God given rights?

Discussion in 'Religion' started by Xelasnave.1947, Apr 16, 2020.

  1. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,919
    I would love to offer more but you just seem incapable of taking in most things I have helped you with and so I will , exercising the patience you clearly require in grasping simple concepts, continue my campaigne of helping you find the path to enlightenment but really you must do more to help yourself I won't always be around to guide you. And there was something I wanted you to look up for me but I can not remember what it was..don't worry I get you to do it later when I remember.
    Alex
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,262
    When a person makes an intuitive speculation , it is not a product of reason.
    Now pay attention!!!!!
    This was not a reasoned solution, it was a specualtive assumption, a "what if" question.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Out Popped E=MC2 !!
    You cannot fashion a "reason" based on an unknown quantity. That's the problem with religious "reasoning" based on the assumed existence of a God. It's all based on a false premise. That's why prayers fail. Bad reasoning....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    If Einstein's "what if" assumption of "c" = "constant" had been wrong, no amount of reasoning would have made a difference. He was lucky and guessed right. And that made all the difference.

    Your problem is that you haven't got a clue as to how the human brain functions.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Staff Member

    Messages:
    36,370
    This is really weird. While the notion of God-given rights goes out the window when one similarly dispenses with notions of God, the political phrasing—"to assume that morality must come from God"—is overcomplicated. A God-given right is what comes from the fact of existing, not because "morality must come from God", but because all things come from God, and the way that is is the way that God made it.

    It really is that simple. And it goes away when notions of God go away. And, as I'm sure you're aware, what counts as a God-given right is about as diverse as the people who might give you a list.

    †​

    Also, and just because: It seems worth pointing out that the Lockean rights to life, liberty, and property, or later tradeout for pursuit of happiness, is, ultimately, a political argument. The existentialist might note the absence of any explicit declaration of self in the short form, because in the time of Lockean liberalism, other elements of history include coverture, which says something about the heritage of self. As an American, I'm sure there's a Rousseau joke in there, somewhere, but never mind. We might wonder what part of the Lockean self persists in the twenty-first century reflection on natural law and rights. Indeed, the basic sketch of Locke on consent and recent significant discourse thereof suggests a whiff of a political cartoon punch line with recurring significance in socmed circles, but for our moment we are left to wonder what part of Locke's legacy has been treated any better in history than, say, the ministry of Christ.

    †​

    Tape-stop. Watch the beat:

    Religion, the dominion of the human mind; Property, the dominion of human needs; and Government, the dominion of human conduct, represent the stronghold of man's enslavement and all the horrors it entails. Religion! How it dominates man's mind, how it humiliates and degrades his soul. God is everything, man is nothing, says religion. But out of that nothing God has created a kingdom so despotic, so tyrannical, so cruel, so terribly exacting that naught but gloom and tears and blood have ruled the world since gods began. Anarchism rouses man to rebellion against this black monster. Break your mental fetters, says Anarchism to man, for not until you think and judge for yourself will you get rid of the dominion of darkness, the greatest obstacle to all progress.

    Property, the dominion of man's needs, the denial of the right to satisfy his needs. Time was when property claimed a divine right, when it came to man with the same refrain, even as religion, "Sacrifice! Abnegate! Submit!" The spirit of Anarchism has lifted man from his prostrate position. He now stands erect, with his face toward the light. He has learned to see the insatiable, devouring, devastating nature of property, and he is preparing to strike the monster dead.

    "Property is robbery," said the great French Anarchist Proudhon. Yes, but without risk and danger to the robber. Monopolizing the accumulated efforts of man, property has robbed him of his birthright, and has turned him loose a pauper and an outcast. Property has not even the time-worn excuse that man does not create enough to satisfy all needs. The A B C student of economics knows that the productivity of labor within the last few decades far exceeds normal demand. But what are normal demands to an abnormal institution? The only demand that property recognizes is its own gluttonous appetite for greater wealth, because wealth means power; the power to subdue, to crush, to exploit, the power to enslave, to outrage, to degrade. America is particularly boastful of her great power, her enormous national wealth. Poor America, of what avail is all her wealth, if the individuals comprising the nation are wretchedly poor? If they live in squalor, in filth, in crime, with hope and joy gone, a homeless, soilless army of human prey.


    (Goldman↱)

    From 1689 to 1911. And in the hundred nine years since Goldman planted that Anarchist flag, Americans seem to have demonstrated her point. Or, perhaps it is better to say seems to be that Locke described an abstract potential, and Goldman observed a result.

