Verified by 
61COMMENTS
Yeah i think it is a women right to choose on abortion
Right to own a gun /Right to speak or not
marijuana legalized /open society as long as you do not interfere
with someone else pursuit of happiness
It’s understandable that many religious Americans, particularly those who are not very concerned about church-state separation, would be fond of governmental God-language. When, in the 1950s, the words “under God” were added to the Pledge of Allegiance and “In God We Trust” was made the national motto, religious groups spearheaded those efforts. Nowadays, religious activists are encouraging cities and counties across the country to post “In God We Trust” on public buildings and other public places, such as police cruisers. With such religious messaging validating the theological views of believers—and even connecting those views with a patriotic sentiment of sorts—it's no surprise that believers often look upon it favorably.
Still, such unambiguous theological assertions—that a community or a police department trusts in God or is "under God"—raise obvious constitutional questions. If the government is supposed to be neutral on religion, should it really be promoting belief in God, let alone trust in God? Religious conservatives, realizing that they must address such concerns, have carefully crafted their arguments for governmental God-language. Thus, they insist that “In God, We Trust” and “under God” should be understood not as promoting God-belief, but simply as acknowledging that our rights come from God. This statement is often followed by the claim that, since God gave us our rights, the government cannot take them away.
These are weighty claims, and they have an appeal even to many who aren’t particularly religious. After all, it’s nice to have a philosophical basis for the view that government can’t deny our God-given rights. Unfortunately, however, the entire argument falls apart under scrutiny, and in fact, it can more accurately be understood as a disingenuous attempt to promote religion while doing nothing to explain or secure anyone’s rights.
First, let’s consider the claim that "our rights come from God." Since even believers will acknowledge that the very existence of God cannot be proven, this claim leaves us in a most unsettling position: Our most precious rights are apparently flowing from an entity whose existence can reasonably be doubted. Even believers acknowledge that faith, as opposed to verifiable evidence, is the basis of their belief. That's fine for one's personal religious outlook, but why would we feel that cherished human rights and civil rights are more secure if they arise from a source that may not even exist?
Moreover, despite the religious rhetoric, the sobering reality is that the legal existence of rights requires not a deity, but human political action. Without the framers creating the Bill of Rights and etching them into law, fundamental freedoms such as free speech, religious freedom, due process, etc., would not exist. Credit God for rights if you wish, pontificate all you want about their heavenly origins, but only human action can make liberty real.
Even more absurd is the claim that the government can’t take away our rights. Wishful thinking! Of course, it can. On the constitutional level, the framers even created a mechanism for doing so—it's called the amendment process. Any constitutional right—free speech, free press, due process, etc.—could be eliminated by constitutional amendment. To be more specific, a vote of two-thirds of both houses of Congress and three-fourths of the state legislatures can repeal any constitutional right. However unlikely it may seem, all of our "God-given" rights are ultimately vulnerable to governmental action. Only the will of the people protects them.
And don’t think for a second that Americans so cherish their constitutional rights that they would never allow them to be denied. Particularly when an unpopular group is targeted, the denial of rights often has been politically expedient and acceptable to the majority. The internment of Japanese Americans during World War II is an easy example, as are the Palmer raids in the early twentieth century. Consider the denial of basic rights to African Americans during Jim Crow, and of course their continued mistreatment at the hands of official authority today. And don’t forget the Patriot Act, which redefined government power and citizen rights in the aftermath of 9/11. One could argue that such restrictions were necessary—we need not go there in this article—but the point is that in all these instances government took rights away.
Indeed, as any law student knows, even without constitutional amendment or hostility toward minority groups, there are well-established legal rules that tell us exactly when the government can take away rights. Under the “strict scrutiny” standard, the courts will uphold laws infringing on fundamental constitutional rights if the government can show that the law is (1) needed to further a compelling interest and (2) narrowly tailored to infringe on rights in the least restrictive manner possible. In other words, the government can definitely take away your rights whenever it (via its courts) says it really needs to do so.
So much for "our rights come from God, and that means the government can't take them away." In real life, of course, those making such statements (for example, former Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore) are rarely those whom we associate with the ardent defense of rights. What we find is that the entire argument is intended not as a defense of human rights or civil rights at all, but as a means of promoting the religious and social-political views of those who assert it. With God-language promoted most zealously by Bible-belt communities and groups such as the Congressional Prayer Caucus, which is dominated by socially conservative lawmakers who, like Roy Moore, are rarely seen as defenders of civil rights, it becomes clear that "rights" have little to do with it.
Nevertheless, the origin-of-rights issue, and its actual importance to the founding generation, is worth considering. The statement in the Declaration of Independence that humans are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" is the cornerstone of the argument for God-language in government. Careful consideration of the language makes it clear that it hardly justifies the regular assertion of religious truth claims by the government today.
First of all, the Declaration of Independence was making a bold and ambitious argument—to a king who claimed power by divine right—that the colonists' demand for independence was legitimate. There's no better way to cut ties with a monarch who claims God’s blessing than with a divine reference of one’s own. Grandiose language would be expected for the serious business of colonists rebelling against an empire.
This, however, is hardly a basis for supporting the recent emphasis on God-language in American public life, especially considering the fact that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights—the foundational law of the land, drafted about a decade after the Declaration—make no mention of God. The ultimate source of authority is contained in the Constitution's preamble: "We the people."
Moreover, understood in context, the Declaration of Independence hardly states that government cannot take away rights. With its long laundry list of grievances, it can best be understood as an assertion that people can and will take quite a bit of grief from their government, but that they will eventually rebel when oppression becomes intolerable. The Declaration is not an idealistic philosophical statement of rights and obligations, but an expression of pragmatism, basically saying that reasonable men can only take so much: Your Majesty, you pushed us too far. Good-bye.
As principled individuals, many of us like to walk around believing that our rights come from God and that no government could ever take them away. A nice thought, perhaps, but the truth is that human progress developed the concept of rights that we appreciate today. There is not even the slimmest of evidence that God had anything to do with it.
In fact, secular, humanistic views of rights have been put forth by modern scholars, and they are no less profound than religious views. Harvard's Alan Dershowitz, for example, argues that most rights we value today were invented by people in an effort to shape the human experience into something better, usually to protect from oppression and hostility that were seen as undesirable.
Most importantly, the recognition that rights were invented by humans leads to the logical (and accurate) conclusion that only humans can protect them. If one actually believes that God bestows rights—that rights exist because some divine force wants us to have them—there can be a naive tendency to believe that God will ultimately protect them, that surely rights will not be lost if the Supreme Being is their source.
Rather than relying on God (or for that matter God's most visible public advocates, such as Bible-belt sheriffs or the Congressional Prayer Caucus) to defend rights, those who truly value freedom should realize that the defense of rights belongs with their real source: rational, compassionate, engaged, and vigilant human beings.
Books and more: davidniose.com
Human Rights/Human Progress
Submitted by will on October 6, 2016 - 10:18pm
rights
Submitted by Jack M. Pedigo on October 24, 2016 - 5:06pm
All that is true but it is also our right to not have a gun or to even not allow anyone who has a gun to come onto our property! The interfering with someone else's happiness is tricky. If it makes some happy to proselytize or push their rights on another who are we to stand in their way?
The right to the pursuit of happiness can not infringe
Submitted by 1668880 on February 5, 2019 - 6:09pm
Our unalienable rights come from our creator whichever god or deity you chose to follow. So as long as your religion does not infringe on others unalienable rights they are allowed but if the infringe on others rights they are not allowed because they will be depriving that person or persons unalienable rights. So I could care less if you believe in God or any other gods as long as your believe does not infringe on my rights I do not care what you do or believe in.
Proof God Exists
Submitted by Wild Mtn Man on October 6, 2016 - 10:32pm
The author claims that the existence of God cannot be proved. What proof is he looking for as the evidence of a God is everywhere. Creation itself is largely recognized as intelligent design (God), not random chance. Ask yourself what species on earth evolved to have male & female at the same time in order to propagate If God wasn't in control, how did plants develop separate from animals. There are many things we physically don't see, but are measured, and therfore exist such as electromagnetic waves, gravity, etc.
Male and female
Submitted by Thinking person on October 6, 2016 - 10:44pm
You need to start with a copy of "Origin of the species"
"Origin of the species"?
Submitted by Bob on August 23, 2017 - 2:08pm
That is one of the poorest examples you could have mentioned. That document if so full of holes, Darwin himself would abandon it if he knew what we know today.
What he though was speciation, is nothing more than an adaption of an already existing life form. Birds did not become dinosaurs. That people believe mutations are the cause of all life forms is beyond ludicrous! Cells must be programmed to know what it is to become within the body or organ, down to whether it is to be the outer layer of flesh of the body or organ, or a vein, for either.
That simple example is so much more complicated. I will take a sea parting "magically", over inorganic matter turning into organic matter any day of the week! Or a bird becoming a dinosaur!
Go to Youtube and watch scientifically based videos showing how DNA is replicated and if you still believe all life is random chance...you deny "science".
Very impressed and
Submitted by Ann on August 12, 2018 - 3:55pm
Very impressed and appreciative of your excellent post written August 23, 2017, regarding Darwinism.
No evidence
Submitted by What in the... on October 7, 2016 - 2:58am
The author claims that the existence of God cannot be proved .
- The author is correct.
What proof is he looking for as the evidence of a God is everywhere.
- ANY sort of empirical evidence of a supernatural being would be a good start. None exists.
Creation itself is largely recognized as intelligent design (God), not random chance.
- By "largely recognized", you must mean by people who believe in fairy tales. In the world of science, Creationism doesn't even meet the criteria to be considered a hypothesis, much less be recognized.
Ask yourself what species on earth evolved to have male & female at the same time in order to propagate
- Nearly all plants and animals evolved to have male and female at the same time. Most of which existed long before humans, or even mammals.
How did plants develop separate from Animals
- It deals with the composition of the cell during early evolution. Google it, or even better, take a biology course on evolution.
