There's the inherent problem in the argument, that almost "magically", the probabilistic point of view of competition forming molecular bonds in nature universally in in our galaxy doesn't fit classic Physics philosophy. Here in lies the issue. "Intent" by whatever metaphorical description one chooses to use, becomes more evident as the classic view slowly retakes its position in biological evolutionary science. This statement of course is the modern point of debate, but should be considered irrefutable as a scientific point of consideration.
We should be aware that science has an amazing way of following philosophical schools of thought and it is by no means coincidental that the idea of biological evolution (of which I support) coincides with Positive Law philosophy of the early 1800's. It excludes the idea of a supernatural force of nature (metaphorical term) which describes intent, this is the part of the philosophy that any inquiring mind must take issue. Clearly, the consensus amongst modern physicists (a generalization of course but far more accepting view of "intent" than biological scientists) . See Dr George Smoot (Nobel Laureate for Physics) on www.TED.com for the nature of the Cosmos where he clearly inferrs the relationship between intelligent design in the universe by analogy.
Cosmological, Experimental and Theoretical Physicists have an easier time understanding the natural forms of nature than perhaps, Evolutionary Biologists, Organic Chemists etc in MOST cases. The argument for natural forms in nature and its implication in the development of cellular construction as the precursor to biological evolution mechanisms are easier to understand with respect to the laws of nature (strong and weak nuclear forces, electromagnetic and gravitational forces), inherent in atomic structure. Understanding this Newtonian (Principia philosophy) idea of classic Physics lends itself to intelligently designed, architect-ed or molecular forms in nature. Perhaps the modern biological evolutionary mechanism isn't the ONLY mechanism that can exist in the nature of biology. References www.youtube.com type "Dr Michael Denton" (Molecular Chemistry Professor) . See scientific papers http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/
Agreed however, although we can describe the "forms" of nature in simplistic terms, the FACT that the probabilistic view of life formation in the universe tend to complicate the argument in support of a life forming universe, the FACT that statistical anomalies tend to be guaranteed to successfully yield the right balance of hydrogen, carbon oxygen helium in nature (we know this from meteorites ex planet Earth) that the same make up is inherent in these materials as on Earth suggests Natural Law uniformity (as such so are the Laws of Gravity inherent in our side of the galaxy as in the opposite side of the universe were it possible to measure).
what a wonderful description... you've observed ONE of many "natural forms" of nature inherent through the universe. Other natural forms are the Lorentz Attractor, chemical protein folds in nature for carbon and oxygen in atomic form, and in molecular form, CO and H2O plus a myriad of molecules based on nitrogen. Incidentally, but without error in nature, the fact that our human body is made up the every same atomic and molecular structure based of the same proportions amongst star material cannot be anything but engineered. This becomes a whole separate debate as to how the basic Physics principles of forms of nature are derived and reduced into biochemical forms.
...perhaps one presupposes that there is no divine Creator, presupposing no purpose, the supposition in turn denotes the need of not knowing if there is a purpose to life. I believe that might be ignorance by choice? The question to you continues to stand on it's own merit, "What is the purpose of life" in absence of a divine Creator?
Hmmm, although what you propose sounds nice but that would be anarchy.
I support what you've said and add that the premise for freedom is "liberty", it is the primarily principle protecting an individual's sovereignty against unnecessary government intervention, against an individuals right upon another. Individual freedom is theoretically limited by default, by community or state laws (Statutes) but protected unlimited under Federal Laws. I apologize for the clinical response, I prefer yours...
Natural Law is the most valid philosophical argument. I was never a fan of "Waiting for Godot" type philosophy, basic nonsense. I can explain my reasons, but the futility implodes upon itself, creating a vacuum of nothingness of which no other material in space and time exists (I even fail at trying to be a Nihilist).
For an artful debate, develop a thought experiment, invite Thomas Jefferson; ask him why "the Creator" and "Supreme Judge of the World" was included in the Declaration of Independence, ask Thomas Paine why he considered himself anti-religionist, but acknowledged the existence of a Superior Being in Nature, ask why most if not all of the founders were at least "Deists". Ask the founders why they adhered to Natural Law philosophy, the foundation for the U.S. Constitution? For those whom are unaware of what Natural Law philosophy is, it is the rationale and reason for natures laws based on the recognition of a God as the author of moral and natural laws (gravity, human rights, freedom from government intervention in personal life, thermodynamics, nuclear forces, etc etc etc) . This is not the same as a religious belief system, which is a society (community) based formulated specific to ones belief in God. If we're tired of the religious debate, let's begin by understanding that a belief in a God is not the same as religiosity, HOWEVER, we enjoy our freedoms and laws today because of the very same philosophies by enlightened men, in the God of nature, who ever that being is or is not, that gave the free-world what it has today.
