Ron Paul: Our Liberties Come From Our Creator

[swatmc]

If God doesn't have unquestionable authority over us because He created us, then you don't have property rights. It's the same thing. If you create a pot from clay, don't you expect to have unquestionable authority over that pot? In your post, you assume that all of us are equal, including God. God is an all-knowing, perfect Being. God cannot be compared to human beings because He is God. If that doesn't make sense to you, then nothing will.

It makes perfect sense... your argument is just wrong because it's predicated on the belief that god created us and that he is an all-knowing perfect being.

The people who originally claimed that there was such a being lived in the middle east during the bronze age, right?

Are you saying that these people knew more about the universe then modern day scientists?

 

[Ranger29860]

What does it say about science when you openly admit you are willing to believe in something that may turn out to be false?

I am bnot willing to belive in anything when there is no evidence supporting it. I am willing to say i made a mistake when it comes to interpretting data. Anything can be false when other evidecne comes to light. I am willing to change my view of a theory when this happens. It does not mean i belive in something that could be false. It mean i believe in something that is suported by evidence and if evidence no longer supports it i will then move onto the next theory the evidecne supports.

For all your criticisms against believing in celestial dictators you openly admit you are willing to believe in something that could turn out to be false. I imagine some of these beliefs that could turn out to be false could be used against people in criminal cases advocating a death penalty. Sorry we murdered you... it's not our fault, the data was wrong...

I do not support the death penalty due to my interpretation of the evidence when it comes to the validity of forensics. So this does not apply to me.

All evidence is derived from human observation which is fallible. Let's just take your chemical composition example. Obviously chemical composition evidence didn't just magically print itself. Someone had an idea which was formed into a theory. This person (or group of people) started thinking of ways they could test their theory in three dimensions. Maybe this person never achieved their goal. Maybe their ideas, theory, and tests inspired someone else to utilize newer technology to try newer, better tests in three dimensions at a later time. At some point the tests started achieving consistent results. Someone then offers up testimony to the theory, tests, results, and methodology. At this point the testimony is just evidence of a theory. As other people duplicate the tests and results using identical methodology the theory takes on the properties of a scientific fact because of corroborating evidence to the theory. A scientific fact is always subject to new evidence. Even if there hasn't been new evidence for 1000 years it doesn't empirically mean new evidence is impossible, it just means new evidence is highly unlikely. Unless of course you have some evidence to corroborate a theory that new evidence is impossible? That is some evidence I would be interested in...

Then by all means present new evidence that can be tested. I support this even if you have some off the wall idea if you can support it by evidence that can be verified then are understanding of the world is expanded. My view on the world is not dictated by a preset set of beliefs i am willing to change my view if the evidecne is presented.

Something like carbon dating doesn't become instantaneously accurate. Carbon dating will be more accurate 100 years from now because a comparison will be able to be made from known tests, results, and methodology today to a test 100 years from now that should show a result of 100 years.

First off most dating methods are not based on carbon. Second from I read there it seems like you do not know how radiometric dating works. Carbon dating 100 years from now will be no more accurate than carbon dating today since it is based on the "constant" decay rates of certain isotopes not on the average results based off of it. The only way carbon dating or any other form of dating will change is if the onstant decay rates change.

Since science and religion are both based on belief without empirical evidence new evidence is impossible I do not think science has any moral high ground.

Science is able to prove through experiment's and evidence that can be observed and tested its theory's. Religion to my knowledge has no equivalent ability.

When the evidence is controversial I am more sympathetic to the coalition builders who recognize more than their own position. If a statement like the right to human action comes from God, nature, natures Creator, humanity, or mere existence in which all of these theories lead to self ownership or the importance of the individual (and this next question isn't solely directed in response to the post I quoted, it is an open question to everyone who insists on statements that only represent one side of the liberty coalition)...

What is so evil about fostering good will and using verbiage that represents more than one party of a coalition?

I actually have no problem with Ron's position here because 1. he will never use religious justification for an action in the government. 2. He was stating his personal belief, as long as his belief does not restrict my personal frredoms i could care less.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

Natural selection is one of the ways in which evolution takes place mutation being the other. I have no idea where you got remain "good" from please cite a source for that if possible i actually really want to read it.Please define "Kind" of organism. I see that term thrown out quite a lot in conversation but no where in science is "Kind" defined. If a dog cannot breed with another dog are they the same "Kind"?



