Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 31 to 50 of 50

Thread: The Consequences of Darwinism

  1. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    By my definition of "God", his existence is self evident.

    QED.



    In such a case, it might not be rational. But that is not the case for me. What is "God" for me, may be something else to you and others.

    As you might now see, words are generally very tricky affairs. Language is all at once divine and devilish. Its power is enormous. Our power to precisely control it, mostly very limited, largely due to our bad habits and the general circumstance of linguistic degradation through those habits. But that can be changed at any time, given the will.

    As my aunt Marie says with such deep truth: your thoughts form your reality. To that I add: your words form your thoughts.

    Think of what that means awhile. It is this truth that leads me to the conclusion that language is the single most important skill one ever learns in life, bar none. Love, belief in "God", and all else take a distant back-seat to language in terms of pure import, for without language virtually none of those other things would exist for us. Words build the thoughts which build the reality we take mainly for granted.

    Want proof of "God"? LANGUAGE. I doubt that it could have arisen of its own accord, for it is far and away too complex. Grammar universally speaks to the relationships of labels. These labels are affixed to real objects in the world that, were it not for our linguistic proclivity, would have no labels otherwise. Without language, the only knowledge humans would have would be reflexive in nature, arising from our hard-wired nerve structure, which is the basis of our perceptual capacities. We would know pain, yet would have no name for it. We would know hunger, lust, fear, joy, yet our knowledge of these would have a decidedly different character in the absence of the words we use to describe and think about them. It is unclear, in fact whether we would even think without words. Once again, we come to definitions, in this case what it means to "think".

    Everything we do, from sleeping to screwing to fighting for our lives and designing buildings and the next generation of computer architecture is wholly, utterly, and irrevocably tied to language.

    If we assume that we were once naught but brooding, grunting brachiators, what spark then lead the first man to associate a verbally-issued noise from his own throat with something "out there" in the world? I do not call it mere happenstance, but "God". There is purpose in the universe and we see it all around us. INTENTION is evidence of God and it is everywhere, from the boy chasing the girl for a little reproductive fun, to the pouring of a concrete foundation for a house. The Christians say that "God" is everywhere, and they are precisely correct. Were you and I to meet in the flesh, it is God upon whom my eyes would come to rest, just as it it when I look in the mirror, all joking around about my great humility aside for the moment.

    Paper is evidence of God, as is water, for each is a manifestation of the mystery of existence. God exists, and therefore the universe does, for they are one and the same. There is literally no place where God is not. The only error Christians and other similar believers make, IMO, lies in the details of their conceptions of "God". Is God really a man with dangly bit 'tween his legs? Is the creator of the quasars really so limited a creature as conceived by the 3 "great" western religious traditions? Could be, but I profoundly doubt it. The strength of my definition is that not only is God self-evident, "he" remains defined only in the broadest and most vague ways. After all, if we as individuals are not capable of completely knowing every aspect of every "item" in this universe, then we are incapable of pinning "God" down to a clear and universally demonstrable definition. So-called "science", when done correctly, expands and improves our definition of "God", and yet it remains incomplete and grossly wanting. To presume to know the will of God as a gestalt, for example, is the very apex of personal hubris - in my opinion. But this is now going too far down the rabbit hole and it is not my intention to hijack this thread, pardon me please.



    The precise meaning of your statement being the "Christian conception of God", which is to say the definition. Note how even the most complex and subtly profound discussions and notions always boil down to the basic linguistic elements.

    If one is going to not believe in "God", it is my advice that they at least recognize the central importance of their personal definition of the term. I do not believe God is a cranky, sadistic old pig so utterly angry that he has set up this system of evil between men for his own amusement. I admit I could be wrong on that point and that he is precisely that. But until so proven, I will choose another path.

    Life is mostly all about choices.



    You have mistaken what I have written in the previous post. Hopefully this one has made sufficient clarification of my meanings.
    1. Osan, you can't define something into existence. It is either there or it isn't. I can't imagine how you think people take you seriously when you talk like this. You've even caged "god" into your own definition. I suppose because you've grown tired of debating the existence of the Christian god? You still have the same problem. The complete and utter lack of evidence of existence. No matter how you define it or what mental gymnastics you play with yourself. You believe in god? Awesome, but don't be disingenuous about it.

