Disappointed in Austrian Economics

[PaulConventionWV]

This is the "is-ought" fallacy. You cannot argue from what is the case to what ought to be the case. If "what is" is the standard that we should use for ethics, then nothing would be ethically wrong, since "what is" is "what ought to be". David Hume pointed this out.


Property cannot be defended by an argument from observation, only axioms. And to deny the axiom of Scripture is to deny the only possible defense of property as ethical.

I am indebted to you 1000 rep! Great post!

[PaulConventionWV]

This talk about religion is leading far away from Austrian economics...

It's all inherently interwoven. You can't have a basis for Austrian econ if you don't have principles and axioms first.

[PaulConventionWV]

Well...

I do not believe in the religious God (including Christian interpretations). I am not an Atheist. There is a higher power.

I equate God with energy - no energy= no life. Therefore, for all intents and purposes, energy is God.

The foundation of energy and the Universe is balance. Balance is mathematics.

When one removes from the energy field of another human being - be it theft, destruction of their property and/or person...you are, whether you realize or not, subtracting from the Universe, energy...GOD.

This applies to bullying, name calling, murder, theft etc.

Recall a time you were put down...something that got to you in particular (because it came from a loved one? because it struck a tender "nerve"?)...IT IS DEFLATING. IT HURTS YOUR SOUL.

Why? You are being sapped of positive ENERGY FLOW within yourself.

There is ABSOLUTELTY NOTHING arbitrary about that.

I think what I just said is very in line with The Golden Rule and The Non Aggression Principle - core components of Christian moral teachings.

It is completely arbitrary and utter rubbish. You can't supply one objective basis for anything you just said. Energy is not God. God created energy, and therefore owns it.

[Seraphim]

Let's get this straight:

You BELIEVE THAT.

It does not make it so. Me not believing also does not make that so.

You BELIEVE. You DO NOT know.

It is completely arbitrary and utter rubbish. You can't supply one objective basis for anything you just said. Energy is not God. God created energy, and therefore owns it.

[PaulConventionWV]

A is A conforms with rationality. Rationality is something I prefer. I do think that rationality is something needed in order to be consistent and taken seriously. That is because consistency is part of being rational. If you aren't consistent, then you aren't rational. A is A.

You are arguing about what rationality is. I agree completely that that is what rationality is. However, this says nothing about whether one should or should not employ rationality, a distinction you either fail to understand or are ignoring.

Tell me, Is it unacceptable for a rock to not employ the standards of logic?



But this is also true of theism.



No, not of course. It's not an axiom. God's "law" is nothing more than his own preferences. You can condemn Mao as evil if you define "evil" as something god dislikes. But that is no different than defining it as something I dislike.



Sadly, I cannot claim it as my own.

"If you aren't consistent, then you aren't rational."

I will get back to this. You say that God's preferences are no different than your own. However, that assumes there is no basis for superiority. If you concede that God is perfect, all-knowing, eternal, and created everything that is in the universe, defined space, time, matter, etc. and is outside of it, then you must also concede that there would be nothing without God. Therefore, since God is the ultimate absolute, He does not need a standard to be compared to. He IS the standard to which all material things are compared. God's will is not the same as your own because God created the Universe. If you concede that God made you, then you must also concede that He defines you and knows everything about you. Therefore, He knows what is BEST for you. Therefore, if you concede that God exists and that God created, then you must also concede to the idea that God is the absolute standard for everything and that there is an 'ought', not just an 'is'.

However, you do not believe that. You believe that there are absolutely no absolutes, which is a demonstrably illogical view in itself. Your reference to rationality assumes that rationality stands on some objective, absolute basis. If there are no absolutes, then rationality itself is subjective. For instance, if you had a goal that could only be achieved by killing people, then it would be rational for you to kill as many as was necessary to achieve that goal. In your view, laws are only damage control. It was perfectly reasonable for the killer/rapist/thief to do what they did as long as they didn't get caught. However, you would 'prefer' that they didn't do that, so really it is just your will against theirs. With a view like this, you can expect crime to go up because there is no basis for self-discipline. If people have a goal of achieving as much self-satisfaction at the expense of others, then why not do something that, to them, is completely rational? You can say they are not really being rational, but that assumes that there is some objective, absolute standard for what is rational. Yet, if you follow an absolute standard for rationality, then what is the basis for taking care of your kids? Aren't they just a burden on you? If you were truly rational, then you would get rid of the kids in any way you could as long as you didn't get caught doing something "illegal." You may say you want to further your gene pool, but of what interest is that to you if it is of no consequence to you once you are dead? If you subscribe to the view that there is no God and there is no absolute law, then you must also believe that your life, and by extension everyone else's, is meaningless. So, by all means, exterminate your kids. Just don't get caught.

