Evolution is a science that assumes the laws of nature are immutable.
In other words, the only thing evolution assumes a priori, like all science, is that there is no invisible hand reaching in and changing the laws of nature every once in awhile, regardless of whether that invisible hand really exists or not.
Whether God is out there or not, evolution looks for the mechanics of the creation process. Evolution does not assume no God, only that the laws of nature are NEVER broken.
Creationists assume the opposite. Creationists propose that God is a God of Chaos, that He breaks the natural laws when He feels like it. i.e. God poofing into existence all creatures fully formed.
...and Dan obfuscates again, by spamming his own blog in a transparent attempt at avoiding the beatings he's experiencing in virtually every thread he's started.
I come from a country where "Liberal" is the name of the right-wing conservative party. The name I guess comes from their economic liberalism.
From wiki: "The early theory was based on the assumption that the economic actions of individuals are largely based on self-interest, (invisible hand) and that allowing them to act without any restrictions will produce the best results, (spontaneous order) provided that at least minimum standards of public information and justice exist, e.g., no-one should be allowed to coerce or steal.
While economic liberalism favors markets unfettered by the government, it maintains that the state has a legitimate role in providing public goods."
I'm going to admit that I really have no idea what this guy is talking about when he says things like "Liberals hate capitalism!"
Heat can melt ice, but we do not "see" heat. If you use some special goggles to see heat, then maybe God has proverbial special goggles to override what we do not see in poofing into existence all creatures fully formed.
At your rate, no blind man should ever believe us when we say pluto is in the sky, I mean he cannot see it, and he is just taking your word for it. And yet he would be wrong for doubting you, as we would be wrong for doubting God.
Third, We can NEVER see the future, so when God tells us that he is returning/coming in the future, we cannot run 99 experiments and lab tests, checking some immutable law of nature, to prove it;
How would we like all our family and friends saying, "I cannot prove your motives are noble, you are setting me up to burn me, since I cannot "see" the future, nor "prove" your motives, I'll abandon you." So, we find the same consistency in the character of God and Jesus, to trust what He is saying;
What I said was that science, and evolution, assume that NO natural laws will be broken.
Vertebrate eyes do not suddenly pop into existence fully formed. The speed of light is constant. Mass produces gravity. Kepler's laws of planetary motion are always true. Etc.
That's what the real argument is about. Can the laws of nature be broken on occasion? Perhaps.
But science (and evolution) assume they are consistent.
Martin, I was responding to the "poof" idea. Can we disprove that God can make a vertebrate in 1 second? Obviously we cannot prove a negative; But if you saw someone pop a vertebrate in front of you in one second, what would you say? Prove the process first, or just believe?
Rain "poofs" from the sky to my face, is my toddler supposed to disbelieve the existence of rain until he can understand evaporation and meteorology? A 15 year-old gets pregnant will she reject her pregnancy as real until we prove that mitosis is the means; We say God made vertebrates in one-second, you say creator did not do this, it is just not possible; If I asked you "how" for 300 sub-levels about mitosis, you would run out of answers too;
Natural laws? Are we saying we know all the natural laws? Did Netwon? Did the Greeks? Is the earth still the center of the universe? Can an invalid trust his mind? Can a man with two Ph.Ds. Scripture is not learned by just an "intellectual" inquiry, it can only be understood by divine revelation. God may know natural laws that we as all invalids do not know. I don't look at the 10 commandementst and say "ok God, prove that these are eternal absolutes, just because you say so is not enough for me."
In jest, maybe God created everything by power and ability, but why assume He is morally superior? So then what are we to "prove" to someone. Must we analyze hell via 99 experiments to prove God made it vs. a forgery being only a big-bang.
Creationists propose that God is a God of Chaos, that He breaks the natural laws when He feels like it. i.e. God poofing into existence all creatures fully formed.
So if we do not know all the laws of nature, and a 5 year old does not grasp every biological, chemical, astrological, physic law, then it is possible for the Creationist to believe in a God who does not "break" the laws of nature. The natural unaided eye cannot measure how loud a car stereo is; The natural unaided ear cannot measure the color of the car. So the Christian may believe in a God who has more than 5 senses, one that poofs man into existence whenever he wants, and yet without breaking the laws of nature;
After all it seems "sudden" for Star Trek to beam a man from the ship to the planet. Did the planet people call that a breach of natural laws, though they saw something created in an instant?
If light can travel faster than a snail, then maybe God can build faster than light; The gestation of bunnies is faster than humans. Certain trees "poof" taller quicker, than others and still both be in the laws of nature; Should a snail doubt the ability of light to "poof" around and break what seems to be a natural limit to his own body. One may see a "natural limit" to not allow God to "poof" man in one second, but as a creationist, I do not have to assume that God is breaking any law.
Outside of the box, at at another angle: Is a driving speed zone a law? yes, must it always be 55 mph? Can man change that law? yes. Since God is eternal, in theory God can alter laws too; To the minds of us snails, we cannot even "produce a speeding zone" for snails do not have such philosophical thought; But God does and God can alter them;
Stan, at least Martin is being polite; Being incomprehensible is not my fault, If someone cannot comprehend Sumerian texts insult the reader, not the writer; Name calling does not prove a point, is that how Darwin wrote his book; Any 3rd grader can call me 4 eyes;
Peter and John were unlearned and ignorant and still used of God in Acts.
1 Cor. 1:19 For it is written, "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart." [20] Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? [21] For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. [22] For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, [23] but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, [24] but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. [25] For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men. [26] For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. [27] But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong;
If you are a big boy, then you are prone to pride, hiding behind insults and not teaching anyone anything; I interacted year after year with professors with their Doctorate, and they never insulted any of their students who were trying to learn;
Stan, the Half-Truth Teller said... ...and Dan obfuscates again, by spamming his own blog in a transparent attempt at avoiding the beatings he's experiencing in virtually every thread he's started.
Congratulations?
-- Stan
I was ready to make the same observation. When Dan is getting his ass handed to him he merely throws out another absurd video.
Todd said "One may see a "natural limit" to not allow God to "poof" man in one second, but as a creationist, I do not have to assume that God is breaking any law."
God performing things are well within nature because he made nature. I love the point that "what seems to be a natural limit" may appear not be natural only because of our limited understanding. Brilliant Todd.
And Todd don't worry about people cussing and getting angry at you. They do it when you are on to something. When you make a good point they pounce on you with fallacies like Stan's " Leave the sciency arguments to the big boys, will ya?" (appeal to authority?), you will know you are getting somewhere. In poker it's called their "tell" and is usually a sign that you struck a vital nerve. They must dig their heals in and fight truth even, to make sure their presuppositions are in tact.
They are a entertaining group though, I love them to death. I wish they would listen once in a while instead of fighting truth "all" the time.
"When Dan is getting his ass handed to him he merely throws out another absurd video.", it just makes you look silly. I post as I see fit so what? Does that stop people from commenting older posts? Nope. People jump in as they see fit. There is so much countering evolution, atheism, and humanism the information is too plentiful. Plus, and the most important plus, time is running out for some of you. God knows the day you will die but I don't. It may be tomorrow and I want to get a "fighting chance" to say what I want to say. You know, before its too late. So a double post in a day is rare but if it's important I will post it. So what? I refrained from posting a third so I have an appearance of some restraint.
Would you like it more if I sat on the Collapse of the Middle Class? for a week until someone comments? Too bad, moving on.
Today was going to be a double post day since I just read some interesting things. I will try to space it out. I am sure the denying Atheists don't want me to overload them with truth.
Dan you said, "Todd don't worry about people cussing and getting angry at you. They do it when you are on to something. When you make a good point they pounce on you with fallacies..."
Sorry Dan but this is more of your wishful thinking. I have yet to see you come up with a good one. Any expression of emotion coming out from me or many others here is from the frustration of trying to explain to something simple to a person who for some reason can't seem to grasp any of it.
I have often pointed out flawed logic, wishful thinking and unsupported assertion you base your arguments on, but you either don't get it, repeat the same arguments or just don't respond to my post.
I'll say it once again Dan, when we ask you to support your claims you can't just post another video or essay by someone else and claim victory just because you think they must be correct. You need to be able to understand the point of what they say and be make clear arguments to support it, not just post another video and say, "look at this though."
You have yet to demonstrate you even can make a clear and well support argument yourself for the things you claim on this blog.
After all it seems "sudden" for Star Trek to beam a man from the ship to the planet. Did the planet people call that a breach of natural laws, though they saw something created in an instant?
You're right! After all, it seems "sudden" for Trinity to learn how to fly a helicopter to rescue Morpheus. Did the operator and Neo call that a breach of natural laws, though they saw her learn the intricacies of rotary wing flight in an instant?
Still more truth! After all, it seems "sudden" for the Millennium Falcon to reach Alderaan from Tatooine. Did the Falcon's passengers call that a breach of natural laws, though they saw that the ship had made .5 past light speed?
Brilliant, indeed.
How about this one, instead:
After all it seems "sudden" for the sun to stop its apparent motion across the sky at Joshua's command. Did the planet Israelites call that a breach of natural laws, though they saw the sun instantly obey Joshua's command?
If you want to say god doesn't break natural law, I'm fine with that. That's a problem for you, don't you know? That means that with sufficiently advanced technology, we can do whatever god can do. If you actually believe the earth ceased moving relative to the sun on the day Joshua allegedly commanded it to do so, and you insist that there is an as-yet unknown natural law which explains this phenomenon, then you admit that without invoking the name of your god, we can someday cause the earth to cease its motion relative to the sun -- and evidently without the use of any technology or device noticeably out-of-place to any extant human cultures c. 2000 BCE.
Being incomprehensible is not my fault, If someone cannot comprehend Sumerian texts insult the reader, not the writer; Name calling does not prove a point, is that how Darwin wrote his book; Any 3rd grader can call me 4 eyes;
Huh?
Being incomprehensible is your fault, or it is due to an inability on your part. Comparing yourself to Sumerian texts seems a bit much... perhaps you're a Sumerian kindergartener? In point of fact, just re-read the passage I quoted above -- your misuse of semi-colons and capitalization, and your random stream-of-consciousness subject changing are not signs of comprehensibility. I can probably struggle through to figure out what you mean to say, but I'm lazy, and you're bad at formulating coherent arguments.
It's my fault I'm lazy, and it's your fault you suck at writing. I wish it were otherwise.
Anyway...
If light can travel faster than a snail, then maybe God can build faster than light; The gestation of bunnies is faster than humans.
This is what Dan calls 'brilliance'? It doesn't make any sense, and it is pure conjecture and speculation. You then follow up your "brilliant" question regarding the top speed of god's roadster with an anecdotal reference to to unrelated things which also act at different speeds...
This prompted the request that you quit trying to use 'scientific' arguments. You suck at them.
When you make a good point they pounce on you with fallacies like Stan's " Leave the sciency arguments to the big boys, will ya?" (appeal to authority?), you will know you are getting somewhere.
Wrong, Dan. He's getting somewhere, that's true -- he's digging himself a hole.
If god is bound by natural law, then we can be as gods provided sufficient knowledge of those laws. This doesn't help your case.
If I tried to tell you how cricket is played -- right now, before looking it up -- I'd be out of line, and you'd be right to say, "Leave the cricket discussions to the big boys." It's not an appeal to authority, it's an appeal to some demonstrated level of familiarity, which Todd has thus far failed miserably to provide...
...but you know how that goes, when you tried to do algebra in front of everyone. When I mocked your algebraic "skill," did you cry that I was appealing to authority, or did you admit that you suck at algebra, and move on -- away from mathematical arguments you didn't understand?
In poker it's called their "tell" and is usually a sign that you struck a vital nerve.
I only wish I could meet up with you, Zilch, and Kaitlynn. I'd love to play cards with you. You seem to think that getting annoyed at a fish who insists that "all black" is a good hand, is a "tell." No, it's genuine annoyance, and I generally don't stick around at tables full of people like that. One or two fish is all a table can handle -- otherwise poker chaos ensues, and the skill factor gets drowned by the dumb luck of the phone booths those sorts of players invariably are.
You know what? One of these days I'm going to make a new profile, and Poe you. I think might teach you a valuable lesson... You support Todd, no matter how terrible his "arguments" are, for the simple fact that he agrees with your conclusion. That's wishful thinking, and if/when I Poe you, you'll see why it's problematic.
I post as I see fit so what? Does that stop people from commenting older posts? Nope.
Now this does irk me, Dan, and I'll tell you why by breaking it down.
I post as I see fit so what?
It's your blog, so you post at your prerogative, but when there is meaningful discussion occurring in an active thread, and you cover it with a new topic, or, as you've sometimes done, you split it into a new (virtually identical) thread, you break the discussion, and I think you do so intentionally.
Does that stop people from commenting older posts?
Yes, it does. It stops people who don't frequent the site as often as I do from contributing, and worse still, it opens up all new discussions which necessarily reduce the traffic to those older, active ones. I've been impatiently checking the Galileo thread, looking for a response from you to either myself or Andrew, yet you instead have posted... eight new topics, which have the net effect of covering up that quality discussion, and giving you a convenient excuse to ignore it, since you're too busy compiling, posting, and responding to your new threads.
On top of all this, the accusation is true: you do pull out a new post whenever you're cornered, and it's a recognizable trend to anyone who's visited this blog for any length of time. It's frustrating, because you choose to run every time, rather than stand and defend yourself. It's cowardice, and while I appreciate the instinctual desire to survive a skirmish, your stubborn refusal to let your precious belief system be challenged means that you live in a house of cards -- and I think you know it.
The Galileo thread was interesting, and had legs. The dentist's critique of evolution was an obvious diversion, albeit an entertaining one, but even there you quickly saw the futility in defending your own post, and pooped out an odd combination of D'Souza and Washer, only to immediately cover that up with the well-edited "For the Record" video, which is here failing, so now I see you've again abandoned your post with something new (and apparently irrelevant to your audience).
Do what you want, but you disrespect yourself when you intentionally obfuscate like that, and you do a disservice to your participating audience.
"If god is bound by natural law, then we can be as gods provided sufficient knowledge of those laws. This doesn't help your case."
God is not bound to anything, for the record. He indeed turned water to wine and raised the dead among a host of other things. Things that were not very natural. We may, someday, ad a couple of atoms (78) to turn hydrogen to gold but that will never, ever, make us a grain of sand closer to being as powerful as God.
But that's not what Todd is saying, whether or not either of you realize it. Todd said:
God may know natural laws that we as all invalids do not know.
and
So the Christian may believe in a God who has more than 5 senses, one that poofs man into existence whenever he wants, and yet without breaking the laws of nature
and
I do not have to assume that God is breaking any [natural] law.
So if god is not breaking any natural law, and there are natural laws which allow for "poofing" into existence a full-grown human, causing the earth to cease its motion relative to the sun, causing a body of water to spontaneously separate, causing water to become wine, etc., then we can, provided knowledge of these laws and technology to apply them, be as god.
That's my point, and I suspect that's Martin's point as well, and it follows directly from Todd's "brilliance."
You cannot have it both ways. Either god always follows natural law, or he does not always follow natural law. If the former, then there isn't any god, but at most some natural intelligence which is aware of the laws and in possession of technology such that they can be utilized. If the latter, then science is crippled, as this god could at any time alter the natural laws we presume are unbroken, and our experiments and procedures could result in chaos. In this latter case, then, literally anything could be true, and we'd never be able to say otherwise.
Note that neither case helps the cause of the Christian. If the former, the Christian's god is relegated to a futuristic engineer. If the latter, he is relegated to an untrustworthy prankster.
Thus is Todd's "brilliance" exposed.
-- Stan
P.S. -- It takes more than the addition of "[78] atoms" (of hydrogen?) to turn hydrogen into gold (ever heard of neutrons?). Your point is undiminished by this factual error, but it may have been otherwise, and surely you can see why I caution the scientifically-challenged to avoid using "scientific" arguments.
