Rick Santorum I almost became a fan of Rick Santorum tonight.

I seem to have trouble keeping it short because I am afraid people will not understand. Despite my efforts, however, they always respond with a logical fallacy, thinking they have found a crack in my logic.

The longer the answer, the more likely someone is to believe they have found a fallacy. The shorter the answer, the more difficult it is to pick apart. Brevity is the soul of wit. Mind you, I fail that standard all the time.
 
Because your infinity is not actually infinite. That is an observable fact. It had a beginning.

To be fair, a geometric ray is infinite and has a beginning point. Going back to set theory since it is much easier to grasp infinitude, the set [all positive real integers] is infinite and has a starting point.
 
This is an argument from consequences. You're saying, in effect, "God has to exist, since if he doesn't, then rights can only be granted by other men. I don't want that to be the case. Therefore, God exists." I'm sure you see why that doesn't hold water.

In fact, as a practical matter, rights are only taken or protected by force wielded by man. I'm not aware of any God ever coming to the defense of anyone's rights -- at least not in any verifiable fashion. Instead, we routinely see humans denied their rights. That's been the case throughout history. Whether rights exist or not in any sense is moot if they're not backed up with force or the threat of force.

While you're correct that there needs to be some "first cause," the assumption that it must have been an intelligent God is unjustified. It's possible that the "uncreated creator" of the universe is simply the laws of physics, or maybe even some other perfectly natural phenomenon that humans lack the capacity to understand.

There's a book on this subject called A Universe From Nothing by Lawrence Krauss. I haven't yet read it but plan to as soon as I get a chance.

The truly logical position on this question is agnosticism. Humans simply don't know where everything came from, and we may never know. Everything may have been created by some kind of God -- perhaps a completely impersonal one who's nothing like the anthropomorphic God portrayed by the various religions. Or everything may have been created by a self-existent but natural entity that "lives" outside our universe. We just don't know, and that's uncomfortable for many people to accept.

Religions are rooted in the ancient attempts of man to come to grips with things he didn't understand. Just as lots of people today are "sure" that a personal God exists, people were once certain that witches were responsible for their crop failures and cattle dying, that people with epilepsy or Tourette's syndrome were possessed by demons, and so forth. But as science revealed more about how nature works, the role of religion grew smaller. Its only refuge now is in questions that science still hasn't answered, such as the origin of life and the universe itself -- though there are some plausible theories out there about these things.

Guerilla, I never made the case that God existed because rights would be granted by men, otherwise. Therefore, I am not going to read your post any further than the first sentence. I made the point that saying rights do not come from God means they come from men. I also made the case that, if rights come from men, then that is the ultimate justification for statism.
 
To be fair, a geometric ray is infinite and has a beginning point. Going back to set theory since it is much easier to grasp infinitude, the set [all positive real integers] is infinite and has a starting point.

The point being that the universe had a beginning. That's all I really need to show. However, I would question the idea that infinity can exist with a beginning point. In essence, a line (extends infinitely in both directions) and a ray (extends infinitely in one direction) are the same thing. If you disagree, tell me which one is longer. The ray is only really to show direction, not to quantify or give meaning to any certain point on the line.
 
Last edited:
I didn't really mean outside as in inhabiting a space apart from the space the universe occupies. I was not even talking in terms of space, but our finite understanding, alas, also limits our ability to communicate with such abstract ideas. God is the universe and is also above and beyond the universe. God encompasses everything.

I know what you meant. My argument still applies. For God to be separate from the universe, the universe AND God must be finite.
 
There is an infinite quantity of fractions between the real numbers zero and one. This is an example of infinity with both a starting AND an ending point.
 
I know what you meant. My argument still applies. For God to be separate from the universe, the universe AND God must be finite.

Goodness, I feel like I'm on the floor of the House. Can't answer an argument so you proceed like it was never proposed in the first place? :D

Infinity is not everything, not even close.

The set [all prime numbers] is infinite, and it barely contains a fraction of the set [all real numbers]

The set [all even numbers] is infinite, and is completely outside of the set [all odd numbers]. The idea that God exists outside of the space-time continuum does not prohibit the quality of infiniteness. Non sequitur from the ground up.
 
Last edited:
Mathematical non sequitur. The set [all even numbers] is infinite, and is completely outside of the set [odd numbers]. The idea that God exists outside of the space-time continuum does not not prohibit the quality of infiniteness. Non sequitur from the ground up.

The set [all even numbers] is not infinite. Infinity is everything, not half of everything.
 