There are many things we physically don't see, but are measured, and therfore exist such as electromagnetic waves, gravity, etc
- Yes. What's your point? We can prove the existence of all of the things you mentioned because they actually exist and are detectable. You can see, predict, and accurately measure the effects of gravity and magnetism.
None of the thousands of gods fabricated throughout human history have offered any sort of measurable evidence or predictable effect to justify any belief in such an entity.
Empiracal Evidence
Submitted by Wild Mtn Man on October 7, 2016 - 12:04pm
The empirical evidence you seek is in the world itself and its many varieties of life. We may dispute how God made all this happen, but that doesn't negate the fact that God was in control of the process. Historical records tell of men who have seen God, face to face. These men have described how God has a plan. That plan called for three inalienable rights. 1) Life itself for his children, 2) Free Agency with responsibility for our choices, 3) The opportunity to pursue happiness and experience sorrow. This world was made to fulfill the purposes of that plan. Our constitution was inspired by that same God, so it is not surprising that in founding this nation the inalienable rights were called out in our founding documents.
3 inalienable rights
Submitted by Heather on October 7, 2016 - 1:36pm
The inalienable rights that you call for are all noble and worthy but they are a conceptual framework created by human beings. The assertion that god (which one, Zeus, Allah?) was in control of this (or any other) process is an extraordinary claim which demands substantial evidence.
Claiming anecdotal historical 'evidence' of 'men who have 'seen god face to face' to be a compelling argument for intelligent design, is really quite a stretch and one that defies logic and demands complete denial of the considerable body of science that articulates the mechanics of evolution and its context.
These ramblings about 'men who have seen god (and others who have written down what they have said) being 'evidence of god' remind me of a conversation I had with a Nigerian taxi driver in London, a devout disciple of Sai Baba - a mystic, who it pretty much turned out could be whomever you wanted him to be (if you believed he could do miracles, he could, and apparently very many people had seen them). It was a highly humorous conversation with a very likeable chap, but that didn't make it any less preposterous. Your assertions, although more solemnly worded are no less preposterous, but probably fairly benign when kept in the personal realm. The notion of those with such beliefs using them as a basis to govern a nation is far more sinister.
It is worth noting, if we chose to entertain the assertion that god indeed does have a plan, and that that plan does include the provision of these inalienable rights, how immensely inconsistent he is in allowing equality of access to them. There are many very pious Christians the world over struggling for basic human rights (the right to life being the most obvious when faced with realities such as high maternal and child mortality) whom it would seem god is choosing to overlook or at the very least discriminating strongly against. Such a god being at the 'helm' of any civilised country, or any country at all, would seem to me to be a very bad idea for the progress and wellbeing of humanity.
Proof of God?
Submitted by Gary Whittenberger on October 14, 2016 - 4:10pm
"Historical records tell of men who have seen God, face to face."
These "historical records" lack most of the desired attributes of reports of events:
1. Eyewitness
2. Produced soon after
3. Author, time, and date identified
4. Signed
5. Low bias
6. Detailed
7. Independent
8. Corroborated
9. Unsolicited and unpaid
10. History of reliability
11. Competent
12. Good observing conditions
Also, there are Bible passages that say it is too dangerous for humans to see God face to face.
Proof of god
Submitted by Dennis on November 13, 2016 - 6:11am
I live in Asia. There are many religions, many gods etc. when we seek a "proof" of some god's existence we really have to begin with a definition of god. For example, if we use the word "god" to define the interconnectedness of everything that might be accepted. If we define god as, lets say Jehovah and not define that, we run into trouble. Then we have to define our relationship to "That" as the Hindus might call the mystery of all.
Dennis, when I was speaking
Submitted by Gary on November 13, 2016 - 7:29am
Dennis, when I was speaking of "God" I was referring to the god believed in by most Jews, Christians, and Muslims. You are correct, however, that other people believe in different gods. The "interconnectedness of everything" is not a god. A god is a hypothetical supernatural intelligent agent.
We should use reason to evaluate the probability that any particular god exists.
Wild man mans invisible friend
Submitted by Sea Captain on October 7, 2016 - 11:11am
Intelligent design is debunked by any number of rational thinkers. For your information Electromagnetic waves CAN be seen, at the right frequency they are known as Visible light, at other frequencies their effect can be seen, you can vary their characteristics.
Before SCIENCE revealed their secrets many phenomena were attributed to GODS by the population. Many times the secrets were keep by the priesthood who would use the power of ignorance to secure their own prestige and power... just like today!!!
Proof of God
Submitted by Gary Whittenberger on October 14, 2016 - 4:04pm
The evidence you present as "proof" of God's existence is equivocal, i.e. it points equally well or better to other explanations. If the universe is eternal and has the features of change, orderliness, and chance, then no gods are required.
Articulate, reasoned and compelling
Submitted by Heather on October 6, 2016 - 11:04pm
Excellent article - although I'm not one who needs convincing on these matters. This line sums it up most beautifully "Credit God for rights if you wish, pontificate all you want about their heavenly origins, but only human action can make liberty real."
Hence even the most ardent believer calling 999 in their time of need (and not simply praying and hoping god will come to their aid).
Poorly researched and badly reasoned
Submitted by Rick sholette on October 6, 2016 - 11:32pm
This is a poorly researched and badly reasoned article on a number of counts, but I will mention just one, because it is pivotal.
Government is NOT "supposed to be neutral regarding religion." That is one major fallacy of this article and of much church-state separation rhetoric. It is based on profound ignorance of the meaning of the Framers when THEY referred to "religion". The interest of the Constitutional Framers was for the government to avoid the kind of denominational partisanship that plagued Europe and England. They were NOT endorsing worldview neutrality, as contemporary historical revisionists would like to think. The reference to religion in the First Amendment is a reference to denominations within the theistic/deistic worldview, which was the presumed and widely accepted eighteenth-century worldview in America (TODAY we would include both worldviews and denominations under the rubric of "religion"). As such, it was--and remains--completely valid for government to prefer and to endorse theism over atheism or competing worldviews.
Read your history
Submitted by Tim Stevens on October 7, 2016 - 10:27am
The following excerpt is from a book by Frank Lambert, entitled "The Founding Fathers and the Place of Religion in America." I researched footnote #5 and found that there was discussion among the original legislators about establishing a theological basis for the foundational documents of our Nation, and that it was decided by the majority there would be no such reference. It's there for you to find in history texts. Which is not to say no one favored the establishment of a Christian nation. But it's important for history's sake to note that the matter was discussed and that the all-Christian legislature as a body rejected the concept of explicitly creating a Christian or theist nation. Quoted from the book:
"But unlike the work of the Puritan Fathers, the federal constitution made no reference whatever to God or divine providence, citing as its sole authority "the people of the United States." Further, its stated purposes were secular, political ends: "to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty." Instead of building a "Christian Commonwealth," the supreme law of the land established a secular state. The opening clause of its first amendment introduced the radical notion that the state had no voice concerning matters of conscience: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."4 In debating the language of that amendment, the first House of Representatives rejected a Senate proposal that would have made possible the establishment of the Christian religion or of some aspect of Christian orthodoxy.5 There would be no Church of the United States. Nor would America represent itself to the world as a Christian Republic."
" .... most rights we value
Submitted by Ziggy on October 7, 2016 - 4:00am
" .... most rights we value today were invented by people in an effort to shape the human experience into something better, usually to protect from oppression and hostility that were seen as undesirable".
Moreover, the rights valued today are in direct contradistinction to the tenets traditional religions imposed on society, and were won only with very long and arduous battles against the proponents of those religions.
Proponents of God today are in a desperate backlash attempt to regain their former political power.
The only 'rights' we truly
Submitted by Ken on October 7, 2016 - 4:53am
The only 'rights' we truly have are what we grant to each other. When we follow the rules of society, which are based on Hammurabi's Code, we have a certain security from the violence and impunity of other humans.
That's what our 'rights' are about. Positing them in a 'Creator' is not a religious statement per se. It simply means that the founders envisioned a society whereby a person is free to profit/succeed by his/her own labor and ingenuity. Our founders wanted no more inbred imbecilic Kings and Queens drooling on themselves and owning everyone else as 'subjects' of the 'Crown.'
The Constitution was drafted in the late 18th century. There was no United States at that time. A cursory stroll through actual history would do a lot of people good. But, how boring is that, to have your insular narcissism tempered by reality!? What a drag for the oh so precious fragile Super Hero's delicate sensibilities. Trigger warnings! Yes mommy!
Oh the irony.
God
Submitted by skeptic43 on October 7, 2016 - 7:33am
Another problem with "God" is its implied monotheism. So, while the argument has been it doesn't specify a religion, it does specify monotheistic belief. Thus, our government has taken a stand in showing preference for monotheism over polytheism and non-theism - clearly unconstitutional from that perspective.
Simply Wrong
Submitted by Mark on October 7, 2016 - 10:29am
This article is wrong on several levels. First, to dismiss the Declaration of Independence and it's clear statement that people are endowed with certain inalienable rights as mere propaganda is to dismiss the very foundation upon which our government is based. We don't celebrate Independence Day every year because that was the day the Founders issued a brilliant piece of propaganda; we celebrate July 4th because that is the day we became an independent nation. The Declaration is not just "grandiose language"; it established the United States of America. And one of the very foundations of our nation, a "self-evident" truth, is that we the people are endowed by our Creator with certain rights.
The article is also wrong when it implies that our rights are granted or created by the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Read the Constitution carefully. At no point does it "grant" a right. It grants limited powers to the federal government. Nor does the Bill of Rights grant rights. It simply expressly reaffirms that certain rights of the people shall not be infringed by the government. In every case, the Bill of Rights refers to "the" right: the free exercise of religion, the freedom of speech, the right to keep and bear arms, the right to be secure in one's home, the right to trial by jury, etc. the Supreme Court has recognized that this language, referring to "the" right, presupposes that the right already existed at the time the Bill of Rights was ratified.