    †​

    Natural rights derived from morality are, barring the emergence and resolution of objective morality, political arguments. The idea of natural rights is far more existential, even before there were existentialists. That's the thing about self; it's all over the place in Locke's considerations, but demonstrably an afterthought in the example of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

    †​

    Aside, I have a joke about the overlap between those who suggest I have no sense of humor and those who don't laugh at my jokes. Never mind. The thing is, the topic post↑ is sort of a Poe case. The idea that someone in the world might ask that question isn't utterly unbelievable, but that particular person?

    In the cartoon, Nami risked her left hand for a friend. But that's anime. In our corner, I injured mine attempting two gestures at once, though it spared me a concussion.

    It's just a lot of effort for a joke with so little return. Moreover, we're apparently down to invoking Jan↑, for lack of anything better to say.
    ____________________

    Notes:

    Goldman, Emma. "Anarchism: What It Really Stands For." New York: Mother Earth Publishing Association, 1911. http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu. 31 July 2020. http://bit.ly/1F1enVU
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,262
    George Carlin had a few words on the God given right to invoke the death-penalty . For good cause of course.

    warning extreme crude language, but content is very serious.
     
  8. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,610
    Look, I didn't want to do this, but you obviously need to learn how to find better scientific references. You keep quoting this: http://www.stresscure.com/hrn/einstein.html
    That is not science nor history. It is an elaborate excuse to avoid, as the website name would suggest, stress. And worse than misrepresenting the history and method of science, it then goes on to give the standard crackpot excuses:
    1. The truth about life may not be what we've been told;
    2. The truth about life may be very different than what most learned people believe;
    3. We don't always need proof, evidence, or the agreement of others to embrace a new "truth" if we have good reason to believe in it's utility.
    Now, I'm not the least bit surprised that you would fall for transparently crackpot justifications and ignorantly misrepresented history. You don't seem at all interested in learning anything beyond the most superficial affirmation of your existing beliefs, a hallmark of your quasi-religious ideology. And yet again, I have to point out that it's rather sad that a theist, of all people, has to be the one to point all this out to you. That should be a huge wake up call that you are so deluded and easily played for a fool. But don't take my word for it.

    I've already shown you, with references, that a mass-energy equivalence was made prior to Einstein, and that the formulation E=MC^2 was arrived at by Fritz Hasenöhrl a year before Einstein. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/was-einstein-the-first-to-invent-e-mc2/
    Considering Hasenöhrl was a leading Austrian physicist and those papers were prize-winning and appeared in the most prominent journal at the time, it seems highly likely that Einstein, who kept abreast of all the latest physics, would have read them. Einstein borrowed heavily from many others, like Lorentz, Gauss, Mach, etc.. So no, it wasn't a "wild guess". But even if it were, that alone would contradict you're earlier nonsense that all science derives from observation, especially when the mass-energy equivalence wasn't even observable until 1932.

    And in true crackpot fashion, you then move you're own goalpost from the mass-energy equivalence to the constant speed of light. The problem there is that Einstein didn't come up with that unbidden or on his own either.
    Empedocles (c. 490–430 BC) was the first to propose a theory of light and claimed that light has a finite speed.
    ...
    In the 13th century, Roger Bacon argued that the speed of light in air was not infinite, using philosophical arguments backed by the writing of Alhazen and Aristotle.
    ...
    Pierre de Fermat derived Snell's law using the opposing assumption, the denser the medium the slower light traveled. Fermat also argued in support of a finite speed of light.
    ...
    The first quantitative estimate of the speed of light was made in 1676 by Rømer (see Rømer's determination of the speed of light). From the observation that the periods of Jupiter's innermost moon Io appeared to be shorter when the Earth was approaching Jupiter than when receding from it, he concluded that light travels at a finite speed, and estimated that it takes light 22 minutes to cross the diameter of Earth's orbit. Christiaan Huygens combined this estimate with an estimate for the diameter of the Earth's orbit to obtain an estimate of speed of light of 220000 km/s, 26% lower than the actual value.