I will give you the benefit of the doubt on the fossil inconsistencies. I would rather have you cite it but i won't raise a fuss over it. But DNA evidence has reinforced the evolutionary tree in recent years. Also there are plenty of fossil records besides humans that show evolution. Whales are a major one. Lizards are another. And we are simply talking about animals. At the cellular level (virus, bacteria, mold) there is a abundance of evidence of biological evolution including the very first formation of multicellular organism's.



No its not interesting its science. I am sorry if your view on what should be is not supported by evidence. If you feel so strongly about it please put forward a evidence supported theory on the diversity of life. All you arguments have been against evolution but no alternative theory.

I propose that God created the heavens and the earth, and that His glory is displayed in all creation. If this were true, I predict I would find evidence of a global flood, such as that in the Bible. As evidence, I have the grand canyon which shows no signs of slow erosion, we find petrified trees standing up through several layers of rock that are supposed to represent millions of years. We even find that the oldest reef, the oldest desert, and the oldest tree, are all about 4200-4400 years old, or right after the worldwide flood. This is confirmed. If God created the heavens and the earth, I propose He would have created several "kinds" of animals. The definition is not important for me to know. All that is important to know is that God knows what they were and created them with a limited range of variability built in, which would result in different variations of the same kind of animal. We see that it is true. I would also predict that His creation would be compatible with its own and every species would be able to survive together and adapt from environment to environment through genetic drift. We see that it is so.

I would predict that we would see evidence of intelligence, such as meaning, order, and design. This can easily be demonstrated by the fact that it takes intelligence to create order. Anything else left to its own would simply fall apart and decay. Furthermore, I would predict that there would be a system to read and interpret DNA in cells. After all base pairs are meaningless like letters on a page, unless they are arranged in a certain way and someone has the know-how to understand that arrangement. We see that reproduction depends on a series of machines that are responsible for interpreting the DNA (translation) to make specific proteins. The proteins can "read" the DNA, further proof of intelligence. I would also expect that, since we live in a fallen, imperfect world, that we would see mistakes in the genetic code or copying process (transcription of DNA base pairs) called mutations. We see that it is so. This results in deformities and sub-optimal functioning and occasionally allows for adaptation, but always results in a detriment to the species to survive outside of the specific environment that the mutation helped it adapt to. Moreover, I would expect that these mutations always result in a net loss of meaningful information. We see that it is so.

I would expect that our planet is special and that we are special among the animal kingdom because God has a purpose for our lives. I see we are special and that God states why in His book, the Holy Bible. I would also expect that the conditions be right for life, such as the right orbit around the sun at exactly the right distance to sustain life, and I see that it is so. Furthermore, I would expect life only to rise out of other life, which is clearly observable. No atheist has ever given a good explanation for this one.

So there you have it. There is always more to learn, and it is never too late to learn the truth. Start now, and you will never regret it.

 

[Sola_Fide]

If you can say that, I can just as easily say "religion" is not a sufficient basis for rights. In times past, the Bible was used as an excuse to legitimize slavery, for example. You'll just say, "But that is the wrong interpretation of the Bible and Christianity". Well, since man so commonly misinterprets the Bible and Christianity, it's logical to conclude that religion is not a sufficient basis for rights.

I didn't say "religion" was the sufficient basis for rights, I said the God of the Scripture is. The Bible is used to attempt to legitimize all kinds of things, (like socialism in this day and age) but in these instances, it is usually the case that people read-in what they want the Bible to say instead of letting the Scriptures speak for themselves.

If you give 10 people each a Bible and tell them to go into different rooms, and the 10 people come out with 10 different interpretations, where is the variable there? In the Bible, or in the people? Again, the God of Scripture provides the adequate basis for rights, not any man's opinion.

And as so many Christian conservatives so often declare, Muslims are nothing but animals and have no problem if Americans kill them indiscriminately. Hell, not just Muslims, pick the country, religion, and ethnicity of your choice: Vietnam, Iran, Cambodia, Iraq...

Hmmm. Is there a mainstream Christian philosopher that you can cite that says "Muslims are nothing but animals"? You finding a Christian who advocates something so bizarre does not strike me as a very likely prospect, but hey...go ahead and try.

But anyway, from an atheist viewpoint, there is no non-arbitrary reason to not declare a certain kind or class of people as non-humans or "not fully developed". Aboriginies were hunted like animals and their skulls were collected in the Smithsonian because Darwinists had declared that they were not fully human. Mao declared enemies of the State as not deserving of the same rights as others. Hitler declared Jews, gypsies, and Christians to be less than dogs and worthy of death. Why is ANY of these positions wrong from an atheistic perspective? Atheism provides no philosophic prevention of tyranny.