Finally, the Constitution does not allow the government to take away rights protected in the Bill of Rights by amendment. No single part of government can do so. Congress cannot pass a law that takes away our rights. It can recommend amendments, but those have to be ratified by the source of the government's powers: We the People, through either our state legislatures (as mentioned in the article) or through special ratifying conventions (as omitted from the article, but the means by which the Constitution was originally ratified, as was the 21st Amendment). In that case, it would not be the government taking away a right, but we the people surrendering a right we were born with.
This sort of mischaracterization of our liberties and its widespread acceptance by not only government officials, but citizens, makes me fear for our country.
State legislatures are government institutions
Submitted by Tim Stevens on October 7, 2016 - 2:19pm
By enumerating our rights, the Constitution ("We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, ...do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.") and its Amendments officially create the rights of American citizens. There is an intentional omission of God and religion. If you doubt this, read about the disputes of the day when the Constitutional Convention was drafting the document. There were many representatives who argued for God's inclusion in the document.
If you read the various Amendments, they take great pains to establish the specific rights of American citizens and people residing in America. This distinction makes clear the unique recognition of the laws and rights of OUR nation. It does not pretend to declare universal rights and laws for all people (like the Ten Commandments), but rather for the United States of America.
Your logic that government cannot abridge the rights set forth in the Constitution is contradicted by your own description of the process by which they may be abridged, that is, by the vote of Congress and the ratification by state legislatures. Congress and state legislatures are organs of government. Constitutional amendments don't materialize by holy writ and they are not put to a plebiscite. You may reasonably hope the state legislatures do the will of the people, but there are many historical examples of the opposite. In any case, you can't reason away the concept that the rights of our nation can be changed by the government(s) of our nation. It is a process you have already described. The 21st Amendment repealed the 18th Amendment. What? Did God ordain that? (although I do think HE wants us to be able to drink!) Although the ten Amendments constituting the Bill of Rights are more revered by more Americans than many of the other Amendments, the process by which they may be amended is no different as a matter of law.
Implying that the Constitutional rights of Americans flow from God seems peculiar for many enumerated rights of the Constitution, for instance, the 19th Amendment, which states in part: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex." Does that seem like a divinely granted right, or a right granted by the people to acknowledge that both women and men can vote? And if it is NOT a divinely granted right, does the Constitution contain different classes of rights, divine and secular? And how do we tell the difference?
Your commitment to your faith is sincere, but you are wrong on the facts.
Have you read the Constitution?
Submitted by Mark on October 7, 2016 - 6:19pm
Tim,
This has nothing to do with my faith; I'm agnostic at best. My post was about history and the structure of the Constitution. And there is no doubt that our Founding Fathers believed that men were endowed with God-given rights. It is not inconsistent for them to have this belief, but also add the First Amendment guarantee of Freedom of Religion to the Constitution. As another poster pointed out, there is no provision in the Constitution providing for "separation of church and state." The First Amendment merely states, "Congress (and by application of the 14th Amendment, the States) shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." It doesn't say the government has to keep God out of government, or can't open a government meeting with a prayer, or can't acknowledge the existence of God. It says the government can't establish a religion: you can't condition holding office or voting on belonging to a certain religion and there shall be no government-sponsored church. The same clause also prevents Congress from passing a law prohibiting the free exercise of religion.
Have you read the Constitution? Neither the Constitution nor the Bill of Rights "officially create the rights of American citizens." Note the Ninth Amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution of CERTAIN rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage OTHERS retained by the people." The Bill of Rights itself acknowledges that the people have rights outside of the Constitution, and in the view of the Founding Fathers, those rights emanated from God. The Anti-Federalists, who feared the Constitution granted too much power to the federal government, felt the Constitution shouldn't be ratified without a Bill of Rights. The Federalists believed that no Bill of Rights was necessary: the Constitution established a federal government with only certain, enumerated rights. In their view, the federal government could not establish a religion or prohibit the free exercise thereof because there is nothing in Article I giving Congress the power to pass such laws. Moreover, the Federalists believed, a Bill of Rights could be dangerous because listing certain rights could lead to the incorrect conclusion that we only possess the rights expressly listed in the Bill of Rights. You have proven the Federalists' fear to be well-founded. Nonetheless, the Federalists agreed that if the Anti-Federalists would get on board and ratify the Constitution, one of the first orders of business of the Congress would be to propose a Bill of Rights, which it did. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments addressed the Federalists' concerns about a Bill of Rights.
You're correct that the Constitution does not claim to declare universal rights, but only the rights of Americans. I never claimed otherwise. But again, that's not inconsistent with the view of the Founders that all men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. Whatever the source of rights, people in certain parts of the world enjoy more or less rights than people in others. Our Founding Fathers fought a bloody 8-year war with Britain to secure what they believed were their God-given rights. Even at the time of the Revolution, it could be argued that people in Britain did not enjoy the same rights as Americans. That's why we fought the Revolution: we believed the King and Parliament were denying us our God-given rights.
"Constitutional amendments don't materialize by holy writ and they are not put to a plebiscite." Again, have you read the Constitution? Read Article V. Either 2/3 of both houses of Congress may propose constitutional amendments, or a constitutional convention may propose them. Indeed, it was a convention of the people, not the state legislatures or the Congress under the Articles of Confederation that wrote the Constitution. There is currently a move to have the state legislatures call a convention to propose amendments to the Constitution. Regardless of where the amendments originate, they can be ratified by either the votes of 3/4 of the state legislatures or by state ratifying conventions. Congress and the federal government have no role in ratifying constitutional amendments. Although normally the state legislatures have ratified amendments, in the case of the 21st Amendment, it was done through special ratifying conventions.
Regardless, I am correct that the government cannot take away our rights. No single government--state or federal--can take away my rights. The federal government can't and my state government can't. If an amendment is ratified by the citizens of 3/4 of the states, then the people, not any government, have spoken. It would be impractical to require 100% approval of an amendment. Nevertheless, even if, somehow, an amendment was proposed and ratified that abridged our "inalienable rights," the Constitution and Declaration of Independence still maintain that this would be unlawful. That is why the Declaration states that "whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these Ends (securing the people's God-given unalienable rights), it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government." In other words, even if all the Constitutional safeguards fail, people have the right (obviously not derived from any government) to overthrow their government. And that is why the (pre-existing) right to keep and bear arms was expressly protected by the Second Amendment.
Neither the 18th Amendment (establishing Prohibition) nor the 21st Amendment (repealing Prohibition) purported to deal with any right of we the people, just as the 25th Amendment (providing for the VP filling in for the President under certain circumstances), the 11th Amendment (providing for sovereign immunity of the States from lawsuits), and many other Amendments don't.
Not every amendment involves people's rights, and not every right is God-given, not even in the view of the Founders. I believe you're right that not every right in the Constitution involves God-given rights, or at least not God-given rights that existed at the time the ratification. Clearly, the Founding Fathers didn't believe that blacks or women had the same God-given rights that white, property-owning males did. And even today, while we can claim that the right to vote, for example, or the right to own property or keep and bear arms do not derive from our government, those rights do not apply to everyone. My 16-year old son can neither vote nor carry a weapon. Nevertheless, he is still endowed, even as a minor, with certain inalienable rights--such as the right to practice (or not practice) whichever religion he chooses, to be free from cruel and unusual punishment, and to have an attorney if he is charged with a crime. By way of another example, nothing in the Constitution or Bill of Rights mentions marriage. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has held that the right to marry is a fundamental liberty that government cannot infringe. Where did that right come from? Not the Constitution. Must have pre-existed that document. But until last year, that right did not include the right to marry someone of the same sex, just as the God-given right to vote did not include the right of blacks to vote until ratification of the 15th Amendment, and did not include the right of women to vote until the ratification of the 19th Amendment, and did not extend to 18-year olds until the 26th Amendment was ratified. But notice, in each of those amendments, a preexisting right was being expanded to include those to whom it did not previously apply. You may be able to argue that the rights of blacks, or women, or 18-year-olds was granted by the Constitution, but you can't argue that the right to vote, in general, was created by that document. And, I submit, now that this pre-existing right has been extended to those groups, it cannot be taken away, even through the amendment process. (But that's just my view, not the Founding Fathers').
The point of the article was that it is wrong, and dangerous, to believe that rights are granted by God. I am not saying that our rights come from God. I'm not even saying there is a God. I'm saying that the author of this article is wrong--our Founding Fathers clearly believed that our most fundamental rights existed before the government was even formed, were given to us by our Creator, and could not be taken away by the government. Whether that belief is dangerous or not doesn't matter; it's the very basis of our government.
Simply Right
Submitted by Gary Whittenberger on October 14, 2016 - 4:24pm
“First, to dismiss the Declaration of Independence and it's clear statement that people are endowed with certain inalienable rights as mere propaganda is to dismiss the very foundation upon which our government is based.”
This is a mistaken view. The DOI is not the foundation of our government; the Constitution is. The DOI had a different purpose.
“The Declaration is not just "grandiose language"; it established the United States of America.”
No it didn’t. The Constitution established the USA.
“And one of the very foundations of our nation, a "self-evident" truth, is that we the people are endowed by our Creator with certain rights.”
No, it’s not. This claim, surely mistaken, does not appear in the Constitution.
The article is also wrong when it implies that our rights are granted or created by the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Read the Constitution carefully.
“At no point does it "grant" a right.”
Yes, it does! Read the Bill of Rights. It assigns legal rights to the people.
“Nor does the Bill of Rights grant rights. It simply expressly reaffirms that certain rights of the people shall not be infringed by the government.”
This is a mistaken view. The Bill of Rights assigns legal rights based on moral rights already assigned by people to people.
“Congress cannot pass a law that takes away our rights.”
But amendments to the Constitution could be made which take away legal rights assigned in the Constitution.