Now I am going to get back to the quote I gave from you in the beginning of this post. You say that consistency is a must if you are going to be rational. However, this is based on absolutes. If you believe there is no God and there is only matter, then there are no absolutes. If there are no absolutes, then what governs matter itself? Why is there consistency at all? If you say that there are no absolutes, then there is no reason that all matter, energy, space, time, etc. should follow an absolute law because, by your definition, there are no absolutes. The observation of matter is completely inconsistent with the idea that there are no absolutes. Perhaps you would care to explain why matter felt it was necessary to assemble into an animated being instead of remaining inanimate matter? Perhaps you would care to explain why nothing became something when it was perfectly stable being nothing?

If there are no absolutes, there is no purpose, and if there is no purpose, then there is no basis for consistency in how matter, time, space, etc. act. See, you must assume that you are already an animated, independent being in order to have preference. But how does inanimate matter have a preference? By extension, how can you say that inanimate matter arranged in a certain way to form a brain or a body has a preference? How does a collection of non-preferential material result in the ability to have a preference?

Every day, we see the effects of matter left to itself. It tends to wind down and lose energy. It tends toward disorder. A car left to itself is only known as a car because we have the ability to recognize it as a car. However, if it is left to itself, it will eventually erode and lose its identity as a car. Only intelligence can create this identity, so there is no basis for saying matter left to itself would create this intelligence in the first place in order to propagate that intelligence. There must be an ultimate Creator outside of the effects of matter, space, and time that organized things in the first place because matter left to itself certainly wouldn't. In order for us to have intelligence and the ability to create identity at all requires an original source of this intelligence. If you believe that rationality and preference is all there is, then you must also believe that rationality is based on a metaphysical idea that exists outside of space, time, matter, etc. I am asking, where did these standards that rationality is based on come from if not from the Creator of space, time, matter, etc.?

In your view, everything is subjective. That includes rationality. That means there are no over-arching metaphysical ideas that apply to everyone. Yet, you violate this by acting as if there are some things that do apply to everyone, such as the need to act "rationally" as if there were some ultimate goal toward which rationality would help you move. However, if everything in this world is of no consequence to you, then what is the reason for preference at all or for attempting to achieve goals? They will all be meaningless to you once you die.

Of course, there is a basis for all of this is if you follow the view that God created and God defines. I have a perfectly rational reason to act as if there are rules that apply to everyone because I base it on absolute principles. There is a basis for rationality and for preference that works toward a goal defined by God. If there are no absolutes, however, there is no basis for anyof this. Only God can provide any meaning to existence.

[PaulConventionWV]

Let's get this straight:

You BELIEVE THAT.

It does not make it so. Me not believing also does not make that so.

You BELIEVE. You DO NOT know.

And therefore, it must be subjective. There is no objective basis for claiming that energy is God. Can you supply one? I, however, have an objective basis for claiming that energy is not God because God is all-encompassing. If He knows everything and is eternal, then He cannot be energy because energy is a result of His creation.

[JohnRego]

"If you aren't consistent, then you aren't rational."

I will get back to this. You say that God's preferences are no different than your own. However, that assumes there is no basis for superiority. If you concede that God is perfect

Perfect? according to what standard? His standard? His Preference? God is perfect because he say's he's perfect? Why? Because he's perfect?

all-knowing, eternal, and created everything that is in the universe, defined space, time, matter, etc. and is outside of it, then you must also concede that there would be nothing without God. Therefore, since God is the ultimate absolute, He does not need a standard to be compared to. He IS the standard to which all material things are compared. God's will is not the same as your own because God created the Universe. If you concede that God made you, then you must also concede that He defines you and knows everything about you. Therefore, He knows what is BEST for you.

Best according to what standard? Time preference is a real thing. If I heavily discount the future, then an STD isn't going to affect my preferences. Thus sex with many people is preferable.

Therefore, if you concede that God exists and that God created, then you must also concede to the idea that God is the absolute standard for everything and that there is an 'ought', not just an 'is'.

Try again.

However, you do not believe that. You believe that there are absolutely no absolutes, which is a demonstrably illogical view in itself. Your reference to rationality assumes that rationality stands on some objective, absolute basis. If there are no absolutes, then rationality itself is subjective.

woah woah woah there buddy. I said no such thing. Descriptions can be perfectly valid absolutes. Prescriptions can not. I can describe that 2+2 = 4, but to prescribe 2+2 = 4 means that I'm saying 2+2 should = 4. This is not the case. For example it would be nice for me on my 1st grade test if 2+2 = 5, because that's what I wrote, and I would like a good grade. So I would prescribe that 2+2 = 5 because I want a good grade. However my friend wrote 4, and so he would prescribe that 2+2=4 (unless of course, he wanted a bad grade). Fortunately for him, his matched the correct description, and got marked correct by the teacher. So we have only one correct descriptions, but two equally valid prescriptions.