If you want to say god doesn't break natural law, I'm fine with that. That's a problem for you, don't you know? That means that with sufficiently advanced technology, we can do whatever god can do. If you actually believe the earth ceased moving relative to the sun on the day Joshua allegedly commanded it to do so, and you insist that there is an as-yet unknown natural law which explains this phenomenon, then you admit that without invoking the name of your god, we can someday cause the earth to cease its motion relative to the sun -- and evidently without the use of any technology or device noticeably out-of-place to any extant human cultures c. 2000 BCE.
I disagree. It is a natural law that God is uncreated, that does not mean you can arrive to have an eternal nature through technology. It is a natural law that God can place sinners in Hell, you are not god, and you cannot do that; It is a natural law that God is eternally omniscient, and we will never be. You want to learn a law to do whatever God does, but my definition of natural law means we are never God, and can never thwart His purpose for His glory or for science. If I stop a car with a foot pedal, i didn't break natural law, if God stops the sun through the instrument of Joshua, that was God's ability not Joshua's. Joshua was the axe in God's hand, and the axe cannot stop the car, sun, or hand of God, by mere learning. You imagine you can have "power to do" my mere "knowledge" The power is always God's, that is a law. That is your problem. We can stop the power of a car, and God can stop the power of the sun. You think you can learn, and then in learning get to God's power. That'll never happen.
Sumerian texts. My point is merely blame shifting; If I say "you are incomprehensible" are you going to blame me the reader, or you the writer, last time you blamed me the writer, so I guess I will just shift the blame to and say now it is you the writer; I did not comprehend Greek classes that well, I did not shift blame for my C on the writer. (But you did).
Conjecture? I don't believe it. How often is slow-motion cameras used in sports, football, tennis, impact testing, bomb denonation, and that atom smasher? After all our eye sight sees a tiny tiny white light in the sky, is it a planet/star 10x larger than our star? Whose eyes do we trust? The eye unaided, or the eye aided with a mircoscope. So the Creationist considers the the 6-day creation as an the truth by unaided eye, we cannot force God to be our walmart-binoculars when we want him near our neck and force us to see things closer upon demand;
Overall in the atheistic worldview we are nothing but fish just waiting for the daily death by a large whale or volcanic eruption polluting our waters, so if you think this fish has odd ideas, spend your short life away from the whales, for I guess I will die soon anyway, and if we have been dying off for a million years, and will die when the sun explodes, then it is irrelevant to worry if any laws of nature can be broken;
One fish squirms, "see fish are bound by water and we had no God creator to circumvent our understanding of water" I am sure such squirming existed 1 million years ago, and like they, we will all be forgotten;....I should read up more on that Neitszche guy and Nihilism;
Again, a snail cannot do what light can, it is impossible for the snail to do that, because of its nature; We cannot do what God can, and the limits of our mind will not comprehend the ability of God, as a snail doesn't understand the nature of light; The bible says we came from dust and to dust we shall return; We are made in God's image, but we are like grass that fades in the noon day sun. I imagine in our vain pride we expect grass to replicate and fully understand the full creation.
My Star Trek Analogy is valid because they have spent years investigating teleportation. Whether it "happens" or not is irrelevant, cell phones prove my case.
The unaided eye cannot see the waves bringing video, audio, text from cellphone A-to-B over thousands of miles to the sky and back, within seconds; And no one in drawing caveman 1000s of years ago will be able to accept or understand your description of electricity, electrons, protons, magnetism, rocketry, satellites, and binary code to just accept your idea; None of us could go back 4000 years with only the shirt on our back and build them a supersonic jet or cell phone;
So our unaided eye not only does not replicate or see waves for cellphones, nor does it replicate or comprehend the ability in Genesis 1.
I reassert that "we can't" do what God does even with the knowledge, because you know why, God does not use "technology" to do it, He does it by the mere word "let there by light", the technology you are wanting us to have is "God", so even if God give you the knowledge, you will not be able to do what God does, because you do not have the "technology" you are not "God".
A dead man was thrown on the bones of Elisha, and that dead man came back to life. God is the technology. If God says "let there be light", and we say "let there be darkness", guess who is going to win? That is a natural power of God, that we are never going to have, that is a natural law; If God says, "Cast him into outer darkness" and we say, "let me loose", guess who is going to win? No matter how much learning you gain, we will never usurp God;"
Untrustworthy prankster? Who are we sinners to call God untrustworthy and a prankster? We should tremble before Him in respect, love, and awe. If God made us, the we as pots are foolish to strive with our maker, and rail all you want, but none shall stay his hand.
"I am sure the denying Atheists don't want me to overload them with truth." There doesn't seem to be much danger of that as it appears that you would not recognize truth if it bit you.
Todd:
"Who are we sinners to call God untrustworthy and a prankster?" We are conscious observers. That "sinners" tag is a sham used by those who don't like thought.
I like where this is going. Just because it's beyond our reach of understanding doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It is indeed very natural for God to change water to wine, and hydrogen to gold, but just because we cannot does not automatically render it not natural. Unless you are claiming "Humanistic Naturalism"™. So God is indeed part of the definition of metaphysical naturalism then.
Again, if God knows how to produce gold from hydrogen through a natural process that still is obeying rules or laws of natural origin. God is what natural science tries to explain. I like this thought. Again, brilliant.
Also, just because our scientific method may be inept to test things of God, does not mean it isn't scientific. The "humanistic naturalism scientific method™" of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of our own reasoning. We just need to figure new ways of the scientific method to understand God more, and allow God in our reasoning. Thus making the scientific method we now understand more scientific to understand naturalism.
My whole point to start chiming in was responding to the first assertion by Martin, "Creationists propose that God is a God of Chaos."
I know of no reputable expositor who writes such a statement, so how is it fair to put words in the mouth of a Creationist; (unless it is in the context of the God OVER chaos.) To say God is a God of Chaos is no longer an objective statement, but one of insult;
A bird can fly without machines, I cannot. His nature can do what my nature cannot do. I don't call him a bird of Chaos. God can make the sun stand still, i can't. His nature can do what my nature cannot do. If I change my nature to really fly without machines, then I am no longer my true original species. In order to change my nature to be God, I have to be eternally existent, and by nature "wholly other". But it is wrong to call a Bird an animal of chaos, simply because He can do things we cannot do.
When God inspired Moses to write the Book of Moses, Moses didn't say "Now wait, I'm not going to record this 6 day creation bit until you hover me in space and let me witness it all and run it through the scientific method 99 times through 12 independent labs."
"A bird can fly without machines, I cannot. His nature can do what my nature cannot do. I don't call him a bird of Chaos." His physical form can do that which ours cannot. However, it is possible to make a machine to do that which a bird does. And that leads to the point I believe Martin was trying to make. If your god conforms to natural laws, it is possible (at least in principle) to construct a machine that can do what he does. If any god alters the natural laws to suit his purposes, he renders reality unpredictable, and thus is a god of chaos. If a god operates within natural laws, then his abilities can be replicated mechanically.
Well, since no one else here is commenting on the video, I'll voluteer. But all I can say is "oh my".
Dan, have you ever heard of the "is-ought problem"? It was perhaps most clearly articulated by David Hume:
In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remark'd, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary ways of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when all of a sudden I am surpriz'd to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, 'tis necessary that it shou'd be observ'd and explain'd; and at the same time that a reason should be given; for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it.
There are lots of things wrong with this video, but this is the central fallacy: the "for the record" guy assumes that Darwinists confuse "is" with "ought". Admittedly, some do: assorted defenders of laissez-faire capitalism see their disdain for the poor and weak justified by the survival of the fittest.
But this is a mistake not many make, and it is a mistake that Darwin himself did not make: just because something happens in nature a certain way does not mean that it is necessarily a good model for human society. "Is" can tell you a good deal about "ought", but it cannot tell you how to build worthwhile human societies.
So what the "for the record" guy calls "hypocrisy", I would call "recognizing the difference between is and ought".
This guy doesn't know the difference between description and prescription. The video is complete nonsense. If it was written as text it would be easier to point out the fallacies and nonsense in this video.
Random quote: "This guys must be the smartest, toughest guys on the block.
Poppycock, these days you can actually see..." Police retreating in the UK.
There are videos on Youtube of American police retreating so there goes his "argument".
2 Parts Hydrogen, One part Oxygen, plus Controlled Temperature= Water.
No matter how much man learns, he cannot "control" temperature, I mean God. Since He cannot control God, no matter how much he learns about Hydrogen and Oxygen, and will never cause water to happen, because he never controls temperature/water. It the temperature is too hot or too cold, it will be gas or solid, but not liquid.
To borrow from Aquinas terminology, God is the "necessary being" in all natural law, man is a contingent being, but not necessary.
In Natural Law, God can exists without man; God can perform without man. Man can never exist without God. Man can never perform without God.
Hydrogen can always exist without water, but water can never exist without Hydrogen; Yet God can never be properly described as a "non-thinking element" God has a will, a volition, and God is not even required to have electrons or a neutron like hydrogen
God can destroy and revive all material beings without harming himself, since you are a material being you cannot (do this) destroy and revive yourself, since you would be destroyed in the destruction you enact. And since all material things would be destroyed in your labor, no other person would be around to reverse the process;
I am not a chemistry buff, but if you add one element, you can change the compound. maybe carbon alters water, CH20 is now a carbohydrate instead of water.
(quoting another website) Carbohydrates have the general molecular formula CH2O, and thus were once thought to represent "hydrated carbon". However, the arrangement of atoms in carbohydrates has little to do with water molecules. (end quote)
Point being in Natural Law, once man is in the equation, he disrupts the equation, he taints it. So no matter how much learning he does, he is required not to be involved in the "feat" or else it is tainted, but once he is not involved in the "feat" then there is nothing to induce the reaction (? for lack of Chemistry terms); Man is not the proverbial fire, but water, so he can never make the wood burn anyway; God is the proverbial fire, and water (man) cannot induce fire of man's own mind/nature; Fire is necessary to burn wood, water is not;
To suggest "well if we could only control God" destroys the very definition of God, who by definition is never controlled by the creation; that is like saying, "well if we could only make A=B" breaking the law of non-contradiction. A=A, God is God. B=B Man is Man, not God. "A" is a necessary part of the equation that "B" will never control. We cannot even read or type or breath without God's permission in the equation. Can we imagine the flask telling the scientist, I can put myself in the equation of a chemical reaction, as the scientist laughs and puts him on the shelf; Our strength is not our own; So "we" cannot do anything; It is God who put Pharaoh in position, it is God who puts the protein in our muscles, not "independent organs and blood streams"
Natural laws hold no necessary beings. Despite the fact that you seem to be using words in a Humpty-Dumpty style, the essence of your post is that your god does not operate within natural laws. That makes him a god of chaos, as he negates all predictability.
Hydrogen is a necessary element in water. If there is no existence of anything, then there is no nature. If nothing "is" then nothing exists. Prove scientifically that your definition of natural law is real. You cannot, it is an axiom, one that is inconsistent. God is predictable in the fact that He will bring glory to Himself in His own time and way.
To think that man can "predict" God, is again impossible because man is not the person of God. But Jesus and the Holy Spirit are God and they know what the Father is doing. One God in three persons;
To say God is not predictable by man, is not to say God is a God of Chaos. I cannot predict what you will say next, but that does not mean your words are chaotic, unless of course you reply chaotically in order to purposefully make jest.
Lets see, I'll call you Humpty Dumpy writer too, keep calling me names, I'll copy and paste it back and see how much it convinces you of my point.
2 Parts Hydrogen, One part Oxygen, plus Controlled Temperature= Water.
Strictly speaking, any H2O molecule is water, regardless of phase, but go on...
No matter how much man learns, he cannot "control" temperature...
Strange. So what is it that my furnace and central air units do? Is my thermostat imaginary? How does a refrigerator or freezer work?
I'm confused.
...I mean God.
Oh... So god is temperature? So I have a god in my furnace, a god in my A/C unit, a god in my refrigerator, a god in my freezer, a god in my other freezer, a god in my water heater, a god in my oven...
Wait. I thought there was only one god, and I thought we couldn't control temperature...
I'm confused.
Since He cannot control God, no matter how much he learns about Hydrogen and Oxygen, and will never cause water to happen, because he never controls temperature/water. It the temperature is too hot or too cold, it will be gas or solid, but not liquid. [sic; various]
Now I'm thoroughly confused. Have you ever worked with acids and bases? If you take equal amounts (volume and molarity) of, say, hydrochloric acid and sodium hydroxide, and combine them at standard temperature and pressure (both of which can be controlled), do you know what will result? Salt water. Water -- liquid H2O -- with the dissolved ions of sodium and chlorine. Through introduction of various compounds, the sodium and chlorine can be made to precipitate out, and [essentially] pure water can result.
Of course, I wouldn't generally advise drinking the resulting solution, so rather than forming (liquid) water in this fashion, I recommend instead distilling water, which is what all modern chemistry labs do, and which is literally pure water (although water tends to ionize itself slightly).
So, trivially, we can make water from hydrogen and oxygen, or from compounds which contain the two. We can also make the individual elements of hydrogen and water, due to our knowledge of particle physics. Granted, this is quite difficult, but luckily, it is also largely unnecessary, as hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, and oxygen is readily formed in stars as a byproduct of fusion.
What were you talking about, again?
To borrow from Aquinas terminology, God is the "necessary being" in all natural law, man is a contingent being, but not necessary.
I readily admit that humanity is unnecessary, but it is unnecessary as well to introduce god as some "necessary being." Since, in this scenario, "god" could merely be some as-yet undefined process, this argument is of no actual value. Clearly, some process was necessary -- note the verb tense: was -- but to provide attributes ad hoc to such a process, absent any supporting empirical data, and to assert that this process must exist still, is sheer nonsense.
If you insist that the universe-initiating process be called "god," fine, but even if that "god" were a conscious entity, it is entirely possible that this "god" destroyed itself to make what we see -- that is, it is not necessary for god to today exist, even if we grant, for the sake of argument, that a god may have once existed.
Weren't we talking about god being temperature, though?
In Natural Law, God can exists [sic] without man; God can perform without man. Man can never exist without God. Man can never perform without God.
I think you've confused Natural Law with Supernatural Law, or something else you've invented.
Hydrogen can always exist without water, but water can never exist without Hydrogen
I'm with you so far...
Yet God can never be properly described as a "non-thinking element" God has a will, a volition, and God is not even required to have electrons or a neutron like hydrogen
What?! What does the second part have to do with the first? I played Guitar Hero last night, so the price of tea in China fell by a half a percent.
Besides, I thought you'd established already that god was temperature... Since temperature is a measure of kinetic energy, massive particles are necessary for temperature to exist. Of course, hydrogen doesn't have neutrons, but we'll let that go...
God can destroy and revive all material beings without harming himself, since you are a material being you cannot (do this) destroy and revive yourself, since you would be destroyed in the destruction you enact. And since all material things would be destroyed in your labor, no other person would be around to reverse the process; [sic; various]
...or so you assert, entirely devoid of argument. Tell you what, before we start worrying about what god can or cannot do, compared to what we can or cannot do, let's instead establish whether or not this god fellow even exists, shall we? Sure as hell we should avoid purely asserting that god can do this or that, don't you think?
I am not a chemistry buff...
No foolin'?
...but if you add one element, you can change the compound.
Hey! You are a chemistry buff...
What does this have to do with the price of tea in China?
Point being in Natural Law, once man is in the equation, he disrupts the equation, he taints it.
What? No. Stop. Your much-addled brain is evidently fusing every scientific-sounding thing you've ever heard into one giant clusterfuck of bunk. Natural law is little more than a presumption that nature behaves in a systematic fashion, through laws which can be discovered and applied. Since humans are part of nature, we cannot taint it.
