Replying to Avatar Kevin's Bacon

Let me address these thoughts paragraph by paragraph:

I didn't think you implied it was private, I just asserted that I think it's somewhat private. But I see your point, and though I don't agree with it being a solid basis, I'll grant you it.

Um, I do not see how laws necessitate a lawgiver. You're just asserting this with no justification and it is not something I agree with. But thank you for this clarification of why you have your stance. If the Creator is conscious, what is or was his origin? Why is this different if it is just an automaton? Why do you expect me to believe this? I am getting from this that you just believe that every law must necessarily come from a conscious person if some sort and every thing must have been made by a consciousness. I guess your justification for why it has to have been a consciousness could only be the scripture you had revealed to you, because there is no reason it couldn't be these other things, at least it would seem that way. These reasons you have given are entirely inadequate on their own unless you assume that everything must come from a conscious person of some sort.

I already agreed that my intellection must be grounded with more than just logical symbols on their own. I only suggested that eschewing reason in favor of a book means you better DAMN WELL know that you understand the book and that that book is perfectly true. If the process of intellection with this book is arbitrary and possibly prone to mistakes in either its selection of the book, the version of the book, the means and methods of interpreting the book, or application to your life, which it may as well be arbitrary and error prone from the perspective of someone who has not VERIFIED your claims, it is to that person's rational intellection a potential danger.

I do not elevate my provisional philosophies as sufficient. Epistemological rigor does the exact opposite of that. It appears from an agnostic such as myself that you likely do or might elevate your provisional philosophies as sufficient. You place what you call divine truth on a pedestal apart from logic, beyond questioning. So what if you were deceived? What if you are following the devil, or simply making mistakes? How will you ever course correct? That is, I would think, a major danger you would want to be mindful of.

laws of physics didn't need a lawgiver, or, wait. maybe they did. perhaps that's why so many theoretical physicists (that you never read about on MSM) believe in God.

laws are part and parcel of a system. they are the protocols created by the behaviours of the elements of a system. you don't necessarily need to invoke God to justify the existence of laws, but you can't justify the creation of laws that violate the behaviours of the system. this is why democracy is bullshit. we don't need more laws. there is already laws baked into the language and physical reality of being human in a human society. they only need to be affirmed and the benefits are for everyone except for those who want to abuse other humans.

when writing software, although we call them bugs, what they really are is the reality of our code being disjoint with the expectations of the code. this universe has been around way too long to have bugs in it. everything is a feature. Praise the Lord!

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

Statutes which codify negative rights are ones discovered through common law arbitration. This is the category of law that is "self evident". These laws preexisted our government and originate from the functions of reality itself (such as Thou Shalt Not Kill, Mosaic law, Common Law, and other fundamental discoveries like UPB.)

Statutes which grant positive rights through compulsion (such as taxes, public education, welfare, or anything that is not founded on natural rights) are either designed to compensate for other distortions of reality (such as KYC & AML to support central banking) or are themselves grants of unnatural rights.