For instance, if you had a goal that could only be achieved by killing people, then it would be rational for you to kill as many as was necessary to achieve that goal. In your view, laws are only damage control. It was perfectly reasonable for the killer/rapist/thief to do what they did as long as they didn't get caught. However, you would 'prefer' that they didn't do that, so really it is just your will against theirs. With a view like this, you can expect crime to go up because there is no basis for self-discipline. If people have a goal of achieving as much self-satisfaction at the expense of others, then why not do something that, to them, is completely rational? You can say they are not really being rational, but that assumes that there is some objective, absolute standard for what is rational. Yet, if you follow an absolute standard for rationality, then what is the basis for taking care of your kids? Aren't they just a burden on you? If you were truly rational, then you would get rid of the kids in any way you could as long as you didn't get caught doing something "illegal." You may say you want to further your gene pool, but of what interest is that to you if it is of no consequence to you once you are dead? If you subscribe to the view that there is no God and there is no absolute law, then you must also believe that your life, and by extension everyone else's, is meaningless. So, by all means, exterminate your kids. Just don't get caught.

Even if the consequences you think would occur because of my world view were probable (something I dispute, but is tangential to this line of argument) It would not change anything about the truth of it, because those things you describe are trying to persuade the argument by using the concept of good and bad, the very thing you are trying to prove. But I think you know this, and yet decided to write this paragraph any way.

Now I am going to get back to the quote I gave from you in the beginning of this post. You say that consistency is a must if you are going to be rational. However, this is based on absolutes. If you believe there is no God and there is only matter, then there are no absolutes. If there are no absolutes, then what governs matter itself? Why is there consistency at all? If you say that there are no absolutes, then there is no reason that all matter, energy, space, time, etc. should follow an absolute law because, by your definition, there are no absolutes. The observation of matter is completely inconsistent with the idea that there are no absolutes. Perhaps you would care to explain why matter felt it was necessary to assemble into an animated being instead of remaining inanimate matter? Perhaps you would care to explain why nothing became something when it was perfectly stable being nothing?

If there are no absolutes, there is no purpose, and if there is no purpose, then there is no basis for consistency in how matter, time, space, etc. act. See, you must assume that you are already an animated, independent being in order to have preference. But how does inanimate matter have a preference? By extension, how can you say that inanimate matter arranged in a certain way to form a brain or a body has a preference? How does a collection of non-preferential material result in the ability to have a preference?

I didn't deny absolutes as explained above, so this entire section is worthless

Every day, we see the effects of matter left to itself. It tends to wind down and lose energy. It tends toward disorder. A car left to itself is only known as a car because we have the ability to recognize it as a car. However, if it is left to itself, it will eventually erode and lose its identity as a car. Only intelligence can create this identity, so there is no basis for saying matter left to itself would create this intelligence in the first place in order to propagate that intelligence. There must be an ultimate Creator outside of the effects of matter, space, and time that organized things in the first place because matter left to itself certainly wouldn't. In order for us to have intelligence and the ability to create identity at all requires an original source of this intelligence. If you believe that rationality and preference is all there is, then you must also believe that rationality is based on a metaphysical idea that exists outside of space, time, matter, etc. I am asking, where did these standards that rationality is based on come from if not from the Creator of space, time, matter, etc.?

This is a theistic argument, arguing for the existence of god, and is thus outside the scope of this argument. If you would like a greater discussion of why I reject this, I'm Sam Armstrong over at Mises, and this thread has many of my replies to it

In your view, everything is subjective. That includes rationality. That means there are no over-arching metaphysical ideas that apply to everyone. Yet, you violate this by acting as if there are some things that do apply to everyone, such as the need to act "rationally" as if there were some ultimate goal toward which rationality would help you move. However, if everything in this world is of no consequence to you, then what is the reason for preference at all or for attempting to achieve goals? They will all be meaningless to you once you die.

Of course, there is a basis for all of this is if you follow the view that God created and God defines. I have a perfectly rational reason to act as if there are rules that apply to everyone because I base it on absolute principles. There is a basis for rationality and for preference that works toward a goal defined by God. If there are no absolutes, however, there is no basis for anyof this. Only God can provide any meaning to existence.

Again there is a distinction between descriptive and prescriptive. I do not deny objective description, I only deny objective prescription.

[Revolution9]

Great post. This is definitely one of the problems the libertarian atheists run in to when they deify and worship their own reason.

If man is essentially good, as Ayn Rand would contend, then why would there be a need for legal restraint? It is completely contradictory to on the one hand affirm man's goodness, and on the other hand, affirm the need for legal restraints on the actions of men.