You may be confusing the Observer Effect with all of nature, I suppose, but you're doing it wrong.
Fire is necessary to burn wood, water is not
Actually, water is also a part of the combustion process of wood and other cellulose products, and in fact water is a byproduct of virtually all forms of oxygen combustion... but I understand what you think you're saying.
You know, Todd, your "arguments" are really bad. Seriously. They're bad. Pvblivs tried to boil down what you said, and I think he's partly right, but in addition to saying that your god doesn't operate according to natural law, you also beg the question by assuming your god exists in the first place. Beyond that, you wandered all over the place, futzing with scientific-sounding "arguments" that have nothing to do with your thesis, and even if they did, wouldn't support it.
If you cannot see the points made by myself, Martin, Pvblivs, et al, then you're blind. Please re-read the posts made by your opposition, and really try to understand them. Consider reading about the science you try to emulate, rather than completely misrepresenting everything about it, however unintentional the misrepresentation may be.
You complained not too long ago that I was guilty of blaming the author for being incomprehensible, and you suggested this was unwarranted. I say otherwise. If you've ever attempted to read text written by an acquaintance's first-grader, and found it incomprehensible, you'll understand my frustration regarding your posts.
If there is no existence of anything, then there is no nature.
Irrelevant. If no conscious beings existed -- as was the case ~200,000 years ago -- the natural laws which govern things could still exist. Your statement is like saying that if there is no balance in an interest-bearing account, then there is no bank. Funds, or the lack thereof, are unnecessary to the existence of a mathematical law governing interest, just like the existence of "things" to be governed by natural law is unnecessary to the existence of the natural law itself.
You've successfully undercut your own point. Pvbliv's point stands, that natural law holds no necessary beings.
God is predictable in the fact that He will bring glory to Himself in His own time and way. [pure assertion]
So god is predictable, then?
To think that man can "predict" God, is again impossible because man is not the person of God.
Wait, what? I thought god was predictable?
To say God is not predictable by man, is not to say God is a God of Chaos. I cannot predict what you will say next, but that does not mean your words are chaotic, unless of course you reply chaotically in order to purposefully make jest.
Actually, you're not simply saying god is not predictable by man, but you're saying that god can and does break natural law at his whim. That is, by definition, chaotic.
You again, however, destroy your own point, when you say, "unless of course you [behave] chaotically," which is precisely what god does, according to you. If god breaks natural laws as suits his fancy, then god is chaotic. If god does not break natural laws, then we can aspire to and achieve godhood through sufficient knowledge and/or technology. Period.
Now gather the horses and men and put yourself back together.
"Lets see, I'll call you Humpty Dumpy writer too, keep calling me names, I'll copy and paste it back and see how much it convinces you of my point." Offhand, I would say that you didn't get the reference. Your use of some words seems to have no correlation with the way they are used elsewhere. From Through the Looking Glass: "'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'"
It is analogy. God is not temperature literally, they are both variables in an equation that man cannot control. I said man cannot control temperature, analogy= God.
No, you cannot control temperature, go by yourself with only your body, blood, bones; see if you alone can end the entire temperature of the sun, that is full control; God can do this. It is irrelevant anyhow, since I was talking about a equation 'variable' man cannot control: God.
Someone mention about "knowing and using technology" God does not need technology, so you cannot do what God does unless you are God himself. Learning is not enough. I can learn about the concept of "fear", but that does not mean I can make myself "fear" having the same impact that "fear" does.
Establish God exists? Rom 1:19-25
Prove to me I am not "dreaming." All you can do is make assertions that I am awake, maybe when I am pinched the following events are still a dream or LSD trip. Or should I just take your word that I am not lucid dreaming. You see nothing can prove that to me, since I would be willfully suspending what is obvious, as you are.
Jesus is God and he called the religious leaders blind for doubting him. So the fact you are asking me to prove the existence of God, means you are rejecting Jesus as God, and should be given the same verdict of blind yourself.
Irrelevant. If no conscious beings existed -- as was the case ~200,000 years ago -- the natural laws which govern things could still exist.
Is it possible? yes. But so much for "scientific evidence" when you enter the realm of theory.
Maybe before man existed there were no natural laws. Why assume natural laws are constant. Maybe they ebb off and on, like a pulsating star. The function of creatures while sleeping is MUCH different that while awake, and so the actions are not uniform to "always eat or talk", and maybe when man arrived on the scene nature had entered a long phase of different patterns of behavior, so you witness him snoring, but the nature would be acting much different during seasons of "being awake" 200,000 before you were here, so your assumption on uniformity is wrong; Maybe electrons and protons are affected differently by forces in those periods of time, than what you currently observe.
The state of matter is not constant, the state of energy is not constant, political opinion (which is mere brain chemistry of sugars, not the darwinians supposed freewill) is not constant; So you say "we must have evidence of God." but if there is no one to observe the evidence 200,000 years ago, we will just assume nature's laws still exist. At that rate maybe God was here 200,000 years ago before you witnessed him, and now is hiding when you came along. Is that the evidence you want me to give to you?, and yet that is the evidence you give for the uniformity of nature as a constant? 200,000 years ago I existed, and just reincarnated now, want "evidence"? well here I am now. And that is your argument for natural laws, well they existed then by assertion how do we know, they are here now.
God is predictable "in the fact that"...is the limiting qualifier of how God is predictable (bringing glory to himself), not that we can predict everything. When I say it is predictable for Tiger Woods to play Golf, that does not mean I can predict which pair of socks he will wear.
"god" could merely be some as-yet undefined process
Wrong. Maybe we will learn in the future that the earth is not the center of the universe, I mean "atheism" is merely some undefined psychosis; Not trying to insult honest. Just saying, if you destroy the meaning of my definition of God, then I will destroy your meaning of atheism.
If you hold out future speculation on my definition of "god" in the equation, I will hold out future speculation on your portrayal of atheism in the equation.
but to provide attributes ad hoc to such a process, absent any supporting empirical data, and to assert that this process must exist still, is sheer nonsense.
How are theories made? Before direct evidence is given! Empirical data? Must all things be demonstrated or verified in order to be true? This is an axiom that cannot be proven by empirical data.
Natural Law vs. Supernatural law vs. Something I invent. Who invented "THE" definition of Natural Law? You? Darwin? Aristotle? An ape? Who gets to decide? The Greeks? The Americans? The Atheists? How convenient to say: Natural Law is nature without a God who governs all nature according to his own orderly will and purpose. Do we buy-in to this, simply because of majority rule or historical norm? At that rate historical norm and majority of mankind has been theistic.
hmmm...I think you write like a first-grader too, did this observation convince you of my position? wait, call me a preschooler, then you'll really sway me over. Maybe we can call Obama a goober, that'll convince him to put Dawkins as VP. (it ain't going to happen).
We've already established that yes, human knowledge and technology can control temperature in certain closed systems.
...go by yourself with only your body, blood, bones
To see if I can control the temperature? As it turns out, as a warm-blooded creature, my body, blood, and bones do a pretty good job of maintaining a reasonably steady temperature of about 310 Kelvin.
...see if you alone can end the entire temperature of the sun, that is full control
What does that even mean? "End the entire temperature of the sun"? You're right -- you don't write like a first-grader, but your writing is incomprehensible, analogously.
God can do this.
So you keep asserting. Anytime you want to show up with an argument, I'll try to decipher what you type and respond appropriately. Until then, this is just like me saying that I have full control over the sun. In fact, it is precisely equivalent, in that I can also say that I am merely showing restraint by not showing my magical presence and my amazing abilities. You know, just like god.
Seriously. That's not an argument, it's a bald assertion and it is less valuable than what I flushed down the toilet earlier today.
God does not need technology, so you cannot do what God does unless you are God himself.
Blah, blah, blah. I don't need technology to turn lampshades into invisible unicorns. Same effect.
Establish God exists? Rom 1:19-25
[sarcasm]
Oh, snap! I totally forgot that the bible establishes conclusively that god exists!
[/sarcasm]
Maybe before man existed there were no natural laws.
This is not consistent with observation.
Why assume natural laws are constant.
Because this assumption is consistent with observation.
Maybe they ebb off and on...
You mean maybe the universe is chaotic, and maybe there's a god of chaos?
...like a pulsating star.
Are you speaking metaphorically, or are you trying to talk science again? I ask, because I would like to know whether I should mock your ignorance, or placate it.
your assumption on uniformity is wrong
It is a working principle which lends itself to understanding, and which has proven itself time and again to be valuable. It also fits with observation. Of course, if it is wrong, then we couldn't possibly know, right? After all, the data I collected yesterday may appear different today -- the actual data, not the phenomenon -- if random changes can occur in nature, right?
Maybe electrons and protons are affected differently by forces in those periods of time, than what you currently observe.
Maybe invisible fairies are secretly responsible for everything! Did you consider that possibility, too?
FFS, your endless "maybe" drivel is nothing more than an attempt at flooding, to obscure the fact that your system relies on a magic being which has never been shown to exist, and which can and does arbitrarily break the apparent laws of nature -- though never when reliable witnesses are present -- to the tune of being a god of chaos.
"god" could merely be some as-yet undefined process
You replied:
Wrong.
[sarcasm]
Well, I'm glad we settled that.
[/sarcasm]
Really? You come with a string of 'maybe this' and 'maybe that,' regarding constancy of natural law, stability of elementary particles, etc., and when I offer one perfectly reasonable possibility, you instantly deny it, with nothing more than a wave of the hand?!
Try being honest. You'll feel better about yourself.
Maybe we will learn in the future that the earth is not the center of the universe...
Actually, most of us learned that in the past, no thanks to the bible.
How are theories made?
I'd say you really don't have any idea.
Before direct evidence is given!
No, that's how hypotheses are formed.
Empirical data?
Yes, empirical data: the stuff that one gleans from experiment. We construct hypotheses from empirical data, identify some testable aspect, and if the hypothesis survives varied tests of this sort, it may become eligible for theory status. The empirical data is used to develop a hypothesis, and the direct evidence from testing such a hypothesis is used to promote it to the status of theory.
Must all things be demonstrated or verified in order to be true?
Obviously not, but in order for us to know (within reason) that they are true, yes, they must be demonstrated or verified. When your mother first told you a stovetop may be hot, your trust was unnecessary to the truth of her statement. Until you tested this yourself, you did not, however, actually know that what she had said was true.
This is an axiom that cannot be proven by empirical data.
Huh? What are you claiming to be an axiom?
How convenient to say: Natural Law is nature without a God who governs all nature according to his own orderly will and purpose.
You read about as well as you write. Science does not make a statement as to the existence of any gods, other than to say that we operate under the assumption that no gods alter natural law. That's it. Not, "there is no god," or "Christians are nutjobs," but, "natural law is unbroken, even by possible deities."
Next time, you should clothe and/or paint your straw man. It's more effective that way.
In certain closed systems I am the best golfer in the world.
maintaining a reasonably steady temperature of about 310 Kelvin.
The context was "at the sun" not "on the earth." and not the temperature "of your body" but "the sun's temperature." So no, you cannot control the temperature of the sun. That is a variable you cannot control, and God is a variable that you cannot control.
"End the entire temperature of the sun." Ok, poor wording, bring it from its current temperature to zero degrees on the Kelvin scale.
WRONG. my writing is NOT incomprehensible, because I comprehended it. You only gave a subjective response, not scientific fact by empirical data.
Good point about you asserting your control of the sun and just showing your restraint. There is only one problem, Jesus did promise is death and resurrection in John 10 and He did resurrect. Show that is the proof beyond assertion.
It is a mere assertion that the darwinian universe is orderly. I put a ruler in the ocean, and say, hmmm, the entire ocean must be like these 12 inches, that is "observation". So to make your assertion/assumption that the "laws of nature" are uniform beyond the 12 trillion/ or billion/ or million years, is only looking at 12 inches of ocean water, and in reality, the ocean is more diverse than what you "observed" and so you have no basis to think.
returning sarcasm...oh snap I totally forgot your posting establishes conclusively that the laws of nature are uniform throughout 12 billion years, as if you have "observed" that. Name me ONE atheist who says upon the original finding of the dead sea scrolls that an mini big-bang explosion produced them, should I believe them without "observing" the mini-big-bang.
"Maybe before man existed there were no natural laws. This is not consistent with observation."
Where you present 12 trillion years ago to "observe" the laws of nature then.
Why assume natural laws are constant. Because this assumption is consistent with observation.
Why trust observation? People see a lot of things on LSD, and maybe all of mankind is on a proverbial LSD.
I didn't say the universe is chaotic to ebb on and off, the rotation and revolution of the earth is for the most part in an orderly pattern, yet its distance/location in relation to the sun is not constant. So though not constant, it is still a manner of order.
quote a website: In the case of pulsating variables this is due to the periodic expansion and contraction of the surface layers of the stars. This means the star actually increases and decreases in size periodically.:end quote.
Not a constant size, a change, but not purely chaotic within the bounds; So the laws of nature can "proverbially" do the same, so you "observe" the star (laws of nature) at a certain size (pattern) but 2 million years ago the star (laws of nature) was a different size (behaved different than you observe).
I didn't mean your observation yesterday was wrong, i am saying, that the cycle was over 4 million years not 24 hours. Again there is no hope to trust observation if we are only measuring 12 inches of the ocean (100 years of a man's life, or 4 billion years of soil)
FFS (??) Why should I value intercourse? Is there not a greater sake to make me an atheist.
You have an endless maybe. Do You got a direct observation for me of the big-bang? Do You got the real Lucy fossil in your hands? Did YOU dig it up, did you trust the "book of fallible scientist" and "all the scientist" who just blindly trusts the "writings" of an archaeologist, you are proverbially following Ptolemy's geocentric universe, and you are trusting your observation, like he did, Darwin is the Ptolemy of the past 200 years.
Instantly deny? The Pharisees said Jesus was doing his miracles by Beelzebub. You would do likewise, because you shun Romans 1, you shun the Bible;
We can touch mom's hot stove top, but we cannot touch the big-bang, nor 12 trillion years within 90 years of living and "observation." To say I see the immediate charred remains of a the Hiroshima blast, I can therefore know how many men had tattoos-- is crazy.
And that (by analogy) is what evolutionists do. "Look at this fossil" it "must mean this", "look at his charred land" "see nobody here had tattoos" our "observation" is "so trustworthy." "What we see now, for 90 years, must be a constant before we got here, and before the bomb landed."
Dumb to trust one's observation of Hiroshima remains, dumb to trust one's observation of 90 years on earth compared to 12 trillion." Assert and Assume all you want that you can "observe and know" who how many tattoos existed before the bomb, by merely witnessing what you see now. So what you see now for 6000 years of recorded history could be completely different 12 trillion years ago. The Hiroshima analogy is not a "dumb hypothetical" is a case-in-point.
In certain closed systems I am the best golfer in the world.
Let me correct that for you:
In certain closed systems I am the best golfer.
See the problem? See how it’s been corrected?
The context was "at the sun" not "on the earth."
No, the statement you made involved "end[ing] the entire temperature of the sun," whatever the hell that means. It doesn't matter, though, for we can control temperature, in admittedly limited situations. Better, however, is the fact that we can determine and predict temperature. So while we may not directly control it in any given situation, we can predict what it will be -- extremely accurately, given enough variables and computing power. To a skilled magician, predictive power is the equivalent of control.
Ok, poor wording...
You mean it was incomprehensible, or like reading an unrelated first-grader's essay?
WRONG. my writing is NOT incomprehensible, because I comprehended it.
Ha! Then neither is my daughter's writing incomprehensible, since she can comprehend it.
FAIL.
