29 votes

Ron Paul at the Faith & Freedom Coalition Conference on CSPAN

CSPAN recorded the live feed from the Faith & Freedom Coalition Conference in Washington, DC. Ron Paul gave a great speech:


http://youtu.be/O_z0vC6rQv4
http://www.c-spanvideo.or...

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

That is an interesting point....

Allen Rex Sandage, the greatest observational cosmologist in the world, who has received prestigious honors from the American Astronomical Society, the Swiss Physical Society, the Royal Astronomical society, and the Swedish Academy of Science (which gave him astronomy's equivalent of the Nobel Prize) discovered otherwise!

Ethnically Jewish, but an atheist from childhood, all at the debate between the Theists and the Atheists expected his seat among the atheists was a given. Then he startled them all by sitting with the Theists!

The Big Bang, he told a rapt audience, was a supernatural event that cannot be explained within the realm of physics as we know it. Science had taken us to the First Event, but it cannot take us further to the First Cause. The sudden emergence of matter, space, time and energy all pointed to the need for some kind of transcendence.

"It was my science that drove me to the conclusion that the world is much more complicated than can be explained by science.It was only through the supernatural that I can understand the mystery of existence." Allen Sandage, Recorded by Sharon Begley, Science Finds God,Newsweek, July 20,1998

"Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern." ~~C.S. Lewis
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

When are people going to learn...

...to stop using "god" as a way to explain what we don't understand?

It has been shown over and over again that humans thought "god" or "gods" were responsible for various things, and as we learned more, it turned out that logic gave us another answer entirely.

Every passing year, decade or century... the number of things we used to attribute to "god" shrinks as learn about science.

At what size will this list of "yet unexplained things about reality" have to shrink to until people finally realize and accept that god wasn't responsible for any of it and doesn't actually exist?

It is amazing that people cling to the idea that god exists - despite having no proof or evidence at all - just their "faith" and wishful thinking. People don't just accept reality for what it is - a reality that has no god - they want it to be something else entirely.

Instead of accepting reality... they build churches... and write and spread massive contradictory books just to convince and indoctrinate people of something that obviously isn't true and to something they have no proof of.

Now people just take it for granted that it's true - they grow up thinking "god exists"... or some highly improbable or coincidental event magically "convinces" them. It's really sad that the idea that "god exists" gets a pass and so many people accept it without evidence.

No wonder why Bush and Obama can lie to everyone and 50%+ believe them. They are used to believing in lies from the start.

For those that actually believe in the arbitrary claim that god exists... let me point an identical application of logic and you tell me if it's acceptable or not.

Let's say someone kills someone close to you - perhaps your spouse or a family member or your best friend - and they are caught on tape.

The murderer pleads out to you, "A 'look-a-like' did it. It wasn't me! I swear!" Will you take the murderer's word for it? Will you take his word solely on faith? Will you demand any evidence at all that such a look-a-like even exists?

Of course you would! - His claim is totally arbitrary unless he can present some kind of evidence to support it!

This an example of an arbitrary claim - a claim that cannot be proven to be true or false - it is simply arbitrary. This kind of claim is no different than those of you who arbitrarily claim that god exists.

You can't have it both ways - you either recognize the arbitrary claims for what they are and throw them out - or you believe in all arbitrary claims on faith alone (and evidence and logic be damned).

What kind of a world do you want to live in - where the the arbitrary rules, or where logic rules? Take your pick. I choose logic.

blinded by science.

eloquently stated friend. thanx.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fI8834iCgo

egervaris intelligence.

as a Deist. I question your intelligence that here is no god. as an American, I think it is rude for you not to respect anothers faith.

It's not about disrespect

It is about the evidence - or the lack of evidence - that a god exists. Things in reality are either true, false or arbitrary. The concept of god is simply arbitrary - there is not a shred of evidence to support that such a being exists. There isn't even a remote possibility, let alone a high probability that this claim is true.

Thus, it would be RIGHT for me to question the intelligence of those who actually think a god exists - because no logic was ever used to come to this conclusion - None at all.

Metaphysically, the concept of god doesn't even make sense. It's an infinite regression.

However, I know Ron Paul is a very intelligent man. I find it shocking that he doesn't know the truth. How can a man be so smart about nearly everything he studies, but then not know that god doesn't exist? If you ask me, I would say it's politically destructive for him to say otherwise.

