Originally posted by ivanhoeOK, Ivanhoe, that is a good catch; you are right we cannot actually see "Natural Law" and its existence must be ascertained by our observations of physical reality. I would still point out that cultures and peoples in many places seem to have a basic core set of moral values. I would postulate that these values are consistent with our existence as social creatures and are conducive to orderly society. You may respond, and I concede that I cannot disprove, that we are like that because God made us that way. But that still requires the theist to present evidence that God actually exists doesn't it? From my point of view, I remain unconvinced though willing to examine any evidence presented.
Maybe the Natural Law is a description of the relation as it should be between God and human beings, between the Father and His children .....
Marauder: "In short, we see in our lives and in our actions the manifestions of the Natural Law, but we do not see a God."
That remains to be seen. You might just as well claim that you do not see the Natural Law.
Originally posted by no1marauderAn ultimate authority on discerning between right and wrong. Sure. I understand that from your perspective you won't need one, but as a Christian I do.
I am merely saying that the fact that Men can find ways to circumvent physical laws does not mean that they do not exist. Why should the fact that men can disobey Natural Law mean it doesn't exist?
Why is one necessary? It is sufficient that the Natural Law exists, and that Men in the vast majority of cases adhere to it. After that, ...[text shortened]... about the content of the Natural Law and if and how it should be enforced, not its existence.
Originally posted by no1marauderI am merely saying that the fact that Men can find ways to circumvent physical laws does not mean that they do not exist.
I am merely saying that the fact that Men can find ways to circumvent physical laws does not mean that they do not exist. Why should the fact that men can disobey Natural Law mean it doesn't exist?
Why is one necessary? It is sufficient that the Natural Law exists, and that Men in the vast majority of cases adhere to it. After that, ...[text shortened]... about the content of the Natural Law and if and how it should be enforced, not its existence.
Applying the force of gravity to wings instead of your feet is not in any way circumventing physical laws. The law of gravity does not say that 'without the ground under your feet you will die'. It simply draws two things together in accordance with their mass and relative distances. It continues to work on the hang glider.
Why should the fact that men can disobey Natural Law mean it doesn't exist?
It certainly does exist. That's why we feel guilt, when we break it.
Originally posted by HalitoseYes, christian ethics and secular ethics are different. Once again I say, "What of it?"
As I stated earlier in the thread: the intrinsic difference between Christian (for the lack of a better word) ethics and Speculative ethics.
Since this thread has hopelessly degenerated into an ill defined morass of pointless observations, I'm going to ask you to restate your point to all of this. If you have one, that is.
Originally posted by chinking58I disagree that the existence of a Natural Law upholds the idea of a God. Please don't bring evolution into it; that discussion is held in many places in this forum and is always pointless. Did you ever have a dog or cat or other pet? Did they act identical? Was one more aggressive or more mischeivious or affectionate than another? The fact that animals (and Man is an animal) have individual differences does not mean that their basic natures are different.
I agree that all humans everywhere have always held the same basic 'laws' to be important. This is evidence of commonality. I suppose if we all obeyed these laws as we do the physical laws, that could demonstrate merely a common evolutionary ancestor.
We HAVE the law EVERY DAY. But we don't follow it every day.
The fact that we don't always ...[text shortened]... I addressed the difference in the laws in a post above No. 1. What do you think of those ideas?
I would appreciate it if you would stop proselytizing in your posts; if you continue to do so I will stop responding to them. I am trying to have a rational discussion, there is no need to preach at me. If your points convince me then there is no need of preaching and if they do not it is useless.
Halitose gave an example where he said if I jump off a cliff I will fall; I merely showed that human beings can avoid that and thus skirt the consequences of the laws of gravity. Please read my posts more carefully; the point is not that there is no law of gravity, the point is that a seeming violation of the law of gravity does not invalidate it as a general law. Neither does a violation of the Natural Law; Man may overcome his basic nature and do things that violate the Natural Law, but it still exists.
Originally posted by HalitoseThat is your choice, but please don't state that Natural Law is a product of human reason as it is not. It either: A) Exists or B) Doesn't. People who believe B would not be consciously constrained by Natural Law (though in reality they still would be) though an atheist or agnostic would probably have some other philosophical theory that he adhered that consciously constrained his behavior. If A Natural Law is a product of the way Man is and then you can debate whether Man is the way he is because God (or something) made him that way or just because that's how it turned out, but your original premise was wrong.