“In that case [Constitutional amendment], it would not be the government taking away a right, but we the people surrendering a right we were born with.”
No, it would be the government taking away a legal right, where the government represents the people. But still people, not gods, assign rights.
It's about time!
Submitted by Justin L on February 2, 2020 - 3:00am
Finally someone in this comment section gets it!
Someday all of you heathen who deny the existence of God will bow and confess to him that he is Lord.
By then though, it will be too late.
Off the mark
Submitted by Rodney Fife on October 7, 2016 - 10:41am
With the writing of the Declaration of Independence the founders of our great country instituted a new thought and experience in the world.
They brought about that are basic rights are given to us by God and that Government was supposed to serve the people.
At the same time they laid the case when it is justified for the people to raise up and overthrow the Government.
The author of this article has failed to do the basic required research. There is no such idea in our founding documents that requires a separation of Church and State. In fact the founders relied completely on their faith to create and run the government of their day.
The author of this paper has us to believe it is harmful for us to believe our rights are distilled from Heaven. Nothing could be further from the truth.
If more people believe as such we would be more proactive in our government. There would be less strife and crime.
I believe in God and that he led our founding fathers through troubling times. I also believe that the Constitution was a document inspired by Heaven.
God bless America
rights vs nature
Submitted by DaFudd on October 7, 2016 - 3:06pm
The presumption behind the idea of government-protected rights is that human beings have a "nature" which might come from God, from nature, or from a supreme Being. The natural condition of people is that they are free, equal, and individual. Governments are assigned to protect those innate conditions by delineate or codifying protections for the exercise of those qualities. Mr. Niose writes that "only the will of the people" protects those rights and he is correct about that. But protecting them is different from creating them. Government cannot take away the free, individual, and equal nature of human beings even if when it denies people their free expression of those qualities; by compelling people into racial groups, for example. The humanist argument is that the humanity of a person remains. This is not an argument to allow religion to dictate the language or justifications of police forces. That would be a very dangerous thing. Religion should be kept out of government because religious institutions and those who profit from those institutions will manipulate teaching to not allow certain groups to develop and reason according to their natural selves. But the innate qualities that God or nature have granted to individuals everywhere and of every kind should flourish, through education, protections of freedoms, and human respect.
Inalienable
Submitted by Chris Facq on October 7, 2016 - 3:35pm
I thoroughly enjoyed the article, but disagree in that I strongly believe in inalienable rights. The fact that a government may not recognize a right does not mean the right does not exist. A majority does not properly decide whether or not a minority possesses a right, though it may be empowered to deny it.
On the other hand, while I take comfort in my own belief in God, I agree that relying on the authority of a being on whose existence is in dispute does not make sense.
Our rights are inalienable, and exist independently from God.
Article
Submitted by Mike Thiac on October 7, 2016 - 5:46pm
From the article, “but simply as acknowledging that our rights come from God.” It’s not just the Bible thumpers that possess this point of view, this is the view of the Founding Fathers of this nation.
“…We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator (notice how the C in Creator is capitalized, which means a proper noun) with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness”
Also you seem to miss the five most beautiful words in the Condition, “Congress shall make no law…” Or, look at this, the First Amendment:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
“Abridging the freedom” of speech? So the freedom of speech was there before this government was formed. And the press, and the right to peaceably assemble. And notice how "it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government," The government gave the people it rules over the right to abolish the entity granting the rights? Strange.
Sorry Mr Niose, you may choose to not believe in a being greater than you. Fair enough. But this nation was founded by men who were descendants of the Enlightenment, who looked at man as the descendants of a greater being (Jefferson and many of the other Founding Fathers were Deist) and that influenced their writing. So I would suggest you go back to your ConLaw books.
Bias
Submitted by Kevin mccarthy on October 8, 2016 - 10:41am
Interesting prose riddled with confirmation bias to push forth ones personal agenda. Wouldn't it be great if writers learned how to share the unbiased facts and simply leave the readers to make their own interpretation? But, then we would not have news media and publications. The rest of us would have to think for ourselves, oh my. Take David's one-sided arguments with a grain of salt unless you are willing to invest the time to do your own research on both sides.
rights
Submitted by Jack M. Pedigo on October 24, 2016 - 5:10pm
It seems this issue can be seen in another light with the addition of a simple article "a". To many it is a foregone conclusion that there is only one God. They don't see that all these "one" gods are all different. Perhaps it would better to say "In a god we trust".
The existence of God cannot
Submitted by Brad on December 9, 2016 - 3:54pm
The existence of God cannot be proven - true
The non-existence of God cannot be proven - also true
The Difference? - more evidence exists to support His
existence than His non-existence.
How this plays out:
For example the Bible is the only book replete with specific
identifiable fulfilled prophecy. It is the only Book that exists in the world which demonstrates it is divine and not human in
origin with the demonstrated ability to see across time.
You can ignore or deny this fact or you can add it to the scales to tip the balance towards God's existence being the more rational explanation than your opinion that he does not.
Those who rely on their own opinions disregarding the
evidence which can be weighed (not proof) make the
weaker argument there is no God. They in essence become a god unto themselves.
If 85% of the people of this country at least claim to believe
in God, you 15% that are offended by that need to
consider the idea that you belong to a very small minority. There is probably a very good reason for that - you might
want to consider that your opinion might be wrong and
people who like to make decisions based on facts and
evidence, not their opinions will determine the evidence
points to the existence of God - not His non-existence.
While your at it you might want to say to yourself in your
head or (out loud) as many times as needed - The universe
does not revolve around me.
Reply to Brad on nonexistence of God
Submitted by Gary Whittenberger on December 10, 2016 - 11:29am
Response to Brad
BR: The existence of God cannot be proven - true
GW: I agree.
BR: The non-existence of God cannot be proven - also true
GW: False. I have three arguments which prove that God does not exist.
BR: The Difference? - more evidence exists to support His existence than His non-existence.
GW: Most of that evidence is not objective, and none of it is unequivocal. So the amount does not matter.
BR: How this plays out: For example the Bible is the only book replete with specific
identifiable fulfilled prophecy. It is the only Book that exists in the world which demonstrates it is divine and not human in origin with the demonstrated ability to see across time.
GW: There is a good naturalistic explanation for every alleged fulfilled prophesy in the Bible, and the supernaturalist explanation, which you favor, is least probable and unnecessary. However, if God does not exist, then every single claim made in the Bible about God is false. And if God exists, you should be able to prove that without using the Bible. But don’t waste your time trying to prove God without using the Bible because I already have three sound arguments showing that he doesn’t exist. You are welcome to examine them one at a time and try to find an error.
BR: You can ignore or deny this fact or you can add it to the scales to tip the balance towards God's existence being the more rational explanation than your opinion that he does not.
GW: You can ignore or deny the fact that God does not exist or you can at least attempt to find a critical error in any of my three arguments showing he doesn’t exist.
BR: Those who rely on their own opinions disregarding the evidence which can be weighed (not proof) make the weaker argument there is no God. They in essence become a god unto themselves.
GW: All my arguments use evidence and they are strong. I am not a god and never have been.
BR: If 85% of the people of this country at least claim to believe in God, you 15% that are offended by that need to consider the idea that you belong to a very small minority. There is probably a very good reason for that - you might want to consider that your opinion might be wrong and people who like to make decisions based on facts and evidence, not their opinions will determine the evidence points to the existence of God - not His non-existence.
GW: We are in the minority for now, but that minority is growing. Our opinion could be wrong, but I don’t think it is. My arguments conclude that God does not exist, and nobody has found a critical error in any of them. Many have tried, and all have failed. With each failure, my confidence is increased.
BR: While your at it you might want to say to yourself in your head or (out loud) as many times as needed - The universe does not revolve around me.
GW: While you’re (not “your”) at it you might want to say to yourself in your head or aloud as many times as needed - “The universe does not conform to my (Brad’s) opinion.”
Gary JUST ONE of those
Submitted by Brad on December 10, 2016 - 1:52pm
Gary JUST ONE of those prophesies actually coming to passby chance is the mathematical equivalent of covering the
entire face of the earth 2 feet deep in quarters and sending a blind man out to find the one you marked on the first try.
It is incomprehensible to say the least this is a naturalistic
event as you call it. Where else have you found this?
You tell me what America is going to be like 200 years from
now or even 20 years and get it exactly right. How about a
thousand years.
You can deny all you want but that is based on your opinion, I will trust what has demonstrated itself to be reliable and the evidence which exists and again it points to God...not your
opinion.
I prefer to make rational decisions based on facts, history,
science and the like, not on opinions made by those who in
spite of all you can measure, assume God does not exist.
I could cover volumes of material to soundly de-bunk your
3 supposed reasons but not in this forum.
Anyone who is willing to spend the amount of time it takes to
properly research this (science, history, world religions,
Bible, collaborative evidence) would conclude the evidence
for his existence far outweighs the evidence he does not.
Some of the greatest atheist's have done this to try and
prove to themselves God does not exist and became
Christians after finally considering facts and evidence.
Simon Greenleaf for one example.
For another - Gary you might want to read a book called "The Case for Christ" by Lee Stroble (another atheist turned
believer) who did the same thing, (I suspect in a much more
in depth manner than you have) which would give you a lot
more comprehensive list of names and results of scholars he
consulted with.
Although this does not prove God exists, It does show that
it would be a more educated decision based on facts +
evidence to conclude that he does!
This takes a real search for truth. Dedication to study.
However you convince yourself Gary that your opinion is right, you still must ignore or deny the evidence to get there.
I only began with one obvious example to make the point but there exist volumes of them.
Reply to Brad re. God
Submitted by Gary Whittenberger on December 10, 2016 - 4:19pm
Reply to Brad
BR: Gary JUST ONE of those prophesies actually coming to passby chance is the mathematical equivalent of covering the entire face of the earth 2 feet deep in quarters and sending a blind man out to find the one you marked on the first try.
