Omnipresence indicates that one senses all going ons, if this is so, shouldn't it know all variables at all times? By inferring that the a divine entity is one but not the other means that it is plagued by the same sensory, calculative, and analytical deficiencies as humans. The Socialist Calculation problem must also apply to God. ;)
This is apparently a Man Talk Forum: No Women Allowed!
Telpeurion's Disliked Person of the Week: David Kramer
freeradicals: The Christian (Evangelical belief, at least) is that God cannot foresee the future. This is what I leaned when I used to do bible studies with the church. Hence he is omnipresent but not all knowing.
The Christian (Evangelical belief, at least) is that God cannot foresee the future. This is what I leaned when I used to do bible studies with the church. Hence he is omnipresent but not all knowing.
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it" - Thomas Jefferson.
Telpeurion: Omnipresence indicates that one senses all going ons, if this is so, shouldn't it know all variables at all times? By inferring that the a divine entity is one but not the other means that it is plagued by the same sensory, calculative, and analytical deficiencies as humans. The Socialist Calculation problem must also apply to God. ;)
There's a difference between being "present" everywhere at the current time and knowing the future. So god didn't know if Eve was going to eat the apple or not but he was there when it happened, and god doesn't know if you'll end up in hell or not until you are judged but he will still be present with you even in hell or heaven. Now, I'm not really trying to prove this point but I'm just reiterating what I was told was the belief by my fellow Evangelical scholars.
John Q: I don't want to get off subject but this may help when you have time. William Lane Craig is one of the foremost theistic philosophers I know.www.reasonablefaith.org/site/PageServer?pagename=scholarly_articles_divine_omniscience - 38k
I don't want to get off subject but this may help when you have time. William Lane Craig is one of the foremost theistic philosophers I know.www.reasonablefaith.org/site/PageServer?pagename=scholarly_articles_divine_omniscience - 38k
Thanks I'll take a look, Mises.org is really good at piling up homework and knowledge for me to read and learn but I love it!
freeradicals: Telpeurion: Omnipresence indicates that one senses all going ons, if this is so, shouldn't it know all variables at all times? By inferring that the a divine entity is one but not the other means that it is plagued by the same sensory, calculative, and analytical deficiencies as humans. The Socialist Calculation problem must also apply to God. ;) There's a difference between being "present" everywhere at the current time and knowing the future. So god didn't know if Eve was going to eat the apple or not but he was there when it happened, and god doesn't know if you'll end up in hell or not until you are judged but he will still be present with you even in hell or heaven. Now, I'm not really trying to prove this point but I'm just reiterating what I was told was the belief by my fellow Evangelical scholars. John Q: I don't want to get off subject but this may help when you have time. William Lane Craig is one of the foremost theistic philosophers I know.www.reasonablefaith.org/site/PageServer?pagename=scholarly_articles_divine_omniscience - 38k Thanks I'll take a look, Mises.org is really good at piling up homework and knowledge for me to read and learn but I love it!
I don't know what "Evangelical scholars" you've been consulting, but that's not a mainstream view by any stretch of the imagination. God is generally posited to be omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent. There is no dissonance between free will and God's knowledge of the future. God exists outside of time (as time is His creation). He therefore knows all events, but this does not mean that He directly causes them, any more than someone watching a football game causes a touchdown. He does directly interfere at times, but never without reason, and never in contradiction with His character.
As He is omniscient, he cannot fall victim to the socialist calculation problem, as he has all information in perpetuity, therefore knowing the exact needs both present and future for goods and services.
On Gary North: he is somewhat libertarian, but taken out of context one can butcher him. In the real world, he does not believe in the likelihood of the establishment of anarcho-capitalism (or, ideally, anarcho-theocratic communities that rely on private property rights to enforce Christian principles within their borders). Given the existence of (and continued demand for) the state, North supports the non-violent takeover of the state by Christians. Non-Christians would be free to leave. I do not personally agree with many of North's propositions for a Christian state, but anarcho-theocratic communities are plausible and totally compatible with anarcho-capitalism.
He doesn't want communities; he wants a state. And not just any state: the American one. Meaning he is the same any statist political movement. Which is a real problem since I live in America and am not Christian. It's a possible existential threat to myself; in fact, a real one physical threat. It is a threat to American Christians who tolerate other religions or are anarchists. And the 'if they don't like they can leave', is already the bad premise of existing political hegemony. A state is not compatible with anarchism.
