Does LaClair accept the logic of the DoI?

[Bryan]

The Declaration of Independence, that is?

It seems like a simple enough question, but Paul LaClair doesn't seem to wish to give it a straight answer.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=52117

LaClair says he's busy, so I figure starting a thread on it will help LaClair understand that a question has been asked.

Let's see if he gets around to answering it.

[Guest Paul]

The Declaration of Independence, that is?

It seems like a simple enough question, but Paul LaClair doesn't seem to wish to give it a straight answer.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=52117

LaClair says he's busy, so I figure starting a thread on it will help LaClair understand that a question has been asked.

Let's see if he gets around to answering it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bryan, this is your lucky day. My first case settled today.

Logic consists of statements and the conclusions logically drawn therefrom. There is a distinction between formal (mathematical) logic and informal logic, so while you may think this is a simple question, it isn’t necessarily so. You may, of course, identify the premises and conclusions you have in mind if the answer below does not address what you have in mind. Of course, you always say responses (you don’t agree with) don’t address what you have in mind, even when they do, so the mere fact that you say it doesn’t mean that I will respond.

You know I don’t accept the premise of a creator, so why do you even bother asking me the question? There’s no logic behind the statement. It’s just a premise.

You also know that I am strongly committed to and in favor of a universal ethic, which is what the Declaration of Independence expresses with “all men.” Our culture read this as “all people” when it wanted to live out its greatest ideals, and as “all men, except black men and Native Americans and certainly no women, and oh, yeah, not those yellow people either” whenever it was convenient. No “logic” ties this to a “creator”; it’s just a statement made to express a set of values that were breached almost as often as honored for quite a long time.

What does logically follow from the Declaration is that if there was an omnipotent creator who endowed us all with unalienable rights, there would have been no slavery and no genocide against the Native Americans. You’re asking the same silly questions you’ve asked all along, and making the same unfounded assumptions you’ve made all along. Flatter yourself as you may, they are neither new nor particularly interesting.

[Bryan]

Logic consists of statements and the conclusions logically drawn therefrom. There is a distinction between formal (mathematical) logic and informal logic, so while you may think this is a simple question, it isn’t necessarily so. You may, of course, identify the premises and conclusions you have in mind if the answer below does not address what you have in mind.

I can't trust you to identify the logic you agree or disagree with?

Of course, you always say responses (you don’t agree with) don’t address what you have in mind, even when they do,

For example? Since I supposedly always do that, I must have done it at least once. You should be able to find an example, in other words.

so the mere fact that you say it doesn’t mean that I will respond.

Huh? The mere fact that I say what doesn't mean that you will respond? Whether you respond or not is up to you. I just try to give you a reason to respond.

You know I don’t accept the premise of a creator, so why do you even bother asking me the question?

In order to obtain your answer, of course.

That wasn't exactly an unequivocal answer you offered, BTW. Ever heard of "Yes" or "No" or "Yes, but ..." or "No, but ..."?

There’s no logic behind the statement. It’s just a premise.

Logic always ends with a premise at some point. Are you done hemming and hawing yet?

You also know that I am strongly committed to and in favor of a universal ethic, which is what the Declaration of Independence expresses with “all men.”

Paul (and he can correct me if I'm wrong) means an ethic that benefits all people when he refers to a "universal ethic."

I don't think that the Framers had that idea in mind, since "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness" quite ignores the golden rule.

Maybe Paul is picking out a different occurrence of "all men," however.

I'll let him specify if that's the case.

http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm

Hmmm. Might be tough, since the word combination only occurs once.

Good luck, Paul.

Our culture read this as “all people” when it wanted to live out its greatest ideals, and as “all men, except black men and Native Americans and certainly no women, and oh, yeah, not those yellow people either” whenever it was convenient. No “logic” ties this to a “creator”;

The logic of the Declaration of Independence explicitly ties "certain inalienable rights" right to the "Creator,"--you think the Declaration if bunkum, don't you?

So where do those rights come from, then, if not the "Creator"? Do they exist because we believe in them faithfully?

it’s just a statement made to express a set of values that were breached almost as often as honored for quite a long time.

Of what relevance is the breaching of said values to your answer, counselor?

What does logically follow from the Declaration is that if there was an omnipotent creator who endowed us all with unalienable rights, there would have been no slavery and no genocide against the Native Americans.

lol

That's bunkum, and I challenge you to argue your case with logic--taking special care to take the Deist view of the Creator into account (because otherwise we can bet that you're constructing another straw man).