    In his 1704 book Opticks, Isaac Newton reported Rømer's calculations of the finite speed of light and gave a value of "seven or eight minutes" for the time taken for light to travel from the Sun to the Earth (the modern value is 8 minutes 19 seconds). ...In 1729, James Bradley discovered stellar aberration. From this effect he determined that light must travel 10210 times faster than the Earth in its orbit (the modern figure is 10066 times faster)
    ...
    Based on Lorentz's aether theory, Henri Poincaré (1900) showed that this local time (to first order in v/c) is indicated by clocks moving in the aether, which are synchronized under the assumption of constant light speed. In 1904, he speculated that the speed of light could be a limiting velocity in dynamics
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light#History
    Einstein only took rejection of the aether, the existing Lorentz transformation, constant speed of light, and philosophical reasoning of Poincaré to reason that the speed of light was the same for any non-accelerating observer, regardless of relative motion. And in Einstein's own words:
    ...it is impossible to base a theory of the transformation laws of space and time on the principle of relativity alone. As we know, this is connected with the relativity of the concepts of "simultaneity" and "shape of moving bodies." To fill this gap, I introduced the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light, which I borrowed from H. A. Lorentz's theory of the stationary luminiferous ether, and which, like the principle of relativity, contains a physical assumption that seemed to be justified only by the relevant experiments (experiments by Fizeau, Rowland, etc.)[22]

    — Albert Einstein (1912), translated by Anna Beck (1996).
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_priority_dispute#Historians_of_special_relativity

    You're problem is that you haven't got a clue as to how science is done.
     
  9. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,262
    Yes Einstein introduced a "what if" based on a flawed "stationary luminiferous ether" theory by Lorentz. It was an intuitive cognition of a never before asked question of "what if 'c' is a constant".
    Luminiferous aether
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether

    Relativity priority dispute
    Janssen:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_priority_dispute#Historians_of_special_relativity

    Tada!
    At no time prior had anyone suggested "c" as a constant, just that an ether was the carrier. It was an "inspiration", an intuitive mathematical cognition of spacetime functions that led Einstein to enter "speculative data" and behold, when "c" is a constant, everything begins to make sense or "becomes reasonable".

    It was similar to Higgs assumption that the Higgs boson could be made manifest using specific mathematical applications on spacetime. I wonder how many theoretical "what if" probabilities were eliminated before Higgs came up with the right formula, which mathematically predicted the manifestation of the boson, for a what...pico-second before decay?

    The whole point of confusion in QM is that at this level of reduction standard physics do no longer apply and there may be as yet unknown factors in play which have never before been contemplated.

    We've only been able to perform tests at quantum level for a relatively short period of time considering that extremely sophisticated and expensive equipment is required to simulate spacetime behaviors at quantum (Planck) level . Cern is but one example.
     
    Last edited: Aug 2, 2020 at 10:49 PM
  10. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,610
    Damn, you can't even read simple English. He literally said he used "the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light, which I borrowed from H. A. Lorentz's theory". That's the constant speed of light, from Lorentz. Hell, he even used Lorentz's equations to derive SR. The ONLY real difference was that Lorentz postulated a single preferred frame of reference where Einstein did not.

    I've already shown you that Poincaré had already postulated a constant speed of light "could be a limiting velocity in dynamics". That's in both senses of "constant". Both a constant, finite value for the speed of light and a physical constant that limits velocity.

    All the pieces were there for Einstein to assemble. And if he didn't, so many elements of SR were already done that someone else would have. But run on back to your "stress" citations, and ignore the entire history of the science involved. That's how true believers behave.
     
  11. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,262
    How do you know?
    Is it possible that the purported quote of Einstein by Anna Beck was incorrect?

    If he took the constancy of "c" from Lorentz, then he did not invent it, did he? Make up your mind.
    Be "reasonable"!
     
  12. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,610
    I never said Einstein "invented" anything at all. And unless you can show any reason to doubt that quote, you're just playing the usual crackpot games. Just deny (by bare assertion) anything that contradicts your ignorant and quasi-religious beliefs.
     
  13. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,262
    That's your intractable problem. According to you God is the ultimate inventor, the "Intelligent Designer", no matter how you try to obscure that proposition. Human discovered the mathematical nature of the Universe and ALL of science is based on that tacit agreement. If you want to quibble about "reason" and "logic", have at it. You're beginning to bore me with your "constant" obnoxious behavior. That just just makes you an obnoxious person or just have an obnoxious personality. I won't quibble about the details. The results speak for themselves.....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    There was a lot of prior speculation, but no one got it right. Einstein did get it right and that make him the inventor of the human symbolic representation of the universal constant, E = Mc^2 .

    All scientists stand on the shoulders of scientists that came before. That does not mean they cannot receive credit for "formalizing" a universal Mathematical Law, regardless how long the "issue" has been discussed and how many parts were previously known but all without the elegant simplicity of E - Mc^2

    To deny a scientist recognition of his work, often the result of a lifetime of dedicated research, is unconscionable...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  14. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,610
    No, I've already said that I'm not satisfied with any description of "intelligent design" I've heard. Your lack of comprehending simple English isn't me obscuring anything.
    You seem to be confused, conflating "invented" with "discovered" (created with found), as if they are interchangeable. Edison "invented" the light bulb, Einstein "developed" SR, and you "discovered" your navel. Different things. No one has disputed that humans invented and developed mathematics and discovered its relation to nature.
    Again, never quibbled about "reason" and "logic". You keep imagining things that I've never said. Just goes to show how skewed your perception of reality, or just poor reading comprehension. Of course you don't want to "quibble about the details", because you obviously don't understand any of the details. You just keep making demonstrably ignorant claims and, maybe finally starting to see what a fool you're making of yourself, thus wanting to beg off as "bored".