The only way it is compatible is in the sense that anarchist and statist societies may or may not attack one another. But again, this is like saying Libertopia and Canada won't attack each other. And that for this reason Canada and Canadian political ideology is compatible with anarchism. What he proposes is not compatible with anarchism in any way imaginable. He doesn't want anarchism for himself or other Christians, and does not promote it. Period. Ergo, he is not a libertarian or anarchist. Ergo, trying to derive anarchism from his brand of Christianity is mistake. Sure there are Christian anarchists, but he is not one of them.
The only thing he is libertarian on is gold standard and limited religious liberty in the interim until Christianity can gain power. It's just a bait and switch Libertarianism.
-
Someone else mentioned William Lane Craig. I have seen this particular video and know his name. Does he promote libertarianism? I checked his proof of God; it seems he is taking some ideas from Islamic theology called 'Kalam cosmological argument'. He calls himself an Evangelical, but I would agree that his theory is not mainstream. That doesn't mean it is better or worse. But it's not what most Christians are already believing, and he seems like such a middle-brow old fashioned philosopher type, that it is unlikely that most will ever read his books even if they were good. And again, if he is correct, why doesn't he write about Christianity and Libertarianism as intertwined? Why doesn't he say this is obvious, if as people state that the Bible clearly states such beliefs? I see one of his topics is 'moral relativism'. Does he talk about the immorality of the state? And how the state is the furtherance of moral relativism since different people require different moral rules?
William Lane Craig is in no way a libertarian. He is a typical Rick Warren / Sean Hannity-esque conservative hack.
@JohnEss
Man if only that was your 666th post on a religion thread. Or does making it the 667th post on the religion thread make more poetic sense?
Modern scholars have refuted the Iron Maiden Cosmological Theory. Which is one of the greatest misunderstandings in the history of philosophy.
Originally, when 'Number of the Beast' was written by Iron Maiden, heavy metal groups and their disciples in theology had always translated the book of revelations as saying ἑξακόσιοι ἑξήκοντα ἕξ (six hundred and sixty six). But recently, Oxford scholars have said that it means ἑξακόσιοι δέκα ἕξ (six hundred and sixteen). This is an important distinction.
Today's Christians have been rejecting Beelzebub, I presume, based on completely outmoded beliefs about the new testament. In many of my debates they are saying these same arguments. It's clearly a strawman. Because their names added up to 666 using hebrew gematria, the reputation of Nero, the Pope, and Hitler were considered valid reasons to reject Satan out of hand under the Iron Maiden Cosmological Theory. Now I think Satan's name can be cleared of his connection with these men. And I think the honest Christian has to admit that there is a Satan. And we must worship him and sacrifice babies unto his alter.
Not exactly ancap, but arguing in favor of a free market economy from a Catholic POV:
http://www.tomwoods.com/books/the-church-and-the-market/
John Ess: . - Someone else mentioned William Lane Craig.
.
Someone else mentioned William Lane Craig.
Eric080: William Lane Craig is in no way a libertarian. He is a typical Rick Warren / Sean Hannity-esque conservative hack.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-ieOvFsXmg&feature=related - Universal health care = bad, Jesus doesn't approve of feminism
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvtjwCNCzSA - Homosexuality is a psychological disorder
Marriage Advice - "Wives: You need to realize what your husband's #1 need in marriage is, what he wants most from you: sex! Yes, frequent, enthusiastic sex! If you do this, you will have a happy hubby, indeed. Unfortunately, here we confront one of those huge disconnects between men and women (you know, the Venus and Mars thing). A man achieves intimacy with the woman he loves through sexual intercourse; but a woman views intimacy as a pre-requisite for sexual intercourse. So if you're sensing emotional distance from your spouse, what do you do? You seem to be at an impasse. If you find yourselves in this situation, then my advice is that it is the wife who should yield and be open to her husband's advances. Otherwise what you're doing is using sex as a weapon: saying in effect, "You first meet my emotional needs or I'm going to withhold sex from you." That's manipulative and unloving."