You’re asking the same silly questions you’ve asked all along, and making the same unfounded assumptions you’ve made all along.

1) I keep asking only because you do not answer (and even now the answer is implied but equivocal).

2) What unfounded assumption(s) have I made? Could you name one or more (or will the parade of accusations minus the benefit of evidence continue)?

Flatter yourself as you may, they are neither new nor particularly interesting.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Heh. Flatter myself. Like pointing out that Paul isn't answering the question somehow flatters me.

Paul, it truly looks like you don't know how to argue without fallacies of distraction.

I realize it may be a longstanding habit from your law practice, but you've got to know by now I'm not going to let you get away with it every time.

The "Find the Self-Flattery Contest" is on:

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...=ST&f=2&t=8174#

No more than 50 entries per family. Employees of the Kearny Public Library not eligible to participate. Offer void where prohibited.

[Guest Guest]

Bryan, this is your lucky day. My first case settled today.

Logic consists of statements and the conclusions logically drawn therefrom. There is a distinction between formal (mathematical) logic and informal logic, so while you may think this is a simple question, it isn’t necessarily so. You may, of course, identify the premises and conclusions you have in mind if the answer below does not address what you have in mind. Of course, you always say responses (you don’t agree with) don’t address what you have in mind, even when they do, so the mere fact that you say it doesn’t mean that I will respond.

You know I don’t accept the premise of a creator, so why do you even bother asking me the question? There’s no logic behind the statement. It’s just a premise.

You also know that I am strongly committed to and in favor of a universal ethic, which is what the Declaration of Independence expresses with “all men.” Our culture read this as “all people” when it wanted to live out its greatest ideals, and as “all men, except black men and Native Americans and certainly no women, and oh, yeah, not those yellow people either” whenever it was convenient. No “logic” ties this to a “creator”; it’s just a statement made to express a set of values that were breached almost as often as honored for quite a long time.

What does logically follow from the Declaration is that if there was an omnipotent creator who endowed us all with unalienable rights, there would have been no slavery and no genocide against the Native Americans. You’re asking the same silly questions you’ve asked all along, and making the same unfounded assumptions you’ve made all along. Flatter yourself as you may, they are neither new nor particularly interesting.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So you have been supposedly practicing as an attorney for how long? And you say that you yesderday you finally settled your first case? These are your words. I am just repeating them. I am just following your logic. Not that anyone does care what you say or for the most part find it interesting. You time has long since come and gone. I am glad I am wasting my time even writing it. I guess it's for my own amusement.

[Guest Paul]

Do (rights) exist because we believe in them faithfully?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

From a legal standpoint, that is exactly why they exist.

[Guest Paul]

So you have been supposedly practicing as an attorney for how long?  And you say that you yesderday you finally settled your first case?  These are your words. I am just repeating them.  I am just following your logic.  Not that anyone does care what you say or for the most part find it interesting.  You time has long since come and gone.  I am glad I am wasting my time even writing it. I guess it's for my own amusement.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You're reading what you want to read. I've gone to trial on hundreds of cases in my career. This one was the first of three scheduled for this month.

I must really be getting under your skin. You don't really think that improves your argument, do you?

[Guest Steve_C]

So you have been supposedly practicing as an attorney for how long?  And you say that you yesderday you finally settled your first case?  These are your words. I am just repeating them.  I am just following your logic.  Not that anyone does care what you say or for the most part find it interesting.  You time has long since come and gone.  I am glad I am wasting my time even writing it. I guess it's for my own amusement.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Are you dense?

His first case... of they day.

ARe you an idiot or just play one on tv?

[Guest Paul]

What unfounded assumption(s) have I made?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

1. That a creator exists.

2. That this creator is described in the Bible. (You know, the one with the chosen race of people.)

3. That this creator endowed all men with unalienable rights, notwithstanding:

(a) the chosen people thing,

( pretty much all of human history, with its multiple examples of slavery, genocide, etc., and

© the fact that some people are so horribly damaged that pursuing happiness is virtually impossible for them.

For that matter, if life is an unalienable right, then

1. Why is capital punishment OK, and

2. Why do people die at all?

It is, of course, no answer that this creator is best seen as described by the Diests. If the laws of nature had established unalienable rights, humans would not have the power to alter them, whether the creator actively intervened or not. In addition, the statement Bryan references was meant to speak for all the signers, the theists including the Deists. None of them objected to it that I know of, and they did sign their names.

Of course, one could argue that this is not what "unalienable rights" means. In that case, however, one is obliged to state what he believes it does mean.

