He hasn't said anything about the nature of rights and why we have them. He repeatedly insists on theism, denouncing those who reject it as holding a "fools religion" and nonsensically claiming that there is "no room for debating the nonsensical anti-concepts such as the nonexistence of a god", making arbitrary assertions about what "rules" the supernatural must follow, and demanding that anyone who rejects his primacy of consciousness supernaturalism disprove his arbitrary pronouncements.

His insults, demands, arbitrary theistic pronouncements, and dogmatic insistence that there is no "room" to discuss rejection of his theism because he claims the rejection of belief in the supernatural is a "nonsensical anti-concept" is not cognitively serious discussion. It doesn't make any difference what his arbitrary views are on the details of his creationism endowment theology.

CBJ,

Thanks again for a post that suggests a desire to understand one and other.

I should be more clear. I believe that god is simple a man who is much further down a evolutionary and development process. This being the case he is subject to whatever laws govern the existence he is in.

I agree with primacy of existence, however how does one define existence? When rand was alive her definition of existence provided a very different view of gays than her foundation has today. At one time the world was flat and had the sun rotating around it. Today we think we are in a flat universe, that some researches say may also be round. We may find proof that we are in a universe that is contained in a much larger sphere of existence. What existence is, is in fact a constantly changing definition.

It is possible that a creator created the part or existence we currently understand but is part of something much larger. There are two things I see as true about existence. We have no idea how large it may be, or what it may be comprised of. Everything we find simply indicates there is much more to find and learn.

If god/creator created our patch of existence we understand today there would be rules that would govern this creation process, that would exist and be able to be understood by rational investigation over time.

In this structure it is possible for a creator to exist who has more knowledge than I outside of what we know and understand of existence at this time. that creator would have to follow the same rules that govern existence that I do in the creation process. Also I, or any person, willing to put the time and effort in could understand anything that that creator could or would do.

Furthermore if that creator were to be a perfect being, the ideal man. He would have a perfect knowledge of what was best, how things would interact... and would be bound to behave in that fashion.

So yes, I do not see the creator as someone that brought into existence everything from nothing. From my view all has existed always. You me, gold, baser elements... they simply can be structured in different ways.

Much as you or I can organize the matter into a house, or a barn.... a creator can do so to create likely multiple universes within universes. I see the requirement of a mind to organize matter as axiom of anything being created.

Once the right conditions are created it may be that the creator went his way and let his experiment bake, it may be that some very advanced race (like in the Stargate TV show) seeded earth with life and then went away. There are many plausible ways that things became organized, but it happening on pure chance is one I see as foolish to accept and will not do so.

If god/creator organized matter into what we see around us. Very likely through processes of evolution, then supremacy of existence still holds true. It does require something different than traditional objectivism in the definition of reality/existance.

I do not operate from an assumption that I understand all that exists, and therefor cannot eliminate from the real of possibility a creator. I can look around at the world we are in, the exact specifications that are required by the distance from a sun, the mass needed to hold that distance, the energy output of the sun, the balance of water, land and air. The mass of the moon to effect the tides... and lots of other factors I am sure I have never thought of, and still more that no one on this earth has thought of as well. Just those I know are pretty hard to look at and say it was just chance circumstance. Those observations say to me that a mind must be behind it, so what must that mind be like, and how might that work.

It is this line of questioning that has helped me form the view I have a a creator, and of atheism in general.

We likely both think the other foolish for believing what we believe. I think its wonderful that you and I can have a civilized discussion about it, and I hope this has added some clarity on my thoughts around the matter and thank you for your posts.

To recap. All matter that exists has always existed. It changes forms. this is true in areas of which we have a well founded understanding (chemistry), I think it will be true for most everything, if not everything. and the creator could be viewed as more of an organizer. I see that creator as being able to be understood. There are no mysteries we cannot understand. In fact I see the advances of science as a method to reach a level of understand that our "organizer" if you prefer had or has.

My argument is that a creator must exist in order to organize matter. It does not organize itself into something productive and useful without a mind of some type behind it. That organizer would have to exist, along with existence from the beginning to the end, if there even is a beginning and an end to existence. My personal view is that there is no beginning point and no end point.

Existence is infinite, and in fact if there is a beginning or an end the supremacy of consciousness or supremacy of existence debate would then have meaning as it would be one or the other. I do not accept that it is one or the other of the two. If existence itself is eternal and man is also eternal in some form, then existence is ultimately supreme as man must exist within existence. If god is simply an ideal version of man and god organized our world/universe (whatever term you like) he would have been required to create it following the laws of existence. That organizer would have created out ruled of existence but they would be based on the rules as he/she understands them, with perfect understanding of those laws.

What this means to man here in existence. If the rights of man are creator endowed then that creator recognized the rights of existence and provided those same rights to everyone within his creation. That organizer did not attempt to alter those rights, but maintained them by natural laws. We can discern those natural laws and in the end it does not really matter if they were "creator endowed natural rights" or simply "natural rights."

The entire point of this thread that I obviously made poorly is it does not matter. Either they are creator endowed or not. They are natural rights and therefor can be determined through natural means.

Hopefully this has done more than muddy the waters. I hope it has cleared things up a bit on how I define existence. It is however not locked in, as I understand more it adjusts. To me its an axiom that a creator exists; it is absolutely inconceivable that everything that created life happened by chance. I do not believe that an objectivitist view of existence and mine are incompatible. I think quite the contrary, that I and my church are more comparable with objectivitist than we tend to be with much of the christen denomination.

I also am sorry that I offended you. People such as yourself that will discuss the issue are not fools. I do disagree with the atheist part of objectivism, but can respect that you do not. Some others that reject anyone who believes existence is larger than what we can immediately see and touch without understanding anything about the view of existence I do count as fools. Some, although a minority, of those that profess to follow Rand's philosophy fall into that category. You have proven you are not one of them, and I would count you as a possible friend in political battles we face in the future.

I think it is primarily in the definition of existence that I differ from the pure objectivists.

This next section included more religious aspects of existence than I normally like to bring up in a location such as this. You do not have to agree with it, but since you have asked about the creator some I think it necessary to fully understand where I come from in my view. I am keeping it as concise as I can and attempt to keep most of the religion out. It is not my intent to proselyte in anyway. If your interested you will look at it yourself.

I think that existence is, that it has always been and that only the form has changed over time. In my belief system we existed as something our church calls intelligence by revelation. I suspect at some point science will help us understand what that was. God progressed faster than the rest of us. He, with others then developed a plan to organize a world (perhaps many of them) in which we could move from a purely spiritual realm to a physical realm. This allowed for further progression, and greater knowledge. He himself went though this same progression we are now in. This plan also allows for progression after death within other steps in a greater realm of existence than we currently understand.

Laws which govern our existence, have always done so. those laws are what the creator would have used to create natural rights, or perhaps better worded organize natural rights. We can see those without having to know if a creator existed or not.

This is getting long, but hopefully helpful providing some understand of where I am coming from in believing in an organizer of matter and the supremacy of existence and the two co-exisrting.

-XR

Note: I just looked back over this and can see several confusing points. It may get the main idea of my thinking over it may not. I have changed nothing from my original rambling, jousted added this line. There are some specifics that contradict in there that I need to clean up, but I still think the main idea gets delivered. Its a first draft of something that should probably have two or three drafts before being posted. Not taking the time to do that, so hope its good enough.

"Proof of a negative is not necessary or possible."

Exactly, which is why one must pursue a course of proving what may be substantiated. But to take the position that the burden of proof lies only on the one side of the argument is intellectually lazy and dishonest.

"And testimonials from personal “experience” are not proof, no matter how many or how fervently believed."

The desire not to acknowledge proof stems from protectionism of one's own position. If you would rather argue from a purely hypothetical position - one which denies its own proof - because it comforts you in inaction, so be it. A personal testimonial, however, is the purest form of proof there can be because it is individual and because it required actual work and effort beyond the mental to achieve. If you choose to disbelieve testimonials, that is your choice, but to deny that any such may be authoritative? Such a claim denies justice. It is a lie which if you want to tell yourself, you deceive only yourself. Good luck if you ever have to appear in court.

My interest in government is mainly whether and to what extent it fulfills its proper function of protecting individual rights. From what little I’ve read of the sovereign viewpoint ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soverei... ), there are things in it I agree with and things I don’t agree with. In our exchanges on this thread I have been mainly concerned with discussing the areas where his views and those of Objectivism (as I understand it) do not coincide. The legal distinctions and historical background I’ll leave for someone else to discuss.

Take your nonsensical insults somewhere else. You are not contributing to the discussion.

Your no rights without responsibility is standard conservative slogan heard endlessly and showing only a lock of understanding of the concept rights.

There are no unchosen duties. There are no "duties" resulting from "being alive". "Duties" are moral imperatives divorcing morality from choice and from cause and effect. See Ayn Rand's "Causlity versus Duty". Conservatives trying to impose duties in the name of morality and through political force is standard fare and is no basis for defending freedom.

Your swinish nonsense "If you had half the intellectual integrity and honesty you proclaimed, your last post would have only one statement - a statement I agree with whole-heartedly" does not mean "avoiding fallacy". Rejecting your dogma is not lack of either "intellectual integrity" or "honesty". Religious conservative duty and political impositions are not the standard.