Anyway, by me saying these things, I am not disrespecting you either. As someone who believes in freedom, I respect your right to believe in whatever the heck you want to believe in - regardless of how irrational and potentially self-destructive it might be.

Also, just because I point this out, I am not forcing you to stop believing in god either. I have violated no rights.

If I am rude for bringing up the truth, then so be it. I'd rather be rude and know the truth than be polite and be wrong. I don't think I was rude to begin with though - I was polite and correct.

egervari- I think the goal of

egervari-

I think the goal of all here should be to promote Ron Paul, and not attack him because of what any individual may believe to be his shortcomings. He is not perfect, and no one should expect him to be. No candidate ever will be. A lot of my friends have serious problems with some of his viewpoints, but I try to get them to see the big picture. We have a candidate of the highest moral character. A man who believes that the Constitution should not be ignored, and that truth is important all the time.

Perhaps it is true that no one can prove God exists. However, I think it is equally true that no one can prove that God does not exist. I do not consider anyone to be less of a person or any less intelligent based on their belief or non-belief in God.

I found your post to be arrogant and insulting. You write as if you have a monopoly on the truth. You have an opinion. One that cannot be proven.

god existence is not opinion - it is fact

It has nothing to do with *me* being the monopoly of the truth - god simply does not exist. I am not special for saying it. All the evidence in reality dictates that a god doesn't exist. How is this arrogant and insulting to suggest that something doesn't exist when there is ZERO evidence to support its existence? This isn't arrogant - this is just pointing out the obvious.

"Perhaps it is true that no one can prove God exists. However, I think it is equally true that no one can prove that God does not exist."

As I said in my post above, the claim that god exists is arbitrary - i.e. essentially made up out of thin air. It is no different than a murderer caught on a video tape saying that a look-a-like actually committed the crime and that he is innocent until someone can prove that the person caught on tape wasn't a look-a-like. It is the same type of arbitrary claim.

A judge would not accept the claim that the murderer could be a look-a-like without any evidence to support this claim in court. Likewise, we shouldn't accept the claim that god exists without evidence either.

Those who believe in god (an arbitrary claim) would also have to take the murderer's word on faith - just as they take the existence of god on faith alone - because they are both the same type of claims - things that cannot be proved or disproved - i.e. the arbitrary.

Things that are arbitrary are things that are just "made up". They can't be proved or disproved because there isn't even a shred of evidence to support their existence in the first place. Therefore, they are simply false by default.

In order for something to exist or be true, it must be proven to exist or be true. Last time I checked, god has not spoke to me. I haven't seen god in the sky or anywhere else. We haven't been able to find god under a microscope or in a fossil somewhere. It just doesn't exist - period.

To put it simply, god is nowhere to be found in this reality.

If you don't understand this logical argument, read my post a bit above - it's in more detail. The fact that god can't be disproved is irrelevant - the claim has to be thrown out.

Basically what I'm saying is that you can't just assume something exists because you wish it to be true... and then tell others that it is their responsibility to "disprove you". It doesn't work that way. Things do not exist because you desire them to exist - your desire and wishful thinking is irrelevant.

In fact, if you claim that god exists, the burden of proof is on YOU, not me.

Things do not exist unless someone proves its existence. Things exists because they can be shown or proven to exist. That's it. It's really that simple. If you can't show something to exist... then it doesn't exist.

There's none of this, "Well maybe it exists" or "it exists for me". Those lines of thinking are baseless and absurd.

If this doesn't make sense after reading all of this, then there's nothing I can do to convince you as this argument is entirely rational and makes way too much sense.

YAWWWWNNNNNN......

YAWWWWNNNNNN......

I quoted you

Here:

http://www.dailypaul.com/166826/do-we-exist-is-this-real

Can you prove you exist? Can you show me how that is done?

Then, I can take your formula for proving existence and apply it to this discussion.

.