Logical conclusions germane to this discussion, silly as the discussion is:

1. The concept of unalienable rights endowed in us by a creator was a useful myth, but a myth just the same, and

2. Whatever Bryan would like this statement from the Declaration of Independence to be, and however he would like to reconstruct our system of laws with it, the fact remains that it does not carry the force of law for the reasons previously discussed.

I probably should have had better sense than to keep responding to this silliness, but I had a few minutes and the end of the day today. Bryan will no doubt continue to reconstruct the world and the universe according to Bryan, but that does not reflect how things really are.

He will also insist that anyone who does not agree with him is being deliberately obtuse, notwithstanding that a great many statements in the Declaration of Independence could be analyzed for their logical content. The fact that I was able to guess which statement he was referring to does not change the fact that it was his question, and his claim that the Declaration contains a logical argument. Had I made that statement, and been asked to clarify it, I would have done so. But then anything that calls for any semblance of responsibility or accountability is never about Bryan, is it.

[Strife767]

So you have been supposedly practicing as an attorney for how long?  And you say that you yesderday you finally settled your first case?  These are your words. I am just repeating them.

of the day, obviously! Geez, where's your head?

I am just following your logic.  Not that anyone does care what you say or for the most part find it interesting.

Yup, everyone shows their complete indifference to Paul's posts by replying to them. Wait a sec...

You time has long since come and gone.  I am glad I am wasting my time even writing it. I guess it's for my own amusement.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Considering how your post started, I imagine it doesn't take very much to amuse you.

[Bryan]

Do (rights) exist because we believe in them faithfully?

From a legal standpoint, that is exactly why they exist.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Paul seems to be the first at KOTW to affirm that believing in something hard enough will cause it to exist.

Seems to me that it's a bit of a reversal from what he implied elsewhere.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=45931

[Guest Guest]

The Declaration of Independence, that is?

It seems like a simple enough question, but Paul LaClair doesn't seem to wish to give it a straight answer.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=52117

LaClair says he's busy, so I figure starting a thread on it will help LaClair understand that a question has been asked.

Let's see if he gets around to answering it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Let me get this straight. Bryan wants to pick one phrase out of the Declaration of Independence and declare it to be the highest defining principle for all our laws, never mind that the men who wrote the Constitution consciously chose to leave the idea of a "Creator" out of the nation's system of laws. True to form, Bryan ignores the distinction between a manifesto like the Declaration of Independence and a legal document like the Constitution. He also ignores that the central point is not whether there is a creator, but the idea of equality. He also ignores the fact that the Constitution includes a Bill of Rights, the First Amendment of which establishes a wall of separation between church and state. He also ignores the fact that because our country did not live up to the principle of equality ("all men are created equal") early in its history, the 14th Amendment was added to the Constitution just after the Civil War to make equal protection and due process fundamental to our legal system, and binding on the states and their sub-units.

Bryan is like the four-year-old who hears a remark, takes it literally, and spends the next several hours pitching a fit of "You said! You said!" That's not how a mature and responsible country behaves.

[Guest 2smart4u]

1. That a creator exists.

2. That this creator is described in the Bible. (You know, the one with the chosen race of people.)

3. That this creator endowed all men with unalienable rights, notwithstanding:

    (a) the chosen people thing,

    ( pretty much all of human history, with its multiple examples of slavery, genocide, etc., and

    © the fact that some people are so horribly damaged that pursuing happiness is virtually impossible for them.

For that matter, if life is an unalienable right, then

1. Why is capital punishment OK, and

2. Why do people die at all?

It is, of course, no answer that this creator is best seen as described by the Diests. If the laws of nature had established unalienable rights, humans would not have the power to alter them, whether the creator actively intervened or not. In addition, the statement Bryan references was meant to speak for all the signers, the theists including the Deists. None of them objected to it that I know of, and they did sign their names.

Of course, one could argue that this is not what "unalienable rights" means. In that case, however, one is obliged to state what he believes it does mean.

Logical conclusions germane to this discussion, silly as the discussion is:

1. The concept of unalienable rights endowed in us by a creator was a useful myth, but a myth just the same, and

2. Whatever Bryan would like this statement from the Declaration of Independence to be, and however he would like to reconstruct our system of laws with it, the fact remains that it does not carry the force of law for the reasons previously discussed.

I probably should have had better sense than to keep responding to this silliness, but I had a few minutes and the end of the day today. Bryan will no doubt continue to reconstruct the world and the universe according to Bryan, but that does not reflect how things really are.