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5887 - Listed under the podcast "Go Vote!", praises social democracy, "values voter", supports cutting off funding for stem cell research
And if you further peruse his "audio blog" (why not just call it a podcast? ), you will find a couple more in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act and criticizing Obama on the Ground Zero Mosque. And I think he was making fun of Nancy Pelosi in one, but don't quote me on that. Which is not to say that everything he has said in these contexts aren't at least somewhat accurate (his portrayal of Islam perhaps and I assume he doesn't support universal healthcare, but I think Jesus would pick anarcho-communism above all political arrangements, but what do I know). I'm just saying it appears to be the case that he toes the conservative line mixed in with some religiously inspired beliefs.
"Wives: You need to realize what your husband's #1 need in marriage is, what he wants most from you: sex! Yes, frequent, enthusiastic sex! If you do this, you will have a happy hubby, indeed. Unfortunately, here we confront one of those huge disconnects between men and women (you know, the Venus and Mars thing). A man achieves intimacy with the woman he loves through sexual intercourse; but a woman views intimacy as a pre-requisite for sexual intercourse. So if you're sensing emotional distance from your spouse, what do you do? You seem to be at an impasse. If you find yourselves in this situation, then my advice is that it is the wife who should yield and be open to her husband's advances. Otherwise what you're doing is using sex as a weapon: saying in effect, "You first meet my emotional needs or I'm going to withhold sex from you." That's manipulative and unloving."
I think this is one-hundred per cent accurate.
Woman: "It is the man who should yield and be open to my emotional advances. Otherwise what you're doing is using my emotional needs against me as a weapon. Saying in effect, "you first give me sex or I'm not going to attempt to be in the mood to connect emotionally with you.' That's manipulative and unloving."
There are many amazing theologians who fail utterly when it comes to pragmatic application.
Isn't it a little hypocritical to demand Christians read free market oriented material if you are unwilling to read the Bible?
In what I perceive as a universe with rules I consider the concept of God to be self evident. On the other hand the aetheist might claim it is self evident by my previous statement I am crazy. So what. If you compared the concept of God to the concept of "the force" mentioned in Star Wars I would not debate you because I might be interested in what you had to say. However I do not wish to engage in a theist/atheist debate about the existence of God. I am making a statement to provide one instance of minority Christian perspective to this thread.
I believe all written language is based on symbols. I believe symbols are abstract concepts. I believe it is impossible for an abstract concept to have an absolute definition. I believe human observation is flawed. I believe the Bible is a collection of symbols recorded by humans describing the observations of humans. I believe the collection of books comprising the bible has been decided by human beings. I believe I have the ability to discern truth and if I seek truth I ought not discriminate purely based on the source. Things that fascinate me are things where a lot of people agree for no good reason. For instance why do so many people feel murder is wrong? Why do some people who have committed murder acknowledged they knew it was wrong? If math is a tool surely consistency of human observation can be a tool too. Math does not mean something is true it is simply a tool to help discern truth.
That said let's just accept the Bible at face value as true for a moment and consider a few popular stories:
In the Garden of Eden, Adam & Eve were a kept couple. They were given free will to choose between the Tree of Life & the Tree of Self Awareness. I compare this story to if I created a robot or AI. I have programmed you to do as you wish but do not kill. As creator, I reserve jurisdiction to judge my creation. They disobeyed and God said surely you will die but I am not going to kill you now. P.S. get the hell out of my Garden. You can loiter out in the fields, you must fend for yourself, but you shall not come back into my garden.
In the story of Noah many Christians talk about a covenant God made with Noah. The covenant I read states God made a covenant with all creation and if anything Noah was more like a notary, witnessing the deal.
Under Moses many Christians talk about the Ten Commandmants are for us all to get along. I read the commandments of a jealous God and when God stated thou shall not kill I don't think it had much to do with whether or not you and I get along. I think the concept is more like if I kill you I have deprived God the opportunity of you choosing to love God.
Under the tribal government of Isaac which some Christians refer to citing how government should work in a theocracy, I usually do not hear Christians include an important part. God's presence. Isaac asked God how would the people follow him and asked God to reveal himself. God promised Isaac to send forth his presence. So if we are to return to some Christians vision of tribal theocratic government I want to know God's presence is supervising the show because they usually omit that detail.