I agree with your contention that the Divine Right of private property is ecclesiastical and sacred and of the tenets of Christianity. Since all things in The Universe are created by The Divine Creator we have these items, breath, blood, body, land as an extension of those and in trust to us from The Divine Creator...the original Private Property owner. I would however suggest that there is a counterfeit amongst men we call psychopaths. Only legal restraint is capable of subduing the destructive actions of these types on the community of private property owners. This is not a sleight against the inherent goodness of Man, but rather it seems a trojan horse sent in by The Enemy. Counterfeiting is The Enemy's gambit.

Rev9

[Revolution9]

To what standard is god being measured to that s/he completely fulfills?

The self embedding arithmetical and geometrical irrational number Phi. From the infinitely large to the infinitesimally small it is Unitarian. Change this value and self embedding no longer occurs and destruction takes place.

HTH
Rev9

[PaulConventionWV]

Perfect? according to what standard? His standard? His Preference? God is perfect because he say's he's perfect? Why? Because he's perfect?



Best according to what standard? Time preference is a real thing. If I heavily discount the future, then an STD isn't going to affect my preferences. Thus sex with many people is preferable.



Try again.



woah woah woah there buddy. I said no such thing. Descriptions can be perfectly valid absolutes. Prescriptions can not. I can describe that 2+2 = 4, but to prescribe 2+2 = 4 means that I'm saying 2+2 should = 4. This is not the case. For example it would be nice for me on my 1st grade test if 2+2 = 5, because that's what I wrote, and I would like a good grade. So I would prescribe that 2+2 = 5 because I want a good grade. However my friend wrote 4, and so he would prescribe that 2+2=4 (unless of course, he wanted a bad grade). Fortunately for him, his matched the correct description, and got marked correct by the teacher. So we have only one correct descriptions, but two equally valid prescriptions.



Even if the consequences you think would occur because of my world view were probable (something I dispute, but is tangential to this line of argument) It would not change anything about the truth of it, because those things you describe are trying to persuade the argument by using the concept of good and bad, the very thing you are trying to prove. But I think you know this, and yet decided to write this paragraph any way.



I didn't deny absolutes as explained above, so this entire section is worthless



This is a theistic argument, arguing for the existence of god, and is thus outside the scope of this argument.



Again there is a distinction between descriptive and prescriptive. I do not deny objective description, I only deny objective prescription.

But if you believe in absolutes, then you believe there are absolute standards to which everything is compared. However, you deny that God could be an absolute in Himself... why? Furthermore, if you believe in absolutes, then I am asking you, where did those absolutes come from? Who prescribed them as absolute? Is there a source of their absolution, such as, oh, I don't know, God? What I'm getting at is, where do the absolutes come from if there is no Creator and no absolute authority that defines them? Indeed, to deny this is to deny reality itself. You think you have preference, but you don't ask how inanimate matter can result in that preference.

Also, the argument for the existence of God is very relevant. If there are absolute moral standards, it would be preferential for you to find out about them for two reasons.

1) you will be held accountable to them by an absolute and all-powerful authority. You failed to refute my statement about God knowing what is best for you. I told you He IS the standard by definition, and you said you believe in absolute standards, so why not God?
2) It is bound to affect you and the society you live in. If people truly believe that there are no absolute moral standards and they will never be held accountable, crime will likely go up. You found me out on that paragraph about killing your kids, but seem completely unphased by the implications of a belief in nothing. You are immune to morality. This kind of stuff has led to people like Hitler, Stalin, Mao who found it preferential and rational to exterminate a whole bunch of people for their cause.

However, where did it get them in the end, and who is to say it was necessarily better than if they had followed your path? If you truly believe there is nothing beyond death, then there is no purpose for life and everything you do in it is inconsequential.

You presume your own sentience and awareness of yourself, but it never occurred to you to ask why there are absolute laws for matter? If something came out of nothing, then what is the basis for consistency in nature and laws that govern it? Why are we here? Do you mean to tell me that matter itself conceived of a purpose in creating all this?

If you concede that there are metaphysical absolute rules, then you must also concede that these things are immaterial. That is inconsistent with your view that matter is all there is. If matter is all there is, then why are there natural laws? Why do things in nature always behave the same way?

[showpan]

Wow, I was going to debunk some of the OP statements but this thread turned into GOD...lol

[bb_dg]

Wow, I was going to debunk some of the OP statements but this thread turned into GOD...lol

Yeah, I tried debunking about 8 pages in, but the off-topic debates just kept piling on. Are there moderators on this forum? I guess the OP gave up on this thread.

[Sola_Fide]

Yeah, I tried debunking about 8 pages in, but the off-topic debates just kept piling on. Are there moderators on this forum? I guess the OP gave up on this thread.

The OP was a troll anyway. This thread turned out great in my opinion.

[JohnRego]

But if you believe in absolutes, then you believe there are absolute standards to which everything is compared. However, you deny that God could be an absolute in Himself... why? Furthermore, if you believe in absolutes, then I am asking you, where did those absolutes come from? Who prescribed them as absolute? Is there a source of their absolution, such as, oh, I don't know, God? What I'm getting at is, where do the absolutes come from if there is no Creator and no absolute authority that defines them? Indeed, to deny this is to deny reality itself. You think you have preference, but you don't ask how inanimate matter can result in that preference.

