whipped sweet cream.

Served in a two cup brandy snifter

A heart attack or diabetic stroke.

Joanna Chiyo Nakamura Droeger of San Francisco restaurant fame had a different recipe for Mississippi Mud Pie without pudding that dated to 1956. Janis Joplin claimed to be addicted to Joanna's Mississippi Mud Pie.

What have you got against pistachio ice cream? Not one of my favorites, but it works well in a banana split accompanied by scoops of vanilla and strawberry with hot chocolate fudge and whipped cream. :) A special at:

Meet Eddie's Sweet Shop, the oldest ice cream parlor in New York City
Zagat
Click to expand...

Sounds nice,
the OPs version is to take a bunch of mud dug from next to an outhouse and put it in a pie plate
 
ecofarm said:
Ask yourself (and everyone you ever meet):

1. Do you agree to observe the right to life in order to preserve it for yourself.
2. right to expression.
3. right to self defense.


Everyone, throughout time and place, answers 'yes'. These rights are (socially) natural via universality and driven by species survival. Many violate, private and government, but our rights remain. Only in this belief can there exist a concept of injustice.

Getting this is called "being Enlightened". It's the roots of self government, the Enlightenment. It had political, science and other implications.

Our rights come from social science, not anyone's decree. That's the heart of the Enlightenment.
Click to expand...
If bolded was true there would never be any war, murder, assault or rape
 
Quag said:
If bolded was true there would never be any war, murder, assault or rape
Click to expand...

False.

Inalienable =/= inviolable.

If we lost rights, or they ceased to exist, when they were violated, there could be no concept of injustice.
 
ecofarm said:
False.

Inalienable =/= inviolable.
Click to expand...

Not false

Your claim: Everyone, throughout time and place, answers 'yes' is untrue
You failed to prove natural rights
 
RAMOSS said:
The problem that series of statements is that it relies on a series of metaphysical concepts that can not be shown to be true, and then trying to define things into place. First is 'rights'.. and then claiming is it derived by logic and reason. Well, is it? Can you show that it is more than so called philosophers proclaiming their opinion is true?

That is what each and every one of those concepts are. Opinions that philosophers pretentiously proclaim to be true. You can't show it is more than anything man made up with his imagination.
Click to expand...

Rights are social agreements. Nothing more, nothing less. That's not difficult, right?

Some social agreements are universal. These are referred to as (socially) "natural". The "natural" comes from the universality of the agreement. It doesn't come from biology, nor magic. It comes from our will to survive as a species.
 
Quag said:
Not false

Your claim: Everyone, throughout time and place, answers 'yes' is untrue
You failed to prove natural rights
Click to expand...

I'll attempt nuance.

First, we exclude the insane. This is a sociological concept, logical being an important part of concepts.

Second, we exclude lopsided power dynamics. When one person has no power to enforce the agreement, what we have is tyranny. Yes, a king or dictator can say "no such agreements are to be expected" from a position of power much as the insane can from a position of not caring about themselves or humanity.

In sum, we're talking about agreements between free people that are equal before the law. Dictators don't negotiate; they don't make agreements. As noted below, they do but they violate.

Now, understand this. Within the dictator's bubble, these rights are expected and enforced. While everyone lives at the whim of the dictator, the dictator himself claims rights to life, expression and self defense. He just doesn't recognize those rights for others.

So...

1. No crazy people. It's sociological. Logical.
2. No dictator power dynamics. That's really merely ignoring the fact that the dictator expects such rights.

Sane people that are equal before the law. And still, they violate.
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
False.

Inalienable =/= inviolable.

If we lost rights, or they ceased to exist, when they were violated, there could be no concept of injustice.
Click to expand...

Injustice is exactly that, A man made concept. So is justice. Fairness it too.. all emotional and ego based.
 
ecofarm said:
I'll attempt nuance.

First, we exclude the insane. This is a sociological concept, logical being an important part of concepts.

Second, we exclude lopsided power dynamics. When one person has no power to enforce the agreement, what we have is tyranny. Yes, a king or dictator can say "no such agreements are to be expected" from a position of power much as the insane can from a position of not caring about themselves or humanity. In sum, we're talking about agreements between free people that are equal before the law. Dictators don't negotiate; they don't make agreements.

Now, understand this. Within the dictator's bubble, these rights are expected and enforced. While everyone lives at the whim of the dictator, the dictator himself claims rights to life, expression and self defense. He just doesn't recognize those rights for others.

So...

1. No crazy people. It's sociological. Logical.
2. No dictator power dynamics. That's really merely ignoring the fact that the dictator expects such rights.

Sane people that are equal before the law.
Click to expand...
Nope not just the insane and dictators, historically speaking your statment is way off
 
RAMOSS said:
Injustice is exactly that, A man made concept. So is justice. Fairness it too.. all emotional and ego based.
Click to expand...

Natural, universal, rights are survival based. We agree in order to insure species survival. Everyone agrees. Everyone violates.

Despite violation, rights remain. If they did not, there could be no concept of injustice. There "could be no"... meaning it could not exist. It would not exist. The word would not be in existence.
 
Quag said:
Nope not just the insane and dictators, historically speaking your statment is way off
Click to expand...

Inalienable does not mean inviolable.

It's flat idiotic to believe inalienable means inviolable.
 
ecofarm said:
I'm atheist. Always have been and never believed anything supernatural. I believe in a non-deitic non-entity no-will not-supernatural God, love. I guess that's part of it for Christians, but it's the end of it for me. I don't have any faith, I eat only vegetables, but I can strengthen it in others.
Click to expand...

OK that's great. It just sounded like you were attributing a love to share with others as having come from some
'outside source.'
 
Lursa said:
OK that's great. It just sounded like you were attributing a love to share with others as having come from some
'outside source.'
Click to expand...

I ain't got no love for nobody.

Off lawn. ;)
 
ecofarm said:
Natural, universal, rights are survival based. We agree in order to insure species survival. Everyone agrees. Everyone violates.

Despite violation, rights remain. If they did not, there could be no concept of injustice. There "could be no"... meaning it could not exist. It would not exist. The word would not be in existence.
Click to expand...

ANd, there are other concepts that are 'surivival based' that directly contradict that. Absolute obedience to a monarch for example. Obey and live, disobey and die. Other than that, it's merely modern western man making declarations based on what they think 'ought' to be.
 
ecofarm said:
Of course. Rights are social agreements. They only exist in the human world and are created by humans. Some are universal agreements. Those are called natural rights because they're universal. They're not biologically natural or spiritually natural or magically naturally natural. They're socially natural as established by their universality.

You got to get a clue what people are talking about. The founders weren't idiots. When they wrote, "endowed by Creator", they meant part of mankind, inalienable. They didn't mean dependent on a deity.
Click to expand...

No rights are universal. The founders were men trying to justify breaking away from British rule. They figured using the concept of rights endowed by a creator would make their case sound stronger.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom