Where did the laws of nature come from?

[Oncedeceived]

Don't be silly. There is not even one "Christian God". There are on the order of 40,000 Christian sects that all worship a God that is different from those of other sects. Both the Jewish version and the Muslim version are very different from the Christian versions.

Really? It is pretty set in stone what one must believe to be a Christian. The Jewish version is the same as the Christian. The Muslim version is very different.

 

[quatona]

I disagree. In fact, in a purely materialistic worldview, logic is inconsistent and has nothing to ground it.

Are you holding a purely materialistic worldview so that you can allow yourself to exempt yourself from logic, or what is this statement supposed to tell me here?

Of course, logic is independent of these worldviews. "Before time" is nonsense, no matter your worldview. It is a contradiction in terms.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Really? It is pretty set in stone what one must believe to be a Christian. The Jewish version is the same as the Christian. The Muslim version is very different.

But it isn't. You will see what one has to believe vary from church to church and the interpretation of what is "set in stone" varies widely. Granted, the various Christian beliefs will all be closer to each other than the Muslim or Jewish beliefs, but there have been major wars on those differences.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Are you holding a purely materialistic worldview so that you can allow yourself to exempt yourself from logic, or what is this statement supposed to tell me here?

What I mean here is that in a non-theistic worldview where materialism is the only explanation for logic, logic is non-consistent with that view.

Of course, logic is independent of these worldviews. "Before time" is nonsense, no matter your worldview. It is a contradiction in terms.

Logic is independent of a materialistic worldview (IMHO). Why is before time nonsense?

 

[Oncedeceived]

But it isn't. You will see what one has to believe vary from church to church and the interpretation of what is "set in stone" varies widely. Granted, the various Christian beliefs will all be closer to each other than the Muslim or Jewish beliefs, but there have been major wars on those differences.

No, there may be different interpretations on non-salvation issues but all Christians to be Christian must believe that Jesus is the son of God, the one and only way to the father and died for our sins and rose again. Jews believe in God the Father and the only difference is that they did not believe that Jesus was their Savior when He was on earth.

 

[quatona]

What I mean here is that in a non-theistic worldview where materialism is the only explanation for logic, logic is non-consistent with that view.

I don´t know of any view according to which "materialism is the only explanation for logic" - to me it appears like you have totally made that up.
But be that as it may.
The remark is totally irrelevant as a response to my post, since - unless you hold the view that "materialism is the only explanation for logic", neither of us does.

Logic is independent of a materialistic worldview (IMHO).

What is it with your obsession with the materialistic worldview?

Why is before time nonsense?

"Before" is measured in time. In the absence of time "before" doesn´t mean anything. In order for X to be before Y, both need to be measurable in terms of time.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I don´t know of any view according to which "materialism is the only explanation for logic" - to me it appears like you have totally made that up.
But be that as it may.
The remark is totally irrelevant as a response to my post, since - unless you hold the view that "materialism is the only explanation for logic", neither of us does.

Fair enough.

What is it with your obsession with the materialistic worldview?

Sorry the majority of non-theists are materialistic in their worldview, I apologize for lumping you into something you do not believe.

"Before" is measured in time. In the absence of time "before" doesn´t mean anything. In order for X to be before Y, both need to be measurable in terms of time.

Well technically that is absolutely true. If we measure by time...before time is nonsensical, yet if we see time coming into existence we know there was a time when time was nonexistent thus its nonexistence was prior to its existence.

 

[quatona]

Well technically that is absolutely true.

It´s not only technically true -everything else is violating logic.

there was a time when time was nonexistent

:facepalm:

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, there may be different interpretations on non-salvation issues but all Christians to be Christian must believe that Jesus is the son of God, the one and only way to the father and died for our sins and rose again. Jews believe in God the Father and the only difference is that they did not believe that Jesus was their Savior when He was on earth.

No, Jews simply believe in a god. It is not "God the Father". Another name would be appropriate, but not "God the Father".

 

[Oncedeceived]

It´s not only technically true -everything else is violating logic.

What everything else specifically?

:facepalm:

 

[Oncedeceived]

No, Jews simply believe in a god. It is not "God the Father". Another name would be appropriate, but not "God the Father".

He will call out to me, 'You are my Father, my God, the Rock my Savior.'" (Psalms 89:26)
"But you are our Father, though Abraham does not know us or Israel acknowledge us; you, O LORD, are our Father, our Redeemer from of old is your name." (Isaiah 63:16)
"They will come with weeping; they will pray as I bring them back. I will lead them beside streams of water on a level path where they will not stumble, because I am Israel's father, and Ephraim is my firstborn son." (Jeremiah 31:9)

Three passages that prove you wrong.

 

[Subduction Zone]

He will call out to me, 'You are my Father, my God, the Rock my Savior.'" (Psalms 89:26)
"But you are our Father, though Abraham does not know us or Israel acknowledge us; you, O LORD, are our Father, our Redeemer from of old is your name." (Isaiah 63:16)
"They will come with weeping; they will pray as I bring them back. I will lead them beside streams of water on a level path where they will not stumble, because I am Israel's father, and Ephraim is my firstborn son." (Jeremiah 31:9)

Three passages that prove you wrong.

Nope, three passages only show that you can quote mine.

 

[[serious]]

.
We don't necessarily end up with an infinite regression. Perhaps it comes to something profoundly simple...best described by the number 1. Singularity, Grand Unity, The One.

Which could be further simplified by calling the natural laws the grand unity.

I don't see any explanation for the origin of a deity that wouldn't work just as well for the origin of the natural laws

 

[Oncedeceived]

Nope, three passages only show that you can quote mine.

What?????

 

[Subduction Zone]

What?????

Quoting out of context to "prove" a point is called quote mining. Verses out of context are worthless.

Also you made an equivocation error to boot. That happens quite often when you quote mine.

 

[SkyWriting]

It is not my presumption. It is a presumption based on a purely natural, un-directed, materialistic worldview without supernatural influence.

Yet directed influence could be natural if it has a source to be identified later.

 

[SkyWriting]

Quoting out of context to "prove" a point is called quote mining. Verses out of context are worthless.

Quote mining describes the situation when out of context quotes are used to make points the author
did not intend. Just quoting someone out of context is not automatically wrong.

 

[Jfrsmth]

Yet directed influence could be natural if it has a source to be identified later.

Would you agree that "directed" by definition implies intelligence, as a directed process would be something "directed" toward a certain goal?

 

[KCfromNC]

I'm basing my comment on a naturalistic / materialistic worldview where there is no supernatural influence.

But natural laws aren't random, so I don't see the connection.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Quoting out of context to "prove" a point is called quote mining. Verses out of context are worthless.

It wasn't out of context and was showing that the Old Testament refers to God as Father which you claimed was not the case.

Also you made an equivocation error to boot. That happens quite often when you quote mine.

How so?