Reason and logic are rules that can be derived using the human mind. They don't come from god in the immediate (though if it comes through the rules of the universe, which in turn was created by god, fine. But that's different from revealed thought). They come from self reflection, thought, and possibly observation (depending on if you think all thought is developed by observation or is something that comes about through the brain development). They have been derived multiple times independently in different cultures.

And no, believing in some absolutes does not logically imply there are absolute for every aspect of life. Again, descriptive vs prescriptive. A prescription depends on an if. If you like chocolate, you should choose chocolate ice cream. Is liking chocolate and absolute? No it is not. It's a preference, and everybody has different preferences. One does not prescribe absolutes into being, they simply are. A is A.

Because there is no such thing as an absolute if, there is no such thing as an absolute prescription. All morals are prescriptions. Ergo, all morals are not absolutes.

Also, the argument for the existence of God is very relevant. If there are absolute moral standards, it would be preferential for you to find out about them for two reasons.

1) you will be held accountable to them by an absolute and all-powerful authority. You failed to refute my statement about God knowing what is best for you. I told you He IS the standard by definition, and you said you believe in absolute standards, so why not God?
2) It is bound to affect you and the society you live in. If people truly believe that there are no absolute moral standards and they will never be held accountable, crime will likely go up. You found me out on that paragraph about killing your kids, but seem completely unphased by the implications of a belief in nothing. You are immune to morality. This kind of stuff has led to people like Hitler, Stalin, Mao who found it preferential and rational to exterminate a whole bunch of people for their cause.

I am conceding god for this argument and still backing up my position that there is no absolute morality. Ergo, you don't need to prove him for this argument.

However, where did it get them in the end, and who is to say it was necessarily better than if they had followed your path? If you truly believe there is nothing beyond death, then there is no purpose for life and everything you do in it is inconsequential.

Again, Time preference is a real thing. If you heavily discount the future, then all that matters to you is the present, or near future. This again is a preference. This is conceding heaven. Stop arguing about the after life. I'm giving it to you.

You presume your own sentience and awareness of yourself, but it never occurred to you to ask why there are absolute laws for matter? If something came out of nothing, then what is the basis for consistency in nature and laws that govern it? Why are we here? Do you mean to tell me that matter itself conceived of a purpose in creating all this?

If you concede that there are metaphysical absolute rules, then you must also concede that these things are immaterial. That is inconsistent with your view that matter is all there is. If matter is all there is, then why are there natural laws? Why do things in nature always behave the same way?

I don't presume it, It's evident by the fact that I even could presume it. Also I don't necessarily think matter was created at all. Again this is outside of the scope of this argument. Go to that thread I linked if you want my full position on this matter (and yes it did occur to me as evident in that thread).

[PaulConventionWV]

Reason and logic are rules that can be derived using the human mind. They don't come from god in the immediate (though if it comes through the rules of the universe, which in turn was created by god, fine. But that's different from revealed thought). They come from self reflection, thought, and possibly observation (depending on if you think all thought is developed by observation or is something that comes about through the brain development). They have been derived multiple times independently in different cultures.

The problem is that you must first assume the human mind. But the mind is immaterial right? If it can conceive of such rules that are inherent in all of the universe, then doesn't that imply that those rules are immaterial and exist beyond the human mind? Logic does not originate in the human mind. Once again, I asked you to tell me how matter itself can develop into something with purpose and preference if not for innate laws that exist outside of the mind?

And no, believing in some absolutes does not logically imply there are absolute for every aspect of life. Again, descriptive vs prescriptive. A prescription depends on an if. If you like chocolate, you should choose chocolate ice cream. Is liking chocolate and absolute? No it is not. It's a preference, and everybody has different preferences. One does not prescribe absolutes into being, they simply are. A is A.

I never said it implied that. However, you don't seem to recognize what absolutes are. They are inherently prescriptive because you don't have to believe in them to follow them. There are natural laws which all matter obeys. Why? There are also rational standards that exist outside of the human mind to which all human contrivances are compared. They are either logical or illogical, but where does logic come from? Isn't it immaterial and therefore prescriptive? You are assuming that every choice originates from the human mind and is, therefore, descriptive before it is prescriptive, but why start with the human mind? Where did it get its descriptive and prescriptive power? There had to be something there before that.

Because there is no such thing as an absolute if, there is no such thing as an absolute prescription.

Here is the core of your argument. You say you admit there are absolutes, so how does it make logical sense for you to deny absolute prescription?

I am conceding god for this argument and still backing up my position that there is no absolute morality. Ergo, you don't need to prove him for this argument.