Let us not forget the Israelites rebelled against God demanding a King. God did tell David not to worry because by demanding a king they were rejecting God as their king. God did also get involved in politics selecting Kings in the books of Kings. But we are talking about the 12 tribes of Jacob (Jacob was renamed to Israel).
I also call out my fellow Christians on the book of Malachi because on one hand they talk about the divine purpose of government doing God's work and on Sunday they advocate double taxation condoning tithing.
Skipping ahead to the NT:
I do not like how the story of render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's is usually interpreted. Jesus did ask what inscription is on the coin and I read it as if you are trading using the intellectual property of Ceasar to determine value, render unto Ceasar what is Ceasars (aka give Ceasar his cut).
I am a huge fan of the teachings of Jesus Christ because I believe the message is love.
With regards to some of Peter's writings I do believe it is not my job to build my own cross and set myself on it to be crucified. I do believe I ought to give testimony to what I discern as truth.
Here is my testament:
Unfortunately for me, my life represents a rebellion against God. The Bible teaches ye though I walk through the valley of death I shall fear no evil because they rod and thy staff shall comfort me (or something like that). My entire life I have rejected the rod and staff because whenever tribulation or persectuion has come my way I say... God... I don't need your rod and staff because I know best how to avoid this tribulation or persectuion.
Even worse I question why I should love God. After all there are only two religions 1) God is God or 2) man is God. I want to know where is the justice in punishing me for the sins of previous generations I never knew at the moment of birth. I question that I do not know my own name, only the name other people have called me. I question the justice of God coercing my allegiance with eternal judgement when God has not revealed himself to me.
If there is to be salvation I am not worthy of it but fortunately for me I can surely place my hopes and faith in Jesus Christ because I believe the teachings of Jesus Christ are good fruit.
I take away from the Bible concepts of honor and dishonor. Spinning the wives example from earlier in the thread. If I desire multiple wives I ought not commit in vows to one wife. I ought to only commit to vows that leave room for other wives. If that is not acceptable to a potential wife so be it, I ought not take her as a wife. If I am walking in the righteous path a wife ought not rebel against me because a wife is under the dominion of her husband. On the other hand if a wife is rebelling against me I might want to look in the mirror and reflect whether or not I am on the righteous path. If I am not on the righteous path I might want to take a moment and reclaim my honor with God. Now the part about not taking a wife unless she agrees to let you pursue other wives might seem like common sense but how many people fail every year in keeping vows to one wife? It may be common sense but I doubt you can call being honest in vows taking a wife easy. How many people state in their vows I desire to take you as wife today but tomorrow I might desire to blimp the secretary and I just wanted to let you know in advance so you can back out now?
If you have a very libertarian perspective I challenge you to actually read the book you are blindly criticizing. I think you will find it has more libertarian concepts that what is commonly conveyed in mainstream religious conversations. I think this is partly because if you call many Christian churches they will tell you they are in the business of saving souls when in my opinion they should be in the business of distributing teachings of love.
Matticus Rex, I'm curious about what you think of this post. Did you miss it?
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
"There are many amazing theologians who fail utterly when it comes to pragmatic application."
Whether it is religious or secular, a disconnect between theory and application is a real problem. It would seem if your theory is great, it should produce some application. Not just sound smart and like it understands logical terminology.
This seems to be the problem with all medieval philosophy, too. There is a lot about Aristotle and Plato and syllogistic reasoning. Not so much about mixing syllogisms with actual observation, which was stressed by Francis Bacon and others in the renaissance. In fact that seems to be a conceit that something is true simply for being 'reasonable' or within one's own mind. But really it is just sophism, remedial logic, and ignorance/resistance to observation and application.
Autolykos: Matticus Rex, I'm curious about what you think of this post. Did you miss it?
Sweet Mises, it's obnoxious when you do that.
Daniel James Sanchez:Sweet Mises, it's obnoxious when you do that.
What makes it so obnoxious to you?
i saw it, but by the time I saw it there were a good dozen replies after it and I am too-easily distracted.
Autolykos: It does not necessarily follow that granting free will means renouncing ownership. After all, animals have free will, but people typically consider them ownable. If God is in literally every atom, then how does He not still own us? After all, that means we're all just parts of Him. The only way around this problem is to posit a non-material component to human beings: the soul or spirit. But that would mean that God is not omnipresent.
