You trust in something that does not exist, can not be defined, cannot be perceived and cannot be understood. Brilliant and what will you say to the Islamic terrorist who does not believe in Natural Rights? Or the Communist who thinks your only right is to serve the state? "I believe your wrong, I have faith you are wrong."

They chose the word Creator not god - a very weak endorsement.

Not only that: Jefferson used several words to refer to God.

"Nature's God entitles them to a separate and equal station."

"All men are created equal." Created--by whom?

"They are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights."

"We appeal to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions."

"We rely upon the protection of Divine Providence."

That may well be and I have no quarrel with that belief. But it's not what he was adressing as far as I could tell. Too many people carry on about the founding documents of the USA as if they were the Third Testament of the Bible. I think he was right in making that point.

post hoc, ergo propter hoc?
I'm astounded...

Thank you for your exposition of the concert bound realists who denies that concepts exists. BTW why are you using words? All words are concepts.

Not even close. For one there is evidence, even if you have not seen it. The other there is not only no evidence, we are not supposed to look for evidence.

re: " I cannot come up with a final answer to where did ever thing come from so there must be a God or whatever words you choose to recognize that we just don't have the ability to explain our being without him "

Are you at all aware at the nonsequitur nature of that statement?! To claim that, because we don't (yet) "know where we came from" that The Obvious Answer is "God Created It All"???

"There must be a God"?

Wow... and I thought Reason and Rationality would be ubiquitous around here.... such a disappointment.

From my site.. http://www.plusaf.com/pix/homepagepix/pr...

By "Beings like us" I meant the entire Human Race. That some choose not to think or are incapable of thought at a high level neither makes them less human nor elites of us upon whom Nature has visited the capacity to create.
We are the only animal capable of conceptualizing Rights and they must be based on our Nature as Humans and not on any God or what any Men assert. No one can take away our Nature.

AJ; My favorite Heinlein quote:
"Most people can’t think, most of the remainder won’t think, the small fraction who do think mostly can’t do it very well. The extremely tiny fraction who think regularly, accurately, creatively, and without self -delusion— in the long run, these are the only people who count. —Robert A. Heinlein"
And second:
“Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded— here and there, now and then—are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty. This is known as ‘bad luck.’” —Robert A. Heinlein, Time Enough for Love

We're born with equal rights, but equal ability, not so much. One of the biggest mistakes we've ever made is make voting rights equal to all. A few of the Founders were enlightened and gave to their compatriots and the rest of us a fantastic opportunity. We've allowed the concept of equality put forth by the church, statist and their cronies to nearly destroy us.

Whatever rights you assert, someone will refuse to abide by them.

"endowed by their Creator" was included simply as a fallacious argument. It amounts to saying, "The [imaginary] King of Everything has endorsed MY view, so the rest of you shut up!"

God is the world's oldest sock-puppet. People have been forging his name to arguments since before recorded history.

Agreed, but if you were alone, you also wouldn't need to worry about the perpetuation of rights to the next generation either ;) It's a variant on the tree falling in a forest question.

Interesting point -- I thought his "... or, if you'd like .." was indicative of his understanding that God or nature as a starting point is a premise and in the latter case these rights arise naturally. I select nature as it seems to me to be the simpler (I have only to consider nature, not God and nature). In the case of nature I think we use objective reasoning to deduce these same fundamental rights. It would be interesting to discuss these matters with the Justice.