The proper gauge of one's writing ability is certainly not one's own ability to understand the text, but the ability of one's audience. Your writing most certainly is, at times, incomprehensible.
You only gave a subjective response, not scientific fact by empirical data.
Case in point. What the hell does that mean?
Good point about you asserting your control of the sun and just showing your restraint.
Thanks, I'm glad we agree.
There is only one problem...
Oh?
Jesus did promise is [sic] death and resurrection in John 10 and He did resurrect [sic]. Show that is the proof beyond assertion. [sic]
I assume "is" is meant to be "his," and I assume the missing object for the transitive verb "resurrect" is "himself," or perhaps you rather meant the passive voice ("was resurrected" instead of "did resurrect"), but that last sentence is... wait for it...
If you are trying to say that the text of John takes the claim of Jesus' resurrection and divinity beyond the level of assertion, then clearly the city of Gid was truly taken without bloodshed as depicted in Alma 55 (Lamanites are so stupid when they're drunk).
Another problem solved!
It is a mere assertion that the darwinian universe is orderly.
No, no, and no.
1. It is an assumption that the universe behaves in a manner conducive to study and understanding.
2. The universe is not necessarily "Darwinian," although the diversification of life on earth most certainly is.
3. The assumption that the universe behaves in a manner conducive to study and understanding does not mean the universe is "orderly."
4. Without this assumption, astrology, magic, and superstition are all valid fields of study.
Try again.
I put a ruler in the ocean, and say, hmmm, the entire ocean must be like these 12 inches, that is "observation".
No, that's you being an idiot. What does happen, though, is we notice similarities between the topmost twelve inches of marine ecology in greatly separated areas, and we piece these similarities together and think, "Hey, I wonder if marine ecology all works off of some shared underlying principle?" Sometimes, of course, we also think, "I bet Todd is straw-manning us right now."
So to make your assertion/assumption that the "laws of nature" are uniform beyond the 12 trillion/ or billion/ or million years, is only looking at 12 inches of ocean water, and in reality, the ocean is more diverse than what you "observed" and so you have no basis to think.
I quoted the whole thing above to show that I'm not taking you out of context. It's incomprehensible. You seem incapable of building a coherent argument driving at a specific point, or even a set of points. It's as though I'm reading your thoughts, and you're ADD.
Where you present 12 trillion years ago to "observe" the laws of nature then.
It's ~14 billion years, not 12 trillion. Whatever. Astronomy is essentially looking at the past, and while we can't see all the way to the Big Bang itself, we can see back to within about 500 million years of it, if not a little closer. With computer models based on extant theories, we have extrapolated snapshots of what the universe very likely looked like within 10^-35 seconds of the event.
No, we weren't there, but yes, we can see quite a ways back, and the observations are consistent with a universe which is subject to uniformity of law.
Why trust observation? People see a lot of things on LSD, and maybe all of mankind is on a proverbial LSD.
Maybe that explains your writing... How much LSD have you done in your lifetime? Forty, fifty hits? A hundred? It would make a lot of sense...
If we don't trust observation -- especially consistent, repeated observation -- then we may as well scrap the whole thing and go with magic and chaos, which is what this stupid argument is about, if you recall. If there is a god who changes the laws of nature to suit his whim, then he necessarily relegates those laws to a chaotic system in which nothing can be trusted, as far as observations and laws go.
Incidentally, some scientists have attempted to study LSD to find out just what is being "seen," and why. Just because we don't understand it doesn't mean it's not happening, or that there isn't a viable explanation. Just because virtually every human culture -- ever -- has used psychedelics, hallucinogens, or other drugs as part of religious ritual or ceremony does not mean that any of these substances is anything more than a chemical reaction. That is, there is no need to introduce a deity to explain the experience.
I didn't say the universe is chaotic to ebb on and off...
No, it was implied. While aspects of the universe may be periodic, or may conform to any number of mathematical models, this is not what you're arguing. Rather, you're arguing that god suspends the known laws of nature in favor of a specific person or group (most often this is catastrophic to another person or group), but not in any patterned or predictable fashion. Ergo, chaos. Randomness.
So the laws of nature can "proverbially" [change in a non-chaotic manner]...
What?!
First, you're misusing "proverbially." Look it up or something. Second, why do you feel it necessary to talk about a star -- something about which you clearly know exceedingly little -- to claim that a periodic phenomenon may be the analog of the observed laws of nature?
The rotation of the earth, the tides, a pendulum... a whole host of more familiar phenomena are sinusoidal, but there's a problem: they all behave according to static natural law.
If your assertion had merit, then somewhere, some phenomenon wouldn't conform to static natural law, and would instead appear chaotic.
But this is not observed.
...so you "observe" the star (laws of nature) at a certain size (pattern) but 2 million years ago the star (laws of nature) was a different size (behaved different than you observe).
Right. So we "observe" water (laws of nature) has a certain chemical composition (pattern) and 2 million years ago the water (laws of nature) had the same chemical composition (behaved identically to what we observe).
Wait... Is that how it works?
[Note: If you object to "2 million years" in my water example, change it to any acceptable time period. Really. Any acceptable time period. See if it matters.]
Do You got [sic] a direct observation for me of the big-bang?
Yes. CMB.
Do You got [sic] the real Lucy fossil in your hands?
No, but you can get a look at her if you're visiting NYC in the next few months. You know, just like you can get a look at the real Declaration of Independence if you're ever in Washington, D.C. -- unless you "got" it in your hands...
Did YOU dig it up, did you trust the "book of fallible scientist" and "all the scientist" who just blindly trusts the "writings" of an archaeologist, you are proverbially following Ptolemy's geocentric universe, and you are trusting your observation, like he did, Darwin is the Ptolemy of the past 200 years.
You see, this is what I mean. Stream-of-consciousness stuff. Really, man, posting here is not an exercise in free-writing.
I don't know what the "book of fallible scientist" is (your quotes, and your errors), and I don't know why you scare-quoted "all the scientist [sic]" or "writings." To say that Darwin is the Ptolemy of the last 200 years, though, is the most delicious of ironies, and screams Poe.
[some rambling about Hiroshima and tattoos]
The Hiroshima analogy is not a "dumb hypothetical" is a case-in-point.
I wish I had access to the drugs you're on. That is all.
Though Wiki is not an elite dictionary, I've been skimming material on Metaphysicians, and the History therefore; and trying to brush up on Rationalistic Philosophy in contrast to Empirical/Naturalistic views;
On one level I continue to oppose your "FAITH" in observation, again if you were on LSD, then you could imagine 900 men writing books you agree with about your empirical worldview, so even Dawkins, Hitchens, me, are not real, just figments of your proverbial LSD trip; And once you come off LSD you would realize Lucy does not exist, nor even literature itself;
On the other hand, you can tell me, "hey you are trusting your observation too, are you OBSERVING THE BIBLE as the basis of truth;" Good Point; but no, not fully, I am not an Evidentialist, but a Presuppositionalist, furthermore a Calvinist, not an Armnian;
So God changed my mind and revealed himself successfully by Himself, it is the Spirit that gives the new birth, not "my mind". You must be born again; That which is of flesh is flesh, and the flesh profits nothing.
To refer to the book of Mormon, a cult, as rebuttal is wrong. That is like me quoting Doctor Who as a fellow peer in the scientific community.
You are making deductions about the entire Ocean by looking at 12 inches of water. What you have seen for 90 years of life, be it a "fossil" is not proof that fossil looked the same way 100 years ago, since you were not here 91 years ago, you did not go to the 13th inch. If a grandpa says, No I was here 91 years ago, then how is that any hope as to what was "real" 1 million years ago; Man's ruler is 6000 years, which is only 12 inches in the water. To say the fossil was around 7000 years ago is NOT direct observing proof. After all I was here 7000 years ago and I reincarnated, are you requiring "direct observation" for this claim. And merely seeing a fossil NOW is not observation that it existed prior. Hmmm, I see a plane now, I guess planes existed 70000 years ago.
Hmmm, I see electrons now, I guess electrons existed 70000 years ago. Obviously planes did not exist 70000, nor did electrons. (I say this in jest, but it is still a leap of blind faith to trust that they did and blindly trust observation);
Maybe this will convince you of my point: You seem incapable of building a coherent argument driving at a specific point, or even a set of points. It's as though I'm reading your thoughts, and you're ADD.
You can see 500 million years back? Really? I cut a tree down and look at the rings. Wow look at what I know, it tells me Plato was alive, and that murder is wrong; Take a picture of the Hiroshima remains and tell me how many men had tattoos? It tells you nothing of those facts, there is nothing you can fully know from it.
Oh computers? Hey I have the bible on a computer, I guess that legitimizes the Bible now. Hitler had tanks, did that make Hitler's views right? He saw Jews and "knew" what that meant. You see "light" and "knows" what that means too, still warped;
Maybe this will convince you: How much LSD have you done?
I have no idea what Tiger Woods may say, but that does not make his future speech chaotic. I have no idea what God may do over nature, but that does not make his future actions in nature chaotic. I can stop a car (though the earth still spins and moves my car). God can stop the sun and planet. It is not chaos. It is God being God. Next time you stop a car, call it chaos.
Judge Judy can impose a fine, and that fine is according to the law of the land, and that is not chaotic. God can stop the sun/earth, and that stoppage is according to the law of Himself, and that is not chaotic.
Which carton of milk did you pick? The one you wanted. Was there order, yes, according to what pleased you, granted maybe you wanted skim and they were out of skim milk. But God as all power and can make what he wants, how he wants, and why he wants, and that is not chaotic; You do not buy food purely randomly as you are accusing God of being random. There is a reason/motive behind your course of action at the grocery store, the next week you may not buy the exact same list, so the "order" is different, but not Chaotic, nor random.
This century God may not part the Red Sea, as He did with Moses, but He can push apart the water, just as you can push part the grapes from a batch/vines; Can you "learn" to part the Red Sea, no, a snail cannot learn to build a 747, his nature is different. And our nature is different. Learning is not the answer, for the nature is the limitation;
A don't have to know anything about these stars, I know my own body has a variable of being asleep for 8 hours then awake for 16, this pattern has distinct differences, and thus are not constants, and thus the behavior of nature may have distinct differences of behavior beyond what we have recorded for 6000 years etc.
On the other hand, you can tell me, "hey you are trusting your observation too, are you OBSERVING THE BIBLE as the basis of truth;" Good Point; but no, not fully, I am not an Evidentialist, but a Presuppositionalist, furthermore a Calvinist, not an Armnian [sic]
None of this refutes the fact that yes, you do use your senses and "reason" to "verify" that the bible is "true." No matter what conclusions you draw, you do indeed use perception and cognitive faculty, in spite of any debilitating factors.
There is no argument here, just special pleading.
So God changed my mind and revealed himself successfully by Himself, it is the Spirit that gives the new birth, not "my mind".
So you assert, and so assert theists of all walks, including Catholics, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Muslims, or Jews, though each individual group varies the details of the assertion.
There is no argument here, just assertion.
To refer to the book of Mormon, a cult, as rebuttal is wrong. That is like me quoting Doctor Who as a fellow peer in the scientific community.
No, it's like you quoting the bible as though it is an undisputed and wholly accurate source.
Again, there is no argument here, just assertion.
You are making deductions about the entire Ocean by looking at 12 inches of water.
Yep. Deduction. Logical deduction. Valid logical deduction. You're making assertions based on nothing at all.
There is still no argument here, just assertion.
You can see 500 million years back? Really?
Yes, but that's not what I said. I said that we can see back to within ~500 million years of the Big Bang with direct astronomical observation. So while we can see back 500 million years, we can also see back ~13.2 billion years.
Still no argument, just ignorance.
I cut a tree down and look at the rings. Wow look at what I know, it tells me Plato was alive, and that murder is wrong
So you're a fortune-teller? You handle Tarot cards? Nice straw man.
Still no argument, just intentional misrepresentation.
[A picture of "Hiroshima remains"] tells you nothing of those facts, there is nothing you can fully know from it.
Nothing? Can I not know some information, including that there was a massive explosion, radiation of various sorts, lots of dead?
Still no argument, just question begging. with some Texas sharpshooter thrown in.
Oh computers? Hey I have the bible on a computer, I guess that legitimizes the Bible now.
Blatant misrepresentation. Not argument, just additional straw men.
You see "light" and "knows" what that means too, still warped;
No argument here, just gibberish.
I have no idea what God may do over nature
Then why do you claim othewise?
...but that does not make his future actions in nature chaotic.
No argument, just assertion.
I can stop a car (though the earth still spins and moves my car).
Thank you for agreeing that we can control temperature.
God can stop the sun and planet.
Pure assertion.
[God stopping the sun and planet] is not chaos. It is God being God.
Pure assertion.
Let's see what we have today from Todd...
Six counts of bald assertion, two counts of straw manning, and one count each of special pleading, question begging, and Texas sharpshooting. There is also an incident of blatant ignorance, as well as pure gibberish (though there were other allegations of gibberish in this post, there is only one conviction).
God can stop the sun/earth, and that stoppage is according to the law of Himself, and that is not chaotic.
Please demonstrate both the existence of this god and the attributes you so baldly assert he has, or kindly cease posting. Your endless assertions are worthless, as has been shown, yet you simply bring more.
A don't have to know anything about these stars, I know my own body has a variable of being asleep for 8 hours then awake for 16, this pattern has distinct differences, and thus are not constants, and thus the behavior of nature may have distinct differences of behavior beyond what we have recorded for 6000 years etc.
First off, I would like to point out that electrons did exist 70,000 years ago (to the best of all available knowledge.) "To refer to the book of Mormon, a cult, as rebuttal is wrong. That is like me quoting Doctor Who as a fellow peer in the scientific community." Actually, it is more like quoting Doctor Who as a rebuttal to Star Trek. "And once you come off LSD you would realize Lucy does not exist, nor even literature itself;" And once you come off, you would realize that your god does not exist. "Maybe this will convince you of my point: You seem incapable of building a coherent argument driving at a specific point, or even a set of points. It's as though I'm reading your thoughts, and you're ADD." I'm inclined to agree with Stan, here. You don't make a coherent argument In this case you are parrotting back a criticism that applied to your statements but not to his.
Evolution is NOT a godless theory.
ReplyDeleteEvolution is a science that assumes the laws of nature are immutable.
In other words, the only thing evolution assumes a priori, like all science, is that there is no invisible hand reaching in and changing the laws of nature every once in awhile, regardless of whether that invisible hand really exists or not.
Whether God is out there or not, evolution looks for the mechanics of the creation process. Evolution does not assume no God, only that the laws of nature are NEVER broken.
Creationists assume the opposite. Creationists propose that God is a God of Chaos, that He breaks the natural laws when He feels like it. i.e. God poofing into existence all creatures fully formed.
...and Dan obfuscates again, by spamming his own blog in a transparent attempt at avoiding the beatings he's experiencing in virtually every thread he's started.
ReplyDeleteCongratulations?
--
Stan
I come from a country where "Liberal" is the name of the right-wing conservative party.
ReplyDeleteThe name I guess comes from their economic liberalism.
From wiki:
"The early theory was based on the assumption that the economic actions of individuals are largely based on self-interest, (invisible hand) and that allowing them to act without any restrictions will produce the best results, (spontaneous order) provided that at least minimum standards of public information and justice exist, e.g., no-one should be allowed to coerce or steal.
While economic liberalism favors markets unfettered by the government, it maintains that the state has a legitimate role in providing public goods."
I'm going to admit that I really have no idea what this guy is talking about when he says things like "Liberals hate capitalism!"
This guys battling strawmen here but I do like my propaganda with a beat I can dance to.
ReplyDeleteMartin,
ReplyDeleteHeat can melt ice, but we do not "see" heat. If you use some special goggles to see heat, then maybe God has proverbial special goggles to override what we do not see in poofing into existence all creatures fully formed.