    2. Language. We have had who knows how many thousands, if not millions of years to develop language. It has had time to become complex. I mean look how much it has changed since the King James Bible was written? So much that it's difficult to read it and requires constant stopping to look up words.

    3. Like I said in my previous post you cannot prove god exists by saying something else exists. It's fine if you believe that, but belief does not make it true.

    4. I encourage you to watch the video I posted. It may help you debate in the future. Of course the guy made the video about the Christian god and your god seems to be something you made up, so I'm not sure how much it will help.
    Last edited by John F Kennedy III; 10-21-2016 at 12:20 AM.
    I am the spoon.



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by fisharmor View Post
    What do you mean by this?

    Darwinism and a rejection of the divine are inseparable. Not because I wish it, but because Darwinists do.

    Darwinism and a devotion to humanity's collective self-realization are inseparable. The suppression of the individual specifically got kicked into turbo mode coincident with the widespread adoption of Darwinism.

    One cannot espouse, for instance, Eugenics, without suppressing or ignoring individual rights.

    Politics, art, architecture, music, writing, cinema, pedagogy, soft sciences, all for over a century now have all shouted the gospel of modern man's collective conquest over everything. People outside this forum take it for granted that with the right collective effort anything can be done.

    So I would say that, as stated unqualified, Darwinism and humanity's self-realization are linked concepts.

    Individuals do not self-realize. We take it as axiomatic that we are selves and own ourselves. The only reason we would ever need to self-realize is in response to sophist bull$#@!.
    You can reject the divine without believing in evolution.
    Last edited by John F Kennedy III; 10-20-2016 at 08:51 PM.
    I am the spoon.



  4. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  5. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by John F Kennedy III View Post
    Well THAT was tiresome.

    The only part I saw that was relevant revolved around the definition of "God". Everything prior was crap, more or less. Once he zeroed in on what he purports to be the "Christian" definition of "God", his argument turned to feces. I stopped watching at the photo of O'Reilly because there seemed no point.

    The "proof" appeared to be heading toward FAIL in the manner of a runaway freight train. If you need 22 minutes, you either do not understand your own proof or you are intentionally wasting time. Good luck to him on the collections end of that $100K.
    freedomisobvious.blogspot.com

    There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.

    It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.

    Our words make us the ghosts that we are.

    Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.

  6. #34
    Something must've been screwy with the translations of the Bible they were each using...

    Warning of pride around early 1500's:


    Pride warning today:


    I let the Bible interpret itself, I take in all the evidence around me (good AND bad/from God AND man), and my translation excuses cease. More languages/translations actually offer me more insight, while no Bible translations, means no Bible insight. I'm thinking the gay cops went with no insight. I wonder if they even know about "Bruegel pride". He was Flemish, and there's translations involved... so maybe they ignored it. I think Bastiat wrote in French... they're cops, they must have ignored Bastiat too... and then 9-11, everything changed after 9-11...

    All are "arguments" of the flesh, trying to keep truth at arms length. Know the engine you are responsible for, and how it works.

    Fear of man will prove to be a snare, but whoever trusts in the LORD is kept safe. Proverbs 29:25
    "I think the propaganda machine is the biggest problem that we face today in trying to get the truth out to people."
    Ron Paul

    Please watch, subscribe, like, & share, Ron Paul Liberty Report
    BITCHUTE IS A LIBERTY MINDED ALTERNATIVE TO GOOGLE SUBSIDIARY YOUTUBE

  7. #35
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    Well THAT was tiresome.

    The only part I saw that was relevant revolved around the definition of "God". Everything prior was crap, more or less. Once he zeroed in on what he purports to be the "Christian" definition of "God", his argument turned to feces. I stopped watching at the photo of O'Reilly because there seemed no point.

    The "proof" appeared to be heading toward FAIL in the manner of a runaway freight train. If you need 22 minutes, you either do not understand your own proof or you are intentionally wasting time. Good luck to him on the collections end of that $100K.
    I didn't expect you to skip answering my post. We never even established what your god is.
    I am the spoon.

  8. #36
    Placeholder. My computer is unhooked while i have renovation happening so I'm wingin it on my mobile. But I'm definitely getting into this one, boys. Good thread.
    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 10-21-2016 at 05:03 AM.