GW: No, it’s not. If you think so, then present your calculations.
BR: It is incomprehensible to say the least this is a naturalistic event as you call it. Where else have you found this?
GW: I said that there is a good naturalistic explanation for every apparently correct prediction from the Bible.
BR: You tell me what America is going to be like 200 years from now or even 20 years and get it exactly right. How about a thousand years.
GW: Here you aren’t presenting any example of a correct prediction from the Bible.
BR: You can deny all you want but that is based on your opinion, I will trust what has demonstrated itself to be reliable and the evidence which exists and again it points to God...not your opinion.
GW: You can trust your mere opinion, but I will trust the conclusion of a sound argument which shows that God does not exist.
BR: I prefer to make rational decisions based on facts, history, science and the like, not on opinions made by those who in spite of all you can measure, assume God does not exist.
GW: My arguments are based on facts, history, science, and the like, including logic, so you should accept their conclusions.
BR: I could cover volumes of material to soundly de-bunk your 3 supposed reasons but not in this forum.
GW: I don’t have “3 supposed reasons.” Instead I have three sound arguments against the existence of God. Here is the first one for you to ponder on:
Evidence Argument re God:
1. If God did exist, he would be perfectly moral and all-powerful. (By definition)
2. If any person is moral and able, then he freely releases specific information to other persons if the release would have a greater benefit-to-harm ratio than the withholding of the same information. (Derivation from rational morality)
3. Anyone’s release of plentiful, objective, and unequivocal evidence of God’s existence to everyone would have a greater benefit-to-harm ratio than the withholding of the same information. (Inference from history of knowledge distribution)
4. Thus, if God did exist, since he would be perfectly moral and all-powerful, he would freely release plentiful, objective, and unequivocal evidence of his own existence to everyone. (Deduction from prior premises)
5. However, there is no plentiful, objective, and unequivocal evidence of God’s existence which has been presented to everyone. (Fact)
6. Therefore, God does not exist. (Deduction from prior premises)
BR: Anyone who is willing to spend the amount of time it takes to properly research this (science, history, world religions, Bible, collaborative evidence) would conclude the evidence
for his existence far outweighs the evidence he does not.
GW: All it takes is one sound argument to show that God does not exist.
BR: Some of the greatest atheist's have done this to try and prove to themselves God does not exist and became Christians after finally considering facts and evidence. Simon Greenleaf for one example.
GW: But conversions go the opposite way too. I was a Christian who then became an atheist. I am not alone. There are many like me.
BR: For another - Gary you might want to read a book called "The Case for Christ" by Lee Stroble (another atheist turned believer) who did the same thing, (I suspect in a much more
in depth manner than you have) which would give you a lot more comprehensive list of names and results of scholars he consulted with.
GW: I own that book and have read it. I was very unimpressed.
BR: Although this does not prove God exists, It does show that it would be a more educated decision based on facts + evidence to conclude that he does! This takes a real search for truth. Dedication to study.
GW: I’ve spent decades researching this issue. It takes only one sound argument to disprove God, and I have three.
BR: However you convince yourself Gary that your opinion is right, you still must ignore or deny the evidence to get there. I only began with one obvious example to make the point but there exist volumes of them.
GW: I only began with one sound argument to show that God does not exist, but I have two others. Please try to find a critical error in the first one I presented. If you can find a critical error, then I’ll present another.
presented calculations
Submitted by Brad on December 10, 2016 - 9:51pm
The science of probability attempts to determine the chance that a given event will occur. The value and accuracy of the science of probability has been well established beyond doubt—for example, insurance rates are fixed according to statistical probabilities.Professor Emeritus of Science at Westmont College, Peter Stoner, has calculated the probability of one man fulfilling the major prophecies made concerning the Messiah. The estimates were worked out by twelve different classes representing some 600 university students.The students carefully weighed all the factors, discussed each prophecy at length, and examined the various circumstances which might indicate that men had conspired together to fulfill a particular prophecy. They made their estimates conservative enough so that there was finally unanimous agreement even among the most skeptical students.However Professor Stoner then took their estimates, and made them even more conservative. He also encouraged other skeptics or scientists to make their own estimates to see if his conclusions were more than fair. Finally, he submitted his figures for review to a committee of the American Scientific Affiliation. Upon examination, they verified that his calculations were dependable and accurate in regard to the scientific material presented (Peter Stoner, Science Speaks, Chicago: Moody Press, 1969, 4).For example, concerning Micah 5:2, where it states the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem Ephrathah, Stoner and his students determined the average population of BETHLEHEM from the time of Micah to the present; then they divided it by the average population of the earth during the same period.They concluded that the chance of one man being born in Bethlehem was one in 300,000, (or one in 2.8 x 10^5 — rounded),After examining only eight different prophecies (Idem, 106), they conservatively estimated that the chance of one man fulfilling all eight prophecies was one in 10^17.To illustrate how large the number 10^17 IS (a figure with 17 zeros), Stoner gave this illustration :If you mark one of ten tickets, and place all the tickets in a hat, and thoroughly stir them, and then ask a blindfolded man to draw one, his chance of getting the right ticket is one in ten. Suppose that we take 10^17 silver dollars and lay them on the face of Texas. They'll cover all of the state two feet deep. Now mark one of these silver dollars and stir the whole mass thoroughly, all over the state. Blindfold a man and tell him that he can travel as far as he wishes, but he must pick up one silver dollar and say that this is the right one. What chance would he have of getting the right one? Just the same chance that the prophets would've had of writing these eight prophecies and having them all come true in any one man, from their day to the present time, providing they wrote them in their own wisdom (Idem, 106-107).In financial terms, is there anyone who would not invest in a financial venture if the chance of failure were only one in 10^17? This is the kind of sure investment we're offered by god for faith in His Messiah.From these figures, Professor Stoner, concludes the fulfillment of these eight prophecies alone proves that God inspired the writing of the prophecies (Idem, 107)—the likelihood of mere chance is only one in 10^17!Another way of saying this is that any person who minimizes or ignores the significance of the biblical identifying signs concerning the Messiah would be foolish.But, of course, there are many more than eight prophecies. In another calculation, Stoner used 48 prophecies (Idem, 109) (even though he could have used Edersheim's 456), and arrived at the extremely conservative estimate that the probability of 48 prophecies being fulfilled in one person is the incredible number 10^157. In fact, if anybody can find someone, living or dead, other than Jesus, who can fulfill only half of the predictions concerning the Messiah given in the book "Messiah in Both Testaments" by Fred J. Meldau, the Christian Victory Publishing Company is ready to give a ONE thousand dollar reward! As apologist Josh McDowell says, "There are a lot of men in the universities that could use some extra cash!" (Josh McDowell, Evidence that Demands a Verdict, California: Campus Crusade for Christ, 175).How large is the number one in 10^157? 10^157 contains 157 zeros! Stoner gives an illustration of this number using electrons. Electrons are very small objects. They're smaller than atoms. It would take 2.5 TIMES 10^15 of them, laid side by side, to make one inch. Even if we counted 250 of these electrons each minute, and counted day and night, it would still take 19 million years just to count a line of electrons one-inch long (Stoner, op. cit, 109).With this introduction, let's go back to our chance of one in 10^157. Let's suppose that we're taking this number of electrons, marking one, and thoroughly stirring it into the whole mass, then blindfolding a man and letting him try to find the right one. What chance has he of finding the right one? What kind of a pile will this number of electrons make? They make an inconceivably large volume.This is the result from considering a mere 48 prophecies. Obviously, the probability that 456 prophecies would be fulfilled in one man by chance is vastly smaller. According to Emile Borel, once one goes past one chance in 10^50, the probabilities are so small that it is impossible to think that they will ever occur (Ankerberg et. al., op. cit., 21).As Stoner concludes, 'Any man who rejects Christ as the Son of God is rejecting a fact, proved perhaps more absolutely than any other fact in the world (Stoner, op. cit., 112).'God so thoroughly vindicated Jesus Christ that even mathematicians and statisticians, who were without faith, had to acknowledge that it is scientifically impossible to deny that Jesus is the Christ.
Reply to Brad re. Stoner
Submitted by Gary Whittenberger on December 11, 2016 - 12:05pm
Reply to Brad
BR: The science of probability attempts to determine the chance that a given event will occur. The value and accuracy of the science of probability has been well established beyond doubt-for example, insurance rates are fixed according to statistical probabilities.
GW: I have a doctoral degree in psychology so my knowledge of probability theory is above average.
GW: I think Stoner’s a priori assumptions are false and so his calculations are meaningless.
GW: Let’s look more closely at what Stoner and you seem to believe: 1) God exists. 2) God told some OT authors to make predictions about a messiah to come. 3) God caused Jesus. 4) The details of Jesus’ life and ministry match the details of the predictions made by the OT authors. That’s constitutes a really clever explanation, but it is almost certainly false. My alternative explanation is that the alleged match of details of OT predictions with NT details of Jesus’ life is due to the NT authors having read the OT predictions and fabricating details about Jesus to force a correspondence. My explanation is more likely to be true than yours and Stoner’s because a) We know that people do sometimes fabricate stories to achieve some agenda they have, b) We know that God does not exist. I have three arguments which demonstrate that he does not exist, and so far nobody has found a critical error in any of them, and c) If God did exist and he desired to prove that he exists, he wouldn’t do it through some cumbersome amateurish method of fulfillment two thousand years ago of predictions made three thousand years ago. Instead, he would prove it by presenting clear evidence today!
This Gary is only an answer
Submitted by Brad on December 10, 2016 - 10:27pm
This Gary is only an answer to merely one of your requsts. "Then present your calculations" as you stated.
As i said before impossible to present the volumes of data in this forum to give you all you ask for.
Your post about your first of 3 reasons sounds like a very fancy way of saying you choose to deny evidence because God wouldnt measure up to your personal theological definition of exactly what His nature should be. He isnt what you say he should be - thus he doesnt exist...really?