At your rate, no blind man should ever believe us when we say pluto is in the sky, I mean he cannot see it, and he is just taking your word for it. And yet he would be wrong for doubting you, as we would be wrong for doubting God.
Third, We can NEVER see the future, so when God tells us that he is returning/coming in the future, we cannot run 99 experiments and lab tests, checking some immutable law of nature, to prove it;
How would we like all our family and friends saying, "I cannot prove your motives are noble, you are setting me up to burn me, since I cannot "see" the future, nor "prove" your motives, I'll abandon you." So, we find the same consistency in the character of God and Jesus, to trust what He is saying;
Todd,
ReplyDelete"Heat can melt ice, but we do not 'see' heat."
I never said anything about seeing anything.
What I said was that science, and evolution, assume that NO natural laws will be broken.
Vertebrate eyes do not suddenly pop into existence fully formed. The speed of light is constant. Mass produces gravity. Kepler's laws of planetary motion are always true. Etc.
That's what the real argument is about. Can the laws of nature be broken on occasion? Perhaps.
But science (and evolution) assume they are consistent.
Martin, I was responding to the "poof" idea. Can we disprove that God can make a vertebrate in 1 second? Obviously we cannot prove a negative; But if you saw someone pop a vertebrate in front of you in one second, what would you say? Prove the process first, or just believe?
ReplyDeleteRain "poofs" from the sky to my face, is my toddler supposed to disbelieve the existence of rain until he can understand evaporation and meteorology? A 15 year-old gets pregnant will she reject her pregnancy as real until we prove that mitosis is the means; We say God made vertebrates in one-second, you say creator did not do this, it is just not possible; If I asked you "how" for 300 sub-levels about mitosis, you would run out of answers too;
Natural laws? Are we saying we know all the natural laws? Did Netwon? Did the Greeks? Is the earth still the center of the universe? Can an invalid trust his mind? Can a man with two Ph.Ds. Scripture is not learned by just an "intellectual" inquiry, it can only be understood by divine revelation. God may know natural laws that we as all invalids do not know. I don't look at the 10 commandementst and say "ok God, prove that these are eternal absolutes, just because you say so is not enough for me."
In jest, maybe God created everything by power and ability, but why assume He is morally superior? So then what are we to "prove" to someone. Must we analyze hell via 99 experiments to prove God made it vs. a forgery being only a big-bang.
Todd, I am not talking about proving anything, negative or otherwise.
ReplyDeleteI'm simply saying that science ASSUMES that the universe always obeys its natural laws.
Are there ones we don't know of? Of course.
Can the ones we DO know of be broken? Again, maybe. But science assumes they CANNOT.
Martin,
ReplyDeleteCreationists propose that God is a God of Chaos, that He breaks the natural laws when He feels like it. i.e. God poofing into existence all creatures fully formed.
So if we do not know all the laws of nature, and a 5 year old does not grasp every biological, chemical, astrological, physic law, then it is possible for the Creationist to believe in a God who does not "break" the laws of nature. The natural unaided eye cannot measure how loud a car stereo is; The natural unaided ear cannot measure the color of the car. So the Christian may believe in a God who has more than 5 senses, one that poofs man into existence whenever he wants, and yet without breaking the laws of nature;
After all it seems "sudden" for Star Trek to beam a man from the ship to the planet. Did the planet people call that a breach of natural laws, though they saw something created in an instant?
If light can travel faster than a snail, then maybe God can build faster than light; The gestation of bunnies is faster than humans. Certain trees "poof" taller quicker, than others and still both be in the laws of nature; Should a snail doubt the ability of light to "poof" around and break what seems to be a natural limit to his own body. One may see a "natural limit" to not allow God to "poof" man in one second, but as a creationist, I do not have to assume that God is breaking any law.
Outside of the box, at at another angle: Is a driving speed zone a law? yes, must it always be 55 mph? Can man change that law? yes. Since God is eternal, in theory God can alter laws too; To the minds of us snails, we cannot even "produce a speeding zone" for snails do not have such philosophical thought; But God does and God can alter them;
Speaking of snails, somebody should crawl back into his shell...
ReplyDeleteSeriously, Todd, you're simultaneously incomprehensible and evidently daft. Leave the sciency arguments to the big boys, will ya?
--
Stan
"in theory God can alter laws too"
ReplyDeleteBut that's my point. Science proceeds not as if God does not exist, but that if He does He does not alter physical and natural laws.
He may. I'm not saying He doesn't.
All I'm saying is that science, to be the useful tool that it is, assumes that they do not.
Evolution is not anti-God. Evolution is anti-breaking-of-natural-laws.
Stan, at least Martin is being polite; Being incomprehensible is not my fault, If someone cannot comprehend Sumerian texts insult the reader, not the writer; Name calling does not prove a point, is that how Darwin wrote his book; Any 3rd grader can call me 4 eyes;
ReplyDeletePeter and John were unlearned and ignorant and still used of God in Acts.
1 Cor. 1:19 For it is written, "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart." [20] Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? [21] For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. [22] For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, [23] but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, [24] but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. [25] For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
[26] For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. [27] But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong;
If you are a big boy, then you are prone to pride, hiding behind insults and not teaching anyone anything; I interacted year after year with professors with their Doctorate, and they never insulted any of their students who were trying to learn;
Stan, the Half-Truth Teller said...
ReplyDelete...and Dan obfuscates again, by spamming his own blog in a transparent attempt at avoiding the beatings he's experiencing in virtually every thread he's started.
Congratulations?
--
Stan
I was ready to make the same observation.
When Dan is getting his ass handed to him he merely throws out another absurd video.
".....no blind man should ever believe us when we say pluto is in the sky,....."
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of Pluto, what are the satrologists doing now that pluto is no longer a planet?
The guy that does those 'For the record' pieces is a douche.
ReplyDeleteTodd said "One may see a "natural limit" to not allow God to "poof" man in one second, but as a creationist, I do not have to assume that God is breaking any law."
ReplyDeleteGod performing things are well within nature because he made nature. I love the point that "what seems to be a natural limit" may appear not be natural only because of our limited understanding. Brilliant Todd.
And Todd don't worry about people cussing and getting angry at you. They do it when you are on to something. When you make a good point they pounce on you with fallacies like Stan's " Leave the sciency arguments to the big boys, will ya?" (appeal to authority?), you will know you are getting somewhere. In poker it's called their "tell" and is usually a sign that you struck a vital nerve. They must dig their heals in and fight truth even, to make sure their presuppositions are in tact.
They are a entertaining group though, I love them to death. I wish they would listen once in a while instead of fighting truth "all" the time.
OK still catching up.
Froggie and Stand,
ReplyDeleteWhen you attempt to make the point,
"When Dan is getting his ass handed to him he merely throws out another absurd video.", it just makes you look silly. I post as I see fit so what? Does that stop people from commenting older posts? Nope. People jump in as they see fit. There is so much countering evolution, atheism, and humanism the information is too plentiful. Plus, and the most important plus, time is running out for some of you. God knows the day you will die but I don't. It may be tomorrow and I want to get a "fighting chance" to say what I want to say. You know, before its too late. So a double post in a day is rare but if it's important I will post it. So what? I refrained from posting a third so I have an appearance of some restraint.
Would you like it more if I sat on the Collapse of the Middle Class? for a week until someone comments? Too bad, moving on.
Today was going to be a double post day since I just read some interesting things. I will try to space it out. I am sure the denying Atheists don't want me to overload them with truth.
Dan you said, "Todd don't worry about people cussing and getting angry at you. They do it when you are on to something. When you make a good point they pounce on you with fallacies..."
ReplyDeleteSorry Dan but this is more of your wishful thinking. I have yet to see you come up with a good one. Any expression of emotion coming out from me or many others here is from the frustration of trying to explain to something simple to a person who for some reason can't seem to grasp any of it.
I have often pointed out flawed logic, wishful thinking and unsupported assertion you base your arguments on, but you either don't get it, repeat the same arguments or just don't respond to my post.
I'll say it once again Dan, when we ask you to support your claims you can't just post another video or essay by someone else and claim victory just because you think they must be correct. You need to be able to understand the point of what they say and be make clear arguments to support it, not just post another video and say, "look at this though."
You have yet to demonstrate you even can make a clear and well support argument yourself for the things you claim on this blog.
Word is Bond!
~Atomic Chimp
Brilliant Todd.
ReplyDeleteI'm guessing he doesn't hear that all the time...
After all it seems "sudden" for Star Trek to beam a man from the ship to the planet. Did the planet people call that a breach of natural laws, though they saw something created in an instant?
You're right! After all, it seems "sudden" for Trinity to learn how to fly a helicopter to rescue Morpheus. Did the operator and Neo call that a breach of natural laws, though they saw her learn the intricacies of rotary wing flight in an instant?
Still more truth! After all, it seems "sudden" for the Millennium Falcon to reach Alderaan from Tatooine. Did the Falcon's passengers call that a breach of natural laws, though they saw that the ship had made .5 past light speed?
Brilliant, indeed.
How about this one, instead:
After all it seems "sudden" for the sun to stop its apparent motion across the sky at Joshua's command. Did the planet Israelites call that a breach of natural laws, though they saw the sun instantly obey Joshua's command?
If you want to say god doesn't break natural law, I'm fine with that. That's a problem for you, don't you know? That means that with sufficiently advanced technology, we can do whatever god can do. If you actually believe the earth ceased moving relative to the sun on the day Joshua allegedly commanded it to do so, and you insist that there is an as-yet unknown natural law which explains this phenomenon, then you admit that without invoking the name of your god, we can someday cause the earth to cease its motion relative to the sun -- and evidently without the use of any technology or device noticeably out-of-place to any extant human cultures c. 2000 BCE.
Being incomprehensible is not my fault, If someone cannot comprehend Sumerian texts insult the reader, not the writer; Name calling does not prove a point, is that how Darwin wrote his book; Any 3rd grader can call me 4 eyes;
Huh?
Being incomprehensible is your fault, or it is due to an inability on your part. Comparing yourself to Sumerian texts seems a bit much... perhaps you're a Sumerian kindergartener? In point of fact, just re-read the passage I quoted above -- your misuse of semi-colons and capitalization, and your random stream-of-consciousness subject changing are not signs of comprehensibility. I can probably struggle through to figure out what you mean to say, but I'm lazy, and you're bad at formulating coherent arguments.
It's my fault I'm lazy, and it's your fault you suck at writing. I wish it were otherwise.
Anyway...
If light can travel faster than a snail, then maybe God can build faster than light; The gestation of bunnies is faster than humans.
This is what Dan calls 'brilliance'? It doesn't make any sense, and it is pure conjecture and speculation. You then follow up your "brilliant" question regarding the top speed of god's roadster with an anecdotal reference to to unrelated things which also act at different speeds...
This prompted the request that you quit trying to use 'scientific' arguments. You suck at them.
When you make a good point they pounce on you with fallacies like Stan's " Leave the sciency arguments to the big boys, will ya?" (appeal to authority?), you will know you are getting somewhere.
ReplyDeleteWrong, Dan. He's getting somewhere, that's true -- he's digging himself a hole.
If god is bound by natural law, then we can be as gods provided sufficient knowledge of those laws. This doesn't help your case.
If I tried to tell you how cricket is played -- right now, before looking it up -- I'd be out of line, and you'd be right to say, "Leave the cricket discussions to the big boys." It's not an appeal to authority, it's an appeal to some demonstrated level of familiarity, which Todd has thus far failed miserably to provide...
...but you know how that goes, when you tried to do algebra in front of everyone. When I mocked your algebraic "skill," did you cry that I was appealing to authority, or did you admit that you suck at algebra, and move on -- away from mathematical arguments you didn't understand?
In poker it's called their "tell" and is usually a sign that you struck a vital nerve.
I only wish I could meet up with you, Zilch, and Kaitlynn. I'd love to play cards with you. You seem to think that getting annoyed at a fish who insists that "all black" is a good hand, is a "tell." No, it's genuine annoyance, and I generally don't stick around at tables full of people like that. One or two fish is all a table can handle -- otherwise poker chaos ensues, and the skill factor gets drowned by the dumb luck of the phone booths those sorts of players invariably are.
You know what? One of these days I'm going to make a new profile, and Poe you. I think might teach you a valuable lesson... You support Todd, no matter how terrible his "arguments" are, for the simple fact that he agrees with your conclusion. That's wishful thinking, and if/when I Poe you, you'll see why it's problematic.
--
Stan
PS. The videos and essays you post also make many failed arguments, but I'm not here to have a discussion with a video.
ReplyDelete~Atomic Chimp
I post as I see fit so what? Does that stop people from commenting older posts? Nope.
ReplyDeleteNow this does irk me, Dan, and I'll tell you why by breaking it down.
I post as I see fit so what?
It's your blog, so you post at your prerogative, but when there is meaningful discussion occurring in an active thread, and you cover it with a new topic, or, as you've sometimes done, you split it into a new (virtually identical) thread, you break the discussion, and I think you do so intentionally.
Does that stop people from commenting older posts?
Yes, it does. It stops people who don't frequent the site as often as I do from contributing, and worse still, it opens up all new discussions which necessarily reduce the traffic to those older, active ones. I've been impatiently checking the Galileo thread, looking for a response from you to either myself or Andrew, yet you instead have posted... eight new topics, which have the net effect of covering up that quality discussion, and giving you a convenient excuse to ignore it, since you're too busy compiling, posting, and responding to your new threads.
On top of all this, the accusation is true: you do pull out a new post whenever you're cornered, and it's a recognizable trend to anyone who's visited this blog for any length of time. It's frustrating, because you choose to run every time, rather than stand and defend yourself. It's cowardice, and while I appreciate the instinctual desire to survive a skirmish, your stubborn refusal to let your precious belief system be challenged means that you live in a house of cards -- and I think you know it.
The Galileo thread was interesting, and had legs. The dentist's critique of evolution was an obvious diversion, albeit an entertaining one, but even there you quickly saw the futility in defending your own post, and pooped out an odd combination of D'Souza and Washer, only to immediately cover that up with the well-edited "For the Record" video, which is here failing, so now I see you've again abandoned your post with something new (and apparently irrelevant to your audience).
Do what you want, but you disrespect yourself when you intentionally obfuscate like that, and you do a disservice to your participating audience.
--
Stan
Stan,
ReplyDelete"If god is bound by natural law, then we can be as gods provided sufficient knowledge of those laws. This doesn't help your case."
God is not bound to anything, for the record. He indeed turned water to wine and raised the dead among a host of other things. Things that were not very natural. We may, someday, ad a couple of atoms (78) to turn hydrogen to gold but that will never, ever, make us a grain of sand closer to being as powerful as God.
For the geek or nerd out there, I did find a very nice dynamic periodic table.
ReplyDeleteGod is not bound to anything, for the record.
ReplyDeleteBut that's not what Todd is saying, whether or not either of you realize it. Todd said:
God may know natural laws that we as all invalids do not know.
and
So the Christian may believe in a God who has more than 5 senses, one that poofs man into existence whenever he wants, and yet without breaking the laws of nature
and
I do not have to assume that God is breaking any [natural] law.
So if god is not breaking any natural law, and there are natural laws which allow for "poofing" into existence a full-grown human, causing the earth to cease its motion relative to the sun, causing a body of water to spontaneously separate, causing water to become wine, etc., then we can, provided knowledge of these laws and technology to apply them, be as god.
That's my point, and I suspect that's Martin's point as well, and it follows directly from Todd's "brilliance."
You cannot have it both ways. Either god always follows natural law, or he does not always follow natural law. If the former, then there isn't any god, but at most some natural intelligence which is aware of the laws and in possession of technology such that they can be utilized. If the latter, then science is crippled, as this god could at any time alter the natural laws we presume are unbroken, and our experiments and procedures could result in chaos. In this latter case, then, literally anything could be true, and we'd never be able to say otherwise.
