[ingliz]

No one can please God without faith, for whoever comes to God must have faith that God exists...

Hebrews 11:6

[Victoribus Spolia]

No one can please God without faith, for whoever comes to God must have faith that God exists...

How does that have anything to do with proving His existence?

How does the one knowing that God exists lack faith in His existence?

You seem really triggered by the fact that I affirm Theism. Were you an altar boy in your childhood per chance?

[ingliz]

Were you an altar boy in your childhood per chance?

[Victoribus Spolia]

[ingliz]

How does that have anything to do with proving His existence?

How does the one knowing that God exists lack faith in His existence?

Faith is confidence or trust in a person, idea, deity, religion, or any specifiable belief that is not based on proof.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Faith is confidence or trust in a person, idea, deity, religion, or any specifiable belief that is not based on proof.

How does one's faith not being based on proof imply that no proof can or ought to be made?

Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise.

[ingliz]

How does one's faith not being based on proof imply that no proof can or ought to be made?

Genesis 2:17

God's commandment is clear. Righteousness cannot be achieved through learning. To learn is a sin worthy of death. The way of righteousness is simply to believe in God.

[Victoribus Spolia]

God's commandment is clear. Righteousness cannot be achieved through learning. To learn is a sin worthy of death. The way of righteousness is simply to believe in God.

Tell me you're not serious....

[ingliz]

Tell me you're not serious

I am just quoting your bible.

Of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat of it: for in the day that you eat thereof you shall surely die.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat of it: for in the day that you eat thereof you shall surely die.

So how did you conclude that eating prohibited fruit implies learning to be against God's law?

Especially given that this idea is explicitly rejected elsewhere.

"my people are destroyed from lack of knowledge. "Because you have rejected knowledge, I also reject you as my priests;"

Hosea 4:6

[ingliz]

Hosea 4:6

Seeking knowledge is vanity and a striving after wind.

And I applied my heart to seek and to search out by wisdom all that is done under heaven. It is an unhappy business that God has given to the children of man to be busy with. I have seen everything that is done under the sun, and behold, all is vanity and a striving after wind. What is crooked cannot be made straight, and what is lacking cannot be counted. I said in my heart, “I have acquired great wisdom, surpassing all who were over Jerusalem before me, and my heart has had great experience of wisdom and knowledge.” And I applied my heart to know wisdom and to know madness and folly. I perceived that this also is but a striving after wind.

Ecclesiastes 1:13-17

[Victoribus Spolia]

Nothing an existentialist wouldn't say.

Basically, knowledge profits a man nothing in the face of his own mortality.

Were you trying to make a point with this?

Let me know when your triggering over my theism wears off.

[ingliz]

Were you trying to make a point with this?

Yes, but not your point.

Seeking knowledge is but vanity and a striving after wind

for

Great is the Lord, and greatly to be praised, and his greatness is unsearchable.

Psalm 145:3

[ingliz]

an implicit denial of the logically required presumption

The lines of morality are not like ideal lines of mathematics. They admit of exceptions; they demand modifications. These exceptions and modifications are not made by the process of logic, but by the rules of prudence.

Edmund Burke

[Victoribus Spolia]

The lines of morality are not like ideal lines of mathematics. They admit of exceptions; they demand modifications. These exceptions and modifications are not made by the process of logic, but by the rules of prudence.Edmund Burke

Am I supposed to care about Mr. Burke's opinion for some reason?

Yes, but not your point.S eeking knowledge is but vanity and a striving after windforGreat is the Lord, and greatly to be praised, and his greatness is unsearchable.Psalm 145:3

Which is why you were wrong, because you didn't make the point I did, which is the correct one.

Scripture says elsewhere that a lack of knowledge is the basis for judgement (Hosea 4:6), and God rewards Solomon his desire for wisdom; thus, contradicting your juvenille interpretation.

Give your servant therefore an understanding mind to govern your people, that I may discern between good and evil, for who is able to govern this your great people?”

It pleased the Lord that Solomon had asked this. And God said to him, “Because you have asked this, and have not asked for yourself long life or riches or the life of your enemies, but have asked for yourself understanding to discern what is right, behold, I now do according to your word. Behold, I give you a wise and discerning mind, so that none like you has been before you and none like you shall arise after you. I give you also what you have not asked, both riches and honor, so that no other king shall compare with you, all your days. And if you will walk in my ways, keeping my statutes and my commandments, as your father David walked, then I will lengthen your days.”