No disagreement here. But just because I believe rights are natural born and inherent from our humanity, doesn't mean I want man to be the "final authority for rights". It means that since we are all men and we all have to live together on this planet, you have the right to be left alone by others if you don't initiate aggression, and so do I. If you can acknowledge that, then I will acknowledge that while Christianity can and will be twisted to control people to take away and ignore the rights of others, it can also be used as a philosophy that teaches respect for others' rights, with Paul, Woods, and Napolitano being good examples.

If there is no authority above man, then man is the final authority on this earth. The question is not "authority vs. no authority", its always "which authority". Either "God is God" or "the State is god".

 

[Ranger29860]

I propose that God created the heavens and the earth, and that His glory is displayed in all creation. If this were true, I predict I would find evidence of a global flood, such as that in the Bible. As evidence, I have the grand canyon which shows no signs of slow erosion, we find petrified trees standing up through several layers of rock that are supposed to represent millions of years. We even find that the oldest reef, the oldest desert, and the oldest tree, are all about 4200-4400 years old, or right after the worldwide flood. This is confirmed. If God created the heavens and the earth, I propose He would have created several "kinds" of animals. The definition is not important for me to know. All that is important to know is that God knows what they were and created them with a limited range of variability built in, which would result in different variations of the same kind of animal. We see that it is true. I would also predict that His creation would be compatible with its own and every species would be able to survive together and adapt from environment to environment through genetic drift. We see that it is so.

I would predict that we would see evidence of intelligence, such as meaning, order, and design. This can easily be demonstrated by the fact that it takes intelligence to create order. Anything else left to its own would simply fall apart and decay. Furthermore, I would predict that there would be a system to read and interpret DNA in cells. After all base pairs are meaningless like letters on a page, unless they are arranged in a certain way and someone has the know-how to understand that arrangement. We see that reproduction depends on a series of machines that are responsible for interpreting the DNA (translation) to make specific proteins. The proteins can "read" the DNA, further proof of intelligence. I would also expect that, since we live in a fallen, imperfect world, that we would see mistakes in the genetic code or copying process (transcription of DNA base pairs) called mutations. We see that it is so. This results in deformities and sub-optimal functioning and occasionally allows for adaptation, but always results in a detriment to the species to survive outside of the specific environment that the mutation helped it adapt to. Moreover, I would expect that these mutations always result in a net loss of meaningful information. We see that it is so.

I would expect that our planet is special and that we are special among the animal kingdom because God has a purpose for our lives. I see we are special and that God states why in His book, the Holy Bible. I would also expect that the conditions be right for life, such as the right orbit around the sun at exactly the right distance to sustain life, and I see that it is so. Furthermore, I would expect life only to rise out of other life, which is clearly observable. No atheist has ever given a good explanation for this one.

So there you have it. There is always more to learn, and it is never too late to learn the truth. Start now, and you will never regret it.

With the exception of the last sentence (which i don't think u intend to include in your hypothesis) i would consider this a decent starting point for a research paper. It is written as a overview of the objectives of what you hope to prove. The thing is you MUST cite some sources in this case such as the grand canyon bit. Show me the math to support it.Again with the trees please cite a source for that. Also where is the testable data being presented. There is no way to confirm anything you said there in regards to the second paragraph. You make a good amount of claims on observation but do not show how you made those observations or where you got the idea from to begin with a simple statement of

"We see that it is so. This results in deformities and sub-optimal functioning and occasionally allows for adaptation, but always results in a detriment to the species to survive outside of the specific environment that the mutation helped it adapt to. Moreover, I would expect that these mutations always result in a net loss of meaningful information. We see that it is so. "

Please cite where you see that it is so.

"I would expect that our planet is special and that we are special among the animal kingdom because God has a purpose for our lives. I see we are special and that God states why in His book, the Holy Bible. I would also expect that the conditions be right for life, such as the right orbit around the sun at exactly the right distance to sustain life, and I see that it is so. Furthermore, I would expect life only to rise out of other life, which is clearly observable. No atheist has ever given a good explanation for this one."

This is a subjective idea that can be applied to any religion or belief system. IF you are to claim that "Your GOD" states in the holy bible that is so. Then you must then show why "Your GOD" is the one that does this and not the other gods of the world.

As for the orbit thing you do realize we are in anything but a perfect orbit? Also we could be almost as far out as mars and still be a habitable planet?