He will also insist that anyone who does not agree with him is being deliberately obtuse, notwithstanding that a great many statements in the Declaration of Independence could be analyzed for their logical content. The fact that I was able to guess which statement he was referring to does not change the fact that it was his question, and his claim that the Declaration contains a logical argument. Had I made that statement, and been asked to clarify it, I would have done so. But then anything that calls for any semblance of responsibility or accountability is never about Bryan, is it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

PLEASE !! Give us a freakin break from your moronic postings. This is the same s--t that you've been posting for it seems like forever. "Why is capital punishment OK" , "Why do people die at all " . Real brilliant questions, you moron.

Did it take very long to think up those gems ??

[Strife767]

PLEASE !!  Give us a freakin break from your moronic postings.  This is the same s--t  that you've been posting for it seems like forever.  "Why is capital punishment OK" ,  "Why do people die at all " . Real brilliant questions, you moron.

  Did it take very long to think up those gems ??

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Much longer than it took for you to think up "rectum remarks," child.

[Bryan]

Let me get this straight. Bryan wants to pick one phrase out of the Declaration of Independence and declare it to be the highest defining principle for all our laws, never mind that the men who wrote the Constitution consciously chose to leave the idea of a "Creator" out of the nation's system of laws.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bzzt.

That's not my position, which should be fairly obvious to anybody who read the post to which you're replying.

[Guest Guest]

From a legal standpoint, that is exactly why they exist.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Paul seems to be the first at KOTW to affirm that believing in something hard enough will cause it to exist.

Seems to me that it's a bit of a reversal from what he implied elsewhere.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=45931

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

He's talking about rights, not tangible objects, you idiot. Of course rights are inventions of the will.

[Guest Paul]

From a legal standpoint, that is exactly why they exist.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Paul seems to be the first at KOTW to affirm that believing in something hard enough will cause it to exist.

Seems to me that it's a bit of a reversal from what he implied elsewhere.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=45931

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bryan is responding to a post on the Faith topic, where I wrote:

"I'll try again, asking it a different way.

Does believing in something make it so?

Does acting on something make it happen?

What do the answers to those two questions have to do with Faith?"

and he is comparing that to my affirmation that rights exist "because we believe in them faithfully."

When we believe in something Faithfully, that means we also act in accordance with our belief. Without action, it wouldn't be Faith and it would lose most of its creative force. (In Christian parlance, "faith without works is dead.") It is important to note, of course, that on this topic we were referring to the origins of rights. The creation of rights does operate differently than the creation of material things in the sense that there are fewer intermediate boundaries between the will and rights than between the will and material things; that is not to say, however, that the creation of rights is easier than the creation of material things. The human species has had a far easier time fashioning spears than fashioning an enduring concept of rights. In another sense, human beings have no power to create material at all. All we can do is take material and change its form. By contrast, "rights" is a concept, which we create whole. It didn't exist (as far as we can see) in any species before or except ours, and we are struggling against our evolutionary past to create a concept of rights that is both universal and enduriing.

[Guest Paul]

PLEASE !!  Give us a freakin break from your moronic postings.  This is the same s--t  that you've been posting for it seems like forever.  "Why is capital punishment OK" ,  "Why do people die at all " . Real brilliant questions, you moron.

  Did it take very long to think up those gems ??

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No. I think about these things all the time. That's one of the differences between you and me. If you think about it, you'll learn to draw conclusions that are different from the ones you're drawing now. But of course, that implies that you'd have to think.

It's a teaser, 2smart. Even you can think if you want to.

[Bryan]

You're reading what you want to read. I've gone to trial on hundreds of cases in my career. This one was the first of three scheduled for this month.

I must really be getting under your skin. You don't really think that improves your argument, do you?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What argument did he present other than the one suggesting that you hadn't practiced much law over the span of your career?

And if it's not somehow hidden in the same post to which you responded, how do you differentiate one anonymous guest from another?

My apologies for piling on the digression--it only interests me because Paul's comment seems indicative of another instance of him jumping to an unfounded conclusion (but I won't rule out the outside chance that he can coherently explain himself).

[Bryan]

Paul seems to be the first at KOTW to affirm that believing in something hard enough will cause it to exist.

Seems to me that it's a bit of a reversal from what he implied elsewhere.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=45931

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

He's talking about rights, not tangible objects, you idiot. Of course rights are inventions of the will.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Paul's position was that his system of morality is founded on an objective basis, and he has agreed that rights are based on morality.