1 Kings 3:9-14

It seems like God likes knowledge quite bit actually; however, through this SAME man, King Solomon (the author of Ecclesiastes that you have so frequently quoted); God also warns that the striving after knowledge is vanity; it does not profit a man one day to his life; the only thing that truly and eternally profits a man is dedication to Almighty God.

Indeed, Solomon knew this well as He feel into idolatry and punishment from God himself in spite of his wisdom, for he fell-away from serving the Lord and was instead led astray by his foreign wives.

[ingliz]

Which is why you were wrong...

Am I supposed to care about Mr. Spolia's opinion for some reason?

[Victoribus Spolia]

Am I supposed to care about Mr. Spolia's opinion for some reason?

You tell me, your the one who decided to interact with my views on this thread.

Given your posting history, its seems you care alot about what I have to say.

[ingliz]

You tell me,

Your opinions are worthless as has been shown in this thread and numerous others.

your the one who decided to interact with my views on this thread.

But only to show how ridiculously stupid your views are.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Your opinions are worthless as has been shown in this thread and numerous others.

That can't be true, as they have clearly been worth your time.

Otherwise, why would you ever post in one of my threads in response to one of my remarks?



Truth is, I enthrall you. I see no reason to believe otherwise.

But only to show how ridiculously stupid your views are.

So much substance here I don't even know where to begin!!!

Triggered.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Pants,

Here is my argument, per my challenge; viewtopic.php?p=14986194#p14986194 :

Victoribus Spolia wrote:
The Case for Theonomic Anarcho-Capitalism As An Objective Moral System

[VS- Debate Post One]

In therefore laying out my general purposes and definitions, I shall now give my first official post (1/8).

PART I: The Establishment of Anarcho-Capitalism From Plain Reason.


1. The Corollary-Axiom of Human Argumentation and The Presupposition of Self-Ownership

Since my primary objective in this debate is to establish the existence of an objective morality as rationally and logically demonstrable and since I cannot stop merely there, but also wish to establish this objective morality as specifically anarcho-capitalist which is likewise theonomic, it is important in such a complex debate to lay down my first principle in the proof(s) that now follows.

I am going to posit now, for the purpose of this debate, an axiom, which is itself a corollary to another axiom.

A. The Axiom of Human Argumentation.

The axiom of human action is the basic proposition that all humans (acting as agents in any meaningful sense) purposefully utilize means over a period of time in order to achieve desired ends.

The axiomatic quality of this proposition is established in that it cannot be denied without engaging in action (the content of the axiom).

That being said, the corollary to this axiom, being itself a form of it, is that human argumentation is itself axiomatic in like manner to human action.

The axiom of argumentation, as a corollary to the axiom of human action, is the proposition that any truth claim, a claim connected with any proposition that is true, objective or valid, is and must be raised and settled in the course of an argumentation.

The axiomatic quality of this proposition is established in that it cannot be disputed, for one cannot communicate and argue that one cannot communicate and argue; furthermore, one cannot deny this statement without claiming its negation to be true.

B. The Presupposition of Self-Ownership.

Argumentation is a non-violent (conflict free) form of human interaction. By being “conflict-free” it is ONLY meant that as long as argumentation is in progress it is always possible to agree at least on the fact that there is disagreement about the validity of what has been said. This is to say nothing else than that a mutual recognition of each person's exclusive control over his own body must be presupposed as long as there is argumentation. Indeed, it is impossible to deny this and claim this denial to be true without implicitly having to admit its truth, the contrary yielding only the disqualification of one’s own argument [you no longer claim to be making any argument].

Thus, we have from the corollary-axiom of human argumentation, the necessary presupposition of self-ownership.

2. The Establishment of Original Appropriation, Non-Aggression, and Private Property.


In proceeding in this compounding case, given what has been said in section one, the establishment of non-aggression and the right of original appropriation shall be demonstrated via an argumentum a contrario.

A. The Presupposition of Private Ownership by Original Appropriation.

If no one had the right to acquire and control (own) anything except his own body (the self-ownership of which has been demonstrated above); then all actual persons would cease to exist and the problem of human morality simply would not exist (as no legitimate acquisition could be made). Thus, the inherent right to control/own resources outside oneself via appropriation must be presumed. Thus, given this argument to the contrary, private ownership and what might be called original appropriation is directly inferred from the corollary-axiom of human argumentation.

B. The Inferred Principle of Non-Aggression.

That original appropriation is a right inferred from the axiom of argumentation; likewise implies that the aggressive interference in such a right was immoral, thus the NAP is confirmed, for aggression in violation of these rights (appropriation and private-ownership) would be an implicit denial of the logically required presumption of self-ownership which is itself inferred from the axiom of human argumentation (and human action).