Here is a wonderful diagram done up at Penn state. Just remember the planets are enlarged so you can see them .
https://www.e-education.psu.edu/astro801/content/l12_p4.html

 

[PaulConventionWV]

I'm pretty sure you'll find that 95-99% of scientists are "evolutionists". A gallup poll found that 95% of scientists (including those outside of biology) accept the theory of evolution. Hence, you are inferring that science does these things.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution#Scientific_support

No, evolutionists do not make up the whole of science simply because there is a majority of them. Majorities are meaningless. I would say a majority of people in this nation do not support Ron Paul. This does not make the majority right. And just because they are "experts" it does not make them immune to being corrupt, like humans tend to do (I don't think you will argue with this). No human being, no matter what he or she believes or how many can make up the whole of science. Scientists are not the same thing as science.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

If you assume god has ownership over his creation then he dictates privileges not rights. As for ownership if two parents make a child does the parents have unquestionable authority over the child even after they leave the house and are over 18?

The parents did not create the child. They simply activated the built-in mechanism that results in a child. Do you want to know where this built-in mechanism comes from?

 

[Ranger29860]

No, evolutionists do not make up the whole of science simply because there is a majority of them. Majorities are meaningless. I would say a majority of people in this nation do not support Ron Paul. This does not make the majority right. And just because they are "experts" it does not make them immune to being corrupt, like humans tend to do (I don't think you will argue with this). No human being, no matter what he or she believes or how many can make up the whole of science. Scientists are not the same thing as science.

Your right but the great thing about science is you can go read the articles yourself. Most major scientific papers cost around $30 each and i have found a few of them worth the price. Their is plenty of verifiable evidence to show evolution happens. The reason so many scientist accept the theory of evolution is that most scientific field have had findings within that field that support the hypothesis. Not to mention a good bit of our modern day medical understanding of virus's and bacteria would not be possible if virus's and bacteria din't behave in a way that is consistent with evolution.

 

[Ranger29860]

The parents did not create the child. They simply activated the built-in mechanism that results in a child. Do you want to know where this built-in mechanism comes from?

I am assuming your gonna say GOD . please prove it.

 

[Carehn]

creator, existence, being, it makes no difference to me what people like to call my nature. A cat has claws and men have rights. Whats the point of all the? Let the G-Ron use the language that works best for the crowed. hes not fibbing, just word selection.

 

[Carehn]

No, evolutionists do not make up the whole of science simply because there is a majority of them. Majorities are meaningless. I would say a majority of people in this nation do not support Ron Paul. This does not make the majority right. And just because they are "experts" it does not make them immune to being corrupt, like humans tend to do (I don't think you will argue with this). No human being, no matter what he or she believes or how many can make up the whole of science. Scientists are not the same thing as science.

Im leaning evolutionist myself but ya all got to kind of admit this is an epic ''checkmate'' post right here.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

It makes perfect sense... your argument is just wrong because it's predicated on the belief that god created us and that he is an all-knowing perfect being.

The people who originally claimed that there was such a being lived in the middle east during the bronze age, right?

Are you saying that these people knew more about the universe then modern day scientists?

And your belief is predicated on the idea that He is NOT. Do you see where we have the divide? It is all because we have different starting points. However, if you acknowledge that God is superior to human beings, then you will begin to see that my worldview more accurately predicts and represents reality.

And no, it did not begin in the bronze age, you idiot.

 

[Ranger29860]

Im leaning evolutionist myself but ya all got to kind of admit this is an epic ''checkmate'' post right here.

He is simply calling out appeal to majority fallacy. Which is to easy to do if that was the only argument put forward. But it wasn't he simply responded to the easiest hit there.

I do not ask people to believe something just because the majority of experts say it, i ask people to read it themselves and form there own opinions.We do not believe in Ron Paul because the majority doesn't even if they did that would not be the reason. We believe because the majority of people who support him have looked at and verified the evidence of what he is claiming and have found it to be true. The same reasoning should be applied to science. But what happens is people default to authority and don't confirm themselves. I am willing to bet PCWV you have never picked up or paid for and read a legitement scientific paper on any concept based on evolution.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

With the exception of the last sentence (which i don't think u intend to include in your hypothesis) i would consider this a decent starting point for a research paper. It is written as a overview of the objectives of what you hope to prove. The thing is you MUST cite some sources in this case such as the grand canyon bit. Show me the math to support it.Again with the trees please cite a source for that. Also where is the testable data being presented. There is no way to confirm anything you said there in regards to the second paragraph. You make a good amount of claims on observation but do not show how you made those observations or where you got the idea from to begin with a simple statement of

"We see that it is so. This results in deformities and sub-optimal functioning and occasionally allows for adaptation, but always results in a detriment to the species to survive outside of the specific environment that the mutation helped it adapt to. Moreover, I would expect that these mutations always result in a net loss of meaningful information. We see that it is so. "

Please cite where you see that it is so.