It does not necessarily follow that granting free will means renouncing ownership. After all, animals have free will, but people typically consider them ownable.
If God is in literally every atom, then how does He not still own us? After all, that means we're all just parts of Him. The only way around this problem is to posit a non-material component to human beings: the soul or spirit. But that would mean that God is not omnipresent.
1. Animals are non-sentient, but even so, "ownership" of an animal is imperfect (I believe that this is covered by several libertarian theorists). In explicitly granting us free will (and by respecting our choices), God renounces ownership. He has the power to physically do anything with us, of course, but He has voluntarily granted the authority to make choices to us.
2. Christian theology posits two realms, spiritual and physical. God can be spiritually everywhere without literally colliding with all of our atoms, but in the initial act of creation (via the big bang, or whatever else), His labor was mixed with those atoms. The spiritual component of humans (the soul or spirit) reflects his nature. The chief fault in trying to qualify God's omnipresence is to look at it in traditional terms of the scarcity of space. God can be everywhere at once without displacing other objects. It is, in fact, somewhat required for Him to know all things. He simply falls outside of those bounds by definition.
"Animals are non-sentient"
Where did you get that idea? Humans are animals.
And even with dogs or other non-human animals this is certainly not true.
Sentience means the ability to feel or percieve. Certainly, if you try to hurt most animals, they'll feel pain. And perceive who did it and react in the manner appropriate to such pain to avoid it.
Eric080: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-ieOvFsXmg&feature=related - Universal health care = bad, Jesus doesn't approve of feminism http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvtjwCNCzSA - Homosexuality is a psychological disorder Marriage Advice - "Wives: You need to realize what your husband's #1 need in marriage is, what he wants most from you: sex! Yes, frequent, enthusiastic sex! If you do this, you will have a happy hubby, indeed. Unfortunately, here we confront one of those huge disconnects between men and women (you know, the Venus and Mars thing). A man achieves intimacy with the woman he loves through sexual intercourse; but a woman views intimacy as a pre-requisite for sexual intercourse. So if you're sensing emotional distance from your spouse, what do you do? You seem to be at an impasse. If you find yourselves in this situation, then my advice is that it is the wife who should yield and be open to her husband's advances. Otherwise what you're doing is using sex as a weapon: saying in effect, "You first meet my emotional needs or I'm going to withhold sex from you." That's manipulative and unloving." http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5887 - Listed under the podcast "Go Vote!", praises social democracy, "values voter", supports cutting off funding for stem cell research And if you further peruse his "audio blog" (why not just call it a podcast? ), you will find a couple more in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act and criticizing Obama on the Ground Zero Mosque. And I think he was making fun of Nancy Pelosi in one, but don't quote me on that. Which is not to say that everything he has said in these contexts aren't at least somewhat accurate (his portrayal of Islam perhaps and I assume he doesn't support universal healthcare, but I think Jesus would pick anarcho-communism above all political arrangements, but what do I know). I'm just saying it appears to be the case that he toes the conservative line mixed in with some religiously inspired beliefs.
You also distorted the point Dr. Craig was making in the first video re: peoples' desire at times to use Jesus as the pretext for their POLITICALLY-MOTIVATED SPECIAL INTERESTS. In this case, he merely used those who want "universal health-care" as one example and feminists as another. Dr. Craig never once stated "universal health-care = bad" nor did he state that "Jesus doesn't approve of feminism". Dr. Craig did not state his own position on either of these issues in the video. His own personal position was simply not the point he was making, as any reasonably intelligent person could ascertain.
I could say more on the first four points of your "list" (since those are the only ones I have looked into/listened to) but I will leave it at this since Dr. Craig's personal philosophy (real or perceived) is not the subject of this thread. My response should not be construed as a defense for everything Dr. Craig stated (e.g. the "go vote" part, as I believe voting to be one of the inherent problems of statism), nor should my statements be construed to be my making him out to be a libertarian. I simply don't possess the knowledge to come to that conclusion and I am therefore unqualified to say one way or the other at this time.
John Ess: "Animals are non-sentient" Where did you get that idea? Humans are animals. And even with dogs or other non-human animals this is certainly not true. Sentience means the ability to feel or percieve. Certainly, if you try to hurt most animals, they'll feel pain. And perceive who did it and react in the manner appropriate to such pain to avoid it.
