That doesn't work simply because it is a logical contradiction. One can be separate from something and be a part of it at the same time. That's like trying to assert that A = !A. While I appreciate the attempt at reconciliation, that theory simply can't hold water. Either God exists as a separate entity from the rest of the Universe, or God does not exist.

I would also point out that if you look at most theistic religions, the concept of God is an ideal for man to strive to achieve. The notion that man can somehow become the universe is a little too hard to swallow. Could there exist a God who lived by the same laws as the laws of the Universe and yet be separate and distinct from the Universe? That seems the only plausible alternative.

Your own statement acknowledges my point: "The moral responsibility is a personal one to think and support what is required to live as a human being". That is the first and foremost responsibility that goes with exercising one's rights: knowing what they are and their proper application. One can not guard against infringement of one's rights without knowing what those rights are in the first place. I'm not implying a social responsibility, but a personal one. Activity in a militia is a personal responsibility in protection of life and property (though it also applies to protection of one's family). Voting is a personal responsibility in protection of freedom and rights of speech and association.

Exactly.

If you think Ayn Rand's philosophy of reason and individualism is a 'fool's religion' then you are in the wrong place. This is not a forum to promote supernaturalism and Creationism while trashing Ayn Rand's philosophy that you know nothing about. Existence is not evidence of the supernatural.

'No rights without responsibilities' is a conservative slogan at best substituting for understanding and at worst promoting collectivism. We have rights by our nature, not in exchange for duties. The moral responsibility is a personal one to think and support what is required to live as a human being, with a consequence to support the kind of government necessary to protect our rights, not to be submissive to duties imposed as social 'responsibility' in exchange for 'rights'.

Arguing from tradition without regard to the philosophical basis is counterproductive.

Putting 'God's laws' ahead of man's rights is part of their problem, but the religious rights is also left trying to defend freedom, when they do at all, with unconvincing dogmatic pronouncement by faith with no explanation. Competing religious faiths are not a basis of anything, they simply concede science and reason to the progressives. Jetgraphics has no idea what Ayn Rand's philosophy is.

"what more would you want that would persuade you to surrender all that,... "

There is nothing to surrender. Belief on faith does not provide the absolute guarantee they claim. It is a subjective decree that neither explains nor justifies anything. Centuries of religious wars have been based on such competing subjective faiths in the name of mystical 'absolutes'.

It is also not the basis of the Declaration of Independence, which took for granted Enlightenment thought. The reason and individualism of the Enlightenment overthrew the tyranny of religion. Not knowing any better at the time, they assumed that some force created the universe, and man's nature along with it, then let it run, which is what Nature's God as the source meant. Enlightenment thinkers did not simply pronounce 'rights from God', with no further discussion. They put a great deal of effort into figuring out what man's rights must be in accordance with his nature. The weakness was the failure to establish a rational ethics as the basis of political philosophy. They were undone by the contradiction between traditional altruist ethics and the implicit ethical egoism they relied on for the right to one's own pursuit of one's own happiness in his own life. This is all completely lost on the religious conservative's false historical and philosophical narrative.

It doesn't make any difference what they believe. Their faith has no cognitive worth.

(sorry, I hit the wrong key) to continue my thoughts:
Being a part of the universe, we are in god and god is in us irrespective of good or evil, where "good" is the pursuit of knowlege, "evil" is the repression of knowlege.

To "know, love and serve god" is why we're here. Perhaps scientists mining the mind of god are the only true priests.

Life is a "force" analogous to fire. It was always here and just needs the necessary conditions to express itself. It is not unique to one planet. Our mothers made our bodies from the elements of planet on which we were born in accordance with genetic specifications and passed it to us at the proper time--like one candle lights another. Perhaps, if the fire analogy holds, the first life on Earth could have occurred spontaneously when conditions were right?

Upon death it seems natural that the elements of our bodies be returned to nature from whence they were borrowed. The flicker of life may rejoin life, or per the First Law of Thermodynamics, it might become another form of energy. It pleases me to think that the ray of sunshine that warms my back on a chilly day, or the gentle breeze on my cheek on a spring day may have once been someone I loved or had once loved me.

But what of the soul? Is there really such a thing or is it a concept we made up to convince ourselves of immortality? Is it some kind of fundimental "force" like fire or life subject to the First Law? Is it the sum total of our knowlege, memories and experiences that exists somewhere? That's a mystery beyond science.

Current events illustrate why much more freedom than we have now is necessary. Most of the instability and violence in the world is a consequence of people having their freedom violated by those in control.

It won’t work. Most religious people today consider God to be a separate being, existing apart from the universe and being its creator. Most non-religious people would not consider it necessary to have two words for one concept, when the word “universe” by itself has a commonly accepted meaning that most people agree on.