Note that neither case helps the cause of the Christian. If the former, the Christian's god is relegated to a futuristic engineer. If the latter, he is relegated to an untrustworthy prankster.
Thus is Todd's "brilliance" exposed.
--
Stan
P.S. -- It takes more than the addition of "[78] atoms" (of hydrogen?) to turn hydrogen into gold (ever heard of neutrons?). Your point is undiminished by this factual error, but it may have been otherwise, and surely you can see why I caution the scientifically-challenged to avoid using "scientific" arguments.
Stan, You wrote...
ReplyDeleteIf you want to say god doesn't break natural law, I'm fine with that. That's a problem for you, don't you know? That means that with sufficiently advanced technology, we can do whatever god can do. If you actually believe the earth ceased moving relative to the sun on the day Joshua allegedly commanded it to do so, and you insist that there is an as-yet unknown natural law which explains this phenomenon, then you admit that without invoking the name of your god, we can someday cause the earth to cease its motion relative to the sun -- and evidently without the use of any technology or device noticeably out-of-place to any extant human cultures c. 2000 BCE.
I disagree. It is a natural law that God is uncreated, that does not mean you can arrive to have an eternal nature through technology. It is a natural law that God can place sinners in Hell, you are not god, and you cannot do that; It is a natural law that God is eternally omniscient, and we will never be. You want to learn a law to do whatever God does, but my definition of natural law means we are never God, and can never thwart His purpose for His glory or for science. If I stop a car with a foot pedal, i didn't break natural law, if God stops the sun through the instrument of Joshua, that was God's ability not Joshua's. Joshua was the axe in God's hand, and the axe cannot stop the car, sun, or hand of God, by mere learning. You imagine you can have "power to do" my mere "knowledge" The power is always God's, that is a law. That is your problem. We can stop the power of a car, and God can stop the power of the sun. You think you can learn, and then in learning get to God's power. That'll never happen.
Sumerian texts. My point is merely blame shifting; If I say "you are incomprehensible" are you going to blame me the reader, or you the writer, last time you blamed me the writer, so I guess I will just shift the blame to and say now it is you the writer; I did not comprehend Greek classes that well, I did not shift blame for my C on the writer. (But you did).
Conjecture? I don't believe it. How often is slow-motion cameras used in sports, football, tennis, impact testing, bomb denonation, and that atom smasher? After all our eye sight sees a tiny tiny white light in the sky, is it a planet/star 10x larger than our star? Whose eyes do we trust? The eye unaided, or the eye aided with a mircoscope. So the Creationist considers the the 6-day creation as an the truth by unaided eye, we cannot force God to be our walmart-binoculars when we want him near our neck and force us to see things closer upon demand;
Overall in the atheistic worldview we are nothing but fish just waiting for the daily death by a large whale or volcanic eruption polluting our waters, so if you think this fish has odd ideas, spend your short life away from the whales, for I guess I will die soon anyway, and if we have been dying off for a million years, and will die when the sun explodes, then it is irrelevant to worry if any laws of nature can be broken;
One fish squirms, "see fish are bound by water and we had no God creator to circumvent our understanding of water" I am sure such squirming existed 1 million years ago, and like they, we will all be forgotten;....I should read up more on that Neitszche guy and Nihilism;
Again, a snail cannot do what light can, it is impossible for the snail to do that, because of its nature; We cannot do what God can, and the limits of our mind will not comprehend the ability of God, as a snail doesn't understand the nature of light; The bible says we came from dust and to dust we shall return; We are made in God's image, but we are like grass that fades in the noon day sun. I imagine in our vain pride we expect grass to replicate and fully understand the full creation.
My Star Trek Analogy is valid because they have spent years investigating teleportation. Whether it "happens" or not is irrelevant, cell phones prove my case.
ReplyDeleteThe unaided eye cannot see the waves bringing video, audio, text from cellphone A-to-B over thousands of miles to the sky and back, within seconds; And no one in drawing caveman 1000s of years ago will be able to accept or understand your description of electricity, electrons, protons, magnetism, rocketry, satellites, and binary code to just accept your idea; None of us could go back 4000 years with only the shirt on our back and build them a supersonic jet or cell phone;
So our unaided eye not only does not replicate or see waves for cellphones, nor does it replicate or comprehend the ability in Genesis 1.
I reassert that "we can't" do what God does even with the knowledge, because you know why, God does not use "technology" to do it, He does it by the mere word "let there by light", the technology you are wanting us to have is "God", so even if God give you the knowledge, you will not be able to do what God does, because you do not have the "technology" you are not "God".
A dead man was thrown on the bones of Elisha, and that dead man came back to life. God is the technology. If God says "let there be light", and we say "let there be darkness", guess who is going to win? That is a natural power of God, that we are never going to have, that is a natural law; If God says, "Cast him into outer darkness" and we say, "let me loose", guess who is going to win? No matter how much learning you gain, we will never usurp God;"
Untrustworthy prankster? Who are we sinners to call God untrustworthy and a prankster? We should tremble before Him in respect, love, and awe. If God made us, the we as pots are foolish to strive with our maker, and rail all you want, but none shall stay his hand.
Dan:
ReplyDelete"I am sure the denying Atheists don't want me to overload them with truth."
There doesn't seem to be much danger of that as it appears that you would not recognize truth if it bit you.
Todd:
"Who are we sinners to call God untrustworthy and a prankster?"
We are conscious observers. That "sinners" tag is a sham used by those who don't like thought.
Stan,
ReplyDeleteI like where this is going. Just because it's beyond our reach of understanding doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It is indeed very natural for God to change water to wine, and hydrogen to gold, but just because we cannot does not automatically render it not natural. Unless you are claiming "Humanistic Naturalism"™. So God is indeed part of the definition of metaphysical naturalism then.
Again, if God knows how to produce gold from hydrogen through a natural process that still is obeying rules or laws of natural origin. God is what natural science tries to explain. I like this thought. Again, brilliant.
Also, just because our scientific method may be inept to test things of God, does not mean it isn't scientific. The "humanistic naturalism scientific method™" of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of our own reasoning. We just need to figure new ways of the scientific method to understand God more, and allow God in our reasoning. Thus making the scientific method we now understand more scientific to understand naturalism.
My whole point to start chiming in was responding to the first assertion by Martin, "Creationists propose that God is a God of Chaos."
ReplyDeleteI know of no reputable expositor who writes such a statement, so how is it fair to put words in the mouth of a Creationist; (unless it is in the context of the God OVER chaos.) To say God is a God of Chaos is no longer an objective statement, but one of insult;
A bird can fly without machines, I cannot. His nature can do what my nature cannot do. I don't call him a bird of Chaos. God can make the sun stand still, i can't. His nature can do what my nature cannot do. If I change my nature to really fly without machines, then I am no longer my true original species. In order to change my nature to be God, I have to be eternally existent, and by nature "wholly other". But it is wrong to call a Bird an animal of chaos, simply because He can do things we cannot do.
When God inspired Moses to write the Book of Moses, Moses didn't say "Now wait, I'm not going to record this 6 day creation bit until you hover me in space and let me witness it all and run it through the scientific method 99 times through 12 independent labs."
(next topic)
Wow I took that one into left field...belay my last. Moving on.
ReplyDeleteTodd:
ReplyDelete"A bird can fly without machines, I cannot. His nature can do what my nature cannot do. I don't call him a bird of Chaos."
His physical form can do that which ours cannot. However, it is possible to make a machine to do that which a bird does. And that leads to the point I believe Martin was trying to make. If your god conforms to natural laws, it is possible (at least in principle) to construct a machine that can do what he does. If any god alters the natural laws to suit his purposes, he renders reality unpredictable, and thus is a god of chaos. If a god operates within natural laws, then his abilities can be replicated mechanically.
Well, since no one else here is commenting on the video, I'll voluteer. But all I can say is "oh my".
ReplyDeleteDan, have you ever heard of the "is-ought problem"? It was perhaps most clearly articulated by David Hume:
In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remark'd, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary ways of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when all of a sudden I am surpriz'd to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, 'tis necessary that it shou'd be observ'd and explain'd; and at the same time that a reason should be given; for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it.
There are lots of things wrong with this video, but this is the central fallacy: the "for the record" guy assumes that Darwinists confuse "is" with "ought". Admittedly, some do: assorted defenders of laissez-faire capitalism see their disdain for the poor and weak justified by the survival of the fittest.
But this is a mistake not many make, and it is a mistake that Darwin himself did not make: just because something happens in nature a certain way does not mean that it is necessarily a good model for human society. "Is" can tell you a good deal about "ought", but it cannot tell you how to build worthwhile human societies.
So what the "for the record" guy calls "hypocrisy", I would call "recognizing the difference between is and ought".
This guy doesn't know the difference between description and prescription.
ReplyDeleteThe video is complete nonsense. If it was written as text it would be easier to point out the fallacies and nonsense in this video.
Random quote:
"This guys must be the smartest, toughest guys on the block.
Poppycock, these days you can actually see..." Police retreating in the UK.
There are videos on Youtube of American police retreating so there goes his "argument".
Dan, Stan, Martin, Pvblivs
ReplyDelete2 Parts Hydrogen, One part Oxygen, plus Controlled Temperature= Water.
No matter how much man learns, he cannot "control" temperature, I mean God. Since He cannot control God, no matter how much he learns about Hydrogen and Oxygen, and will never cause water to happen, because he never controls temperature/water. It the temperature is too hot or too cold, it will be gas or solid, but not liquid.
To borrow from Aquinas terminology, God is the "necessary being" in all natural law, man is a contingent being, but not necessary.
In Natural Law, God can exists without man; God can perform without man. Man can never exist without God. Man can never perform without God.
Hydrogen can always exist without water, but water can never exist without Hydrogen; Yet God can never be properly described as a "non-thinking element" God has a will, a volition, and God is not even required to have electrons or a neutron like hydrogen
God can destroy and revive all material beings without harming himself, since you are a material being you cannot (do this) destroy and revive yourself, since you would be destroyed in the destruction you enact. And since all material things would be destroyed in your labor, no other person would be around to reverse the process;
I am not a chemistry buff, but if you add one element, you can change the compound. maybe carbon alters water, CH20 is now a carbohydrate instead of water.
(quoting another website) Carbohydrates have the general molecular formula CH2O, and thus were once thought to represent "hydrated carbon". However, the arrangement of atoms in carbohydrates has little to do with water molecules. (end quote)
Point being in Natural Law, once man is in the equation, he disrupts the equation, he taints it. So no matter how much learning he does, he is required not to be involved in the "feat" or else it is tainted, but once he is not involved in the "feat" then there is nothing to induce the reaction (? for lack of Chemistry terms); Man is not the proverbial fire, but water, so he can never make the wood burn anyway; God is the proverbial fire, and water (man) cannot induce fire of man's own mind/nature; Fire is necessary to burn wood, water is not;
To suggest "well if we could only control God" destroys the very definition of God, who by definition is never controlled by the creation; that is like saying, "well if we could only make A=B" breaking the law of non-contradiction. A=A, God is God. B=B Man is Man, not God. "A" is a necessary part of the equation that "B" will never control. We cannot even read or type or breath without God's permission in the equation. Can we imagine the flask telling the scientist, I can put myself in the equation of a chemical reaction, as the scientist laughs and puts him on the shelf; Our strength is not our own; So "we" cannot do anything; It is God who put Pharaoh in position, it is God who puts the protein in our muscles, not "independent organs and blood streams"
Todd:
ReplyDeleteNatural laws hold no necessary beings. Despite the fact that you seem to be using words in a Humpty-Dumpty style, the essence of your post is that your god does not operate within natural laws. That makes him a god of chaos, as he negates all predictability.
Natural laws hold no necessary beings.
ReplyDeleteHydrogen is a necessary element in water. If there is no existence of anything, then there is no nature. If nothing "is" then nothing exists.
Prove scientifically that your definition of natural law is real. You cannot, it is an axiom, one that is inconsistent. God is predictable in the fact that He will bring glory to Himself in His own time and way.
To think that man can "predict" God, is again impossible because man is not the person of God. But Jesus and the Holy Spirit are God and they know what the Father is doing. One God in three persons;
To say God is not predictable by man, is not to say God is a God of Chaos. I cannot predict what you will say next, but that does not mean your words are chaotic, unless of course you reply chaotically in order to purposefully make jest.
Lets see, I'll call you Humpty Dumpy writer too, keep calling me names, I'll copy and paste it back and see how much it convinces you of my point.
2 Parts Hydrogen, One part Oxygen, plus Controlled Temperature= Water.
ReplyDeleteStrictly speaking, any H2O molecule is water, regardless of phase, but go on...
No matter how much man learns, he cannot "control" temperature...
Strange. So what is it that my furnace and central air units do? Is my thermostat imaginary? How does a refrigerator or freezer work?
I'm confused.
...I mean God.
Oh... So god is temperature? So I have a god in my furnace, a god in my A/C unit, a god in my refrigerator, a god in my freezer, a god in my other freezer, a god in my water heater, a god in my oven...
Wait. I thought there was only one god, and I thought we couldn't control temperature...
I'm confused.
Since He cannot control God, no matter how much he learns about Hydrogen and Oxygen, and will never cause water to happen, because he never controls temperature/water. It the temperature is too hot or too cold, it will be gas or solid, but not liquid. [sic; various]
Now I'm thoroughly confused. Have you ever worked with acids and bases? If you take equal amounts (volume and molarity) of, say, hydrochloric acid and sodium hydroxide, and combine them at standard temperature and pressure (both of which can be controlled), do you know what will result? Salt water. Water -- liquid H2O -- with the dissolved ions of sodium and chlorine. Through introduction of various compounds, the sodium and chlorine can be made to precipitate out, and [essentially] pure water can result.
Of course, I wouldn't generally advise drinking the resulting solution, so rather than forming (liquid) water in this fashion, I recommend instead distilling water, which is what all modern chemistry labs do, and which is literally pure water (although water tends to ionize itself slightly).
So, trivially, we can make water from hydrogen and oxygen, or from compounds which contain the two. We can also make the individual elements of hydrogen and water, due to our knowledge of particle physics. Granted, this is quite difficult, but luckily, it is also largely unnecessary, as hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe, and oxygen is readily formed in stars as a byproduct of fusion.
What were you talking about, again?
To borrow from Aquinas terminology, God is the "necessary being" in all natural law, man is a contingent being, but not necessary.
I readily admit that humanity is unnecessary, but it is unnecessary as well to introduce god as some "necessary being." Since, in this scenario, "god" could merely be some as-yet undefined process, this argument is of no actual value. Clearly, some process was necessary -- note the verb tense: was -- but to provide attributes ad hoc to such a process, absent any supporting empirical data, and to assert that this process must exist still, is sheer nonsense.
If you insist that the universe-initiating process be called "god," fine, but even if that "god" were a conscious entity, it is entirely possible that this "god" destroyed itself to make what we see -- that is, it is not necessary for god to today exist, even if we grant, for the sake of argument, that a god may have once existed.
Weren't we talking about god being temperature, though?
In Natural Law, God can exists [sic] without man; God can perform without man. Man can never exist without God. Man can never perform without God.
I think you've confused Natural Law with Supernatural Law, or something else you've invented.
Hydrogen can always exist without water, but water can never exist without Hydrogen
ReplyDeleteI'm with you so far...
Yet God can never be properly described as a "non-thinking element" God has a will, a volition, and God is not even required to have electrons or a neutron like hydrogen
What?! What does the second part have to do with the first? I played Guitar Hero last night, so the price of tea in China fell by a half a percent.