Seems to me that if one were to make the will the "objective basis" for morality then one has devalued objectivity entirely.

Do you disagree?

[Bryan]

Paul seems to be the first at KOTW to affirm that believing in something hard enough will cause it to exist.

Seems to me that it's a bit of a reversal from what he implied elsewhere.

http://forums.kearnyontheweb.com/index.php...indpost&p=45931

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bryan is responding to a post on the Faith topic, where I wrote:

"I'll try again, asking it a different way.

Does believing in something make it so?

Does acting on something make it happen?

What do the answers to those two questions have to do with Faith?"

and he is comparing that to my affirmation that rights exist "because we believe in them faithfully."

Prepare to follow the bouncing ball.

When we believe in something Faithfully, that means we also act in accordance with our belief. Without action, it wouldn't be Faith and it would lose most of its creative force. (In Christian parlance, "faith without works is dead.")

Dicey application of the scripture (the faith is still real enough, the problem is a lack of public testimony--not "creative force" unless the term is used in some figurative sense).

"Creative force" seems to stand in for "motive."

It is important to note, of course, that on this topic we were referring to the origins of rights. The creation of rights does operate differently than the creation of material things in the sense that there are fewer intermediate boundaries between the will and rights than between the will and material things; that is not to say, however, that the creation of rights is easier than the creation of material things.

Sorry to interrupt: Just to note, "fewer intermediate boundaries between the will and rights than between the will and material things"--despite the attempt at clarification, produces more questions than it answers.

What are these supposed boundaries and how do they compare?

The human species has had a far easier time fashioning spears than fashioning an enduring concept of rights. In another sense, human beings have no power to create material at all. All we can do is take material and change its form. By contrast, "rights" is a concept, which we create whole. It didn't exist (as far as we can see) in any species before or except ours, and we are struggling against our evolutionary past to create a concept of rights that is both universal and enduriing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If we create the concept of rights "whole" then doesn't this indicate that you were incorrect when you claimed an objective basis for morality?

Assuming you don't take simply take thinking about it as an "objective" process?

I think that Paul has contradicted himself again.

Just keep him writing enough and it seems inevitable.

[Guest 2smart4u]

What argument did he present other than the one suggesting that you hadn't practiced much law over the span of your career?

And if it's not somehow hidden in the same post to which you responded, how do you differentiate one anonymous guest from another?

My apologies for piling on the digression--it only interests me because Paul's comment seems indicative of another instance of him jumping to an unfounded conclusion (but I won't rule out the outside chance that he can coherently explain himself).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

With the amount of time Paulie spends posting his nonsense on KOTW, my bet is he's an attorney with a lot of time on his hands. Most likely he does an occasional closing on a home purchase. And if you read a few of his better quotes, "Why is capital punishment OK" or "Why do people die at all", you come to the conclusion he hasn't spent any time in front of a jury. He's much more comfortable debating Bryan on KOTW.

[Strife767]

With the amount of time Paulie spends posting his nonsense on KOTW, my bet is he's an attorney with a lot of time on his hands.

Name an amount--I'm always up for some easy money.

Most likely he does an occasional closing on a home purchase.  And if you read a few of his better quotes, "Why is capital punishment OK"  or  "Why do people die at all", you come to the conclusion he hasn't spent any time in front of a jury.

Maybe your d**b a** does, but most of us know better.

[Guest Paul]

He's talking about rights, not tangible objects, you idiot. Of course rights are inventions of the will.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Paul's position was that his system of morality is founded on an objective basis, and he has agreed that rights are based on morality.

Seems to me that if one were to make the will the "objective basis" for morality then one has devalued objectivity entirely.

Do you disagree?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No. As usual, Bryan, you construe other people's arguments according to your resistance to them. You cannot understand them that way.

Rights are inventions of the will. That is correct. In a nation ruled by tyrants, many are denied what we in more democratic countries would regard and basic civil and human rights. On both sides of the ledger (nations and societies that are free versus those that are not), the presence/absence of rights is governed by the human will. The difference between justice and injustice, as well as objectivity versus subjectivity, lies in whether those rights are forumalated in accordance with universally shared values.

If a culture's working conception of "rights" is arbitrarily or selectively formulated (e.g., "I have the right to own slaves," meaning "I have the right to be free but my slave does not"), then justice is denied. That's a pretty widely accepted Truth among civilized peoples these days, and one worth enforcing by law, don't you think.