But your statement is illogical. If you admit there are absolutes, then why couldn't God be an absolute in Himself? God doesn't have to be perfect compared to any standard because HE IS ALL THERE IS. Without Him, there is nothing. Therefore, he IS the standard for everything.

Again, Time preference is a real thing. If you heavily discount the future, then all that matters to you is the present, or near future. This again is a preference. This is conceding heaven. Stop arguing about the after life. I'm giving it to you.

If you are "giving me" the afterlife, then you have every reason to be concerned about it. I don't see how you don't get this. If everyone has an afterlife, then it is no longer a preference whether you want to think about it because it will inevitably affect you. Also, I never said anything about heaven, as if there were a material place to contain God. God is omnipresent. In order to be an absolute, He must be omnipresent and omnipotent. If you concede those things, then you must concede that He IS the absolute standard to which all things are compared.

I don't presume it, It's evident by the fact that I even could presume it. Also I don't necessarily think matter was created at all. Again this is outside of the scope of this argument. Go to that thread I linked if you want my full position on this matter (and yes it did occur to me as evident in that thread).

You are assuming that you are here, so it must have happened. What if it happened in the way I describe rather than by some uknown process that you simply assume to have happened for you to have those abilities? The problem is that you are stuck in your own way of thinking and so you won't even consider anything outside of the material world.

Those are good questions. Perhpas you should work to find those out instead of just assuming God did it.

Your position is just as illogical as mine would be because you automaticall assume that the material world is all there is. You don't even ask questions like those because you already assume the fact that matter is all there is. However, you told me it was evident that your mind must have originated in such a way because it is there, which is illogical. I am telling you it is evident that, if there are absolute laws, then there must be a purpose to those laws.

I can at least derive from this argument that you are admitting your views are illogical, but you prefer to believe them anyway. That's more than the vast majority of atheists will admit. The thing is, I look for truth and go where the evidence leads me. By logical deduction, which I know exists because it is evident, I can deduce that there must be a purpose if there is order in nature. You don't even ask these questions because you assume even the illogical is logical. I guess if you do that, it would be pretty easy to say something came out of nothing and developed order in an exponential fashion for no particular reason than for absolute rules of logic to exist. Those views don't make sense, but again, they don't have to in your view. In that case, it would be illogical for me to continue this discussion and instead talk to people who are willing to listen to logic and and are privvy to the idea that there is something outside of the material universe.

[ClayTrainor]

Wow, I was going to debunk some of the OP statements but this thread turned into GOD...lol

Without faith in an all-knowing, all-powerful being who exists outside of time and space, how can one possibly claim to understand economics?

[robert68]

robert68's previous post:
From your link:
...
Apparently, the restoration of property rights can only come from "Christian" tyranny.

Also, nowhere in his article did I come across a definition of a just acquisition of property, and a definition of the just defense of property.

"Much is said by Classical Libertarians and by Ayn Rand herself about the American Revolution and its great principle of the rights to Life, Liberty, and Property. And yet, one will be pressed hard to find a justification of that belief on any other basis but Christianity. Why would Property be equal in value as a right to Life, if we accept natural law as our foundation? After all, man was man long before he had any property, if one accepts the evolutionist ideas of the believers in natural law. It is only when we lay the Creation account as our foundation that we can add Property to Life as an unalienable right. And therefore, the greatest victory for property rights in the history of mankind—the American Revolution—cannot be understood without its Christian foundations."

A property right is just the right to control a scarce resource in a given area; and every political theory supports a variation of that. What distinguishes libertarianism is the rule that the scarce resource cannot be acquired and/or protected through the initiation of force (i.e. aggression). One has a property right in their body the same way, because they acquired possession of it (before birth) without the initiation of force; a “right to life” is not needed for a right to control ones body, and it can be used to justify aggression.

In certain contexts, when this is understood with an audience, the term property right might be casually identified with libertarianism, but property rights are not what define libertarianism – principled opposition to the initiation of force is – and without that, property rights can easily be, and regularly are, a justification for aggression.

Do you identify yourself with the non-aggression principled?

[Sola_Fide]

A property right is just the right to control a scarce resource in a given area; and every political theory supports a variation of that. What distinguishes libertarianism is the rule that the scarce resource cannot be acquired and/or protected through the initiation of force (i.e. aggression). One has a property right in their body the same way, because they acquired possession of it (before birth) without the initiation of force; a “right to life” is not needed for a right to control ones body.

In certain contexts, when this is understood with an audience, the term property right might be casually identified with libertarianism, but property rights are not what define libertarianism – principled opposition to the initiation of force is – and without that, property rights can easily be, and regularly are, a justification for aggression.

Do you identify yourself with the non-aggression principled?

I don't endorse the non-aggression principle on its own terms and I don't even endorse the Lockean idea of unalienable rights like the article portrays.