  9. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Care to elaborate?
    If she doesn't, I will. And eagerly. Your shortcoming here (assuming that it is as such...although it is possible...even probable...that you're being deliberately dishonest and deceptive given your posting history and consistent anti-Individual rhetoric in promoting Monarchy...albeit some misguided and poorly thought out ideology of Anarcho-Monarchy...as your preferred form of government) is the single reason why you have no business speaking in Liberty. Individual Liberty as it relates to the traditional American founding philosophy is dependent upon both its primary foundation for moral code ...Natural Law...God's Law...as well as its principles together if a legitimate claim to its benefits is to be made. They cannot be accepted and rejected piecemeal. Not today. Not tomorrow. Not any day. To attempt to do so undermines the very concept of Individual Liberty fully and mak3s illegitimate any claim to its benefit. Again, though, I'll give her a chance to touch on objective versus subjective morality from a biblical perspective on the matter. Osan, we'll have to have words on this, too. I want to better understand what you're saying about relations. I contend that proper man to man relations are the product of man's Divine origin. Man's spiritual relationship with God is the bencmark for proper relations with his fellow man and government. Man has a moral duty to it. And to forget that or to make a clever attempt to minimize or to remove that primary relationship from the terms of controversy is the most critical of naw naws. As I've mentioned many times...perhaps to deaf ears but said none the less, Liberty must always be discussed in dialogue with responsibility for the purpose of proper context of Individual Liberty as it relates to the traditional American philosophy of self governanc3. Liberty-Responsibility. And I'd like to touch on why only worthy men are deserving of the benefits of Individual Liberty. Once I get back up and running anyway. I'm on my phone now. Respectfully, though, I can't let you guys roll with that unchallenged because it'd be a disservice to the less informed casual passer-by to do so given that they likely couldn't see the distinction such as we. I think that everyone here with even a dollar's worth of public library receipts can see rev3's agenda which is patently aggressive toward Individualism and deceptively under the cloak of its very baanner, but yours lends it credence, osan. So I want to make sure I understand what you're saying here in scope. I'd also add that while Man was certainly endowed, he was firstly created. By way of my own study, likely around 3882 or 3 BC. Which is a completely different topic. Albeit one that I intend to introduce.
    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 10-21-2016 at 08:13 AM.

  10. #38
    Additionally, I tend to use the term anti-moral as opposed to the term immoral for the purpose of recognizing and acknowledging clear and strategic aggression toward the primary foundation for moral code (The Natural Law...God's Law) in which the fundamental principles of Indvidual Liberty and proper human relations are dependent. Again, Liberty-Responsibility. It is our moral duty to defend that which empowers us to make a true claim to the benefits of Individual Liberty. Which, btw, doesn't come from bowing down and kssing the rings of worldly kings.
    Last edited by Natural Citizen; 10-21-2016 at 08:06 AM.

  11. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by John F Kennedy III View Post
    I didn't expect you to skip answering my post.
    I answered plenty. The video was almost immediately tiresome and gave not even a vague indication that he was going to pull his own bacon out of the fire. The only statement of value he made related to the definition of God. He then went right back off the rails with assumptions about "the Christian" definition of God.

    I have news for him: Put ten people in a room, including any number of atheists you care, and you will have there at least eleven definitions of "God". GaRONtee.

    We never even established what your god is.
    Actually, we did, but no matter. Existence is my proof of God. Existence IS god, for me. Therefore, God is self-proving, not unlike squares and levels.

    If $#@! popped out of its own ass spontaneously, guess what? GOD. If it didn't, GOD. God cannot be escaped in my world.

    I do not subscribe to the hopelessly myopic views of God that most people seem to hold. If God is everything, then God is evil as well as good, just to stir the pot with some. I presume little on such matters, regardless of how much I may feel I have observed over the course of my lifetime.

    When I was about 4 I decided to give God a proctological examination. God said to me "OK grasshopper, you want to take a peek, be my guest." I did. My little mind seized up solid like an engine run on no oil. It was a lesson I have carried with me since then. There is something going on here - everywhere - and it is not what we think. It is so spectacularly subtle; so minutely vast; so hotly frozen... the human mind cannot wrap itself around it. The "it" is God and there is no place you may care to name where it's not in overflowing evidence. It loves you and at the same time could give the least $#@! about you. It will play no favorites, and yet at times saves you from destruction. I've done some remarkably dangerous and stupid things in my life, and yet I live against all the odds - and some of those odds were virtual gaRONtees of death. To chalk that up to mere chance is a child's view of things. My understanding of probability and statistics is too good to go that route, not to mention that my understanding of the world around me is too poor.

