Since I know he's lurking here, and I can't reply to him in the thread....
From Ray's "Potential Law Suit" Thread
SCMike reckons:
steven j,
""It might indeed be folly to assert that nothing created everything from nothing, but I know of no evolutionist or cosmologist who asserts such a thing. Just starting with the laws of physics, one is starting with rather more than nothing.""
Problem is, no evolutionist can account for the absolute, immaterial, abstract law of physics (or any other universal laws for that matter).
They presuppose these laws in their practice of science and interpretation of evidence, but deny the Creator of these laws. Surely you can see the problem with this, No? God Bless.
No, the problem is that you are unable to understand that evolution and atheism are not the same thing. You keep repeating this fallacy over and over again depsite being repeatedly corrected. Seriously, how many times has it been now? I know I've corrected you at least twice.
No evolutionist can account for the absolute, immaterial, abstract law of physics, huh? Well theistic evolutionists posit the exact same answer that you do. "Goddidit!" While I don't think this is the answer, it should show you that there are plenty of people that are able to reconcile their belief in a deity with the overwhelming evidence of biological evolution.
So, for the love of your God stop claiming that evolution and atheism are one and the same. You know better now. If you continue to do it, you are violating the ninth commandment. And that makes Jesus cry.
Posts
SCmike sez:
ReplyDeleteProblem is, no evolutionist can account for the absolute, immaterial, abstract law of physics (or any other universal laws for that matter).
They presuppose these laws in their practice of science and interpretation of evidence, but deny the Creator of these laws. Surely you can see the problem with this, No? God Bless.
The problem, SCmike, is that you apparently believe that these laws are imbued with some sort of special reality of their own, as if they were inscribed on stone tablets somewhere.
They are not. The phrase "law of nature" is a misnomer. All these "laws" are are the end product of our observations as to how the universe works...just simple descriptions that allow us to make certain predictions, given that things continue to behave as they have always done.
Assuming that these "laws" were created, and that the universe moves in accord with them, instead of the other way around, is putting the cart before the horse...as much as claiming the universe is intelligently designed because it is so finely tuned for life.
tripmaster monkey,
ReplyDelete""The problem, SCmike, is that you apparently believe that these laws are imbued with some sort of special reality of their own, as if they were inscribed on stone tablets somewhere.""
Yup. These laws reflect the absolute, immaterial, universal nature of Almighty God.
""They are not.""
How do you know?? Why could God not have created natural laws? Why could absolute, immaterial, universal laws not be a direct reflection of God's nature?
""All these "laws" are are the end product of our observations as to how the universe works...just simple descriptions that allow us to make certain predictions,""
So, your premise is that these laws exist because we can observe them. My premise is that these laws exist independent of us or our observation. I'll give you an example: could the universe have been both the universe and not the universe at the same time and in the same way before you were here to observe the law of non-contradiction?
..""given that things continue to behave as they have always done.""
How do you know how things have always behaved? On what grounds do you justify this assumption?
""Assuming that these "laws" were created, and that the universe moves in accord with them, instead of the other way around, is putting the cart before the horse...as much as claiming the universe is intelligently designed because it is so finely tuned for life.""
OK. Here's the million dollar question: How do you account for absolute, immaterial, universal laws according to your worldview. God Bless.
SCmike sez:
ReplyDeleteHow do you know?? Why could God not have created natural laws? Why could absolute, immaterial, universal laws not be a direct reflection of God's nature?
Why should they be? Because you want them to be?
You're going to have to do a *lot* better than "why not".
So, your premise is that these laws exist because we can observe them. My premise is that these laws exist independent of us or our observation.
Um,. no. Let me stop you right there. That Straw Man looks nothing like me.
Nowhere did I say that these laws exist because we can observe them. I said that the "laws" are merely the end product of our observations of the universe. I'm not talking about determinacy or collapsing the wave function here, I'm just talking about observing the way the universe works and drawing conclusions based upon those observations. Nice try, though.
How do you know how things have always behaved? On what grounds do you justify this assumption?
On the grounds of all the empirical evidence we have available to us.
Now, I'm sure that if there was a Supreme Being, he could doctor the evidence to make it look as if things have always behaved in the same way, just as He could create the illusion of very distant stars by creating the light in transit, or the illusion of dinosaurs by burying pre-aged fossils for us to find. However, if one accepts this premise, one must admit that there is no way to know the world at all, since anything we sense could be a cunning fake. Since there is no way to determine if this is the case, and since there is no evidence of such a Supreme Being existing, the rational thing to do is continue on as if our senses can be trusted.