To reconcile the opposing beliefs of atheism vs theism, let me suggest the paradigm of pantheism wherein God and the Universe are one and the same. The most well known espouser of this paradigm was 16th century philosopher Baruch Spinoza, but it may have originated long before in ancient Greece. So "nature and nature's god" is not surernatural, and thus god's laws are actually those of the universe--leaving all others to be authored by men to control mankind. In my pondering, I've come up with a few correllary
conjectures:

When I first read this, I associated Creator with Producer. In my defense, I was reading on an iPhone, in Milwaukee, and may have had a beer.

With "Creator" in the sentence, I am out before reading the rest.

It does not matter if the majority has decided that it is okay to take my property if I have the right to dissent and not allow it that is the only vote that counts. If I do not have this right to resist others by non conformity then I am their slave.

Unfortunately trying to live life unobserved allows that at times you will be discovered, taxed controlled and enslaved. However Estienne was right, it is the only way to live free.

If you are interested in how government uses the law to its advantage then you should take the time to try to understand. Arguing without understanding is counterproductive to regaining liberty.

Some "residents" did return to England and its monarchy.

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.

" there is no evidence for the existence of such a being"

I find Rands atheism a fools religion, and this is once again an example of a fool pushing it. I no more care for your unprovable belief to be crammed on me than you care for mine to be crammed on you. Prove to me a creator does not exist and we can talk further on the subject. Otherwise I will respect your views that you cannot prove (no creator exists) and perhaps you can respect my views (creator does exist) that I cannot prove. There is no proof that a creator does not exist, or that he does. There is evidence of both viewpoints in the world we see everyday. You think what we see happened by random chance, I think it had to have a mind behind it in order to occur.

The failure to respect the view of others that cannot be proven, when yours also cannot be proven only creates a rift between rational thinkers who would on nearly all other aspects unite and that simply reduces our ability to make real and useful change.

for my own view rights come from a creator; they do so by a a natural process that the creator created. Even that creator must follow those natural laws and those laws would be rationally identifiable.

There is absolutely no reason to get stuck on the issue of if there is a creator or not. Either way the natural rights would be able to be identified through a rational process.

Either way, it is possible to look at the randomly generated world, or the intelligently designed world and rationally identify ones own rights.

Ultimately anyone whom can exist in a free society has to respect the individual ability to seek out and accept truth as can be rationally approached and scientifically proven. In those areas where no proof is available, you have to accept that people will and should have different views.

So long as their views respect the individual I would rather get along with them. I would rather work together and most importantly make changes to the world around us together.

Those that have an anti-creator view point and would like to force atheism down my windpipe can take a long walk on a short pier, something like a character from Atlas did at a run.

I suggest that the "creator" part of the title should not be viewed as an obstacle to understanding the legal points that Jet has to explain. Until you listen to those points with an objective mind you may not get his point about consent and how legally it may not have the definition that you currently accept.

Whether you believe in God, or just that in the nature of man (Natural) , and that would include Objectivists, that our rights do not come from Government, is what sets us apart from most Governments.
Our founders said it best in the debates leading to our Constitution. If men were angles, we wouldn't need Government. Also if our leaders were angles, we wouldn't need checks and balances.
Bit I fear they were also right in that when the Government gets too large/powerful, the people will vote themselves gifts from the Treasury, and bankrupt the Nation.

The framers had no choice but to referen God. The times compelled it. Some of them were likely closeted atheist, (Jefferson, etc.) but nothing but blood-letting would result by that revelation. However, we are talking about the Objectivist view in which a deity/ghost would be altered to words that promote life. Any argument that allows one to elevate "creator" to an actuality is not an Objectivist, so any argument for creator endowment is no longer strictly an Objectivist definition but a atheist VS deist debate. After one has been through this waste of time, one learns that it is better to bypass this type of encounter.

As to the question: Mankind's amazingly rapid evolution via science has not caused a commensurate evolution in society. In many ways it has caused a regression (putting a gun into the hand of a 5 year old.) Therefore, for pure survival men have invented governments, which by their very nature restricts freedom. The attempt of the Founders to allow as much freedom as possible while still keeping order was (is) a noble experiment. But the very fact of current events illustrates why total freedom is not viable.

Excellent commentary! Most of our Founding Fathers who were the architects of our Republic and the authors of our Constitution believed in a Creator as the source of our human rights (as opposed to government or any human collective). As for Rand's atheism, this is primarily the reason that I'm a libertarian rather than an objectivist.

It will crush him if it finds him and he is happy doing his thing while bothering no one. It is not preferable to live on the outside but the government has institutionalized so many incursions on individual freedoms in spite of the founding principles that an individual has no other choice. I have believed for a long time that I may die in chains in a dark hole but I am determined to be quietly defiant to the end. I am not interested in an intellectual debate where all the terms have been redefined.