"I would expect that our planet is special and that we are special among the animal kingdom because God has a purpose for our lives. I see we are special and that God states why in His book, the Holy Bible. I would also expect that the conditions be right for life, such as the right orbit around the sun at exactly the right distance to sustain life, and I see that it is so. Furthermore, I would expect life only to rise out of other life, which is clearly observable. No atheist has ever given a good explanation for this one."

This is a subjective idea that can be applied to any religion or belief system. IF you are to claim that "Your GOD" states in the holy bible that is so. Then you must then show why "Your GOD" is the one that does this and not the other gods of the world.

As for the orbit thing you do realize we are in anything but a perfect orbit? Also we could be almost as far out as mars and still be a habitable planet?

Here is a wonderful diagram done up at Penn state. Just remember the planets are enlarged so you can see them .
https://www.e-education.psu.edu/astro801/content/l12_p4.html

Who determines what a perfect orbit is?

As for the sources, I'll get back to you on that. I'm not feeling very well right now.

 

[Ranger29860]

And your belief is predicated on the idea that He is NOT. Do you see where we have the divide? It is all because we have different starting points. However, if you acknowledge that God is superior to human beings, then you will begin to see that my worldview more accurately predicts and represents reality.

And no, it did not begin in the bronze age, you idiot.

First off the onus of proof is on those who make the claim the default position of Atheism is proof before belief. I do not claim a god because i see no evidence of it. So if you are going to claim one and say that i am wrong i demand evidence. If you were to claim one and not claim i was wrong then go ahead it doesn't affect me.

As for calling someone an idiot that is unneeded it is much more effective to prove someone wrong with facts than just getting angry.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

He is simply calling out appeal to majority fallacy. Which is to easy to do if that was the only argument put forward. But it wasn't he simply responded to the easiest hit there.

I do not ask people to believe something just because the majority of experts say it, i ask people to read it themselves and form there own opinions.We do not believe in Ron Paul because the majority doesn't even if they did that would not be the reason. We believe because the majority of people who support him have looked at and verified the evidence of what he is claiming and have found it to be true. The same reasoning should be applied to science. But what happens is people default to authority and don't confirm themselves. I am willing to bet PCWV you have never picked up or paid for and read a legitement scientific paper on any concept based on evolution.

Actually, that was the ONLY hit. It was a complete fallacy, and I completely debunked it.

 

[Ranger29860]

Who determines what a perfect orbit is?

As for the sources, I'll get back to you on that. I'm not feeling very well right now.

If we go by the idea that the orbit is Perfect(which is subjective i will give you that) if liquid water remains for the entire orbit. Then many planets in different solar systems have planets in a perfect orbit. You claimed a perfect orbit so i am simply trying to define it as best as possible. If you have another definition of it by all means share it. But with as many galaxies and solar systems in this universe the chances that we are the only ones in any definition of a perfect orbit are low. doesn't mean they have life though.


*edit*
i noticed after i posted that i didn't actually answer the question. I was assuming you were referring to perfect as never changing and at a constant rate. So i was assuming a perfect circle. Witch we of course are not in.

 

[swatmc]

And your belief is predicated on the idea that He is NOT. Do you see where we have the divide? It is all because we have different starting points. However, if you acknowledge that God is superior to human beings, then you will begin to see that my worldview more accurately predicts and represents reality.

And no, it did not begin in the bronze age, you idiot.

Do me a favor.

I challenge you to form an argument AGAINST the idea that Kim Jong Il is a divine leader.

Also, when was the origin of the concept of the christian god if not the bronze age?

 

[jmdrake]

Do me a favor.

I challenge you to form an argument AGAINST the idea that Kim Jong Il is a divine leader.

Also, when was the origin of the concept of the christian god if not the bronze age?

I challenge you to explain why atheist Isaac Assimov is wrong to say that sentient robots should not have the same rights as their creators.

 

[Ranger29860]

I challenge you to explain why atheist Isaac Assimov is wrong to say that sentient robots should not have the same rights as their creators.

red hearing much?

*edit*
I'll bite anyway.

Atheism is not a belief system nor does it have a centralized authority figure. Atheism is a position of non belief unless evidence supports it. So the opinion of Isaac Assimov has no bearing on my position as an atheist since his opinion is not an atheistic one but a personal/philosophic one.

My personal stance on sentient robots would be that they should have rights.