Pardon me, I truly meant "sapient," but I think you likely knew that.
Matticus Rex:i saw it, but by the time I saw it there were a good dozen replies after it and I am too-easily distracted.
No problem. I hope you didn't find my gentle reminder (at least, that's what I meant it as) to be obnoxious.
Matticus Rex:1. Animals are non-sentient, but even so, "ownership" of an animal is imperfect (I believe that this is covered by several libertarian theorists). In explicitly granting us free will (and by respecting our choices), God renounces ownership. He has the power to physically do anything with us, of course, but He has voluntarily granted the authority to make choices to us.
What do you mean by "'ownership' of an animal is imperfect"? Also, by "animal" do you really mean "non-human animal"? Because, as John Ess points out, people are animals strictly speaking.
Also, how do you define "sentient"?
If God is omnipresent, then we're all a part of God, right? So then there's no distinction between us doing something and God doing it. How does free will exist here?
Matticus Rex:2. Christian theology posits two realms, spiritual and physical. God can be spiritually everywhere without literally colliding with all of our atoms, but in the initial act of creation (via the big bang, or whatever else), His labor was mixed with those atoms. The spiritual component of humans (the soul or spirit) reflects his nature. The chief fault in trying to qualify God's omnipresence is to look at it in traditional terms of the scarcity of space. God can be everywhere at once without displacing other objects. It is, in fact, somewhat required for Him to know all things. He simply falls outside of those bounds by definition.
Earlier it seemed you were saying that every atom is a part of God. Is that not what you meant to say?
How can God be everywhere at once without displacing other objects? It seems the only logical way to satisfy that question (if you will) is to say that God is everything. This seems to be the case with both realms posited by Christian theology.
Autolykos,
A few questions...
If you create something does your existence manifest itself in your creation? or if you carve something a certain way does your signature so to speak manifest itself in your creation?
Can you envision any concept to describe creating artificial intelligence without having to teach your creation? If you created artificial intelligence and provided the initial programming do you think your creation would be bound or confined to the programming you provided? Do you think this line of thought would extend to perception of reality? Would your creation be constrained to any physical based on how it's creator perceives reality? Would your creation be constrained to any limits or laws of nature based on the materials used in creating it? If you provided the initial programming would you feel like your presence was in your creation?
John Q:Eric080, I have to be honest and blunt with you here: I believe you have attributed certain things to Dr. Craig that are unsupportable and I am wondering why?
That's fine, you can be honest and blunt with me any day . To be honest, I kind of have an axe to grind with him for a few reasons (fair or unfair perhaps). But saying that, I think it's reasonable to take this body of examples and infer that he is a standard, run-of-the-mill conservative. It's certainly hinted at. That is all I said if you read the last sentence of my post. It's not an indictment, it's just laying out what I believe supports my belief that he is a Rick Warrenesque clone.
It would be the height of hypocrisy if Craig really meant that interpreting Jesus in a certain way was wrong solely for political interests. This is something that a religious person can't do. After all, they assume that morality is divinely mandated by their deity (not all but many theists; however, especially Craig who believes strongly in the Moral Argument). For Craig to lecture us on how gay marriage should not be legal or how abortion (or embryonic stem cell research, an embryo is sufficient for these types of stem cells within a week of being fertilized) is murder because embryos have souls would be invoking religion as a defense of a political stance. He is doing the exact same thing as any feminist Christian or those believing health care is a right who are Christians are doing. The only difference is the interpretation of Christian ethical teachings. So attributing some kind of ulterior motive of "twisting" Jesus' teachings are pointless because they actually think that is "what Jesus would do," so to speak.
Anyway, I agree that government shouldn't fund embryonic stem cell research, but obviously not for the reasons Craig suggests; I don't want the government funding anything
Eric080: John Q:Eric080, I have to be honest and blunt with you here: I believe you have attributed certain things to Dr. Craig that are unsupportable and I am wondering why? To be honest, I kind of have an axe to grind with him for a few reasons (fair or unfair
To be honest, I kind of have an axe to grind with him for a few reasons (fair or unfair
This is exactly what you're looking for.