OK. Here's the million dollar question: How do you account for absolute, immaterial, universal laws according to your worldview.
If what you're trying to allude to is physical laws, they are simply a characteristic of the universe we live in. No magic sky-daddy required.
SCMike:
ReplyDeleteYup. These laws reflect the absolute, immaterial, universal nature of Almighty God.
Yup. These laws reflect the absolute, immaterial, universal nature of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
How do you know?? Why could God not have created natural laws? Why could absolute, immaterial, universal laws not be a direct reflection of God's nature?
How do you know?? Why could the Flying Spaghetti Monster not have created natural laws? Why could absolute, immaterial, universal laws not be a direct reflection of the Flying Spaghetti Monster's nature?
To borrow a line from your hero, Sye: "How do you like your argument now?"
BTW, since you didn't bother to reply to the actual topic has it finally gotten through to you to stop equating atheism and evolution?
steven j,
ReplyDelete""Since I know he's lurking here, and I can't reply to him in the thread....""
Oh, I forgot you were hiding. I'll try to type softly so no one hears us.
""No, the problem is that you are unable to understand that evolution and atheism are not the same thing. You keep repeating this fallacy over and over again depsite being repeatedly corrected. Seriously, how many times has it been now? I know I've corrected you at least twice.""
Steven, this has nothing to do with the argument or my comment. But since you brought it up, would you consider yourself an atheist, an evolutionist, or both.
""No evolutionist can account for the absolute, immaterial, abstract law of physics, huh?""
Correctamundo! Give it a try, you'll see what I mean.
""Well theistic evolutionists posit the exact same answer that you do.""
Theistic Evolutionist is an oxymoron. Kinda like "headbutt" or "loose tights". The only "theists" that believe in evolution are those who worship false gods and some misguided Christians. I would submit that in both cases, these individuals have been greatly misinformed.
""Goddidit!" While I don't think this is the answer, it should show you that there are plenty of people that are able to reconcile their belief in a deity with the overwhelming evidence of biological evolution.""
Actually, all it shows me is that they are suppressing (or are ignorant to) the truth that God has revealed to us, as these two worldviews are completely incompatible.
Overwhelming evidence?? You mean the same evidence that creationists see as proof of a Creator?
You see Steven, evolution is based on an anti-God worldview and all evidence presented to an evolutionist will be interpreted according to this worldview. In other words, the worldview comes first and then the conclusion.
The question is, which worldview is consistent with reality and can account for all aspects of our existence, both physical and spiritual (abstract). I think you know the answer to that one (actually I am certain that you know the answer to that one, you are just suppressing the truth in unrighteousness). God Bless.
Evolution is anti-god?
ReplyDeleteSo, Darwin was anti-god? I don't know, he seemed pretty Christian to me before he became sane.
Good old 'argument from denial of reality'. Some people never get tired of it. It's also called the argumentum ad dementiam.
ReplyDeleteSCMike:
ReplyDeleteYou're reading comprehension could use some work. I'm not Steven.
Steven, this has nothing to do with the argument or my comment. But since you brought it up, would you consider yourself an atheist, an evolutionist, or both.
This does have something to do with your comment. You keep using the term evolutionist as if it is interchangeable with the word atheist. They are not. It is possible to believe in both evolution and a deity.
However to answer your question I am an atheist that accepts evolution. Just because I'm an "atheist evolutionist" does not mean that accepting evolution leads to atheism.
Theistic Evolutionist is an oxymoron. Kinda like "headbutt" or "loose tights". The only "theists" that believe in evolution are those who worship false gods and some misguided Christians. I would submit that in both cases, these individuals have been greatly misinformed.
Haha. No, Creation science is an oxymoron. The theists that believe in evolution are the ones that understand the scientific method. I'll agree with you that they also worship false gods. So do you. There is no evidence there are any real gods to worhsip.
Actually, all it shows me is that they are suppressing (or are ignorant to) the truth that God has revealed to us, as these two worldviews are completely incompatible.
The truth as you interpret it. You each interpret the Bible how you want to interpret it. You've given no good reason why your interpretation is the correct one and plenty of examples for why it isn't.
Overwhelming evidence?? You mean the same evidence that creationists see as proof of a Creator?
Yes, there is overwhelming evidence of evolution. I'm sure you, being an insurance agent, have spent years in science classes studying this evidence. Creationists don't do science. Science starts with the evidence then draws a conclusion. Creationists start with their conclusion then try to shoehorn the evidence into their "theory". This much is obvious by AIG's statement of faith.
"No apparent, perceived, or claimed interpretation of evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record."