Sorry but im not sold. Furthermore I (like you) only become more confident that He exists after hearing number one.
It seemed much like listening to Hillary defend herself when
shes full of it. She still does it so slick I think she even believes her own crap no matter how obviously wrong she is.
Reply to Brad re. Arguments Against God
Submitted by Gary Whittenberger on December 11, 2016 - 12:14pm
BR: Your post about your first of 3 reasons sounds like a very fancy way of saying you choose to deny evidence because God wouldnt measure up to your personal theological definition of exactly what His nature should be. He isnt what you say he should be - thus he doesnt exist...really?
GW: Brad, please don’t continue to speak of my “3 reasons.” I have three sound arguments that God does not exist. In these arguments I use the definition of “God” which most believers in God use, not some straw man definition which I trumped up. The God which most religious people believe in is the one which does not exist.
BR: Sorry but im not sold. Furthermore I (like you) only become more confident that He exists after hearing number one.
GW: I challenge you to find any error in this argument:
Evidence Argument re God:
1. If God did exist, he would be perfectly moral and all-powerful. (By definition)
2. If any person is moral and able, then he freely releases specific information to other persons if the release would have a greater benefit-to-harm ratio than the withholding of the same information. (Derivation from rational morality)
3. Anyone’s release of plentiful, objective, and unequivocal evidence of God’s existence to everyone would have a greater benefit-to-harm ratio than the withholding of the same information. (Inference from history of knowledge distribution)
4. Thus, if God did exist, since he would be perfectly moral and all-powerful, he would freely release plentiful, objective, and unequivocal evidence of his own existence to everyone. (Deduction from prior premises)
5. However, there is no plentiful, objective, and unequivocal evidence of God’s existence which has been presented to everyone. (Fact)
6. Therefore, God does not exist. (Deduction from prior premises)
BR: It seemed much like listening to Hillary defend herself when shes full of it. She still does it so slick I think she even believes her own crap no matter how obviously wrong she is.
GW: That has absolutely nothing to do with what we are talking about. Please try to stay on task.
critical errors
Submitted by Brad on December 11, 2016 - 3:52pm
I disagree with the idea that the above calculations were biased. As yours are biased in the opposite direction is the only difference. I think his were done quite thoroughly and given plenty of room for error and do have meaning enough to establish the point you so eaisly want to dismiss as nothing. (Makes his point better than you) But i will save that argument for later and move on to what you want me to focus on.
Critical error in your argument no. 1:
From my perspective you are trying to confuse theological beliefs about God with essential beliefs of the orthodox Christian church to sustain your argument number 1.
Example of essential beliefs of the church include:
* The deity of God (had no beginning, has no end, has always existed etc)
* The trinity (Christians worship 1 God who exists in 3 persons. Of the same substance but having different roles. Self aware and communicating with each other yet one).
* The virgin birth of Jesus. (The immaculate conception, God with us)
No matter what else Christians debate among themselves about God, they are in universal agreement on the essentials.
You draw conclusions about how God should be acting based on our limited understanding of how God plans on accomplishing His will.
Foe example you may think he is cruel because of the benifit to harm ratio and morality as we understand the concept) but I believe Gods concept is beyond ours.
To make this point I might say how will we ever truly understand or even respect the meaning of words like honor, bravery, sacrifice, suffering in the next life if we were forced to live in a perfect world?
You seem to insist on this or at least his direct communication with us to make your argument that He cant exist.
It is not an essential attribute of God to say that he must or he does not exist.
Again to me your argument is based on debatable theological assumptions made by you about God and not essential beliefs about him required by the church.
Brad's first attempt
Submitted by Gary Whittenberger on December 12, 2016 - 7:43am
BR: I disagree with the idea that the above calculations were biased. As yours are biased in the opposite direction is the only difference. I think his were done quite thoroughly and given plenty of room for error and do have meaning enough to establish the point you so eaisly want to dismiss as nothing. (Makes his point better than you) But i will save that argument for later and move on to what you want me to focus on.
GW: Stoner’s calculations were not necessarily biased. He just began with an assumption that is probably false, i.e. that all the details about Jesus’ life in the Gospels are correct reports. My conclusion is a better interpretation for the reasons I gave.
BR: Critical error in your argument no. 1: From my perspective you are trying to confuse theological beliefs about God with essential beliefs of the orthodox Christian church to sustain your argument number 1.
GW: No, I’m not trying to do that.
BR: Example of essential beliefs of the church include:
* The deity of God (had no beginning, has no end, has always existed etc)
GW: My argument assumes that God would be eternal.
BR: * The trinity (Christians worship 1 God who exists in 3 persons. Of the same substance but having different roles. Self aware and communicating with each other yet one).
GW: My argument assumes that God would be one person. It wouldn’t matter how many roles he took on.
BR: * The virgin birth of Jesus. (The immaculate conception, God with us)
GW: My argument says nothing about Jesus. I don’t see the relevance of Jesus.
BR: No matter what else Christians debate among themselves about God, they are in universal agreement on the essentials.
GW: So what? This has no effect on my argument.
BR: You draw conclusions about how God should be acting based on our limited understanding of how God plans on accomplishing His will.
GW: No, I draw conclusions about how God would act based on the nature attributed to him by religious people.
BR: Foe[r] example you may think he is cruel because of the benifit to harm ratio and morality as we understand the concept) but I believe Gods concept is beyond ours.
GW: I think that if he existed, God would be perfectly rational and his morality would be based on reason.
BR: To make this point I might say how will we ever truly understand or even respect the meaning of words like honor, bravery, sacrifice, suffering in the next life if we were forced to live in a perfect world?
GW: My argument says nothing about a “perfect world.” Our world would not be perfect even if God clearly revealed himself to us, but it would be far better than it is.
BR: You seem to insist on this or at least his direct communication with us to make your argument that He cant exist. It is not an essential attribute of God to say that he must or he does not exist.
GW: If God were to present plentiful, objective, and unequivocal evidence of his own existence to everyone, then I think it would entail direct communication and also demonstration of his abilities to you, me, and everyone else. Do you agree? If not, what do you think it would entail?
BR: Again to me your argument is based on debatable theological assumptions made by you about God and not essential beliefs about him required by the church.
GW: If you believe that my argument is debatable, then let’s debate it. Please try to find a critical error in it. So far you haven’t.
GW: Stoner’s calculations
Submitted by Brad on December 12, 2016 - 10:11am
GW: Stoner’s calculations were not necessarily biased. He just began with an assumption that is probably false, i.e. that all the details about Jesus’ life in the Gospels are correct reports. My conclusion is a better interpretation for the reasons I gave.
BR: So you still maintain the CERTAINITY of Gods non-existence based on the idea that guys like Stoner begin with an assumption that is PROBABLY false?
Why then don't you try to get Stoner de-bunked with the American Scientific Association with your claims?
And your conclusions that he does not exist (after you dismiss, ignore, or deny the evidence as in the above example) demonstrates to me that my original position was correct.
* Those who rely on their own opinions disregarding the
evidence which can be weighed (not proof) make the
weaker argument there is no God.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GW: No, I draw conclusions about how God would act based on the nature attributed to him by religious people
BL: Your conclusions are then drawn from the debatable theological conclusions of religious people and obviously not from the essential beliefs of the orthodox Christian church which I have already covered above in attempts to make you see the difference.
Beliefs that put ALL Christians on the same page and in the same church as far as who and what they are worshipping. Beliefs which if you wanted to debate would place you outside the realm of the church and into something else not Christian.
Therefore I consider your premise that God does not exist less likely as I have presented in this short dialogue more evidence that he does than you do that he doesn't. Making my original statement correct.
* more evidence exists to support His existence than His non-existence.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BR: * The virgin birth of Jesus. (The immaculate conception, God with us)
GW: My argument says nothing about Jesus. I don’t see the relevance of Jesus.
BR: I see the relevance because it is merely another example of one of the essential beliefs of the Christian church.
It is not one of the debatable positions held by religious persons which you seem to be basing your first argument on.
quote - GW " I draw conclusions about how God would act based on the nature attributed to him by religious people"
Your argument would hold more reliability to me if it were based the essential beliefs of the church, not the widely debatable ones of religious people.
As it stands at this point in our little debate - so far you have only convinced me that you are the typical atheist who has to deny, ignore or dismiss fact to make the call there is no God. (I.E. -Stoners work) without a real rebuttal of it only (your opinion).
A Christian who has weighed the available evidence - makes a more intelligent decision based on facts than an atheist.
To me an African native living in the woods who has never seen the outside world who also believes a greater power exists than himself is wiser the most educated atheists who ever lived. He is at least apparently closer to the truth than you are.
________________________________________________
GW: If you believe that my argument is debatable, then let’s debate it. Please try to find a critical error in it. So far you haven’t.
BL: Really? I have debated it with you enough to convince me you are really just another example of an Atheist living in denial of the evidence we that exists against you, but don't just take my word for it.....
Why don't you submit your proof (that God doesn't exist) to the American Scientific Association and see what its worth as did Stoner to provide evidence that he does? - See how it stacks up comparatively? If you were successful at least your work would get equal footing as his.
Or how about you send your proof to the Christian Research Institute CRI and challenge them to respond to it and find the Critical Error you are so hung up on? They might be able to reach you in a way that I apparently can not.
I mean a guy who has proved the non-existence of God based on his conclusions made by his observations of religious people and all should get some real notoriety in forums such as that.
Brad's second attempt
Submitted by Gary Whittenberger on December 12, 2016 - 1:40pm
Reply to Brad
GW: Stoner's calculations were not necessarily biased. He just began with an assumption that is probably false, i.e. that all the details about Jesus' life in the Gospels are correct reports. My conclusion is a better interpretation for the reasons I gave.
BR1: So you still maintain the CERTAINITY of Gods non-existence based on the idea that guys like Stoner begin with an assumption that is PROBABLY false?
