Natural Law comes from the belief in an ordered world based on laws. You can't have an ordered world without someone to do the ordering. You can't have laws without a lawmaker.



No see, I don't like words being put in my mouth. I said I know the truth of the first Thanksgiving from historical records. I didn't say nobody else knew the truth.

Referring to "scatological activity" is usually an indication that one has reached or surpassed their intellectual capacity or their arguments are weak or both.



Interesting "fathoming".

Regarding the existence of "gods": I maintain that ANY of the thousands of proposed "gods" worshiped, loved, feared by humans MAY exist, but that evidence is lacking to show which (if any) are more than human imagination.

However, I often challenge statements claiming knowledge of invisible, undetectable supernatural entities -- and claims of knowledge about what any supposedly omniscient entity thinks, or wants (or how it emotes) -- and claims of knowledge about an "afterlife."



I agree regarding the smallpox issue. However, regarding the celebration:



And



Perhaps there is more to the situation than the traditional myth suggests?



How, exactly, does one determine that another's thoughts are misguided and incorrect WITHOUT or before knowing what they are?



Correction: Natural Law is based on NATURE. Observation of nature leads to the concept of "laws" that describe and explain events (by nature, not supernaturalism / mysticism).



So say those who promote one of the proposed "creator gods" -- other opinions differ.



Who is the "lawgiver" in the case of the "Law of Gravity"?



Likewise. Notice the difference between what I said, "others do not know" and what you interpreted "nobody else knows". I am an "other" in this case. Your "As you envision it, maybe. I know the truth of it" IS a claim to know "truth" which indicates that I do not know truth because my view is different from TRUTH (that you think you possess).

Call it a hunch.



I feel that you are either completely out of your depth or having a piss. The term "Natural Law" in philosophy refers to "'��Natural law theory'�� is a label that has been applied to theories of ethics, theories of politics, theories of civil law, and theories of religious morality". You seem to have latched onto the word "natural" and assume "mother nature". It's speaking to human nature, which was created by God according to those who espouse natural law. It's honestly very frustrating trying to have an intelligent conversation with you, when it's always like you just walked into the room mid conversation and think you know everything. You are wrong. Natural law isn't about nature. It's about the moral laws built into human nature.



Again with the sarcasm quotes. Okay, so if we have an ordered universe, with moral laws built into human nature...how did that happen if it wasn't by the actions of a "creator god"?



God. This was covered earlier in the discussion, so I won't cover it again.




In that sense, I know lots that "others do not know". You just rendered your sentence meaningless. I know more about the Thanksgiving of 1621 than I'd guess 90% of extant humans. Probably more. So what you posted was a meaningless statement of the obvious.



Oh, wait. Nope, you were obviously implying that I was claiming access to some hidden truth that nobody else had.

I think this deserves more attention, because it actually is egregious. By observing nature, we determined it was wrong to steal, right? To murder? To rape? All of those things are perfectly normal and acceptable behaviors in nature. Sea Otter's in California will kidnap baby seals and rape them to death. Perfectly normal and acceptable. Do you actually believe it's lawful (under natural law) to rape another creature to death? No, I don't think you do. I think what the problem is that you got completely out of your depth, had no idea what you were talking about and just ran with it. I'm 99% certain that you will reply and try to defend your claim that Natural Law is based on observing nature. I honestly can't wait to see your response.

It appears as though much of what you claim as knowledge is actually "hunch" rather than knowledge.



I do not pretend to know the origin of an ordered universe -- but leave the pretending to others (be they religious or scientific in orientation).

Many DO pretend to know that their favorite "creator god" (among the thousands available) is responsible BECAUSE they have been told that by others, often in ancient texts or in lectures / sermons by people who CLAIM to know.

Some people, self included, do not such accept such claims without verification -- and do not regard folklore, legend, fable, fantasy, ancient "wisdom", or sermons as being evidence of truth and accuracy.

Yes, anonymous people thousands of years ago spoke or wrote about "miraculous" entities and events (as was evidently common in that era). Some of those opinions, theories, claims, and stories were incorporated into currently popular religions.

That is evidence of what people believed / thought / wrote -- but is not evidence that such things existed or occurred (or that the claimants and storytellers knew / know more than anyone else).

I do not accept that "moral laws" are "built into human nature" but suggest instead that what is known as morality is produced by society. If it was "built in" there should be little or no deviation by individuals.