    At the end of the day, I don't care a whit what people believe so long as they keep their mitts out of my business, a mistake for which I generally make people painfully alert upon warning, and pay when unheeded.

    Perception and belief are mysteries. That we are capable of having this conversation shrieks "GOD!" at me. If it does not to you, so be it. The world is a mysterious place and I will not endeavor to interfere with that which interferes not with me.
    freedomisobvious.blogspot.com

    There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.

    It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.

    Our words make us the ghosts that we are.

    Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.

  12. #40
    Quote Originally Posted by A Son of Liberty View Post
    I'm VERY interested to hear your input, RPF. As I pointed out above, I haven't explored this topic in detail,so my bewilderment may embarrass me. But I'm curious to know if it's been deeply explored (I'm sure it has).
    Even if we were just animals, some systems are going to work better for us than others. Just as there is a method of living that works for whales, and it is not to swim up onshore and try for a tan.

    So, here is how the world of political ideologies really works. Let's pull off the curtains. Let's light up the shadows. Ready? Ahem:

    There are two dominant temperaments in humans, the left and the right. Humans' political opinions come about as a result of their temperaments, not from reason or logic or indeed any kind of deliberative thought.

    The left temperament is connected to an excess of resources. It is the rabbit temperament. It values things like equality, non-competitiveness, equality, non-judgmentalism, equality, and... equality. It's all about egalitarianism.

    The right temperament is connected to harsh, unforgiving conditions. It is the wolf temperament. It places great value upon winning, competition, winning, hard work, winning, discipline, and.... winning. It's all about individual excellence.

    These two systems of living are tailored and suited to different conditions. Rabbits/leftists, for instance, aren't nearly as willing to invest tons of time and money and sacrifice in raising children and building stable families. Thus, the single mom world is the premier hard-core left constituency. And, they are profoundly uncomfortable with competition, with winning and -- at a deep, emotional level -- losing. Thus, the left is the party of mass-equalization through the Welfare Looting State.

    What kind of system will work better, the wolf system or the rabbit system? Well, that depends on what results you want. What sort of priorities you're interested in. What do you think, Son of Liberty?


    http://anonymousconservative.com/



    Last edited by helmuth_hubener; 10-21-2016 at 08:52 AM.



  13. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  14. #41
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    I answered plenty. The video was almost immediately tiresome and gave not even a vague indication that he was going to pull his own bacon out of the fire. The only statement of value he made related to the definition of God. He then went right back off the rails with assumptions about "the Christian" definition of God.

    I have news for him: Put ten people in a room, including any number of atheists you care, and you will have there at least eleven definitions of "God". GaRONtee.



    Actually, we did, but no matter. Existence is my proof of God. Existence IS god, for me. Therefore, God is self-proving, not unlike squares and levels.

    If $#@! popped out of its own ass spontaneously, guess what? GOD. If it didn't, GOD. God cannot be escaped in my world.

    I do not subscribe to the hopelessly myopic views of God that most people seem to hold. If God is everything, then God is evil as well as good, just to stir the pot with some. I presume little on such matters, regardless of how much I may feel I have observed over the course of my lifetime.

    When I was about 4 I decided to give God a proctological examination. God said to me "OK grasshopper, you want to take a peek, be my guest." I did. My little mind seized up solid like an engine run on no oil. It was a lesson I have carried with me since then. There is something going on here - everywhere - and it is not what we think. It is so spectacularly subtle; so minutely vast; so hotly frozen... the human mind cannot wrap itself around it. The "it" is God and there is no place you may care to name where it's not in overflowing evidence. It loves you and at the same time could give the least $#@! about you. It will play no favorites, and yet at times saves you from destruction. I've done some remarkably dangerous and stupid things in my life, and yet I live against all the odds - and some of those odds were virtual gaRONtees of death. To chalk that up to mere chance is a child's view of things. My understanding of probability and statistics is too good to go that route, not to mention that my understanding of the world around me is too poor.