GW1: No. My confidence about the nonexistence of God is not based on any critique of Stoner, but on the proof I presented to you (and two other proofs).
BR1: Why then don't you try to get Stoner de-bunked with the American Scientific Association with your claims?
GW1: I have no interest in that. In just a five-minute analysis I can see where he went awry and I have three arguments which prove that God does not exist.
BR1: And your conclusions that he does not exist (after you dismiss, ignore, or deny the evidence as in the above example) demonstrates to me that my original position was correct.
GW1: But you have yet to find a critical error in my argument, so it stands.
GW: No, I draw conclusions about how God would act based on the nature attributed to him by religious people
BL1: Your conclusions are then drawn from the debatable theological conclusions of religious people and obviously not from the essential beliefs of the orthodox Christian church which I have already covered above in attempts to make you see the difference.
GW1: Almost all Christians endorse the definition of God which I assume in my argument. The long version of the definition is as follows: “God is the hypothetical distinct, unique, spiritual person who is necessarily existing, everlasting, everywhere-present, all-knowing, all-powerful, fully free, self-sufficient, perfectly moral, and supremely authoritative; who created our universe and any others which might exist; who at least sometimes intervenes in our universe, especially in human affairs; who wants us humans to believe and behave in certain ways in our current lives for which he sometimes rewards us in an afterlife; and who wants us not to believe and behave in other ways for which he sometimes punishes us in an afterlife.” The short version is as follows: “God is the hypothetical eternal, all-knowing, all-powerful, perfectly moral person who created the universe and sometimes intervenes in our world.”
BL1: Beliefs that put ALL Christians on the same page and in the same church as far as who and what they are worshipping. Beliefs which if you wanted to debate would place you outside the realm of the church and into something else not Christian.
GW1: The definition of God which I presented is endorsed by most Christians. If you disagree with some element, let me know and we can discuss it.
BL1: Therefore I consider your premise that God does not exist less likely as I have presented in this short dialogue more evidence that he does than you do that he doesn't. Making my original statement correct: * more evidence exists to support His existence than His non-existence.
GW1: “God does not exist” is not a premise of my argument; it is the conclusion. Stoner’s analysis is unreasonable. I wouldn’t do a more thorough investigation of Stoner unless you showed me that I made a critical error in my argument.
BR: * The virgin birth of Jesus. (The immaculate conception, God with us)
GW: My argument says nothing about Jesus. I don't see the relevance of Jesus.
BR1: I see the relevance because it is merely another example of one of the essential beliefs of the Christian church.
GW1: So what? All essential beliefs of the Christian church are not relevant to my argument. Try to focus just on the ones which are.
BR1: It is not one of the debatable positions held by religious persons which you seem to be basing your first argument on.
GW1: My argument doesn’t need to incorporate all beliefs of all religious persons, even Christians. It couldn’t since they don’t agree with each other. However, my definition of God is based on what most of them agree on.
BR1: Your argument would hold more reliability to me if it were based the essential beliefs of the church, not the widely debatable ones of religious people.
GW1: My argument applies to the god which most people believe in. If you believe in some other god, then present the definition of your god and I might be able to prove it doesn’t exist.
BR1: As it stands at this point in our little debate - so far you have only convinced me that you are the typical atheist who has to deny, ignore or dismiss fact to make the call there is no God. (I.E. -Stoners work) without a real rebuttal of it only (your opinion).
GW1: I already gave a “real rebuttal” of Stoner’s analysis. And I gave you a sound argument against the existence of God in which you have yet to find any error.
BR1: A Christian who has weighed the available evidence - makes a more intelligent decision based on facts than an atheist.
GW1: Try to stay on track here and find an error in my argument. You are just going off on tangents.
BR1: To me an African native living in the woods who has never seen the outside world who also believes a greater power exists than himself is wiser the most educated atheists who ever lived. He is at least apparently closer to the truth than you are.
GW1: I know you don’t like or agree with my argument, but you are just bringing up irrelevant issues.
GW: If you believe that my argument is debatable, then let's debate it. Please try to find a critical error in it. So far you haven't.
BR1: Really? I have debated it with you enough to convince me you are really just another example of an Atheist living in denial of the evidence we that exists against you, but don't just take my word for it.
GW1: Yes, really! Where is the error in the argument?
BR1: Why don't you submit your proof (that God doesn't exist) to the American Scientific Association and see what its worth as did Stoner to provide evidence that he does? - See how it stacks up comparatively? If you were successful at least your work would get equal footing as his.
GW1: Maybe I will someday, but for now I’ve been presenting it to many people on different forums and nobody has found an error in it. Pretty cool, huh?
BR1: Or how about you send your proof to the Christian Research Institute CRI and challenge them to respond to it and find the Critical Error you are so hung up on? They might be able to reach you in a way that I apparently can not. I mean a guy who has proved the non-existence of God based on his conclusions made by his observations of religious people and all should get some real notoriety in forums such as that.
GW1: I subscribe to the Christian Research Journal. I don’t think any of the editors would be interested in responding to my argument. Why don’t you send it to them for an analysis? They might be more receptive to you.
GW: If God were to present
Submitted by Brad on December 12, 2016 - 11:46am
GW: If God were to present plentiful, objective, and unequivocal evidence of his own existence to everyone, then I think it would entail direct communication and also demonstration of his abilities to you, me, and everyone else. Do you agree? If not, what do you think it would entail?
BL: This has the potential to be a rather long debate in itself Gary.
I will give (my own) answer as it pertains to me personally with what I am able to humbly discern.
I disagree that we don't have communication - My view would be that he has had direct communication with mankind at various times throughout history. Further that communication in many other ways still exist to this day.
I believe his power was and is displayed magnificently.
I believe God reveals Himself to us in multiple ways.
In the beginning more directly (as you keep wanting in your first argument) After the fall of man and judgment was incurred the direct communication ceased, God withdrew - Although with a plan of redemption. In the old Testament we look forward to his coming, in the New Testament we look back on it but cover to cover it is a book of fallen man and God's plan for redemption, Jesus.
* He reveals himself through the prophets (who in those days were put to death if they were false) and fulfilled specific identifiable fulfilled prophecy.
* He reveals himself through divine appearances where and when he chooses to fulfill his purposes.
* Reveals himself in part - through the words of God recorded in the scriptures such as he has determined we need. Which BTW is a collection of writings that have demonstrated themselves to be far and away the most reliable ancient texts that exist in the world.
Also Bible is in harmony with known science, remember it wasn't written by scientists or by men who particularly cared about the subject, but by men who were inspired by God to write the things they did and these things mentioned in passing just happened be correct 1000s of years ago about what we only recently have figured out:
Such as the order of creation agreeing with what molecular biologists today say it would've had to have been to have worked.
The sun burning out mentioned - agreed with by astronomy
That we are made of that which is invisible - physicists today agree with.
That springs of fresh water on the bottom of the ocean spew forth fresh water that open and close that Oceanographers have confirmed today. Also that mountains ranges exist on the ocean floor.
And so on stopping here for space constraints...get the idea?.
* Reveals himself in the light of creation. (Wondrously!)
* Reveals himself in the light of instilled knowledge. (i.e. I smack you in the face for no reason - you think its wrong, Animals knowing what to do etc.)
* Most importantly he reveals himself in Christ. Who demonstrated that he was divine and not only human. Even his greatest critics were stumped by him and could only state that he must have the power of the devil rather than deny his miracles.None of critics said something like I saw this Jesus, he was just another TBN faker, I got bored and left...LOL but no they could only deny his source of power, not that he displayed it.
Again every evidence given to you Gary you must ignore, dismiss or deny to stick to your theory in argument number one.
So far the only evidence I have seen out of you is your theory, while evidence I cite is clear and can be weighed. Your evidence he does not revolves around your theory God Cant Exist because he won't appear to you. Don't worry our life is a second long in time - you will soon appear to him and give your theory on why he cant exist.
Brad's third attempt
Submitted by Gary Whittenberger on December 12, 2016 - 2:28pm
GW2: “BR” stands for you, “GW” stands for me. The number indicates the round of discussion.
GW: If God were to present plentiful, objective, and unequivocal evidence of his own existence to everyone, then I think it would entail direct communication and also demonstration of his abilities to you, me, and everyone else. Do you agree? If not, what do you think it would entail?
BR2: This has the potential to be a rather long debate in itself Gary.
GW2: It would help if you were more succinct.
BR2: I will give (my own) answer as it pertains to me personally with what I am able to humbly discern. I disagree that we don't have communication - My view would be that he has had direct communication with mankind at various times throughout history. Further that communication in many other ways still exist to this day.
GW2: There is no good evidence that even if God exists he has ever communicated with human persons. There are stories in the Bible that he has, but these do not constitute good evidence. If God did exist, he would communicate (and demonstrate) to all persons, not just sporadically throughout history.
BR2: I believe his power was and is displayed magnificently. I believe God reveals Himself to us in multiple ways.
GW2: These alleged revelations are either not objective, not unequivocal, not universal, or some combination of these. If God did exist, he would present plentiful, objective, unequivocal evidence of his own existence to all human persons. This has not happened.
BR2: In the beginning more directly (as you keep wanting in your first argument) After the fall of man and judgment was incurred the direct communication ceased, God withdrew - Although with a plan of redemption. In the old Testament we look forward to his coming, in the New Testament we look back on it but cover to cover it is a book of fallen man and God's plan for redemption, Jesus.
GW2: You say that God withdrew and that direct communication ceased. However, if God did exist, neither of those things would happen.
BR2: *He reveals himself through the prophets (who in those days were put to death if they were false) and fulfilled specific identifiable fulfilled prophecy.
GW2: I already debunked Stoner’s analysis of prophesies.
BR2: *He reveals himself through divine appearances where and when he chooses to fulfill his purposes.
GW2: But if God existed, he would choose to clearly reveal himself to all of us, Brad.