What you identify as "sarcasm quotes" are often "distancing quotes" (a valid use of quotation marks) indicating that my mention of the term does not imply acceptance.



How, exactly, can one determine if this is true?

Believing that something is true is VERY different from actually determining truth. Believing that diseases are caused by demons is very different from learning about microbial causes of disease. Believing that storms are caused by "angry gods" is very different from learning about atmospheric processes.

Proclaiming that "goddidit" to explain gravity is very different from learning about the real world we inhabit.



Remarkable

Or is it? The US, where the Thanksgiving we discuss is celebrated, contains less than five percent of the population of "extant humans." Thus, most citizens of the US could make the same claim. Whether you know more than the average US citizen has not been established beyond self-aggrandizing claims.

I observe that much of what is "known" about Thanksgiving appears to be tradition, folklore, and assumption rather than knowledge of the actual event and related events.



Humans and the societies they develop are part of nature (in spite of what many worshipers of "gods" may proclaim), as are bees or ants and their social structure. We live in the biosphere of the Earth and are one of its components.

The social structures (societies) humans have evolved usually include prohibition of theft, rape and murder because stability of the society is enhanced by such prohibitions (though they may be condoned or accepted under prescribed circumstances).



You are certainly entitled to your opinion -- and me to mine -- which is that your statements remind me of a preacher telling "the faithful" about his vast knowledge of the supernatural -- and being unaccustomed to encountering doubt of his self-proclaimed "superiority" and "authority."



Only 99% certain? That is down one percent from previous claims of total knowledge. The learning process . . .

Notice, however, that you injected "observing nature" in place of my "from nature." Being part of nature is different from mere observation. Humans and their social structures change (evolve) over time as one aspect of what we know as nature (in spite of denial by many who accept the "creator god" theory -- and become convinced that they have the answer to nearly any question with "goddidit").

What if every society on earth had agreed with Hitler and all of the Jews on the face of the earth had been gassed? Would that have been morally right under natural law?

I always hope for the best in people. I thought you might actually be able to admit that Natural Law theory is a religious theory based on observations of human nature. I think leaving 1% doubt was very generous.

Exactly my point. You wrote a sentence, which was clearly meant to imply I was making a claim of special knowledge. When I called you on it, you twisted it around to claim that you weren't saying what you obviously were. You rendered your own sentence meaningless.

I just stepped back for a second. Sometimes I get so into my head, that I can't see what is in front of me.

Natural Law theory is based on religious beliefs and originates from the idea that God built laws into human nature. That's not debatable. You can read the theory on various philosophy websites. We can argue if that belief is valid, but I refuse to entertain any more discussion that Natural Law theory comes "from nature". I'm done with that. Don't waste your time or mine.

Playing the Hitler Card is amateurish (Reductio ad Hitlerum is sometimes called "playing the Nazi card." According to its critics and proponents, it is a tactic often used to derail arguments, because such comparisons tend to distract and anger the opponent.)

Nice try though.

I make no statements regarding what is "morally right"



Perhaps it is "generous" to claim that natural law is religious theory when it is identified as:

Natural law, or the law of nature, is a system of law that is purportedly determined by nature, and thus universal. Classically, natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze human nature — both social and personal — and deduce binding rules of moral behavior from it.



If you now acknowledge that you have no special knowledge, I do not disagree.

Complements on the creative dance



Of course it is "not debatable" if one ignores "Classically, natural law refers to the use of reason to analyze human nature" and insists that "goddidit"

When one attributes human nature to their favorite "god" that limits considerations to their personal beliefs and opinions.

If you answered my question "no", you would have disproven your contention that "natural law" is based on human societal evolution.

To follow your argument to it's logical conclusion would have you agreeing with Hitler that all Jews needed to die, because every society on earth agreed.

So you took the easy way out and claimed I was playing the "Hitler card", when I was using Reductio ad absurdum to show the flaw in your theory.

I won't waste my time discussing topics with you anymore.

When people play the Hitler card they appear to be grabbing at straws trying to salvage their "argument"



This is another attempt to claim knowledge of my position or argument (perhaps by mind reading?).

I make no claim to know what is "morally right" -- but leave such claims to those who fancy themselves to be moralists (and those who attempt to claim natural law stems from religion, in direct contrast to its origin in nature and reasoning -- the antithesis of most religious beliefs).