Besides, I thought you'd established already that god was temperature... Since temperature is a measure of kinetic energy, massive particles are necessary for temperature to exist. Of course, hydrogen doesn't have neutrons, but we'll let that go...
God can destroy and revive all material beings without harming himself, since you are a material being you cannot (do this) destroy and revive yourself, since you would be destroyed in the destruction you enact. And since all material things would be destroyed in your labor, no other person would be around to reverse the process; [sic; various]
...or so you assert, entirely devoid of argument. Tell you what, before we start worrying about what god can or cannot do, compared to what we can or cannot do, let's instead establish whether or not this god fellow even exists, shall we? Sure as hell we should avoid purely asserting that god can do this or that, don't you think?
I am not a chemistry buff...
No foolin'?
...but if you add one element, you can change the compound.
Hey! You are a chemistry buff...
What does this have to do with the price of tea in China?
Point being in Natural Law, once man is in the equation, he disrupts the equation, he taints it.
What? No. Stop. Your much-addled brain is evidently fusing every scientific-sounding thing you've ever heard into one giant clusterfuck of bunk. Natural law is little more than a presumption that nature behaves in a systematic fashion, through laws which can be discovered and applied. Since humans are part of nature, we cannot taint it.
You may be confusing the Observer Effect with all of nature, I suppose, but you're doing it wrong.
Fire is necessary to burn wood, water is not
Actually, water is also a part of the combustion process of wood and other cellulose products, and in fact water is a byproduct of virtually all forms of oxygen combustion... but I understand what you think you're saying.
You know, Todd, your "arguments" are really bad. Seriously. They're bad. Pvblivs tried to boil down what you said, and I think he's partly right, but in addition to saying that your god doesn't operate according to natural law, you also beg the question by assuming your god exists in the first place. Beyond that, you wandered all over the place, futzing with scientific-sounding "arguments" that have nothing to do with your thesis, and even if they did, wouldn't support it.
If you cannot see the points made by myself, Martin, Pvblivs, et al, then you're blind. Please re-read the posts made by your opposition, and really try to understand them. Consider reading about the science you try to emulate, rather than completely misrepresenting everything about it, however unintentional the misrepresentation may be.
You complained not too long ago that I was guilty of blaming the author for being incomprehensible, and you suggested this was unwarranted. I say otherwise. If you've ever attempted to read text written by an acquaintance's first-grader, and found it incomprehensible, you'll understand my frustration regarding your posts.
--
Stan
If there is no existence of anything, then there is no nature.
ReplyDeleteIrrelevant. If no conscious beings existed -- as was the case ~200,000 years ago -- the natural laws which govern things could still exist. Your statement is like saying that if there is no balance in an interest-bearing account, then there is no bank. Funds, or the lack thereof, are unnecessary to the existence of a mathematical law governing interest, just like the existence of "things" to be governed by natural law is unnecessary to the existence of the natural law itself.
You've successfully undercut your own point. Pvbliv's point stands, that natural law holds no necessary beings.
God is predictable in the fact that He will bring glory to Himself in His own time and way. [pure assertion]
So god is predictable, then?
To think that man can "predict" God, is again impossible because man is not the person of God.
Wait, what? I thought god was predictable?
To say God is not predictable by man, is not to say God is a God of Chaos. I cannot predict what you will say next, but that does not mean your words are chaotic, unless of course you reply chaotically in order to purposefully make jest.
Actually, you're not simply saying god is not predictable by man, but you're saying that god can and does break natural law at his whim. That is, by definition, chaotic.
You again, however, destroy your own point, when you say, "unless of course you [behave] chaotically," which is precisely what god does, according to you. If god breaks natural laws as suits his fancy, then god is chaotic. If god does not break natural laws, then we can aspire to and achieve godhood through sufficient knowledge and/or technology. Period.
Now gather the horses and men and put yourself back together.
--
Stan
Todd:
ReplyDelete"Lets see, I'll call you Humpty Dumpy writer too, keep calling me names, I'll copy and paste it back and see how much it convinces you of my point."
Offhand, I would say that you didn't get the reference. Your use of some words seems to have no correlation with the way they are used elsewhere. From Through the Looking Glass: "'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'"
It is analogy. God is not temperature literally, they are both variables in an equation that man cannot control. I said man cannot control temperature, analogy= God.
ReplyDeleteNo, you cannot control temperature, go by yourself with only your body, blood, bones; see if you alone can end the entire temperature of the sun, that is full control; God can do this. It is irrelevant anyhow, since I was talking about a equation 'variable' man cannot control: God.
Someone mention about "knowing and using technology" God does not need technology, so you cannot do what God does unless you are God himself. Learning is not enough. I can learn about the concept of "fear", but that does not mean I can make myself "fear" having the same impact that "fear" does.
Establish God exists? Rom 1:19-25
Prove to me I am not "dreaming." All you can do is make assertions that I am awake, maybe when I am pinched the following events are still a dream or LSD trip. Or should I just take your word that I am not lucid dreaming. You see nothing can prove that to me, since I would be willfully suspending what is obvious, as you are.
Jesus is God and he called the religious leaders blind for doubting him. So the fact you are asking me to prove the existence of God, means you are rejecting Jesus as God, and should be given the same verdict of blind yourself.
Irrelevant. If no conscious beings existed -- as was the case ~200,000 years ago -- the natural laws which govern things could still exist.
Is it possible? yes. But so much for "scientific evidence" when you enter the realm of theory.
Maybe before man existed there were no natural laws. Why assume natural laws are constant. Maybe they ebb off and on, like a pulsating star. The function of creatures while sleeping is MUCH different that while awake, and so the actions are not uniform to "always eat or talk", and maybe when man arrived on the scene nature had entered a long phase of different patterns of behavior, so you witness him snoring, but the nature would be acting much different during seasons of "being awake" 200,000 before you were here, so your assumption on uniformity is wrong; Maybe electrons and protons are affected differently by forces in those periods of time, than what you currently observe.
The state of matter is not constant, the state of energy is not constant, political opinion (which is mere brain chemistry of sugars, not the darwinians supposed freewill) is not constant; So you say "we must have evidence of God." but if there is no one to observe the evidence 200,000 years ago, we will just assume nature's laws still exist. At that rate maybe God was here 200,000 years ago before you witnessed him, and now is hiding when you came along. Is that the evidence you want me to give to you?, and yet that is the evidence you give for the uniformity of nature as a constant? 200,000 years ago I existed, and just reincarnated now, want "evidence"? well here I am now. And that is your argument for natural laws, well they existed then by assertion how do we know, they are here now.
God is predictable "in the fact that"...is the limiting qualifier of how God is predictable (bringing glory to himself), not that we can predict everything. When I say it is predictable for Tiger Woods to play Golf, that does not mean I can predict which pair of socks he will wear.
"god" could merely be some as-yet undefined process
Wrong. Maybe we will learn in the future that the earth is not the center of the universe, I mean "atheism" is merely some undefined psychosis; Not trying to insult honest. Just saying, if you destroy the meaning of my definition of God, then I will destroy your meaning of atheism.
If you hold out future speculation on my definition of "god" in the equation, I will hold out future speculation on your portrayal of atheism in the equation.
but to provide attributes ad hoc to such a process, absent any supporting empirical data, and to assert that this process must exist still, is sheer nonsense.
ReplyDeleteHow are theories made? Before direct evidence is given! Empirical data? Must all things be demonstrated or verified in order to be true? This is an axiom that cannot be proven by empirical data.
Natural Law vs. Supernatural law vs. Something I invent. Who invented "THE" definition of Natural Law? You? Darwin? Aristotle? An ape? Who gets to decide? The Greeks? The Americans? The Atheists? How convenient to say: Natural Law is nature without a God who governs all nature according to his own orderly will and purpose. Do we buy-in to this, simply because of majority rule or historical norm? At that rate historical norm and majority of mankind has been theistic.
hmmm...I think you write like a first-grader too, did this observation convince you of my position? wait, call me a preschooler, then you'll really sway me over. Maybe we can call Obama a goober, that'll convince him to put Dawkins as VP. (it ain't going to happen).
No, you cannot control temperature
ReplyDeleteWe've already established that yes, human knowledge and technology can control temperature in certain closed systems.
...go by yourself with only your body, blood, bones
To see if I can control the temperature? As it turns out, as a warm-blooded creature, my body, blood, and bones do a pretty good job of maintaining a reasonably steady temperature of about 310 Kelvin.
...see if you alone can end the entire temperature of the sun, that is full control
What does that even mean? "End the entire temperature of the sun"? You're right -- you don't write like a first-grader, but your writing is incomprehensible, analogously.
God can do this.
So you keep asserting. Anytime you want to show up with an argument, I'll try to decipher what you type and respond appropriately. Until then, this is just like me saying that I have full control over the sun. In fact, it is precisely equivalent, in that I can also say that I am merely showing restraint by not showing my magical presence and my amazing abilities. You know, just like god.
Seriously. That's not an argument, it's a bald assertion and it is less valuable than what I flushed down the toilet earlier today.
God does not need technology, so you cannot do what God does unless you are God himself.
Blah, blah, blah. I don't need technology to turn lampshades into invisible unicorns. Same effect.
Establish God exists? Rom 1:19-25
[sarcasm]
Oh, snap! I totally forgot that the bible establishes conclusively that god exists!
[/sarcasm]
Maybe before man existed there were no natural laws.
This is not consistent with observation.
Why assume natural laws are constant.
Because this assumption is consistent with observation.
Maybe they ebb off and on...
You mean maybe the universe is chaotic, and maybe there's a god of chaos?
...like a pulsating star.
Are you speaking metaphorically, or are you trying to talk science again? I ask, because I would like to know whether I should mock your ignorance, or placate it.
your assumption on uniformity is wrong
It is a working principle which lends itself to understanding, and which has proven itself time and again to be valuable. It also fits with observation. Of course, if it is wrong, then we couldn't possibly know, right? After all, the data I collected yesterday may appear different today -- the actual data, not the phenomenon -- if random changes can occur in nature, right?
Maybe electrons and protons are affected differently by forces in those periods of time, than what you currently observe.
Maybe invisible fairies are secretly responsible for everything! Did you consider that possibility, too?
FFS, your endless "maybe" drivel is nothing more than an attempt at flooding, to obscure the fact that your system relies on a magic being which has never been shown to exist, and which can and does arbitrarily break the apparent laws of nature -- though never when reliable witnesses are present -- to the tune of being a god of chaos.
I said:
ReplyDelete"god" could merely be some as-yet undefined process
You replied:
Wrong.
[sarcasm]
Well, I'm glad we settled that.
[/sarcasm]
Really? You come with a string of 'maybe this' and 'maybe that,' regarding constancy of natural law, stability of elementary particles, etc., and when I offer one perfectly reasonable possibility, you instantly deny it, with nothing more than a wave of the hand?!
Try being honest. You'll feel better about yourself.
Maybe we will learn in the future that the earth is not the center of the universe...
Actually, most of us learned that in the past, no thanks to the bible.
How are theories made?
I'd say you really don't have any idea.
Before direct evidence is given!
No, that's how hypotheses are formed.
Empirical data?
Yes, empirical data: the stuff that one gleans from experiment. We construct hypotheses from empirical data, identify some testable aspect, and if the hypothesis survives varied tests of this sort, it may become eligible for theory status. The empirical data is used to develop a hypothesis, and the direct evidence from testing such a hypothesis is used to promote it to the status of theory.
Must all things be demonstrated or verified in order to be true?
Obviously not, but in order for us to know (within reason) that they are true, yes, they must be demonstrated or verified. When your mother first told you a stovetop may be hot, your trust was unnecessary to the truth of her statement. Until you tested this yourself, you did not, however, actually know that what she had said was true.
This is an axiom that cannot be proven by empirical data.
Huh? What are you claiming to be an axiom?
How convenient to say: Natural Law is nature without a God who governs all nature according to his own orderly will and purpose.
You read about as well as you write. Science does not make a statement as to the existence of any gods, other than to say that we operate under the assumption that no gods alter natural law. That's it. Not, "there is no god," or "Christians are nutjobs," but, "natural law is unbroken, even by possible deities."
Next time, you should clothe and/or paint your straw man. It's more effective that way.
--
Stan
"In certain closed systems"
ReplyDeleteIn certain closed systems I am the best golfer in the world.
maintaining a reasonably steady temperature of about 310 Kelvin.
The context was "at the sun" not "on the earth." and not the temperature "of your body" but "the sun's temperature." So no, you cannot control the temperature of the sun. That is a variable you cannot control, and God is a variable that you cannot control.
"End the entire temperature of the sun." Ok, poor wording, bring it from its current temperature to zero degrees on the Kelvin scale.
WRONG. my writing is NOT incomprehensible, because I comprehended it. You only gave a subjective response, not scientific fact by empirical data.
Good point about you asserting your control of the sun and just showing your restraint. There is only one problem, Jesus did promise is death and resurrection in John 10 and He did resurrect. Show that is the proof beyond assertion.
It is a mere assertion that the darwinian universe is orderly. I put a ruler in the ocean, and say, hmmm, the entire ocean must be like these 12 inches, that is "observation". So to make your assertion/assumption that the "laws of nature" are uniform beyond the 12 trillion/ or billion/ or million years, is only looking at 12 inches of ocean water, and in reality, the ocean is more diverse than what you "observed" and so you have no basis to think.
returning sarcasm...oh snap I totally forgot your posting establishes conclusively that the laws of nature are uniform throughout 12 billion years, as if you have "observed" that. Name me ONE atheist who says upon the original finding of the dead sea scrolls that an mini big-bang explosion produced them, should I believe them without "observing" the mini-big-bang.
"Maybe before man existed there were no natural laws. This is not consistent with observation."
Where you present 12 trillion years ago to "observe" the laws of nature then.
Why assume natural laws are constant. Because this assumption is consistent with observation.
ReplyDeleteWhy trust observation? People see a lot of things on LSD, and maybe all of mankind is on a proverbial LSD.
I didn't say the universe is chaotic to ebb on and off, the rotation and revolution of the earth is for the most part in an orderly pattern, yet its distance/location in relation to the sun is not constant. So though not constant, it is still a manner of order.
quote a website: In the case of pulsating variables this is due to the periodic expansion and contraction of the surface layers of the stars. This means the star actually increases and decreases in size periodically.:end quote.
Not a constant size, a change, but not purely chaotic within the bounds; So the laws of nature can "proverbially" do the same, so you "observe" the star (laws of nature) at a certain size (pattern) but 2 million years ago the star (laws of nature) was a different size (behaved different than you observe).
I didn't mean your observation yesterday was wrong, i am saying, that the cycle was over 4 million years not 24 hours. Again there is no hope to trust observation if we are only measuring 12 inches of the ocean (100 years of a man's life, or 4 billion years of soil)
FFS (??) Why should I value intercourse? Is there not a greater sake to make me an atheist.
You have an endless maybe. Do You got a direct observation for me of the big-bang? Do You got the real Lucy fossil in your hands? Did YOU dig it up, did you trust the "book of fallible scientist" and "all the scientist" who just blindly trusts the "writings" of an archaeologist, you are proverbially following Ptolemy's geocentric universe, and you are trusting your observation, like he did, Darwin is the Ptolemy of the past 200 years.
Instantly deny? The Pharisees said Jesus was doing his miracles by Beelzebub. You would do likewise, because you shun Romans 1, you shun the Bible;
We can touch mom's hot stove top, but we cannot touch the big-bang, nor 12 trillion years within 90 years of living and "observation." To say I see the immediate charred remains of a the Hiroshima blast, I can therefore know how many men had tattoos-- is crazy.
And that (by analogy) is what evolutionists do. "Look at this fossil" it "must mean this", "look at his charred land" "see nobody here had tattoos" our "observation" is "so trustworthy." "What we see now, for 90 years, must be a constant before we got here, and before the bomb landed."
