I agree with your point, but I thought I might just say that this is not a tautology... A tautology is always true, no matter the truth or falsity of the elements. For example, "2+2 either equals 5 or it does not equal 5" ... no matter what, this statement is true.

What this argument lacks, however, is soundness... namely the truth of the premise 2 is not secured nor accepted for the sake of argument.

In addition, it might suffer from a fallacy of equivocation... namely god creating all "existence" may be an equivocation to saying rights "exist". It's not clear that creating physical reality equals the creation of metaphysical ideas like rights. This would mean the argument also lacks cogency.

__________________
True knowledge exists in being aware of what you don't know.

Let me try to give a breakdown of the argument in question.

Premises:


Premise 1. Rights can be associated with Y only if X created Y and gave Y the rights.

Premise 2. If God did not create humans, nothing could have created humans.

Therefore,

Conclusion 1: If nothing could have created humans, then no rights can be associated with humans. (Premise 1)

Conclusion 2: If God did not create humans, then no rights can be associated with humans. (Premise 2 and Conclusion 1)


Is this an accurate breakdown of your argument, Publius Infinitum, or would you like to make some modifications?

__________________
True knowledge exists in being aware of what you don't know.

No comment Publius Infinitum? I thought we were debating this thing. Or was it preaching that was not up for debate?

__________________
True knowledge exists in being aware of what you don't know.

Why do you think because your old world religion makes no sense that we can all start killing each other? Thats stupid it doesn't matter if religion is a load of fooey we still need human rights. The majority of the people on the planet dislike being beaten or killed so as a majority we decide that noone can be persecuted or attacked for there beliefs of any other factor. Its as simple as that human rights just don't need to be relevant to religion..

God is an abstract meta psychical concept with no bearing in reality, and thus because it was no bearing in reality it is irrelevant. 'Rights' are social products which correspond to the material conditions and needs of the community.

D@rn straight, right on the dot, well done.

Well it's not even an accurate breakdown of your argument...

God created you, therefore if you exist, God exist.

God's authority is the final authority...

The atheists that popped in above, you'll notice failed to speak to the Opening Premise. They believe they have rights, they believe society dictates what rights are... except again, in the OP the fundamental rights of atheists were revoked, knowingly, willfully, overtly, intentionally, openly, wantonly... by a society that had determined, using the EXACT SAME CALCULATION as the atheists THEMSELVES use to justify their own beliefs.

Now why do you believe the atheists refuse to speak to opening OP except to again demand conclusive proof that God exist?

The reason is simple enough and that is because the OP is designed to prove that in the absence of God, Human Rights are a concept without meaning. And Atheists don’t want to get the reputation as being anti-human rights… despite that being precisely what and who they are.

Atheist say that one doesn't need the magic show to be a good productive citizen... the problem is that in the absence of the final accountability of God's authority, then there is no reason to be a good citizen.

If this life is what it appears to be; finite and finalized upon one's death, then the only possible reason for one's existence is to feed the cravings of this existence, without ANY concern for ANYONE other than those that lead to the feeding of those cravings. And THAT kids is what atheists are all about... as I've told you many, many times; atheism, the foundation of the ideological left, is a function of evil. It's soul purpose is to provide a means by which evil advances it's political policy; policy which can ONLY produce catastrophe, calamity and chaos...

Has anyone noticed the inordinate number of athiests which come out of Australia?

Is no one even curious to know why it is that where ever a culture promotes the interests of these people, promoting atheism by extension, that the culture in question soons finds itself unarmed?

Hmmmmmmmmm.....

Hey genius, why don't you go to the OP and respond. In effect the society determines one faithful day that atheists are persona non grata and passes a law requiring atheists to be executed in sight...

Now under that scenario, you as an atheist is, IF one gets their rights from society, are WITHOUT ANY RIGHTS, NON... zero, nada. The question is: What now and why?

This friends is the precise intellectual depth of the ideological left... it's the best they have and all one can expect of them; yet they've been given the vote.

But this is how after only 7 years hence 9-11, wherein the US realized a deadly attack on our own soil due to feminized leftist policy, by Radical anti-American leftist (pardon the redundancy) Islamists... the Democrats run two radical leftwing feminists, one of which with direct and serious ties to anti-American Marxist Islam.

"Change?" ROFLMNAO... They NEVER CHANGE!

it was not meant to be a breakdown of my argument. It was meant to be a breakdown of yours that highlights your assumptions. You told me in a previous post that only god gives me rights because he created me. This prompted the general statement:

Premise 1: "Rights can be associated with Y only if X created Y and gave Y the rights."

It also assumes god created us, thus the statement

Premise 2:"If God did not create humans, nothing could have created humans."

I based this completely off of what I heard from you, but I know my understanding of your position is not perfect, so I asked you to fill in the gaps.


This argument is either a circular argument begging the question, or it makes an important assumption: There is no other way for you to exit than if god made you exist. Only with the acceptance of this premise is your proof of God's existence sound.

On a logical basis, I ask how you have shown this, as this seems to have nothing to do with your previous argument. At best, it's an equivocation of the "god" that may have created us to the definition of a "god" with final authority. There has been nothing presented to link this definition of god with the creator of humans UNLESS you are saying it is the process of creation that gives final authority. If this is the case, then you have affirmed Premise 1 that I presented above. In addition, you claimed outright that "god created you (humans)", Premise 2. Therefore, you have affirmed both of the premises that you rejected above.

On a more speculative basis, I ask if god is the final authority, what governs how god manages his authority? why does he choose to do what he does?
I choose not to speculate on the reasonings and positions of the others unless you are trying to relate them to my argument.

Unfortunately your argument thus far seems to lack soundness, even to say that human rights can exist even WITH god. I am trying to pry out from you exactly why you think god gives rights. Thus far, the only argument I’ve gotten from you is that god is the authority to give rights because god created us, yet you rejected outright the argument I presented above that said exactly this. I wasn't even attacking the assumption of god's existence because like you have said, that question is irrelevant. All that matters in this argument is the relationship between the existence of god and rights.
So are you saying there is no chaos, catastrophe and calamity with the assumption that god given rights exist? Like we've told you many many times, god's law is subject to two important questions:

Which god?

Which laws?

Which interpretation?

There is far more chaos simply trying to answer these questions than there is even simply assuming there are no rights at all. I, personally, believe even an atheist will behave because of the social contract... namely, we exist as a society because we accomplish our own goals far better with thee cooperation of others than on our own. Most come to this conclusion, though there are obviously many exceptions. Then again, there are just as many exceptions from those preaching "god's" law.

__________________
True knowledge exists in being aware of what you don't know.