An ultimate authority on discerning between right and wrong. Sure. I understand that from your perspective you won't need one, but as a Christian I do.
Originally posted by no1marauder
That is your choice, but please don't state that Natural Law is a product of human reason as it is not. It either: A) Exists or B) Doesn't. People who believe B would not be consciously constrained by Natural Law (though in reality they still would be) though an atheist or agnostic would probably have some other philosophical theory that he adhe ...[text shortened]... de him that way or just because that's how it turned out, but your original premise was wrong.
The interpretation of Natural Law is a product of human reason.
Originally posted by rwingettOkay. Here's my point. The Natural Law is just that. We might have many interpretations of it. Without a higher authority, there is no way of enforcing it.
Yes, christian ethics and secular ethics are different. Once again I say, "What of it?"
Since this thread has hopelessly degenerated into an ill defined morass of pointless observations, I'm going to ask you to restate your point to all of this. If you have one, that is.
Originally posted by HalitoseSocial Contract Theory says we join into societies and consent to authorities that are designed to protect our fundamental, natural rights. Whether you wish to define society as a "higher authority" or not, in reality Men, through their societies, do enforce the Natural Law every single day.
Okay. Here's my point. The Natural Law is just that. We might have many interpretations of it. Without a higher authority, there is no way of enforcing it.
Originally posted by chinking58And your claim is that since you don't believe in it, then they shouldn't?
b]come, come now chinking. i think you know exactly what i was saying. the point is that the bible will continue to persist and withstand as long as there are close-minded christians who blindly follow it without stopping to even question it's authority.
So.......people who believe the Bible is God's word will keep on believing it. And ...[text shortened]... , it would have been overwhelmed long ago.[/b]
don't be so sure.[/b][/b]What does this mean?[/b]
not at all. my claim is that you have no demonstrable evidence for your beliefs; as such, they are arbitrary, and you have no justification for asserting that they constitute knowledge.
Why assume that our reasons for accepting the Bible's authority are so weak?
i don't assume they are weak. they are weak. i know firsthand just how weak they are.
I thought your point from page one was that we are withstanding attacks. And that we did so by having no defenses........
i was merely satirizing the way in which fundies perceive the bible's ability to 'withstand attacks'.
Can someone explain this point to me?.
satire...it's satire.
Whoa! You are not even up to the idea that God is likely? If you can't look outside the window or inside your own life long enough to admit that God is 'likely', then I don't know about proving something deliberately made uprovable to you.
no. i have not seen evidence that god's existence is likely, but i am not sure we are using the same definition of 'likely'. if i thought that his existence was likely, then i would adopt belief in him and argue for theism from whatever pool of evidence demonstrates said likeliness. his existence is not 'unprovable' to me. quite the contrary. go ahead and demonstrate his existence...my ears are open.
Do you really think such a claim (referring to invisible elves) 'may also be true'? This is a reality check.
of course. as i stated before, your belief in god is no more justified than the belief in the magical elvish. they are both supernatural entities, and there is no compelling evidence for either one that i have seen. epistemically, i see little difference between your belief in god and belief in the elvish.
We are both, as you say, waving our beliefs around, so what real offense can my doing so be to you?
my belief is that you may be right or you may be wrong. does this offend you? on the other hand, i do find your assertions that you are definitely right irritating since you blatantly cannot defend them.
i'm done with this thread; i have to be more discriminating. fundies just don't understand that circular reasoning is not persuasive, and i am inclined to think they never will.
Originally posted by no1marauderI agree with you, but humour me a little here.
Social Contract Theory says we join into societies and consent to authorities that are designed to protect our fundamental, natural rights. Whether you wish to define society as a "higher authority" or not, in reality Men, through their societies, do enforce the Natural Law every single day.
I didn't sign no contract to say that I consent to any authority. Surely it is my individual right to do what I like? On what grounds to men enforce Natural Law on others?
Originally posted by HalitoseTo protect the fundamental rights of others. I think it was Oliver Wendell Holmes who said: "The right to swing your arms ends at the other person's nose."
I agree with you, but humour me a little here.
I didn't sign no contract to say that I consent to any authority. Surely it is my individual right to do what I like? On what grounds to men enforce Natural Law on others?
Of course, we both know that ALL present governments enforce laws that go far beyond simply protecting natural, fundamental rights but a Natural Law theorist would assert that such laws are invalid, need not be obeyed and a government that enforces them is a tyranny.