    At the end of the day, I don't care a whit what people believe so long as they keep their mitts out of my business, a mistake for which I generally make people painfully alert upon warning, and pay when unheeded.

    Perception and belief are mysteries. That we are capable of having this conversation shrieks "GOD!" at me. If it does not to you, so be it. The world is a mysterious place and I will not endeavor to interfere with that which interferes not with me.
    Alritey. So you don't believe in the Christian god. Cheers.
    I am the spoon.

  15. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by John F Kennedy III View Post
    Alritey. So you don't believe in the Christian god. Cheers.
    I cannot say, as I have no idea what that is in the first place. Did you not read what I wrote? How many Christians hold the precise same conception of "God"? Two, maybe?

    My suspicion is that most folks have never really given "God" enough thought, no matter how many thousands of times a day they might pray, to place themselves in what I might dare call a "right-sized perspective". Or perhaps I am a mental defective who makes a bigger deal of this than needs be and am thereby full of $#@! in my opinions on such matters. I don't know. I only know what I see and think and feel on these questions, and half the time I'm not even sure about that much. How shall I judge the professed beliefs of others for themselves? I consider me lucky just to be able to do so for myownself.

    Once again the Golden Rule demonstrates its perfection: Live; let live. Men need no riven-hair more than that.

    In.

    My.

    Opinion.
    freedomisobvious.blogspot.com

    There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.

    It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.

    Our words make us the ghosts that we are.

    Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.

  16. #43
    Darwin was out to deny the existence of God.

    and the lengths gone to,, in defense of this theory stretch the limits of Pseudoscience.
    Liberty is lost through complacency and a subservient mindset. When we accept or even welcome automobile checkpoints, random searches, mandatory identification cards, and paramilitary police in our streets, we have lost a vital part of our American heritage. America was born of protest, revolution, and mistrust of government. Subservient societies neither maintain nor deserve freedom for long.
    Ron Paul 2004

    Registered Ron Paul supporter # 2202
    It's all about Freedom

  17. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by osan View Post
    I cannot say, as I have no idea what that is in the first place. Did you not read what I wrote? How many Christians hold the precise same conception of "God"? Two, maybe?

    My suspicion is that most folks have never really given "God" enough thought, no matter how many thousands of times a day they might pray, to place themselves in what I might dare call a "right-sized perspective". Or perhaps I am a mental defective who makes a bigger deal of this than needs be and am thereby full of $#@! in my opinions on such matters. I don't know. I only know what I see and think and feel on these questions, and half the time I'm not even sure about that much. How shall I judge the professed beliefs of others for themselves? I consider me lucky just to be able to do so for myownself.

    Once again the Golden Rule demonstrates its perfection: Live; let live. Men need no riven-hair more than that.

    In.

    My.

    Opinion.
    By Christian god I mean the god from the King James Bible.
    I am the spoon.

  18. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by pcosmar View Post
    Darwin was out to deny the existence of God.

    and the lengths gone to,, in defense of this theory stretch the limits of Pseudoscience.
    Agreed. Darwinian Evolution theory is garbage.
    I am the spoon.

  19. #46

    The Metaphysical Problem of Darwinism

    Quote Originally Posted by A Son of Liberty View Post
    Well I've had a very enlightening discussion with a group of leftists at another discussion board, which lead me to the most profound - as I consider it - revelation.

    First, a little background on myself, and then the discussion which produced this insight:

    I went through and graduated college a dedicated leftist, like many, in the late 90's, but gradually drifted to a "centrist" the more time I spent in the workforce. I do not think myself the least bit unique in that trend. I've been a dedicated Ron Paulian since about 2008. I got interested in his campaign late in the game in 2008, seeking out a different voice from the standard left/right, Dem/Rep talking point game. I did the requisite reading as a Ron Paulian - your Rothbards, your Rands, your Hayeks, etc. I read the blogs, I listened to the podcasts - your Woods', your Rockwells, etc. I came across at one point or another this succinct video from some source or another:



    I consider myself to be well- but not deeply -read. I consider the philosophy of liberty to be self-evident. I have considered it an "objective truth", but in the course of my discussion at the other board, I have conceded that the term "objective truth" is probably not the correct terminology. Individual liberty derived via "deductive reasoning" is probably more accurate, and certainly more defensible.