On the other hand, if rights are formulated through and grounded in universally held preferences, e.g., preferences for health, satisfaction of material needs, happiness, fulfillment, etc., then justice prevails. It is an objective justice (or you could call it intersubjective if you like) because it is derived from those universally shared preferences: so universally shared that when any of us names any of them most everyone reasonably understands what is meant; and furthermore there is a rough general agreement about what is most important (e.g., health is more important than owning a Ferrari). If there was nothing objective about it, that understanding wouldn't be possible.

As I understand your argument, we agree that everyone should be accorded certain rights, among them life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. You contend (correct me if I'm wrong) that this is possible and sustainable only if one believes in a creator. I don't know how far you take that concept, and you refuse to tell us: is the Christian concept of God that must be adopted, or will some other suffice? No matter, history proves over and over that mere belief in a creator does not create a just society, and if one looks at the scriptures of the various religions, especially those of the three main Western monotheisms, one sees a veritable parade of horrors. So none of the monotheisms serves as a reliable and objective foundation for human rights. Quite the contrary in many cases.

I contend that it's very simple. Honor all people. Treat others as you would like to be treated. Live according to widely proclaimed virtues, even when it isn't convenient. There is a powerful objectivity in that, and it has nothing to do with believing in a creator; it has everything to do with understanding what it is to be human.

In fact, the power of this central and fundamental Truth one of the reasons people turn to theistic religions. Some people claim that believing in a god makes people better. I contend the truth is exactly the opposite. Believing in what is not known offers too many convenient excuses to do whatever one chooses in the moment. There's nothing objective in that.

Bryan, if you really want to make this discussion interesting, then tell us what your real agenda is. I can guess around its edges, but why should I?

[Guest Paul]

Bryan is responding to a post on the Faith topic, where I wrote:

"I'll try again, asking it a different way.

Does believing in something make it so?

Does acting on something make it happen?

What do the answers to those two questions have to do with Faith?"

and he is comparing that to my affirmation that rights exist "because we believe in them faithfully."

Prepare to follow the bouncing ball.

1. Dicey application of the scripture (the faith is still real enough, the problem is a lack of public testimony--not "creative force" unless the term is used in some figurative sense).

2. "Creative force" seems to stand in for "motive."

3. Sorry to interrupt: Just to note, "fewer intermediate boundaries between the will and rights than between the will and material things"--despite the attempt at clarification, produces more questions than it answers.

What are these supposed boundaries and how do they compare?

4. If we create the concept of rights "whole" then doesn't this indicate that you were incorrect when you claimed an objective basis for morality?

Assuming you don't take simply take thinking about it as an "objective" process?

I think that Paul has contradicted himself again.

Just keep him writing enough and it seems inevitable.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

1. I wasn't applying "the scripture" (as if there was only one). You have no idea whether I've contradicted myself or anyone else because you don't understand what I wrote. Here's an example of what I was saying. Annie Sullivan's persistence in trying to teach six-year-old Helen Keller was an act of Faith. It would have mattered little that she believed her efforts could succeed, except that she put that belief into action. Without that, the active and creative component of Faith, her "faith" would have been dead. It has nothing to do with scripture. Read Tillich's little book on the subject. It's just how life works. We could say the same thing about a young person pursuing a college or professional degree, a scientist researching to discover a cure for a disease, a nation trying to put a man on the moon, etc. Those are all acts of Faith, and their creative power increases with their degree of difficulty.

2. Incorrect. The creative force within Faith (the force that brings the Word and the Spirit tangibly into the world, to employ the metaphors within the Christian narrative) is the power of action as in the examples above.

3. If we want to create an automobile, we need the materials and the technology. If we want to create a just society, we just need enough people to agree on the necessary values. That's not to say that the latter is less daunting than the former; in fact, just the contrary, the latter seems to be the more difficult task, but that is because we live in a culture that has wrapped its collective head around nonsense for the past several millennia, instead of living according to a universal respect for each person's humanity. We can create a just society through consistent application of collective will. We can't necessarily find a cure for AIDS.

4. No. The one has nothing to do with the other. See my previous post.

[Guest Paul]

With the amount of time Paulie spends posting his nonsense on KOTW, my bet is he's an attorney with a lot of time on his hands.  Most likely he does an occasional closing on a home purchase.  And if you read a few of his better quotes, "Why is capital punishment OK"  or  "Why do people die at all", you come to the conclusion he hasn't spent any time in front of a jury. He's much more comfortable debating Bryan on KOTW.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

2dim4words, just because it would take you hours or days to write what I write (actually you couldn't do it in any amount of time) doesn't mean it takes me more than a few minutes.