Indeed, the existence of this problem is only possible because actual persons exist, and this existence is due to the fact that the right of appropriation of property and scarce goods next to and in addition to that of one's own self-ownership must be assumed to exist.

Thus, given the axiom of human argumentation (as being a corollary of human action) and the presumption of self-ownership; the right of original appropriation and the ownership of such (private property) is directly inferable; furthermore, arbitrary aggression would be seen as objectively irrational given the inferable nature of these rights from plain reason; hence, we have established the rational right of original appropriation and its corollary of private property and have inferred from this directly the principle of non-aggression as the contrary would be a violation of universal objective rights.

3. The Anti-Statist Implications of The Thesis Considered.

A state is a third-person monopolist of coercion which takes upon itself the authority to confiscate money from people for use to enforce its own laws, etc. Any entity that does this, violates the principle of non-aggression by denying the direct implication of self-ownership which is that of appropriation and private property.

Furthermore, any social contract further contradicts this notion as well, for if no specific consent is given by an individual, it is still enforced necessarily by aggression, indeed for this reason the social contract is a misnomer, as contracts imply voluntarism.

Likewise, by publicly owning any resources, social contracts deny the potential right of appropriation implicit in acting/arguing agents.

Hence, no definition of a state made thus far, is rational.

Given the conclusions made thus far, Anarcho-Capitalism is the only system that fulfills what reason requires, morally speaking.


PART II: The Secular Case for Divine Law.


1. The Pro-Natalist Master Argument Against Anti-Procreative Sexuality.

Under this heading the adjoined ethical system of theonomy shall be argued from plain reason, hence why it is intentionally and paradoxically (for purposes of rhetorical irony) called the secular case for divine law.

This argument however, does not claim to prove the entire corpus of theonomic law from a secular standard, indeed, the use of a secular standard precludes me from arguing certain religious aspects of this divine law, thus the scope of this argument is to demonstrate what reason allows me to do and to show that what reason demands correlates to a particular system of theonomic law. Given what might be called the “big three” of theonomic systems; Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, my only goal here is to show that the system demanded by plain reason most approximates one of these three as compared to the other two and that this is shown by a single disqualifying dis-junction between the argument made and the other two systems which fail to approximate reason’s demands.

[Note: If one is interested in a more exclusively theological case, then they are free to consider this argument in connection to my case for Trinitarian Phenomenal Idealism in my other debate thread].

For purposes of the debate, the most controversial and indeed the most “defining” aspects of divine law shall be the ones argued for, namely that the penology of old testament law for certain forms of human sexuality are not disproportionate to the severity of the legal infraction. Thus, for instance, murder is worthy of death, but so homosexuality, bestiality, child sacrifice, contraception, abortion, and adultery. It shall be argued that this hierarchy of moral gravity is consistent with the demands of reason (irrespective of whether one believes such a penal code ought to be enforced, this argument is only about moral-gravity.)

Further it shall be shown, in contrast to orthodox and historic interpretations of Judaism and Islam, that the orthodox Christian interpretation of Biblical law via the New Testament by the Fathers of the church, as prohibiting polygamy, is most consistent with what reason demands, thus implying that the ethical system demanded by reason most approximates Christian Law over-and-against Judaism and Islam.

The Pronatalist Master Argument

Syllogism One

Premise One. All (Intentionally Non-Procreative Sexuality) is (Potential Person Destroying).[All X is Y]

Premise Two. All Non-Potentials Are Non-Actuals.

Corollary To P2: All (Potential Person Destroying) is (Actual Person Destroying). [All Y is B]

Conclusion. All (Intentionally Non-Procreative Sexuality) is (Actual Person Destroying). [All X is B]

Premise One Explanation:

1- All intentionally procreative sexual acts are transitional acts of a potential person (who’s existence is implicit in procreative or “natural” sexual relations) being made into an actual person. This is given by (1) The natural course of events, and (2) all things being equal.

2- All intentionally non-procreative sexual acts are purposefully disruptive acts of stopping a potential person from transitioning into an actual person through procreative or “natural” sexual relations. This is given because to purposefully engage in such acts is to stop the natural consequence of procreation which is transitioning a potential person into an actual person.

3- The definition of destroying is an adequate descriptor of the effect in #2 above.

Premise Two Explanation (With Corollary):

1- For every potential-person there is a corresponding actual person. All actual persons were once potential persons who, through intentional or unintentional procreative sexuality, were transitioned (actualized) into actual persons.

