mia, I agree with what you are saying. That's why I said earlier that it is people who give others rights. I guess it goes back to what is moral or what isn't moral. We create these rights based on some level of morality. That morality comes from something. My personal belief isn't that we are moral because we want to live in a group. I believe we're moral because God created us in His image. We are a human picture of Him, but we also have the ability to choose to follow that image or to go against it. I think that's why "The specific rules were chosen because they are as obvious as the nose on your face." They are obvious because that's how God originally wanted us to live before we screwed it up. EDIT - I think that these ideas are still somewhat on topic because my argument is that we get these 'rights' from something bigger than us. Personally, no matter if it's science or society, I think these ideas always point back to people's ideas about what is right and wrong which in turn points to people's beliefs in a deity.
NetSlave, if your point is that God made us what we are, and is therefor responsible for all we choose... then you and I don't have any disagreement. As I said, I think we exist as social beings and the requirements of society are anything but random. The notion, however, of God codifying our the basic presumptions of society directly to man AFTER the creation however is a little nonsensical to me. Call them morality, mores, taboos, laws or whatever you want, but humans figured out that you had to wear a coat when it was cold or you would freeze. We also figured out that if we just kill off the members of our society randomly, then our society got weaker. It isn't rocket science, it is just how things work.
Another view is that we are moral because, through evolutionary logic, we are naturally attuned to the value of cooperation, are extremely sensitive to signs of deception, are thus very concious of reputation, to the point of practicing self deception, etc. All proven through lab tests, simulations etc. Skills evolved to live in groups.
NBMisha, that fits rather nicely into my view to a point. I think that groups can grow in size that instinct is insufficient to address all of the needs of the society, and that a higher brain function is required. That said, animals certainly seem to possess the base aversion to murder and theft within their personal heirarchies, so the point seems valid on its face.
First off, NetSlave just so we know were we are coming from, I do not believe that Adam and Eve were the first humans, and that the story of Cain and Able were meant to be taken literally. If you do, that's fine, but i don't think it is something we would be able to come to terms with.
RE: Cain and Able - I can agree to that. RE: Societies Expanding - Societies expand through Empire, the larger the Empire the harder it is to maintain, the faster it declines. Also, Societies, like individuals are mortal.
For what it is worth here is an article from a couple of years ago in the Alcalde magazine from UT Exes. The Link if you don't want to read the entire thing scroll down to the question asking him about the religious implications of his scientific experimentation.
Theu, I'm not sure I agree with all of the conclusions in his interview, but it is certainly interesting. That said, I'm hesitant to dig too deeply into my response to it, because I think it leads down a road which takes us further from the laws/rights conversation.
NetSlave, my point is that omniscience requires determinism and determinism obviates free will. Either man is responsible for his own path or we have an individual role in his creation, but the two concepts are mutually exclusive. To say it more plainly, a God bound by the linear progression of time can not have created the universe we live in. If God is not bound by the linear progression of time, then there is no free will. An omniscient God can not grant choice, since the outcome is preordained at creation.
NetSlave, you don't know that your wife will pick Dr. Pepper, you just strongly suspect it based off your knowledge of her past behavior, but there is still an outside chance she could surprise you. That said, you can't surprise God because it isn't that he strongly suspected the outcome, he already knew it. Even if you want to say that God created time but is also bound by it (a concept which is nonsensical on its face), the issue still comes back to determinism. If the outcome is decided before the creation, then the progression of events are immutable. That which is immutable can not be changed, and by definition there is no choice.
Come on, fellas. Rights exist because we say they do. God couldn't care less about our political rights. And if you really want to get technical, rights only exist because of language and humans' ability to name things. Without language, there are no rights. Period.
Again, the very word "foreknown" presupposes that time itself is greater or at least more fundamental than God. God is not a "person" or an observer, he is the creator of all things (including time). Time does not "happen" to God, God must transcend his creation. God's relationship to his creation is not similar to your relationship to it. If the creator knows every aspect of the universe prior to its creation, then you can't describe him as witnessing events. He choose the universe, its participants and its outcome before the universe was created. There is no outcome for any event except the will of God, if you believe in an omniscient God.
mia, I agree with what you say up until this: "He choose the universe, its participants and its outcome before the universe was created." He chose the way that the universe was created. He also chose to create us in His image. He chose to give us free will. He didn't 'choose' who will live and who will die. He created us, knowing that some would reject Him. God is the "Alpha and Omega, the Beginning and the End." I agree that time doesn't work for Him like it does for us. He 'Foreknew' what would happen according to our time, because He is outside of how we recognize and measure time. There's still a huge disconnection between knowledge of a thing, and action. Think of it this way.... When a woman gets a fertility treatment, she may have many fertilized eggs, but the doctors know that some of them will not make it. Again, this is illustrating God's knowledge by using the very limited Human knowledge. In God's case, he not only knows that some will reject Him, but He knows WHO will reject Him. But how does the knowledge of who will reject you mean that you in fact made them reject you? It doesn't. It only means that you knew it.
There was very a long thread years ago about free will/100% predictability. I think the conclusion was that just because something is determined doesn't mean there's no free will, because the determination could have been made at some metaphysical level.
Bookman, your comments remind me of a Spanish monk named Molina who came up with what he called 'the middle way" which explains what you are saying. Just because the God might know the future, doesn't me He causes it. As far as God being outside of time and space, it reminds me of some of Brian's Greene's writings on string theory physics.