    You can't even manage to simply read what I've shown you. Einstein didn't use the E=mc^2 notation in his 1905 paper. Henri Poincaré did use the equivalent, in 1900. Here's even an English translation, complete with a footnote saying "The principle of the constancy of the velocity of light is of course contained in Maxwell's equations.": http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/
    No E=mc^2.
    And again, I never said Einstein deserved no credit. (I'm really starting to believe that this is your repeated ignorance more than straw men.) He just didn't, as you so ignorantly have claimed, invent it wholesale (through a sudden leap of intuition) nor discover it in nature. And again, Poincaré came up with the equivalent to E=mc^2, five years earlier.
    In "Does the inertia of a body depend upon its energy content?" (1905), Einstein used V to mean the speed of light in a vacuum and L to mean the energy lost by a body in the form of radiation. Consequently, the equation E = mc2 was not originally written as a formula but as a sentence in German saying that "if a body gives off the energy L in the form of radiation, its mass diminishes by L/V2."
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass–energy_equivalence#Nomenclature
    Einstein didn't even get around to using E=mc^2 until 1946:
    Einstein returned to the topic once again after World War II and this time he wrote E = mc2 in the title of his article intended as an explanation for a general reader by analogy.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass–energy_equivalence#Nomenclature
    So yet again, do you ever get tired of being so wrong? Does Dunning-Kruger protect you from ever realizing it?


    Oh, and your "E - Mc^2" is just plain stupid. If it's such "elegant simplicity", you might try actually writing it correctly.
     
    Last edited: Aug 3, 2020 at 5:20 AM
  15. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,262
    Boring!
     
  16. Vociferous Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,610
    Yes, you've repeatedly proven that actual science, and it's history, completely bores the crap out of you. You've demonstrated you are far happier just making it up or blithely accepting whatever validates your scientifically illiterate bs. Too bad. Someone who likes science should really be open to actually learning it.
     
  17. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    25,555

    Yeah pretty well factual, and the great man would be the first to agree with it.
    I've see arguments in the past from people that suffer from "tall poppy syndrome" trying to drag Einstein from his rightful position, in vociferously arrogant and ignorant fashion, but the history still stands as correct.
    One of Einstein's greatest qualities was humility, and I reckon he would be the first to pronounce the fact that he borrowed heaps from the giants of the past, and via hard work and intelligence, put them together and gave us a new vision of the reality of space and time and their interchangeability and variable nature.
     
    Write4U likes this.
  18. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,262
    Boring!
     
  19. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    34,574
    Yes, I think that some animals have some degree of moral reasoning. You, bong or no bong, have made no attempt to show that I'm wrong. You'll have to try harder, I'm afraid. Your attempt at argument by ridicule has failed, so maybe you can try constructing a valid argument of some kind now. I can wait.

    I'm not convinced that any such "right" exists, for reasons that I have already explained.

    What's the difference, then?

    You sound angry. Why is that? The whole tone of your post reads like you wrote it in a flash of anger at something. Want to share?

    I can and did read your earlier reply, of course.

    Now you're trying to make some distinction between "inter-" and "intra-species" rights. What are you on about? What is the distinction you're pointing to? What is "obvious" to you is not necessarily obvious to anybody else, unless and until you make it so.

    But you have sparked my interest by claiming that my argument can be used to justify cannibalism. So, lay it out for me. How does that work, exactly? Thanks.

    In what sense are these natural rights you mention rights, as opposed to merely being observed behaviours or facts?
     
  20. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,919
    I see no logic in suggesting that natural rights exist other than to somehow fit a view that a creators hand is in everything which of course goes without support.
    There can only be a right if it is granted by a human or in the case of god given right invented by a human.

    Alex
     
  21. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,919
    I suspect however you agree in general terms given your flat rejection of chemistry making life.

    Yet you pussy foot around with "not satisfied" which suggests you certainly don't reject ID..do you reject it or not? You know with the same vigor you reject life from chemical interaction...you certainly did not feel it necessary to say in those chats "not satisfied".
    Alex
     

Share This Page