There is an infinite quantity of fractions between the real numbers zero and one. This is an example of infinity with both a starting AND an ending point.
Thats very interesting. But if the end can never be reached unless you add the remainder to the fraction, then is it really an end? Still its cool i never thought of it like that before.
 
Thats very interesting. But if the end can never be reached unless you add the remainder to the fraction, then is it really an end? Still its cool i never thought of it like that before.

The fractional infinity between integers is tougher to define, because you have to put 'endlessness' in the middle, which is why I stressed "quantity of" given that the real value between integers is quite finite. The place where you can really see infinitude between starting and ending points is in fractal geometry. Fractals are "inwardly infinite" while on the macro-scale they take up a finite amount of space (or given planar geometry, area)
 
For what it's Wuertz, Santorum voted to bailout the airline industry under Bush's direction, and was the #3 Republican in the Senate. There's no chance he would have done anything but punch YES on his card for TARP. Also, it's kind of hard to take anyone seriously who argues that rights come from God, not the state, when he gleefully voted to violate the rights of every citizen multiple times. In Santorum's eyes, our country is ordained by God; did Santorum then disobey and actively work against the will of God by taking away the rights he claims are given to people by God? Someone ask him this at a rally, please.

http://mediacdn.reuters.com/media/us...f/50Things.pdf

Campaign like Goldwater, govern like Rockefeller.
 
LOL that's two neg reps. One each from PaulConventionWV:(Thread: Filing as an...Don't be a dissident troll.) and realtonygoodwin (Thread: I almost became a fan...Don't be rude,)
I don't give a fuck. Time is short and ya just need to get over it. ;) with the exception of returning to Constitutional mandates EVERY thing else is a "bullshit circus three ring, circus sideshow." To coin a lyric.
Ya want Christianity that is respected from an agnostic. Listen to Gunny. More importantly stop with the things that divide us. And by us I mean Paul supporters that are 1) every religion. 2) every race. 3) every sexuality. 4) EVERYONE.
EQUALITY neither favours nor disfavours our fellow man.
 
"Our rights come from God, our creator, but those rights come with a moral compass. And if you abuse those rights then he will send you to an eternal damnation." - Rick Santorum, Jacksonville debate

That's what I heard
 
For what it's Wuertz, Santorum voted to bailout the airline industry under Bush's direction, and was the #3 Republican in the Senate. There's no chance he would have done anything but punch YES on his card for TARP. Also, it's kind of hard to take anyone seriously who argues that rights come from God, not the state, when he gleefully voted to violate the rights of every citizen multiple times. In Santorum's eyes, our country is ordained by God; did Santorum then disobey and actively work against the will of God by taking away the rights he claims are given to people by God? Someone ask him this at a rally, please.

http://mediacdn.reuters.com/media/us...f/50Things.pdf

Campaign like Goldwater, govern like Rockefeller.

The problem is that most of Christianity today conflates God and the state, therefore it is easy (for them) to equivocate between God and the state in governance. Just look at our churches today, some 98% of them are 501(c)3 corporations that have at their foundational charter the twisted notion that government can tell God what He can and can not say from His own pulpits, and almost every church in America has a US flag at or near the pulpit, further conflating the concepts.

When you assume full conflation of God and America, the rationale of people like Santorum becomes a lot more clear, and it is the same rationale that drove the original Pharisees. They replace God with government because they have more faith in Caesar than they do in God.
 
Ya want Christianity that is respected from an agnostic. Listen to Gunny. More importantly stop with the things that divide us. And by us I mean Paul supporters that are 1) every religion. 2) every race. 3) every sexuality. 4) EVERYONE.
EQUALITY neither favours nor disfavours our fellow man.

Thanks brother, I don't blame agnostics for having a bad impression of Christianity, because I have come to recognize that at least 95% of Christians carry around the name without the reality. Although it sounds like a "no true Scotsman" fallacy, the reality that fewer than 5% of nominal Christians are in any way Christ-like makes it awfully difficult from the outside to see any merit in it whatsoever.

Further, I depart theologically from the establishment church somewhat by postulating that some portion of de facto Christians are not nominal Christians at all. Mind you, that quantity is vanishingly small.

There is a period in prophecy that we Christians expect called "the falling away" or the apostasy. I believe that that has already occurred. It's like Gandhi said "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." That's because the vast vast majority of us are unlike Christ.

The problem, of course, is that Christianity is supposed to be 100% about Christ-likeness. Therefore those who are unlike Christ are not really 'Christians' at all, no matter what they call themselves.

So it is apparent to me why non-Christians have a bad impression of us. Only a mere fraction of us actually mean what we say.

It sounds like a "no true Scotsman" fallacy, but it's not.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top