BR2: *Reveals himself in part - through the words of God recorded in the scriptures such as he has determined we need. Which BTW is a collection of writings that have demonstrated themselves to be far and away the most reliable ancient texts that exist in the world.
GW2: But if God existed, he would determine that we all could benefit from a clear revelation of his existence to all of us, and this hasn’t happened. The “scriptures” are full of inconsistencies, contradictions, falsehoods, myths, and even some failed prophesies. They are very poor evidence for the existence of God. If he existed, he would not rely on such poor evidence to reveal himself to us.
BR2: Also Bible is in harmony with known science, remember it wasn't written by scientists or by men who particularly cared about the subject, but by men who were inspired by God to write the things they did and these things mentioned in passing just happened be correct 1000s of years ago about what we only recently have figured out:
GW2: Even if this were true (it isn’t), it wouldn’t constitute the plentiful, objective, unequivocal evidence of his own existence which God would provide if he existed. Genesis doesn’t mention anything comparable to the Big Bang or evolution. It would, if God existed.
BR2: Such as the order of creation agreeing with what molecular biologists today say it would've had to have been to have worked.
GW2: No, the order doesn’t agree.
BR2: The sun burning out mentioned - agreed with by astronomy
GW2: Please quote and cite the verse for this. I’m skeptical.
BR2: That we are made of that which is invisible - physicists today agree with.
GW2: Ancient nonreligious philosophers guessed right on this one.
BR2: That springs of fresh water on the bottom of the ocean spew forth fresh water that open and close that Oceanographers have confirmed today. Also that mountains ranges exist on the ocean floor.
GW2: Please quote and cite the verse for this. I’m skeptical.
BR2: And so on stopping here for space constraints...get the idea?.
GW2: Yes, I get the idea that you are presenting equivocal evidence.
BR2: * Reveals himself in the light of creation. (Wondrously!)
* Reveals himself in the light of instilled knowledge. (i.e. I smack you in the face for no reason - you think its wrong, Animals knowing what to do etc.)
GW2: More equivocal evidence.
BR2: * Most importantly he reveals himself in Christ. Who demonstrated that he was divine and not only human. Even his greatest critics were stumped by him and could only state that he must have the power of the devil rather than deny his miracles.None of critics said something like I saw this Jesus, he was just another TBN faker, I got bored and left...LOL but no they could only deny his source of power, not that he displayed it.
GW2: Even if Jesus demonstrated that he was divine (he didn’t) that would not be objective unequivocal evidence of God’s existence to us today. Also, the people in Jesus’ time were pretty gullible, they didn’t know much about science, and most reports of critics were probably suppressed. I think the first critic of Jesus was Celsus in the second century
BR2: Again every evidence given to you Gary you must ignore, dismiss or deny to stick to your theory in argument number one.
GW2: I could accept everything you’ve presented as accurate (it isn’t) and it would be like a drop of water in the ocean. It would not come close to plentiful, objective, unequivocal evidence of God’s existence presented to everyone. Do you realize that if God existed and presented that kind of evidence, there would be almost no atheists at all? But there are millions of atheists, and their percentage in the world is growing.
BR2: So far the only evidence I have seen out of you is your theory, while evidence I cite is clear and can be weighed. Your evidence he does not revolves around your theory God Cant Exist because he won't appear to you. Don't worry our life is a second long in time - you will soon appear to him and give your theory on why he cant exist.
GW2: The kind of evidence you have presented (shaky as it is) is not the kind of evidence which we would see if God existed. If he did, he wouldn’t just clearly appear to me and you; he would appear to all human persons. He would clearly communicate with us and demonstrate his powers. There would be no doubt in your mind or mine. You have still not found an error in my argument, and so it stands.
Gary
Submitted by Brad on December 12, 2016 - 12:30pm
I imagine we will spend the rest of eternity trying to understand/define the infinite and how/why he does things in the manner he does them and never see the day we fully understand.
Brad's fourth attempt
Submitted by Gary Whittenberger on December 12, 2016 - 2:31pm
BR4: I imagine we will spend the rest of eternity trying to understand/define the infinite and how/why he does things in the manner he does them and never see the day we fully understand.
GW4: No, Brad, we won't spend the rest of eternity doing that. I only have about a decade left to live, and you are going to die too. God does not exist, and my argument proves it. So far, you have not found any error in it.
Back to critical error
Submitted by Brad on December 12, 2016 - 3:49pm
GW: I challenge you to find any error in this argument:
Evidence Argument re God:
OK Gary will address that:
1. If God did exist, he would be perfectly moral and all-powerful. (By definition)
[BL: I agree]
2. If any person is moral and able, then he freely releases specific information to other persons if the release would have a greater benefit-to-harm ratio than the withholding of the same information. (Derivation from rational morality)
[BL: Partially agree, unless the withholding of this information achieves a greater benefit to harm ratio as stated above - then this point is false. Doesn't take into account timing]
3. Anyone’s release of plentiful, objective, and unequivocal evidence of God’s existence to everyone would have a greater benefit-to-harm ratio than the withholding of the same information. (Inference from history of knowledge distribution)
[BL: same answer as in 2. above]
4. Thus, if God did exist, since he would be perfectly moral and all-powerful, he would freely release plentiful, objective, and unequivocal evidence of his own existence to everyone. (Deduction from prior premises)
[BL: Partially true but to this laymen - assumes God must conform to Gary's idea about how this standard is best accomplished and not God's own which defies our understanding (something else that most Christians believe about God that Gary leaves out of his argument) favoring only the moral aspect that he attempts to make God appear unreasonable]
5. However, there is no plentiful, objective, and unequivocal evidence of God’s existence which has been presented to everyone. (Fact)
[BL: Blatantly false - the opposite is true, perhaps not to Gary and the tiny minority of atheist's in the world. (what perhaps 3% of the entire population of the entire planet? )who have chosen to intentionally blind themselves to it and replace the Christians expectations of God with their own standards]
The only invincible thing in all this dialogue is not your argument but the stubborn ignorance displayed by attempting to prop it up as proof.
6. Therefore, God does not exist. (Deduction from prior premises)
[BL: False - (based on selected pick and chose) reasoning of Christians and not the whole picture which points to a different God than Gary is trying to paint into a corner. He stated that he gets this view from what most Christian would believe and forget to include that most Christians (like me)would not support the idea of God that he has forced. See item 4 above reply for that.]
Brad's fourth attempt
Submitted by Gary Whittenberger on December 12, 2016 - 5:58pm
GW: I challenge you to find any error in this argument:
GW: 1. If God did exist, he would be perfectly moral and all-powerful. (By definition)
BL3: I agree
GW3: Excellent! I referred to you as “BR” for “Brad,” but since you are using “BL” I’ll start using that abbreviation also and assume that “L” stands for your last name.
GW: 2. If any person is moral and able, then he freely releases specific information to other persons if the release would have a greater benefit-to-harm ratio than the withholding of the same information. (Derivation from rational morality)
BL3: Partially agree, unless the withholding of this information achieves a greater benefit to harm ratio as stated above - then this point is false. Doesn't take into account timing
GW3: Your “unless” condition is unnecessary since the general rule already takes that into account. Timing is also taken into account since the rule implies “at any time.” Thus, the premise is true.
GW: 3. Anyone's release of plentiful, objective, and unequivocal evidence of God's existence to everyone would have a greater benefit-to-harm ratio than the withholding of the same information. (Inference from history of knowledge distribution)
BL3: same answer as in 2. above
GW3: Then the facts of the case regarding God meet the general rule.
GW: 4. Thus, if God did exist, since he would be perfectly moral and all-powerful, he would freely release plentiful, objective, and unequivocal evidence of his own existence to everyone. (Deduction from prior premises)
BL3: Partially true but to this laymen - assumes God must conform to Gary's idea about how this standard is best accomplished and not God's own which defies our understanding (something else that most Christians believe about God that Gary leaves out of his argument) favoring only the moral aspect that he attempts to make God appear unreasonable
GW3: There are probably many ways in which this could be accomplished, and which way doesn’t matter to my argument. Because God would be all-knowing, he would know what would be the best way for accomplishing the disclosure. All that matters is that the evidence be plentiful, objective, unequivocal, and universal. God would also be perfectly rational and perfectly moral. You have not shown that premise #4 is false.
GW: 5. However, there is no plentiful, objective, and unequivocal evidence of God's existence which has been presented to everyone. (Fact)
BL3: Blatantly false - the opposite is true, perhaps not to Gary and the tiny minority of atheist's in the world. (what perhaps 3% of the entire population of the entire planet? )who have chosen to intentionally blind themselves to it and replace the Christians expectations of God with their own standards]
GW3: No, premise #5 is blatantly true. All the evidence you presented is not objective, not unequivocal, not universal, or some combination of those. And so, it is also not plentiful. If God did exist and he did provide the “right” kind of evidence, nobody could “intentionally blind themselves” to it. That would be impossible because God would make that impossible. So, you have not shown #5 to be false.
BL3: The only invincible thing in all this dialogue is not your argument but the stubborn ignorance displayed by attempting to prop it up as proof.
GW3: If you have studied philosophy, you will know that it is a formal proof. It has true premises, it is logically valid, and therefore it has a true conclusion.
GW: 6. Therefore, God does not exist. (Deduction from prior premises)
BL3: False - (based on selected pick and chose) reasoning of Christians and not the whole picture which points to a different God than Gary is trying to paint into a corner. He stated that he gets this view from what most Christian would believe and forget to include that most Christians (like me)would not support the idea of God that he has forced. See item 4 above reply for that.
GW3: The conclusion is true because the premises are all true and the argument is logically valid. You have not shown any of the premises to be false or the argument to be logically invalid. All Christian beliefs are not relevant to or needed by the argument. The god I have painted into a corner is the god which is accepted by most Jews, Christians, and Muslims. You have failed to state which specific element in my definition of God you disagree with.
- Previous
- Page 1 (current)
- Next
Post Comment
advertisement