Dumb to trust one's observation of Hiroshima remains, dumb to trust one's observation of 90 years on earth compared to 12 trillion." Assert and Assume all you want that you can "observe and know" who how many tattoos existed before the bomb, by merely witnessing what you see now. So what you see now for 6000 years of recorded history could be completely different 12 trillion years ago. The Hiroshima analogy is not a "dumb hypothetical" is a case-in-point.
In certain closed systems I am the best golfer in the world.
ReplyDeleteLet me correct that for you:
In certain closed systems I am the best golfer.
See the problem? See how it’s been corrected?
The context was "at the sun" not "on the earth."
No, the statement you made involved "end[ing] the entire temperature of the sun," whatever the hell that means. It doesn't matter, though, for we can control temperature, in admittedly limited situations. Better, however, is the fact that we can determine and predict temperature. So while we may not directly control it in any given situation, we can predict what it will be -- extremely accurately, given enough variables and computing power. To a skilled magician, predictive power is the equivalent of control.
Ok, poor wording...
You mean it was incomprehensible, or like reading an unrelated first-grader's essay?
WRONG. my writing is NOT incomprehensible, because I comprehended it.
Ha! Then neither is my daughter's writing incomprehensible, since she can comprehend it.
FAIL.
The proper gauge of one's writing ability is certainly not one's own ability to understand the text, but the ability of one's audience. Your writing most certainly is, at times, incomprehensible.
You only gave a subjective response, not scientific fact by empirical data.
Case in point. What the hell does that mean?
Good point about you asserting your control of the sun and just showing your restraint.
Thanks, I'm glad we agree.
There is only one problem...
Oh?
Jesus did promise is [sic] death and resurrection in John 10 and He did resurrect [sic]. Show that is the proof beyond assertion. [sic]
I assume "is" is meant to be "his," and I assume the missing object for the transitive verb "resurrect" is "himself," or perhaps you rather meant the passive voice ("was resurrected" instead of "did resurrect"), but that last sentence is... wait for it...
Incomprehensible.
ReplyDeleteIf you are trying to say that the text of John takes the claim of Jesus' resurrection and divinity beyond the level of assertion, then clearly the city of Gid was truly taken without bloodshed as depicted in Alma 55 (Lamanites are so stupid when they're drunk).
Another problem solved!
It is a mere assertion that the darwinian universe is orderly.
No, no, and no.
1. It is an assumption that the universe behaves in a manner conducive to study and understanding.
2. The universe is not necessarily "Darwinian," although the diversification of life on earth most certainly is.
3. The assumption that the universe behaves in a manner conducive to study and understanding does not mean the universe is "orderly."
4. Without this assumption, astrology, magic, and superstition are all valid fields of study.
Try again.
I put a ruler in the ocean, and say, hmmm, the entire ocean must be like these 12 inches, that is "observation".
No, that's you being an idiot. What does happen, though, is we notice similarities between the topmost twelve inches of marine ecology in greatly separated areas, and we piece these similarities together and think, "Hey, I wonder if marine ecology all works off of some shared underlying principle?" Sometimes, of course, we also think, "I bet Todd is straw-manning us right now."
So to make your assertion/assumption that the "laws of nature" are uniform beyond the 12 trillion/ or billion/ or million years, is only looking at 12 inches of ocean water, and in reality, the ocean is more diverse than what you "observed" and so you have no basis to think.
I quoted the whole thing above to show that I'm not taking you out of context. It's incomprehensible. You seem incapable of building a coherent argument driving at a specific point, or even a set of points. It's as though I'm reading your thoughts, and you're ADD.
Where you present 12 trillion years ago to "observe" the laws of nature then.
It's ~14 billion years, not 12 trillion. Whatever. Astronomy is essentially looking at the past, and while we can't see all the way to the Big Bang itself, we can see back to within about 500 million years of it, if not a little closer. With computer models based on extant theories, we have extrapolated snapshots of what the universe very likely looked like within 10^-35 seconds of the event.
No, we weren't there, but yes, we can see quite a ways back, and the observations are consistent with a universe which is subject to uniformity of law.
Why trust observation? People see a lot of things on LSD, and maybe all of mankind is on a proverbial LSD.
Maybe that explains your writing... How much LSD have you done in your lifetime? Forty, fifty hits? A hundred? It would make a lot of sense...
If we don't trust observation -- especially consistent, repeated observation -- then we may as well scrap the whole thing and go with magic and chaos, which is what this stupid argument is about, if you recall. If there is a god who changes the laws of nature to suit his whim, then he necessarily relegates those laws to a chaotic system in which nothing can be trusted, as far as observations and laws go.
Eyes on the prize, as it were.
Incidentally, some scientists have attempted to study LSD to find out just what is being "seen," and why. Just because we don't understand it doesn't mean it's not happening, or that there isn't a viable explanation. Just because virtually every human culture -- ever -- has used psychedelics, hallucinogens, or other drugs as part of religious ritual or ceremony does not mean that any of these substances is anything more than a chemical reaction. That is, there is no need to introduce a deity to explain the experience.
ReplyDeleteI didn't say the universe is chaotic to ebb on and off...
No, it was implied. While aspects of the universe may be periodic, or may conform to any number of mathematical models, this is not what you're arguing. Rather, you're arguing that god suspends the known laws of nature in favor of a specific person or group (most often this is catastrophic to another person or group), but not in any patterned or predictable fashion. Ergo, chaos. Randomness.
So the laws of nature can "proverbially" [change in a non-chaotic manner]...
What?!
First, you're misusing "proverbially." Look it up or something. Second, why do you feel it necessary to talk about a star -- something about which you clearly know exceedingly little -- to claim that a periodic phenomenon may be the analog of the observed laws of nature?
The rotation of the earth, the tides, a pendulum... a whole host of more familiar phenomena are sinusoidal, but there's a problem: they all behave according to static natural law.
If your assertion had merit, then somewhere, some phenomenon wouldn't conform to static natural law, and would instead appear chaotic.
But this is not observed.
...so you "observe" the star (laws of nature) at a certain size (pattern) but 2 million years ago the star (laws of nature) was a different size (behaved different than you observe).
Right. So we "observe" water (laws of nature) has a certain chemical composition (pattern) and 2 million years ago the water (laws of nature) had the same chemical composition (behaved identically to what we observe).
Wait... Is that how it works?
[Note: If you object to "2 million years" in my water example, change it to any acceptable time period. Really. Any acceptable time period. See if it matters.]
Do You got [sic] a direct observation for me of the big-bang?
Yes. CMB.
Do You got [sic] the real Lucy fossil in your hands?
No, but you can get a look at her if you're visiting NYC in the next few months. You know, just like you can get a look at the real Declaration of Independence if you're ever in Washington, D.C. -- unless you "got" it in your hands...
Did YOU dig it up, did you trust the "book of fallible scientist" and "all the scientist" who just blindly trusts the "writings" of an archaeologist, you are proverbially following Ptolemy's geocentric universe, and you are trusting your observation, like he did, Darwin is the Ptolemy of the past 200 years.
You see, this is what I mean. Stream-of-consciousness stuff. Really, man, posting here is not an exercise in free-writing.
I don't know what the "book of fallible scientist" is (your quotes, and your errors), and I don't know why you scare-quoted "all the scientist [sic]" or "writings." To say that Darwin is the Ptolemy of the last 200 years, though, is the most delicious of ironies, and screams Poe.
[some rambling about Hiroshima and tattoos]
The Hiroshima analogy is not a "dumb hypothetical" is a case-in-point.
I wish I had access to the drugs you're on. That is all.
--
Stan
Though Wiki is not an elite dictionary, I've been skimming material on Metaphysicians, and the History therefore; and trying to brush up on Rationalistic Philosophy in contrast to Empirical/Naturalistic views;
ReplyDeleteOn one level I continue to oppose your "FAITH" in observation, again if you were on LSD, then you could imagine 900 men writing books you agree with about your empirical worldview, so even Dawkins, Hitchens, me, are not real, just figments of your proverbial LSD trip; And once you come off LSD you would realize Lucy does not exist, nor even literature itself;
On the other hand, you can tell me, "hey you are trusting your observation too, are you OBSERVING THE BIBLE as the basis of truth;" Good Point; but no, not fully, I am not an Evidentialist, but a Presuppositionalist, furthermore a Calvinist, not an Armnian;
So God changed my mind and revealed himself successfully by Himself, it is the Spirit that gives the new birth, not "my mind". You must be born again; That which is of flesh is flesh, and the flesh profits nothing.
To refer to the book of Mormon, a cult, as rebuttal is wrong. That is like me quoting Doctor Who as a fellow peer in the scientific community.
You are making deductions about the entire Ocean by looking at 12 inches of water. What you have seen for 90 years of life, be it a "fossil" is not proof that fossil looked the same way 100 years ago, since you were not here 91 years ago, you did not go to the 13th inch. If a grandpa says, No I was here 91 years ago, then how is that any hope as to what was "real" 1 million years ago; Man's ruler is 6000 years, which is only 12 inches in the water. To say the fossil was around 7000 years ago is NOT direct observing proof. After all I was here 7000 years ago and I reincarnated, are you requiring "direct observation" for this claim. And merely seeing a fossil NOW is not observation that it existed prior. Hmmm, I see a plane now, I guess planes existed 70000 years ago.
Hmmm, I see electrons now, I guess electrons existed 70000 years ago. Obviously planes did not exist 70000, nor did electrons. (I say this in jest, but it is still a leap of blind faith to trust that they did and blindly trust observation);
Maybe this will convince you of my point: You seem incapable of building a coherent argument driving at a specific point, or even a set of points. It's as though I'm reading your thoughts, and you're ADD.
You can see 500 million years back? Really? I cut a tree down and look at the rings. Wow look at what I know, it tells me Plato was alive, and that murder is wrong; Take a picture of the Hiroshima remains and tell me how many men had tattoos? It tells you nothing of those facts, there is nothing you can fully know from it.
Oh computers? Hey I have the bible on a computer, I guess that legitimizes the Bible now. Hitler had tanks, did that make Hitler's views right? He saw Jews and "knew" what that meant. You see "light" and "knows" what that means too, still warped;
Maybe this will convince you: How much LSD have you done?
I have no idea what Tiger Woods may say, but that does not make his future speech chaotic. I have no idea what God may do over nature, but that does not make his future actions in nature chaotic. I can stop a car (though the earth still spins and moves my car). God can stop the sun and planet. It is not chaos. It is God being God. Next time you stop a car, call it chaos.
Judge Judy can impose a fine, and that fine is according to the law of the land, and that is not chaotic. God can stop the sun/earth, and that stoppage is according to the law of Himself, and that is not chaotic.
ReplyDeleteWhich carton of milk did you pick? The one you wanted. Was there order, yes, according to what pleased you, granted maybe you wanted skim and they were out of skim milk. But God as all power and can make what he wants, how he wants, and why he wants, and that is not chaotic; You do not buy food purely randomly as you are accusing God of being random. There is a reason/motive behind your course of action at the grocery store, the next week you may not buy the exact same list, so the "order" is different, but not Chaotic, nor random.
This century God may not part the Red Sea, as He did with Moses, but He can push apart the water, just as you can push part the grapes from a batch/vines; Can you "learn" to part the Red Sea, no, a snail cannot learn to build a 747, his nature is different. And our nature is different. Learning is not the answer, for the nature is the limitation;
A don't have to know anything about these stars, I know my own body has a variable of being asleep for 8 hours then awake for 16, this pattern has distinct differences, and thus are not constants, and thus the behavior of nature may have distinct differences of behavior beyond what we have recorded for 6000 years etc.
On the other hand, you can tell me, "hey you are trusting your observation too, are you OBSERVING THE BIBLE as the basis of truth;" Good Point; but no, not fully, I am not an Evidentialist, but a Presuppositionalist, furthermore a Calvinist, not an Armnian [sic]
ReplyDeleteNone of this refutes the fact that yes, you do use your senses and "reason" to "verify" that the bible is "true." No matter what conclusions you draw, you do indeed use perception and cognitive faculty, in spite of any debilitating factors.
There is no argument here, just special pleading.
So God changed my mind and revealed himself successfully by Himself, it is the Spirit that gives the new birth, not "my mind".
So you assert, and so assert theists of all walks, including Catholics, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Muslims, or Jews, though each individual group varies the details of the assertion.
There is no argument here, just assertion.
To refer to the book of Mormon, a cult, as rebuttal is wrong. That is like me quoting Doctor Who as a fellow peer in the scientific community.
No, it's like you quoting the bible as though it is an undisputed and wholly accurate source.
Again, there is no argument here, just assertion.
You are making deductions about the entire Ocean by looking at 12 inches of water.
Yep. Deduction. Logical deduction. Valid logical deduction. You're making assertions based on nothing at all.
There is still no argument here, just assertion.
You can see 500 million years back? Really?
Yes, but that's not what I said. I said that we can see back to within ~500 million years of the Big Bang with direct astronomical observation. So while we can see back 500 million years, we can also see back ~13.2 billion years.
Still no argument, just ignorance.
I cut a tree down and look at the rings. Wow look at what I know, it tells me Plato was alive, and that murder is wrong
So you're a fortune-teller? You handle Tarot cards? Nice straw man.
Still no argument, just intentional misrepresentation.
[A picture of "Hiroshima remains"] tells you nothing of those facts, there is nothing you can fully know from it.
Nothing? Can I not know some information, including that there was a massive explosion, radiation of various sorts, lots of dead?
Still no argument, just question begging. with some Texas sharpshooter thrown in.
Oh computers? Hey I have the bible on a computer, I guess that legitimizes the Bible now.
Blatant misrepresentation. Not argument, just additional straw men.
You see "light" and "knows" what that means too, still warped;
No argument here, just gibberish.
I have no idea what God may do over nature
Then why do you claim othewise?
...but that does not make his future actions in nature chaotic.
No argument, just assertion.
I can stop a car (though the earth still spins and moves my car).
Thank you for agreeing that we can control temperature.
God can stop the sun and planet.
Pure assertion.
[God stopping the sun and planet] is not chaos. It is God being God.
Pure assertion.
Let's see what we have today from Todd...
Six counts of bald assertion, two counts of straw manning, and one count each of special pleading, question begging, and Texas sharpshooting. There is also an incident of blatant ignorance, as well as pure gibberish (though there were other allegations of gibberish in this post, there is only one conviction).
Oh, and zero argument.
Thanks for playing!
--
Stan
God can stop the sun/earth, and that stoppage is according to the law of Himself, and that is not chaotic.
ReplyDeletePlease demonstrate both the existence of this god and the attributes you so baldly assert he has, or kindly cease posting. Your endless assertions are worthless, as has been shown, yet you simply bring more.
A don't have to know anything about these stars, I know my own body has a variable of being asleep for 8 hours then awake for 16, this pattern has distinct differences, and thus are not constants, and thus the behavior of nature may have distinct differences of behavior beyond what we have recorded for 6000 years etc.
You're daft.
--
Stan
Todd:
ReplyDeleteFirst off, I would like to point out that electrons did exist 70,000 years ago (to the best of all available knowledge.)
"To refer to the book of Mormon, a cult, as rebuttal is wrong. That is like me quoting Doctor Who as a fellow peer in the scientific community."
Actually, it is more like quoting Doctor Who as a rebuttal to Star Trek.
"And once you come off LSD you would realize Lucy does not exist, nor even literature itself;"
And once you come off, you would realize that your god does not exist.
"Maybe this will convince you of my point: You seem incapable of building a coherent argument driving at a specific point, or even a set of points. It's as though I'm reading your thoughts, and you're ADD."
I'm inclined to agree with Stan, here. You don't make a coherent argument In this case you are parrotting back a criticism that applied to your statements but not to his.