There is no natural law:

The Bible teaches that the distinction between right and wrong depends entirely upon the commands of God. There is no natural law that makes actions right or wrong, and matters of right and wrong certainly cannot be decided by majority vote. In the words of the Westminster Shorter Catechism, "sin is any want of conformity to or transgression of the law of God." Were there no law of God, there would be no right or wrong. conformity to or transgression of the law of God."

This may be seen very clearly in God's command to Adam not to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Only the command of God made eating the fruit sin. It may also be seen in God's command to Abraham to sacrifice Isaac. God's command alone made the sacrifice right, and Abraham hastened to obey.

Strange as it may sound to modern ears used to hearing so much about the right to life, the right to health, and the right to choose, the Bible says that natural rights and wrongs do not exist: Only God's commands make some things right and other things wrong. In the Old Testament, it was a sin for the Jews to eat pork. Today, we can all enjoy bacon and eggs for breakfast. What makes killing a human being and eating pork right or wrong is not some quality inherent in men and pigs, but merely the divine command itself.

Both the ideas of unalienable rights and the non-aggression principle are logically inconsistent:

If we had rights because we are men--if our rights were natural and inalienable-- then God himself would have to respect them. But God is sovereign. He is free to do with his creatures as he sees fit. So we do not have natural rights. That is good, for natural and inalienable rights are logically incompatible with punishment of any sort. Fines, for example, violate the inalienable right to property. Imprisonment violates the inalienable right to liberty. Execution violates the inalienable right to life. The natural right theory is logically incoherent at its foundation. Natural rights are logically incompatible with justice.

The Biblical idea is not natural rights, but imputed rights. Only imputed rights, not intrinsic rights--natural and inalienable rights--are compatible with liberty and justice. And those rights are imputed by God. All attempts to base ethics on some foundation other than the Bible fail.

Natural law is a failure, because "oughts" cannot be derived from "ises." In more formal language, the conclusion of an argument can contain no terms that are not found in its premises. Natural lawyers, who begin their arguments with statements about man and the universe, statements in the indicative mood, cannot end their arguments with statements in the imperative mood.

So I believe in imputed rights, not natural rights. I believe in self-stewardship, not self-ownership. I reject aggression because theft and murder are contrary to the commands of God, not because rights are inherent or because of the inconsistent "principle of non-aggression". My view is God-centered, not man-centered.

[ClayTrainor]

I believe in self-stewardship, not self-ownership.

What is the fundamental difference between these 2 ideas?

[JohnRego]

The problem is that you must first assume the human mind. But the mind is immaterial right? If it can conceive of such rules that are inherent in all of the universe, then doesn't that imply that those rules are immaterial and exist beyond the human mind? Logic does not originate in the human mind. Once again, I asked you to tell me how matter itself can develop into something with purpose and preference if not for innate laws that exist outside of the mind?

I didn't say that logic originates from the human mind, I said they could be derived using the human mind. And I don't have to assume a human mind. I think therefore I am is not an assumption. And I didn't deny the laws outside of the mind. My preference for reason has absolutely nothing to do with how reason is constructed.

I never said it implied that. However, you don't seem to recognize what absolutes are. They are inherently prescriptive because you don't have to believe in them to follow them. There are natural laws which all matter obeys. Why? There are also rational standards that exist outside of the human mind to which all human contrivances are compared. They are either logical or illogical, but where does logic come from? Isn't it immaterial and therefore prescriptive? You are assuming that every choice originates from the human mind and is, therefore, descriptive before it is prescriptive, but why start with the human mind? Where did it get its descriptive and prescriptive power? There had to be something there before that.

I think this stems from a misunderstanding of prescription. A physical law is not a prescription, it is a description of what will happen, or a list of characteristics. There is no if and should. Dense objects fall to the ground. It is not "dense objects should fall to the ground". Logic is descriptive. Both descriptions and prescriptions are immaterial, as they are ideas. So no, the fact that it's immaterial does not mean it's prescriptive.

Prescriptions depend on descriptions, but the prescription has the presumption of a goal. If the goal is not there, then the prescription is no longer valid.

For example "If you want to taste beer, you should pour beer on your foot". We can compare this to the description "taste is located in the mouth, not the foot" and then say that prescription is wrong if the description is correct. But by changing the If (the goal), we can make it true e.g. "If you want a sticky foot, you should pour beer on your foot". A description's truth value depends on its accuracy. A prescription's truth value is dependent on the its accuracy and the goal, and putting in place a god with the absolute best intentions, who is all knowing and all powerful doesn't change that logic.

Here is the core of your argument. You say you admit there are absolutes, so how does it make logical sense for you to deny absolute prescription?

Because prescriptions are not absolutes. An absolute conditional is a contradiction.

But your statement is illogical. If you admit there are absolutes, then why couldn't God be an absolute in Himself? God doesn't have to be perfect compared to any standard because HE IS ALL THERE IS. Without Him, there is nothing. Therefore, he IS the standard for everything.