    In the course of the debate wherein I sought to show that individual liberty/sovereignty is an objective truth, I encountered the sentience argument - basically I held that sovereignty was a consequence of our humanity, and the leftists questioned the condition of humanity. They comfortably equated human beings with animals. Now, I'm not sure that failing against this argument does anything more than force me into a commitment to veganism - haven't thought it out fully - but their denial of human beings as a distinct creature - irrespective of a god (and full disclosure, I am a Christian believer) - struck me, to the core (I was specifically NOT arguing individual sovereignty from a supernatural perspective). I found myself lightning-struck by the consequences for human thought, civilization, etc. Socialism, collectivism, all those ideas which upend the principle of self-ownership, suddenly I found their root. I haven't fully explored the logical consequences, both for the anti-individual philosophy and for the individualist philosophy, but they're clear, in my view.

    I'm VERY interested to hear your input, RPF. As I pointed out above, I haven't explored this topic in detail,so my bewilderment may embarrass me. But I'm curious to know if it's been deeply explored (I'm sure it has).
    If Darwinism is true, then there can be no such thing as "rights." The reason that is is because Darwinism, at its core, precludes the possibility that there can be supernatural (or non-material) entities which affect natural (or material) entities directly.

    Consequently, that means non-material things such as rights cannot exist in a Darwinian worldview because all there is is matter and motion. Since rights are neither made of matter, nor are they objects subject to the laws of physics, rights cannot be ascertained by any method of discovery in Darwinism. Thus, the notion that individuals have rights to life, liberty, property, etc. is moot within a Darwinian outlook of the world.

    So, anyone who considers himself a Darwinist cannot argue for rights as a basic necessity of human existence, in principle. If he does, then he is being inconsistent with the metaphysical demands of his worldview, and those demands cannot allow any invisible quality nor entity to have an instance in human experience. We're all just conglomerations of subatomic particles, which, themselves, are not sentient.
    "Then David said to the Philistine, 'You come to me with a sword, a spear, and a javelin, but I come to you in the name of Yahweh of hosts, the God of the battle lines of Israel, Whom you have reproached.'" - 1 Samuel 17:45

    "May future generations look back on our work and say that these were men and women who, in moment of great crisis, stood up to their politicians, the opinion-makers, and the Establishment, and saved their country." - Dr. Ron Paul

  20. #47
    I'm working at Walmart. Trust me, many customers are not far removed from animals.

  21. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by John F Kennedy III View Post
    By Christian god I mean the god from the King James Bible.
    Still have no sufficient idea of what that means. I don't think anyone does.
    freedomisobvious.blogspot.com

    There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.

    It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.

    Our words make us the ghosts that we are.

    Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.



  22. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  23. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by Theocrat View Post
    If Darwinism is true, then there can be no such thing as "rights." The reason that is is because Darwinism, at its core, precludes the possibility that there can be supernatural (or non-material) entities which affect natural (or material) entities directly.
    Methinks your understanding of so-called "Darwinism" is deficient.

    Firstly, Darwin wrote on the "Origin of SPECIES", not the origin of LIFE.

    Evolution is fact. It is observed and confirmed as an operating principle of life. This makes NO statement as to the place "God" occupies in the grand scheme of things. I would contend that God originated everything, evolution being nothing fancier than a mechanism of adaptation by which life perpetuates itself in the face of changing circumstance. That's the maintenance aspect of evolution. Then there is the "advancement" notion - of everything struggling to "higher" planes of existence. I see this contention as being far more problematic because is must presume facts not in evidence, making demonstration just this side of impossible.

    Therefore, properly taken, evolution is eminently plausible. Furthermore it makes no assassination of "God". Only people do that.

    If we are made in "His" image, I take that to mean in the sense of mind. I could be mistaken, but I doubt God is a crotchety old bastard, running about in Heaven on two legs with a peg and two peas between, dangling merrily away through the ages. Assuming I am on the money, then God is at least plausibly capable of becoming bored just as are we. It is a reasonable question to ask why God created all this, if not out of either boredom, or perhaps curiosity - or just the thrill of creating it to see how it would all go, over time. I am serious on that point and do not think it should be glossed over: what motivated "In the Beginning"? Were we nothing more than the byproduct of a grand and divine bowel-movement, or was their intent behind the act? If the latter, then what might the motivation have been? I listed three possibilities, and good ones if I say so myself.