"Absurd" is demonstrated with "What if every society on earth had agreed with Hitler . . . "



I can understand that you would not want to do so preacher.

Yes your Statements are true. Because Santa those not exist,there is no one to act on behalf.

actually Santa DID exist!

He was a Bishop in the Eastern Church!
Seems there is more evidence of him than of your Creator!

The first-century Roman Tacitus, who is considered one of the more accurate historians of the ancient world, mentioned superstitious “Christians” (from Christus, which is Latin for Christ), who suffered under Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius. Suetonius, chief secretary to Emperor Hadrian, wrote that there was a man named Chrestus (or Christ) who lived during the first century (Annals 15.44).

Flavius Josephus is the most famous Jewish historian. In his Antiquities he refers to James, “the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ.”

Pliny the Younger, in Letters 10:96, recorded early Christian worship practices including the fact that Christians worshiped Jesus as God and were very ethical, and he includes a reference to the love feast and Lord’s Supper


The Babylonian Talmud (Sanhedrin 43a) confirms Jesus' crucifixion on the eve of Passover and the accusations against Christ of practicing sorcery and encouraging Jewish apostasy.

The Jewish rabbinical traditions not only mention Jesus, but they are also the only sources that spell his name accurately in Aramaic, his native tongue: Yeshua Hannotzri—Joshua (Jesus) of Nazareth. Some of the references to Jesus in the Talmud are garbled—probably due to the vagaries of oral tradition—but one is especially accurate, since it seems based on written sources and comes from the Mishna—the earliest collection of writings in the Talmud. This is no less than the arrest notice for Jesus, which runs as follows:

He shall be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and lured Israel to apostasy. Anyone who can say anything in his favor, let him come forward and plead on his behalf. Anyone who knows where he is, let him declare it to the Great Sanhedrin in Jerusalem.

Cornelius Tacitus, one of the most reliable source historians of first-century Rome, wrote in his Annals a year-by-year account of events in the Roman Empire under the early Caesars. Among the highlights that he reports for the year A.D. 64 was the great fire of Rome. People blamed the emperor Nero for this conflagration since it happened "on his watch," but in order to save himself, Nero switched the blame to "the Christians," which is the first time they appear in secular history. Careful historian that he was, Tacitus then explains who "the Christians" were: "Christus, the founder of the name, had undergone the death penalty in the reign of Tiberius, by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilatus" (15:44). He then goes on to report the horrors that were inflicted on the Christians in what became their first Roman persecution.

1/ Cornelius Tacitus; CE 55-120. Roman historian ca. 112 CE). He writes about Jesus in his ‘Annals’. He talks about ‘Christus, the founder of the name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberias.’
2/ Thallus; Samaritan historian, ca. 52 CE. One of the first secular writers who mentions ‘Christ’; wrote attempting to give a natural explanation for the darkness which occurred at the crucifixion of Jesus. He did not deny the existence of Jesus - tried to explain the strange circumstances surrounding His death.
3/ Phlegon: a 1st century historian. In his work called ‘Chronicles’, he testifies that darkness came over the land at the time Christ was crucified. Phlegon and Thallus both wrote about Jesus's existence and the long period of Darkness in the middle of the day at his death.
4/ Flavius Josephus. A Jewish general turned Roman historian, born 37/38 CE. He wrote the Jewish Antiquites and in one described Jesus as a wise man, a doer of wonderful works and calls him the Christ. He also affirmed that Jesus was executed by Pilate and rose from the dead and wrote ‘... and brought before it the brother of Jesus, the so-called Christ, whose name was James...’
5/ Lucian of Samosata: Greek satirist of the latter half of the 2nd century. Spoke scornfully about ‘Christ’.
6/ Suetonius - Roman historian; court official and annalist under Hadrian, 120 CE. Comments: ‘As the Jews were making constant disturbance at the instigation of Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome.’ [Luke also makes reference to this expulsion in Acts 18:1-2]
7/ Pliny the younger- governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor CE.112. He wrote to the emperor Trajan about Christians and their devotion to Christ.
8/ The Talmud. This consists of two separate books dealing with Jewish law, written during the period from 100 A.D. to 500 A.D. It speaks frequently of Jesus of Nazareth, but in unfriendly terms. However, it never disputed his status as a historical figure

Sorry if some of those are repeats.

If a preacher named Jesus (or similar) lived 2000 years ago is that evidence that 1) he was divine, 2) a creator exists