James Redford. Jesus is an Anarchist: A Free-Market, Libertarian Anarchist. Procesos de mercado: revista europea de economía política, ISSN 1697-6797, Nº. 2, 2009. p. 263-324.
Download .pdf here: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1337761.
Eric080: John Q: Anyway, I agree that government shouldn't fund embryonic stem cell research, but obviously not for the reasons Craig suggests; I don't want the government funding anything
John Q:
Because blastocysts don't have rights.
Eric080: Because blastocysts don't have rights.
I think trying to convince christians of ancap should be treated the same as any one else. I would try to keep the biblical religious aspect out of it and try to come from a more academic perspective.
The church and state have always had a relationship. With out the state the church in some countries would get a lot smaller, it is through state contributions that a lot of the churches can continue to exist. I know in the UK churches are on some of the best land. The land would be valuable if it did not have a centuries old church on it. I am not suggesting that we start building on church land, I am just saying.
Live_Free_Or_Die:Autolykos, A few questions... If you create something does your existence manifest itself in your creation? or if you carve something a certain way does your signature so to speak manifest itself in your creation?
I'm not sure what you mean by "[my] existence/signature manifest itself in [my] creation". Certainly my creation (i.e. the re-arrangement of resources) wouldn't exist were it not for me. However, I wouldn't say that I'm present in my creation per se, as my creation isn't literally a part of me.
Live_Free_Or_Die:Can you envision any concept to describe creating artificial intelligence without having to teach your creation? If you created artificial intelligence and provided the initial programming do you think your creation would be bound or confined to the programming you provided? Do you think this line of thought would extend to perception of reality? Would your creation be constrained to any physical based on how it's creator perceives reality? Would your creation be constrained to any limits or laws of nature based on the materials used in creating it? If you provided the initial programming would you feel like your presence was in your creation?
Yes, I can envision a concept to describe creating artificial intelligence without having to teach it. But that concept (learning) would mean that I couldn't predict exactly how or when artificial intelligence would be reached -- only that it could be reached somehow at some point in the future. Whether the AI would be bound to its initial programming depends on the nature of that initial programming. For example, would it involve code that can modify itself? I would say, though, that the AI would certainly be constrained to the limits or laws of nature -- just as we are. Aside from these things, my presence wouldn't literally be in the AI, as I wouldn't literally feel what it feels or think what it thinks.
John, a blastocyst may be a necessary stage of becoming human, but it does not follow that it is therefore a human. A sperm cell is a necessary condition of creating a human being, but sperm cells are not "half human." A sperm cell is a sperm cell in the same way a blastocyst is a blastocyst. Sure it may develop into a human being and it is a necessary precursor to creating a human being, but a clump of cells with no identifiable form and no central nervous system it isn't any different than a skin cell.
If you're going to say "human blastocysts are human beings", you have to define a human being. I probably disagree on your definition.
Eric080: I probably disagree on your definition.
I probably disagree on your definition.
No, this is inaccurate. What men want is sex, and everyone knows it. It's trivial to provide, figuring out what sort of obscure emotional attention people want is not. Furthermore the problem with most women is not that they do not receive emotional attention it is that they drive men away from giving them emotional attention. They can not decide whether they want a 'bad boy' or a 'provider' and thereby falsify (to themselves and others) what they claim to want; while acting schizophrenically to appeal to one type and then another. Then when men get fed up with this incoherent inability to choose between types they close up on women and women blame it on men. Men may be 'emotionally distant' but it is no secret on how to connect with them, their demands are not generally complex or expensive. The same can not be said for women, who often demand things that are not even logically compatible. Even aside from logical impossibilities, it is pretty much a psychological impossibility to have both a lover and a provider. That's just not how people work.
Good grief, John. If that is your measurement for endowing a person with respect, then I don't necessarily care for your endowment. I induced that you and I probably have different definitions of what it means to be human based on your statement that a blastocyst is a human being. I have taken your position into account (derived from that statement) and estimated that, if you were to formalize what you think of a human being as being, I would probably disagree with it. That's an absolutely justified line of reasoning.
Also, please don't say that I am close minded about what being a human being would constitute. That's not the discussion you are criticizing me over. I'd be willing to talk about that, but you are calling me close-minded because I made an assessment that we may differ on the definition, a simple statement in the context of that larger discussion. I even put the quantifier "probably" in front of it.