    Myself refusing to believe in the limited image of God as narrow-between-the-eyes and petty nitwit, would tend to think that he would have set this thing in free motion once having created it. Controlling it all would have been ultimately boring. Again look to the human proclivity in such matters and we may see within ourselves a reflection of the greater element, however pale it many be. Well, if God is going to make all this, including humans, and set it to go freely about its business, it would make sense to build in mechanisms of perpetuation. Otherwise, what's the point if you know ahead of time what is going to happen? Why go to a movie or read a book if you already know the punchline? To that end, evolution as maintenance device makes perfect sense. Indeed, evolution as pathway to growth also makes sense, for is stagnation not a form of death? Once again, utter and perfect predictability renders a thing somewhat boring in most cases, those to the contrary notwithstanding.

    I see no conflict between a proper understanding of evolution and God. Indeed, I see all good reason to believe in evolution as evidence of the hand of God.

    Consequently, that means non-material things such as rights cannot exist in a Darwinian worldview because all there is is matter and motion. Since rights are neither made of matter, nor are they objects subject to the laws of physics, rights cannot be ascertained by any method of discovery in Darwinism. Thus, the notion that individuals have rights to life, liberty, property, etc. is moot within a Darwinian outlook of the world.
    Also bear in mind that while Darwin was something of a materialist, it does not follow that his explanations of evolution are correct in that they, too, are materialist. He may have discovered the right thing with the wrong explanations, even if only partly so. Let us be sure that truth in theory is eminently "severable". That is to say, if a theory contains both truthful and false elements, the falsity of some elements does not nullify the true, even if the theory as a whole proves false or otherwise inadequate.

    Darwin chose materialist explanations for evolution. What if that aspect was wrong? Does that invalidate the positively observable fact of evolutionary processes? Not in the least. Besides, after a fashion, the materialist explanations may well be correct. Biochemical processes drive the alterations that result in evolutionary mutation. This is readily observable and is therefore factual. But philosophically or metaphysically speaking, it fails to go all the way. A simple test of this is to ask the plain question: "what drives the biochemical processes?" Now you are heading into God-territory, like it or not. All questions, if pursued to their logically extreme conclusions, lead there. That is why I say God cannot be avoided, but only evaded by those dishonest, ignorant, or cowardly enough not to want to face truths that apparently frighten them.

    There is no conflict here, all the endless hullabaloo to the contrary notwithstanding. The world IS. Life IS. And yet, to hear some people go on, it would seem that this is all strictly impossible. It is as if some of us have nothing better to do with their time than to spend it bothering themselves in the apparent belief that their self-induced opinions that conflict with observable reality are right, and said reality wrong. Uh-huh...

    So, anyone who considers himself a Darwinist cannot argue for rights as a basic necessity of human existence, in principle. If he does, then he is being inconsistent with the metaphysical demands of his worldview, and those demands cannot allow any invisible quality nor entity to have an instance in human experience. We're all just conglomerations of subatomic particles, which, themselves, are not sentient.

    Sorry Theo, but I think you are making WAY too broad a statement here, based on assumptions I do not accept as valid. I would suggest that you are taking these different concepts and treating them as inviolable objects. One of the great arts of living lies in one's ability to modify that which one has encountered such that it may become useful. Darwinism as materialist philosophy, explanation, or justification for materialism as absolute baseline truth cuts no muster with me. Therefore, I modify the view until either I discard it completely or I find a path to sense. Therefore, evolution as I have speculated above now fits neatly into my world view, at least in terms of its plausibility. It is there; it is observable, and I can plausibly describe why it might be so without having to kick either it or God to the curb.

    Clarity is pleasurable, as is harmony. I try to seek it, rather than conflict, though I will not shrink away from the latter when its necessity becomes apparent to me.

    Don't worry. Be happy.
    Last edited by osan; 10-22-2016 at 09:39 AM. Reason: typos and my OCD
    freedomisobvious.blogspot.com

    There is only one correct way: freedom. All other solutions are non-solutions.

    It appears that artificial intelligence is at least slightly superior to natural stupidity.