Then saying God is perfect has no meaning because he is the standard. All you are saying is God is. So again if you define god as good, then yes god is good. Then to be good, is to be like god. This says nothing about ethics.

If you are "giving me" the afterlife, then you have every reason to be concerned about it. I don't see how you don't get this. If everyone has an afterlife, then it is no longer a preference whether you want to think about it because it will inevitably affect you. Also, I never said anything about heaven, as if there were a material place to contain God. God is omnipresent. In order to be an absolute, He must be omnipresent and omnipotent. If you concede those things, then you must concede that He IS the absolute standard to which all things are compared.

Seriously, Google "Time Preference" before you say anything else on this subject.

As for the next part of your post, I'm ignoring it and telling you once more that I'm not arguing about creation/god, nor am I going to.

I can at least derive from this argument that you are admitting your views are illogical, but you prefer to believe them anyway. That's more than the vast majority of atheists will admit. The thing is, I look for truth and go where the evidence leads me. By logical deduction, which I know exists because it is evident, I can deduce that there must be a purpose if there is order in nature. You don't even ask these questions because you assume even the illogical is logical. I guess if you do that, it would be pretty easy to say something came out of nothing and developed order in an exponential fashion for no particular reason than for absolute rules of logic to exist. Those views don't make sense, but again, they don't have to in your view. In that case, it would be illogical for me to continue this discussion and instead talk to people who are willing to listen to logic and and are privvy to the idea that there is something outside of the material universe.

Wrong. My argument about preference for reason has nothing to do with myself not preferring reason, only that others may not prefer reason. That in no way concedes that I think my views are illogical. You are conflating preference to equal reality. I've stated many times that preference does not equate to reality. In fact, that's what the entire argument is about.

[robert68]

I don't endorse the non-aggression principle on its own terms and I don't even endorse the Lockean idea of unalienable rights like the article portrays.


There is no natural law:



Both the ideas of unalienable rights and the non-aggression principle are logically inconsistent:



So I believe in imputed rights, not natural rights. I believe in self-stewardship, not self-ownership. I reject aggression because theft and murder are contrary to the commands of God, not because rights are inherent or because of the inconsistent "principle of non-aggression". My view is God-centered, not man-centered.

Since religious folks like yourself in this forum sometimes put up quotes of Ron Paul as support of your arguments, I thought I’d do the same here, even though I think he may have suggested different than what he says in this quote, on certain occasions. From Liberty Defined on page 316:

Religious interpretations of God's desires are subjective and can never be settled through reason, no matter how logical some would like to make the debate.

[Sola_Fide]

Since religious folks like yourself in this forum sometimes put up quotes of Ron Paul as support of your arguments, I thought I’d do the same here, even though I think he may have suggested different than what he says in this quote, on certain occasions. From Liberty Defined on page 316:

Meh.

I don't expect the vast majority of people, including politicians, to have deeply thought out epistemologies...so I give Ron slack.

Furthermore, I don't have to agree with everything a politician believes as long as he defends liberty. I would vote for an atheist if he would defend liberty.

------------

EDIT: I just read the page from which you quoted and Ron said that in regards to the territorial fighting between Jews and Muslims.

So now I guess I wonder why you even quoted it, since it has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

[robert68]

Meh.

I don't expect the vast majority of people, including politicians, to have deeply thought out epistemologies...so I give Ron slack.

Furthermore, I don't have to agree with everything a politician believes as long as he defends liberty. I would vote for an atheist if he would defend liberty.

I’ve seen some religious folks in this forum say differently, so I’m surprised to hear that.

EDIT: I just read the page from which you quoted and Ron said that in regards to the territorial fighting between Jews and Muslims.

So now I guess I wonder why you even quoted it, since it has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

The quote wasn't qualified to fighting between Jews and Muslims, and was clear and concise. You just don't like its meaning.

[Sola_Fide]

This thread is awesome. So many good concepts debated here...

[Seraphim]

Meh.

I don't expect the vast majority of people, including politicians, to have deeply thought out epistemologies...so I give Ron slack.

Furthermore, I don't have to agree with everything a politician believes as long as he defends liberty. I would vote for an atheist if he would defend liberty.
------------

EDIT: I just read the page from which you quoted and Ron said that in regards to the territorial fighting between Jews and Muslims.

So now I guess I wonder why you even quoted it, since it has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

Z'omg - +rep since I never thought that would be the case.

[Sola_Fide]

Z'omg - +rep since I never thought that would be the case.

Well, yeah. Obviously it is not the ideal scenario....its certainly not the scenario the early Americans envisioned, because back then, it was the Christians who jealously defended liberty.

But yeah, if an atheist has shown that he has a track record of defending liberty, of course I would support him. Chuck Baldwin has said the same thing.