Hear, O Israel: YHUH our God YHUH one. And thou shalt love YHUH thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

I didn't know a lack of

I didn't know a lack of evidence counted as proof of anything. You sound just as bad as a religious extremist. Since we have nothing other than a human perspective with which to observe the universe and the nature of a god might be nothing any human has ever even considered, there is absolutely no way to prove or disprove the existence of a theoretical being (or beings) with whom we have never had a verifiable interaction. God is a theory, just like the Big Bang. We investigate theories until they disprove themselves, and we're still looking at the Bang even though the math doesn't work and the theory is beginning to lose traction among physicists (it was proposed by the Catholic Church who did no actual scientific research to back it up, so this is not surprising). Your extremist beliefs are just as dangerous as any other form of extremism. Atheism allows people not to think or question the nature of the universe, just as surely as religious fundamentalism does. A lack of imagination will doom us just as surely as a lack of information. Most intelligent beings eventually come to the conclusion that there is probably no supernatural guiding hand, but being an atheist who doesn't question their own beliefs is not the same as being intelligent and questioning everything.

Fine

Claim #1: Purple furry aliens live on venus.

Claim #2: There are currently 16,423,231 black holes in existence at this very moment.

Claim #3: All murderers caught on tape are innocent because its possible that look-a-likes actually committed the murders. I mean, we can never be too sure with this possibility, so we can only convict people if we prove they is no look-a-likes possible.

All of these statements are true because *I* said so. If you can't disprove me, then I am right and you are wrong.

--- Back to reality ---

The above claims are essentially equivalent to the claim "god exists". All of them are totally arbitrary, nonsensical and are not based on the facts of reality. If you claim that god exists is true because I can't disprove it, then so is every made up claim I can invent. It works both ways.

It is extremely silly to suggest that we should accept claims that can't be disproven and that we should assume that they exist. This is simply ludicrous. I'm sure you would agree that arbitary claims such as mine are obviously not true... but why should god be any different for? Why does "god" get a pass... but the murderer's claim, or the furry purple aliens, or the precise number of black holes be thrown out?

The lack of evidence that something exists really does mean that it doesn't exist!

#3

can be disproven, a video may not be rock solid evidence in and of itself, but in combination with Fingerprints, DNA evidence, etc, it can corraberate (bind together) the other pieces. The Case against Timothy McVEigh was mostly based on corroberative evidence, but that evidence was weighty enough to convince a reasonable, unbiased jury that he was guilty. Are you reasonable and unbiased here?

"Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern." ~~C.S. Lewis
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

Do you know what sarcasm is?

I don't think you do. I said all of them were false if you just kept reading.

Perhaps if you people actually read what I wrote rather than just read the start of my paragraphs and automatically vote down, you might learn something.

My point is

#3 can be dispelled more easily than the rest. It would time and extraordinary effort to dispel the rest. (and yes, I realize you were being sarcastic, I just decided not to notice:)

"Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern." ~~C.S. Lewis
Love won! Deliverance from Tyranny is on the way! Col. 2:13-15

I didn't claim god exists. I

I didn't claim god exists. I also didn't claim any furry aliens on Venus or a specific number of black holes, but you might be right. You claim to be omniscient, I don't.

My claims are not right

and neither is the claim that a god exists.

maybe not. I don't claim to

maybe not. I don't claim to know everything, or think everyone should agree with my beliefs

One doesn't need to know "everything" or be omnipresent...

... in order to know that god doesn't exist.

Let's just replace the word "god" with X. If there is no evidence that "X" exists... then X doesn't exist.

Let's try it:

1. If there is no evidence that a look-a-like exists, then no look-a-like exists.

2. If there is no evidence that furry, purple space aliens that live on venus exists, then no furry, purple space aliens that live on venus exists.

This is true for all X, god or otherwise. You don't need to be all knowing - you just need to know that no such evidence exists. With respect to a god, none does exist.

So there was no Big Bang. I

So there was no Big Bang. I get it. Does that mean we stop looking for the evidence that there was a big bang? You seem to advocate that people stop questioning nature and accept what they're told (by you), and that's how science and technology will stagnate. We can't find evidence of god, so I think people should keep looking for it if that's what they want to do. It doesn't hurt me. You seem to be a religious fanatic who's offended by anyone who questions your beliefs. Intolerance is the trademark of religion, and you're intolerant of those who disagree with you.

I am not saying to abanadon the search for truth!

Far from it!

People can search for the existence of god all they like. By all means, keep trying.

All I am saying that it is not proper to claim the existence of god as FACT until this entity is PROVEN to exist. This is all I am saying. Today, on June 5, 2011, God has not yet been proven to exist. So I refuse to believe in god's existence for this very reason.

I happen to know metaphysically that a god can't exist. But even if people don't agree on the metaphysical proof, then by all means, keep searching for the answers. I don't really care.

The thing I don't understand is why should "god" get an exception for? Why should we take the existence of god as true without evidence when the claim is 100% arbitrary, yet not accept other baseless arbitrary claims? No entity gets an exception - not even "god". If something doesn't have evidence to exist, then it doesn't exist - period.

This is why I don't understand why the existence of god is even important in politics. We are giving weight to something that hasn't proven to exist. What is the point? The only point is to pander to those people who happen to accept an arbitrary claim as the truth... just because they "feel" really strongly about it. There's no logic or reason to it at all.

We either want to live in a world we we follow the rules of logic, or we don't. If we follow the rules of logic, then we have to accept that god doesn't exist - much in the same way we accept that other things don't exist when there is no evidence to support them.

The moment you accept that god exists, you are basically inviting the acceptance of other arbitrary claims to exist as well. I mean, why not if you're willing to accept a spirtual being like a god?

This is why people thought WMD's existed in IRAQ. It's why people believe in false-flag terror. Is why a lot of people still believe in big government.

People accept things to be true or to exist without evidence all the time - and we all suffer for it. Frankly, it is outright evil. Perhaps if people understood logic a lot better, they wouldn't be so quick to accept god... which I think is a logically very easy concept to reject. If they can learn to reject god, they can also reject many of the other web of lies they've been told by government and other authorities as well.

Why must they reject god?

Why must they reject god? Why not simply ask them to question the existence of god? If they can question their gods, they can question their leaders. Your use of language is aggressively anti-god, not pro truth. Truth involves asking the right questions, and then people must find the truth for themselves, you can't tell it to them. That's not how it works. Truth is something you arrive at through inquiry, not because you read it in a newspaper, or some guy tells you in a discussion forum. When someone can spark your imagination, you begin to search for truth. Contrarily, when someone tells you "this is the truth", it's usually rejected out of hand unless it's coming from a position of authority. Especially on topics involving spiritual and political beliefs.

I have not only told them "this is the truth"

I have also shown them basic application of logic, and then concluded that god can't exist if they accept the proper application of logic - i.e. the application of arbitrary claims.

A lot of believers in a god often say, "you can't disprove that god exists, so therefore god exists!" This is not a true statement, but is a statement believers give all the time.

My initial response was to educate these people... to teach them that there are not only "true" and "false" claims, but there are also "arbitrary" claims. Believers in god often don't even know about arbitrary claims - at least not in the abstract.

Of course, they often acknowledge that arbitrary claims are not true in every other circumstance... such "look-a-likes" or "purple, furry space aliens"... but they somehow can't bring themselves to recognize that the claim "god exists" is an arbitrary claim as well. My response brought this contradiction/inconsistency to light.

You say I am just a guy on a discussion forum trying to claim truth, but my argument included all the logic one should need to help them come to this conclusion themselves. It could spark that initial thought for them to question it.

I don't know why you think my posts have been absent of this... because there is actual logic content in them. I am not just making arbitrary claims that happen to be the opposite - I am stating true and then showing the logic to back it up. This is quite different than what you suggest I am doing.

OK so please tell us where did matter come from ?

The universe is an enormously huge and accrurate clock. If one sees a clock then there must be a clock maker.

or kill for tyranny ?

when he can explain mass or gravity,

I will listen to his atheist BS.

This was a perfect speech for

This was a perfect speech for this audience.wonder how many will read the two 1 8s..wow..I will.

Ron

Can anyone get me a link for Ron's speech? I've tried all the links posted and keep getting one jackass after another.

Joη's picture

updated

bad video! Changing timestamps without telling anyone...

"You underestimate the character of man." | "So be off now, and set about it." | Up for a game?

the guy who embodies

Christian principles and virtues more than any other in the room and they put him dead last on the roster... They are so blinded by "group think" that they can't even see Humility, Truth and Wisdom when it walks into the room....

Elijah & the prophets of Baal

Elijah and the 400 prophets of Baal. He is Elijah and they worship Baal and think they are worshiping God. By their fruits ye shall know them.

Healthnut4freedom

The lip of truth shall be established forever: but a lying tongue is but for a moment...Lying lips are abomination to the LORD: but they that deal truly are His delight. Prov 12:19,22