    Our words make us the ghosts that we are.

    Convincing the world he didn't exist was the Devil's second greatest trick; the first was convincing us that God didn't exist.

  24. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by A Son of Liberty View Post
    I consider the philosophy of liberty to be self-evident. I have considered it an "objective truth", but in the course of my discussion at the other board, I have conceded that the term "objective truth" is probably not the correct terminology. Individual liberty derived via "deductive reasoning" is probably more accurate, and certainly more defensible.

    In the course of the debate wherein I sought to show that individual liberty/sovereignty is an objective truth, I encountered the sentience argument - basically I held that sovereignty was a consequence of our humanity, and the leftists questioned the condition of humanity. They comfortably equated human beings with animals. Now, I'm not sure that failing against this argument does anything more than force me into a commitment to veganism - haven't thought it out fully - but their denial of human beings as a distinct creature - irrespective of a god (and full disclosure, I am a Christian believer) - struck me, to the core (I was specifically NOT arguing individual sovereignty from a supernatural perspective). I found myself lightning-struck by the consequences for human thought, civilization, etc. Socialism, collectivism, all those ideas which upend the principle of self-ownership, suddenly I found their root. I haven't fully explored the logical consequences, both for the anti-individual philosophy and for the individualist philosophy, but they're clear, in my view.

    I'm VERY interested to hear your input, RPF. As I pointed out above, I haven't explored this topic in detail,so my bewilderment may embarrass me. But I'm curious to know if it's been deeply explored (I'm sure it has).
    I came to Ron Paul about the same time you did, and it seems like this meeting spurs a lot of philosophical research in the people who discover him. For me, one of the books I read was C.S. Lewis' The Abolition of Man. He begins with a discussion about a book (which he calls the "green" book to avoid embarrassing its authors) that is being used to teach children grammar, syntax rules, etc. He becomes extremely critical of the book, however, when it diverts down a path wherein its authors seek to claim that all "value judgements" are subjective. This subtle trick that the authors are playing on its unwitting young readers, according to Lewis, will have the consequence of reducing all feelings of joy, love, worth, etc, to mere 'feeling,' removing humanity from its high status - effectively destroying humanity itself.

    From that observation, he masterfully demonstrates that even as the authors cynically dismiss the idea of "absolute value" they are, simultaneously (but unknowingly) appealing to a different (absolute) value - their absolute value being: "there is no absolute value." Which, of course is a glaring contradiction on its face. Lewis correctly demonstrates, and rightly concludes that there must be something of absolute value.

    In the book, he carries on and draws some further conclusions that I think go astray, but in the first chapter and beginning of the second, he highlights this extremely important concept for those of us who do believe in absolute value to be aware of: the self-contradiction inherent in any denial of an absolute truth.

    Now, what that truth exactly is or can be deduced to be is an open question, but one model I look to has its corollary in mathematics and formal logic. It is the axiomatic system, wherein things are "defined" to be true, and then using the laws of logic, other truths come to be known. This notion of truth differs from most people's contemporary understanding of what the word means and its relationship to "things" in the world, but it really is the only way wherein we can hope to build a system that is actually, objectively, true in the world of human relationships. It is a different class of truth than that which governs physical truths/theories that people are used to, but that is ok. We humans use many words that have overlapping meanings, and occasionally become confused when we forget that we're talking about different subject matter but using the same word.

    This notion of truth is inextricably tied to language, and cannot exist without it. Hence, I see language as being central to the development of a value-system by which we can all hope to achieve the development of a society that we all agree on what is true and what is false. So I think that in your pursuit to show that something, in this case that individual liberty, is an objective truth you'll need to point to something more basic (i.e. the axiom that it can be fairly derived from). I happen to agree with you, but take maybe the easier way out: I define individual liberty to be an axiom, and go from there. Likely there is something more basic that you can tie it to, but the deeper you go, the more of a rabbit hole it becomes and the less interesting it is for the masses out there.
    Last edited by Mr Tansill; 10-22-2016 at 11:57 AM.
    Reflect the Light!

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 11-07-2010, 11:50 PM
  2. Darwinism Refuted
    By nate895 in forum Open Discussion
    Replies: 138
    Last Post: 05-20-2009, 01:27 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •