Time For Martial Law...

[seer]

I seem to remember you admitted that if we were to use God as a source for right and wrong, the argument for doing so would be circular.

Any such argument would be circular. Try to make a moral argument that isn't.

[Charles]

Charles I was originally talking about the Founders, and they used his view on divine rights.

Nope. That is not true. Here is what you said:

More from Locke, who grounded rights in the God of the bible. Hence our revolution was grounded in religious principles, theirs wasn't - and we know how that went.

Tell me Charles where do natural rights come from according to Locke. Be specific.

I have already explained it. Why do you keep asking for what I already provided?

Natural law is also distinct from divine law in that the latter, in the Christian tradition, normally referred to those laws that God had directly revealed through prophets and other inspired writers. Natural law can be discovered by reason alone and applies to all people, while divine law can be discovered only through God’s special revelation and applies only to those to whom it is revealed and whom God specifically indicates are to be bound.

And before you confuse things up:

As we will see below, even though Locke thought natural law could be known apart from special revelation, he saw no contradiction in God playing a part in the argument, so long as the relevant aspects of God’s character could be discovered by reason alone. I

[Charles]

Any such argument would be circular. Try to make a moral argument that isn't.

You are aware exactly what a circular argument is, seer, and why it is not worth anything?

[seer]

Nope. That is not true. Here is what you said:

What is wrong with you. Of course Locke grounded rights in God, whether he grounded in natural law too doesn't change that fact.

I have already explained it. Why do you keep asking for what I already provided?

And before you confuse things up:

And who does Locke believe created the nature where natural law comes from?

[seer]

You are aware exactly what a circular argument is, seer, and why it is not worth anything?

Then try making an argument for a moral truth or a moral authority that is not circular - I will be waiting. If not stop your idiocy.

[Charles]

What is wrong with you. Of course Locke grounded rights in God, whether he grounded in natural law too doesn't change that fact.

Seer, please read the stuff instead of exposing yourself again and again. I have pointed out so many times now that it is not a reference to a God know by devine revelation but a God know by reason alone.

And who does Locke believe created the nature where natural law comes from?

Please read again, seer. You have not correctly understood what natural law is according to Locke. I have quoted over and over and over, seer. The point is, though you have tried to deny it... You falsely claimed Locke grounded the rights in the God of the Bible when the truth is Locke found that aspects of God's nature could be know by reason alone. According to Locke the bible is a revelation and it contains guidelines and relevelations that can not be known from reason alone. To claim what can be known about God through reason alone is what can be known from revelation is to misunderstand Locke.

[Charles]

Then try making an argument for a moral truth or a moral authority that is not circular - I will be waiting. If not stop your idiocy.

What idiocy? You tried to make the claim there was no reason for us to listen to Starlight. And you tried to promote the idea that without God human rights would not have a foundation. And then, yet, you admit that your line of reasoning is circular which means what you have got is a line of "reasoning" where you presuppose your own "conclusion". If that is the quality of your argument anyone can presuppose anything, arrive at a conclusion that contains what they presupposed and it will be at the exact same level of your "argument". Yet you continue to act like you have got a foundation when all you have got is what you wished to believe before you started out reasoning. And you even (whether you completely realize it or not) admit that. And you accuse others of idiocy???

[seer]

Seer, please read the stuff instead of exposing yourself again and again. I have pointed out so many times now that it is not a reference to a God know by devine revelation but a God know by reason alone.



Please read again, seer. You have not correctly understood what natural law is according to Locke. I have quoted over and over and over, seer. The point is, though you have tried to deny it... You falsely claimed Locke grounded the rights in the God of the Bible when the truth is Locke found that aspects of God's nature could be know by reason alone. According to Locke the bible is a revelation and it contains guidelines and relevelations that can not be known from reason alone. To claim what can be known about God through reason alone is what can be known from revelation is to misunderstand Locke.

What you refuse to understand Charles is that it all comes from God, according to Locke. Nature, human reason, rights etc... So I will ask again, for the third time, what Locked meant by the following, if you do not give a direct answer, instead of quoting others about Locke said, then please leave my thread.

State of Nature:

Sect.6 But though this be a state of liberty, yet it is not a state of licence: though man in that state have an uncontroulable liberty to dispose of his person or possessions, yet he has not liberty to destroy himself, or so much as any creature in his possession, but where some nobler use than its bare preservation calls for it. The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions: for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent, and infinitely wise maker; all the servants of one sovereign master, sent into the world by his order, and about his business; they are his property, whose workmanship they are, made to last during his, not one another's pleasure: and being furnished with like faculties, sharing all in one community of nature, there cannot be supposed any such subordination among us, that may authorize us to destroy one another, as if we were made for one another's uses, as the inferior ranks of creatures are for our's. Every one, as he is bound to preserve himself, and not to quit his station wilfully, so by the like reason, when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he, as much as he can, to preserve the rest of mankind, and may not, unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away, or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another.

Sect. 7. And that all men may be restrained from invading others rights, and from doing hurt to one another, and the law of nature be observed, which willeth the peace and preservation of all mankind, the execution of the law of nature is, in that state, put into every man's hands, whereby every one has a right to punish the transgressors of that law to such a degree, as may hinder its violation: for the law of nature would, as all other laws that concern men in this world be in vain, if there were no body that in the state of nature had a power to execute that law, and thereby preserve the innocent and restrain offenders. And if any one in the state of nature may punish another for any evil he has done, every one may do so: for in that state of perfect equality, where naturally there is no superiority or jurisdiction of one over another, what any may do in prosecution of that law, every one must needs have a right to do.

Sect. 8. And thus, in the state of nature, one man comes by a power over another; but yet no absolute or arbitrary power, to use a criminal, when he has got him in his hands, according to the passionate heats, or boundless extravagancy of his own will; but only to retribute to him, so far as calm reason and conscience dictate, what is proportionate to his transgression, which is so much as may serve for reparation and restraint: for these two are the only reasons, why one man may lawfully do harm to another, which is that we call punishment. In transgressing the law of nature, the offender declares himself to live by another rule than that of reason and common equity, which is that measure God has set to the actions of men, for their mutual security; and so he becomes dangerous to mankind, the tye, which is to secure them from injury and violence, being slighted and broken by him. Which being a trespass against the whole species, and the peace and safety of it, provided for by the law of nature, every man upon this score, by the right he hath to preserve mankind in general, may restrain, or where it is necessary, destroy things noxious to them, and so may bring such evil on any one, who hath transgressed that law, as may make him repent the doing of it, and thereby deter him, and by his example others, from doing the like mischief. And in the case, and upon this ground, EVERY MAN HATH A RIGHT TO PUNISH THE OFFENDER, AND BE EXECUTIONER OF THE LAW OF NATURE.

And:

Of paternal power

Adam was created a perfect man, his body and mind in full possession of their strength and reason, and so was capable, from the first instant of his being to provide for his own support and preservation, and govern his actions according to the dictates of the law of reason which God had implanted in him. From him the world is peopled with his descendants, who are all born infants, weak and helpless, without knowledge or understanding: but to supply the defects of this imperfect state, till the improvement of growth and age hath removed them, Adam and Eve, and after them all parents were, by the law of nature, under an obligation to preserve, nourish, and educate the children they had begotten; not as their own workmanship, but the workmanship of their own maker, the Almighty, to whom they were to be accountable for them.

[seer]

What idiocy? You tried to make the claim there was no reason for us to listen to Starlight. And you tried to promote the idea that without God human rights would not have a foundation. And then, yet, you admit that your line of reasoning is circular which means what you have got is a line of "reasoning" where you presuppose your own "conclusion". If that is the quality of your argument anyone can presuppose anything, arrive at a conclusion that contains what they presupposed and it will be at the exact same level of your "argument". Yet you continue to act like you have got a foundation when all you have got is what you wished to believe before you started out reasoning. And you even (whether you completely realize it or not) admit that. And you accuse others of idiocy???

Any moral argument will end in a circle Charles. Yet you accept moral truths, you are a Moral Realist if I remember correctly. So you accept moral truths that are circular in nature. So challenging me just makes you a hypocrite. Unless you can offer a moral truth that isn't the result of begging the question. And like we discussed in the past your very view of reality is based on circular reasoning. So please stop.

[Charles]

Any moral argument will end in a circle Charles. Yet you accept moral truths, you are a Moral Realist if I remember correctly. So you accept moral truths that are circular in nature. So challenging me just makes you a hypocrite. Unless you can offer a moral truth that isn't the result of begging the question. And like we discussed in the past your very view of reality is based on circular reasoning. So please stop.

What you seemingly still don't seem to get is that when you say your view is circular, you are saying there is really no reason at all to believe it. Anyone can presuppose anything.

If that is what you have got, you are simply saying you have got nothing. From that position of having absolutely nothing I don't see how you could expect us to listen to your guidance, ideas about other theories and the like. You ask me to stop when you have nothing at all to provide. May I suggest you start?

[Charles]

What you refuse to understand Charles is that it all comes from God, according to Locke. Nature, human reason, rights etc... So I will ask again, for the third time, what Locked meant by the following, if you do not give a direct answer, instead of quoting others about Locke said, then please leave my thread.

Nope. As pointed out repeatedly, you refer to god in devine revelation, the Bible. Locke pointed to aspects of god known by reason alone. I don't know why I have to repeat the same basics over and over again. You ignore the layers and knowledge provided to you and now, with no reason at all, commit the genetic fallacy, since quoting an encyclopedia is now a reason for being asked to leave your thread.

[seer]

What you seemingly still don't seem to get is that when you say your view is circular, you are saying there is really no reason at all to believe it. Anyone can presuppose anything.

If that is what you have got, you are simply saying you have got nothing. From that position of having absolutely nothing I don't see how you could expect us to listen to your guidance, ideas about other theories and the like. You ask me to stop when you have nothing at all to provide. May I suggest you start?

Charles, we both know that you can not offer a non-circular argument for moral truths, yet you believe in said truths. Stop being a hypocrite. And I don't expect rebels to accept the law of God. Bottom line is that A is wrong because God deems it wrong.

[seer]

Nope. As pointed out repeatedly, you refer to god in devine revelation, the Bible. Locke pointed to aspects of god known by reason alone. I don't know why I have to repeat the same basics over and over again. You ignore the layers and knowledge provided to you and now, with no reason at all, commit the genetic fallacy, since quoting an encyclopedia is now a reason for being asked to leave your thread.

Charles I asked you to comment on the texts I quoted, what they meant. You refused to, a few times now. Please leave my thread. Mods please take notice.

[Charles]

Charles, we both know that you can not offer a non-circular argument for moral truths, yet you believe in said truths. Stop being a hypocrite. And I don't expect rebels to accept the law of God. Bottom line is that A is wrong because God deems it wrong.

So you discuss my points and call me a hypocrite and then ask me to leave the thread and insinuate I am a rebel for not believing circular logic proves anything. Convenient when you run out of arguments, even the circular ones, seer.

[seer]

So you discuss my points and call me a hypocrite and then ask me to leave the thread and insinuate I am a rebel for not believing circular logic proves anything. Convenient when you run out of arguments, even the circular ones, seer.

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...207#post746207