2- If there is no potential person in a given situation, then there can be no, and is no, corresponding actual person. That is, if there never was a potential person, then there could never be an actual person, for all actual persons originate from being a potential person.

3- Therefore, to make a potential person become a non-potential person (see definition of “destroying” above) is to make the corresponding actual person to become a non-actual person. This is because, without a potential person, no actual person can come into existence by the natural order of events (see premise one explanation #1).

Conclusion:

This conclusion follows given (P1) and (P2). If X is Y, and Y is B, then X is B.


2. The Specifically Theonomic Implications of The Thesis Considered.

A. From NAP, to Theonomic Morality.

That aspect of the non-aggression principle that disqualified all statism as irrational (and therefore immoral) was established in PART I; however, this is only true for actual-persons who act and argue. Thus, the argument cannot be stretched beyond this from the axiom itself; furthermore, if a state is non-existent, morality must be determined from elsewhere, including a basis for its penology (note: penology can exist without a state through voluntary contracts and proprietorships, which are still consistent with the NAP just like self-defense and retaliation).

But this questions arises, does the NAP extend to beyond actual persons themselves, given the syllogism above, the answer is in the affirmative as potential-persons are logically the same as actual persons.

To be clear;

Pregnancy prevention is not: the elimination of circumstances by which procreation and conception could take place, but the use of semen for non-procreative purposes when procreation was not only possible but the circumstances also permitted it.

Thus, homosexuality and bestiality are anti-procreative as they are a volitional deviation from natural sexuality, they are a wasting of semen that could be used for procreation (no circumstance would make this permissible, except the possible non-existence of all women in the universe).

Similarly, contraception is a wasting of semen within the bounds of marriage wherein a heterosexual couple could produce offspring but instead deviates from that practice (contrastly sex acts which occur when conception was not possible would be exempt). Contraception, homosexuality, and bestiality must, therefore, all be regarded as anti-procreative on these aforementioned grounds.

If they are anti-procreative, then they are potential-person destroying, and if they are potential person destroying, they are acts of aggression that violate the NAP and must be regarded as immoral.

Hence, homosexuality, beastiality, pedophilia, abortion, contraception, and infanticide are equally murderous violations of the NAP and therefore liable to violent rectification on a universal and objective logical grounds.

In the context of Anarcho-Capitalism, the enforcement of such a morality is grounded not in a state, but either in a contract or proprietorship rooted in voluntarism, but either way, the moral principle is objective, universal, and logically based and everyone should therefore believe it anyway.

B. The Specifically Christian Character of This Theonomic System.

Now, it shall be shown that this system of morality is distinct from OT Judaism and Islam which both permit polygamy.

This ethic shall be demonstrated as consistent with historic catholic and orthodox interpretation which sees polygamy as immoral on certain grounds:

Namely, the rational case in conjunction with the pronatalist master argument simply rests on the general human sex ratio of 1:1, which shows forth the ratio of men to women in any given to society is always, roughly, a 50/50 split.

Given this reality, the permitting of polygamy (and thereby permitting it universally as a potential) would always threaten this proportion and thereby create conditions of increased anti-procreative sexuality which could not be corrected without likewise violating the NAP (state coercion); hence, monogamy is the only rational contract for heterosexual relations and the particulars of which are themselves governed by the same principles of appropriate sexuality; hence, adultery is always a violation of the NAP in potential for the same reason as polygamy, but is additionally a breach of contract; further, certain sex acts are only permitted during times when procreation was not ordinarily possible.

For instance, if a couple is unable (by the observable laws of nature) to produce offspring (I.e. during pregnancy, menstruation, or post-menopause) then non-procreative sex acts between them would not be ipso facto immoral because such acts would not be anti-procreative or an act of pregnancy prevention (no circumstance of actualization exists and therefore the semen may be used but is not "wasted"). [Hence, getting your dick sucked when your wife is on the rag, is pregnant, is breastfeeding (for most women) or is post-menopausal, would not be an anti-procreative sex act under the above definitions, no matter whether she spits or swallows.]

These qualifications being made, given that the inferred laws match Christian, Jewish, and Islamic theonomies, the fact that only monogomy is rational only matches the strict monogamous interpretation of Christianity (as Judaism is theoretically pro-polygamy, atleast until the 11th century A.D., wherein it changed only due to political reasons in some branches; whereas, Islam clearly permits it even still), it can be said that Christian theonomy most closely approximates that which is demanded by reason of the three systems discussed which together have compelled the largest % of human beings.

This now concludes my argument.