That isn't science. They admit there is no conceivable evidence that could falsfiy a 6000 year old universe that was created in 6 days. Call it what you want, but it ain't science. Evolution on the other had could conceivably be falsified. You also don't have to sign a statement of faith when you get you PhD in biology.
You see Steven, evolution is based on an anti-God worldview and all evidence presented to an evolutionist will be interpreted according to this worldview. In other words, the worldview comes first and then the conclusion.
Evolution, or an old earth, are not based on an anti-god world-view no matter how much you wish it were so. This is falsified by the mere fact there are evolutionists who believe in God. You just have your panties in a wad because it doesn't agree with who you think God is.
As for the worldviews determining conclusions, I addressed that above with AIG's statement of faith. So you're right that one side does that. Yours.
The question is, which worldview is consistent with reality and can account for all aspects of our existence, both physical and spiritual (abstract). I think you know the answer to that one (actually I am certain that you know the answer to that one, you are just suppressing the truth in unrighteousness). God Bless.
Well, I'm more than willing to leave open the possibility that a god exists. However, it is pretty evident that if a god exists he/she/it used evolution as his/her/its creative means.
And this whole "you really know I'm right, but you're suppressing the truth" schtick is getting old. Claiming you know our minds better then we do is ridiculous.
Is this a Sye sockpuppet, seriously.
ReplyDeleteI'm going to try saving this thread 200 comments and feed this prospective troll once.
OK Mr. Mike. I believe I know what you are getting at. After one million postings of "How are you certain?" you are finally going to divulge goddit.
god is the reason there is reason. Without god there would be not be no logic:) Is that where we are headed?
You'll have to excuse me as I take you through a tour of the lesser beings of our domicile as I have only a layman's grasping of the field that I am going to take us through. And any of my reasoning maybe (*gasp*) fallible.
Meerkats are a fascinating species overall. The way that all members of the group lookout for one another. Have you ever seen Meerkat Manor on Animal Planet? Awesome show by the way. Such cute little buggers. I bet their head is about as big as if you would curl your thumb and forefinger together. Honestly amazing animals. I would suggest reading up on them at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meerkat#Behavior Specifically altruistic behavior.
Ya know what are another group of amazing animals, Birds. Well crows to be specific. Yes those caughing bastards. Have you ever been bow hunting? Seems the assholes always let the deer know just where I was, as if some stupid animal possessed some type of "knowledge" and wished to pass it on to all animals in the area. Damn jerks. 4yrs of bow hunting in the cold Wisconsin winters and I never once saw a deer while I was in my tree stand. Needless to say I gave up the sport. Them crows... Didja know you can actually learn them some teachin's though? Seems some wiseass actually taught them some knowledge. Sure, he got crows to realise that if they brought coins to his contraption, the contraption would feed them goodies. You can watch it at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhmZBMuZ6vE&eurl=http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=crow%20ted&ie=UTF-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&clie Then crows got them some smarts!
The final aminal I'm going to bring up is that cantankerous chimpanzee:) Those bastards are almost like peoples! They've got tool use, and morals, and reasoning! Them hairy apes have really got something going for them. I read in one study that they were actually able to outdo college students in an experiment where numbers were flashed on a screen and then covered, leaving the testee to touch the appropriate squares to count to ten. Amazing animals. I invite you to visit http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6221 and take a read. They have truly got a lot to teach us.
By now you are probably asking where all this is leading to? Well here it is. Even with my layman's knowledge of the natural world it seems to me that as a species cognitive abilities increase, so does its capacity to grasp the mores of morality, the rationality of reason and the lessons of logic.
In short, all your presuppositional argument does is prove that we have brains capable of realizing such basic concepts. At least according to me it does. Also according to me I would expect that there would be those deficient among our population who were unable to come to these realizations due to the fact that they either had bad hardware (mutation or genetics) or software (environment). (1) I wonder how someone who claims absolute revelation from on high could explain this. Perhaps if you could only teach the schizophrenic about biblegod you could make them sane again.
(2) Please, if you could, describe what your reasoning and logic would be like if there were no god.
Please type your answer to #2 now
No reading #3 yet
Don't do it
Of course you're reading this, its the human/primate nature to be curious. My final question (3) is what would your reasoning/logic be like if you didn't have a brain, even with your divine revelation?
If you cannot give a succinct answer to my simple 3 questions feel free to not post at Raytractors again. (BTW I would prefer the term "rationalist" when you address people who hold similar views to mine in the future)
Dear rationalist ace of clubz.
ReplyDeleteThat was nice.
G.E.