1. Homosexuality is a sin but it is not against the civil law. Should we use Positive Law philosophy to allow pedophilia as an accepted practice and legal in society? I'm certain there are limits liberalism will allow based on what moral code I wonder?
2. Any person of faith would never judge oneself above another. Virtually all religious texts have that point in common, however, the practice of it is an entirely separate manner.
3. No not all Christians believe the basic heaven or hell doctrines, this is an assumption on your behalf.
4. Incorrect, the U.S.A. was founded on Natural Law philosophy dependent on reason, enlightenment, logic and law. The main difference is in the acknowledgment of a Creator whom ever that being may be is a moral integration the U.S. Constitution.
I have studied secular humanism, it's precursor was "socialist humanism" and gave rise through Positive Law philosophy to Hitler and the Nuremberg Law modifications authorizing genocide of the Jews, Eugenics in Germany and proposed to the U.S. President Frankin D Roosevelt, Mussolini, Stalin's Marxist philosophy and so forth. Historically, Positive Law morality theory has been the course of many deaths in recent human history, the like religious infractions on human kind have never seen. I'd gladly debate you on this matter should you choose. The facts of recent human history prove this point, it also proves secular humanists can also be as biased in their point of view as any religionists.
Before secular humanists or Atheists or anti religionists start judging religionists for causes of wars, discontent, division and so forth, let me share some evidence to the contrary. Marxist philosophy is based on positive law philosophy, that is, a moral argument for a society is based on a populace vote (democracy) or coercion by a dictator. As historical evidence has demonstrated, this became an ideology that appealed to early to Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, and Chinese Communists. Let me re-emphasize...a moral law based on humanistic decision making and populace voting. This gave rise to Eugenics (almost took a foothold with Pres Franklin Roosevelt) to allow abortions to weed out the weak and undesirables through genetic disposition. Hitler used it to amend the Nuremberg Laws of Humanity to justify the Jewish genocide during WWII. Positive Law based on Bentham's philosophy is factual evidence that non religious moral intent is far more dangerous to society in much less short of time than any Inquisition, Crusade or religious infraction during the history of written language. This is factual information, and I would debate any of the tiresome liberal rhetoric promoting ideologies that are dangerous to humanity. History is the proving ground for any irrational or unreasoned philosophies and removing religious moral intent cannot be successfully replaced with a man made philosophical ideology. We may as well try to change the laws of gravity while we are at it. Study Natural Law philosophy, it's allowed us to have our 1st amendment rights today so be thankful to God for it.
I have studied the Constitution and love it for what it is and can be. That being said it may surprise some to know I'm not American. There is ample evidence past present and I'm sure in the future that will demonstrate the longevity of its laws and principles for free market, human rights, protection from government interference and rights protecting private property, including ones own sovereignty in speech, religion, press and so forth. What is missing today is a severe lack of understanding amongst its own citizens concerning the founding principles. The fact that all who are free to think and do so in this forum is a testament to the original intent of the Constitution. This is more than Conservatism versus Centrist versus Liberalism ideology, it's about understanding Constitutionality (read Federalist paper # 10). If there's a discrepancy in the U.S.A. today its the need to understand Natural Law philosophy versus Positive Law philosophy, Natural Legal Law versus Jurisprudence Law (Stare Decisis). Understanding the difference would inform us all on the lack of Constitutionality of "torture" for enemy combatants, legalized abortion, federal taxation on individual citizens, pre-emptive strike rulings for international war, right to life health care or lack of it etc etc etc.
A Republic Democracy was founded by the U.S.A. Constitution for the people, by the people. At its heart is the right to vote for a representative who then in turn votes or legislates on law. Essentially, this form of government is based on the rule of "law" while balanced by the rule of democracy (vote). States rights include the ability to have referendums (populace voting) for specific laws or amendments to State laws (Statutory). A pure democracy at a Federal government level has proven to be problematic over time as in the case history of early Greek government preceding the Roman Republicanism era. Imagine in democracy's purest form, a country where we vote on every issue as a nation, with or against laws based purely on a vote as opposed to elemental principles based on law?
I love the branding aspect of the product, not so much the product itself. It seems you're seeking to drive the potential sale of the product via branding as opposed to functionality. All existing cans with a lid can contain powders, liquids etc? Hope I did not misunderstand your idea in its entirely. All the best on the venture if you decide to proceed. I'm a business owner and develop our company's electronic products and have some experience marketing new products.
I support your scientific health comment, but it doesn't address the right to privacy concerns of the 4th amendment. The privacy of one's own property takes precedence UNTIL a law making cigarette use an illegal activity. We could Constitutionally amend the Constitution as with Prohibition and alcohol consumption (18th and 21st amendments) but we know historically where that ended.
