Where did the laws of nature come from?

[Loudmouth]

I agree. So, my point: how could random (mindless), materialistic processes produce the natural laws we find in the universe.

Which one? Random or mindless? Those aren't synonyms.

We don't know how random or mindless processes could produce natural laws, and we certainly don't know if they couldn't.

I don't see how one can conclude anything without more information.

 

[KCfromNC]

And you know they meant something different?

Yep, and even gave specific examples of how they are different. So which one do you mean?

 

[KCfromNC]

Gravity is part of the laws we are referring to.

So when you see gravity causing an object to fall, that's intelligence at work? I hate to tell you, but that intelligent falling stuff was satire, not an actual theory people actually believe.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The error was on your part because you used a phrase that could have more than one meaning. You assumed that it meant the same for Jews as it does for Christians without any supporting evidence. That is an equivocation error. Do you understand your error yet?

I want to know how you know it is an error.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I want to know how you know it is an error.

How many times do I have to explain the same thing to you? The use of the phrase "God the Father" is rather ambiguous, you interpret it one way while it is all but certain Jews interpret it another way. This may help you:

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/equivoqu.html

 

[Oncedeceived]

How many times do I have to explain the same thing to you? The use of the phrase "God the Father" is rather ambiguous, you interpret it one way while it is all but certain Jews interpret it another way. This may help you:

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/equivoqu.html

Oh my goodness, I understand what is meant by the error but I am asking you to explain how it is an error and what you use to support your conclusion it is one.

 

[Oncedeceived]

So when you see gravity causing an object to fall, that's intelligence at work? I hate to tell you, but that intelligent falling stuff was satire, not an actual theory people actually believe.

I am saying that gravity is part of the laws of nature of which we are speaking.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh my goodness, I understand what is meant by the error but I am asking you to explain how it is an error and what you use to support your conclusion it is one.

One more time, you based your argument merely upon a vague phrase in the Bible. If you want to prove your case you need to show that Jews and Christians think of "God the Father" in the same way.

 

[stevevw]

Would it be possible to have a mutually respectful discussion about the following:

How did the laws of nature, which are metaphysical, come into being from un-directed, random materialistic processes?

This is interesting. The laws of nature are what govern how everything operates.
“Some philosophers argue that even though the equations of physics work, they don’t represent reality. They’re just human inventions which impose artificial constructs on reality. As for the real reality, humans will never access it.”

Our universe could have had any set of laws that would have dictated how things worked. But we find ourselves in a finely tuned universe for life. You could have a bunch of matter and space and they would just be lumps of nothing doing nothing if it wasn't for the laws of nature. But the laws of nature could have been any number of regulations which may have caused things to operate differently that they do now. So how is it we end up with laws that are just right.

Everything begins at the very small level and in this world things operate differently to what we see in the world around us. The laws that operate what we see around us allow us to give some regularity to things. But in the quantum world it has been shown that there are many possibilities for what can happen. It is said that it is our minds that can make reality be when we observe something. So because it seems that it is a human who can put an interpretation on what are laws and how reality works I would say that laws are immaterial and metaphysical. We can understand the material world but we are yet to comprehend the mental world. What role it plays in how we see things. What role it plays in how it influences things.
http://www.scienceandreligiontoday.com/2010/04/15/where-do-the-laws-of-nature-come-from/

Here is a good video I found about natural laws. Some of the great minds like Sir Martin Rees, Steven Weinberg, Freeman Dyson, Peter Atkins, Lee Smolin, and Bas van Fraassen give their views on what they think natural laws are. It is very interesting.
http://www.closertotruth.com/series/where-do-the-laws-nature-come

 

[Oncedeceived]

You were just now discussing God as Father. That is a statement about God, isn't it?


If it were impossible to make any statement about God... it would show that any statements made about God are wrong.
But Christians - theists in general - don't think that it is impossible to make any statements about God... well, I don't think that!
I was talking about a "something that it is impossible to make any statements about"... I have no idea why you decided to connect that with God.

Yep, that's what I was talking about. Nothing else.

But there is this little problem: if it is impossible to make any statement about the "basis of existence", and you can make statements about God... then God cannot be the "basis of existence".

Where does it state that if you can make statements about the "basis of existence" it can not then be the "basis of existence"?


[/Quote]Consider the difference. Even if the description of God used in the Bible is a true description... is it a perfect description? Is the description in the Bible all that there is to God... is he nothing more, nothing else?[/Quote]
Does it matter?

Considering that there is no consistent non-materialistic worldview, and considering that is seems to be impossible for the critics of "materialism" to do their criticism without they themselves using a materialistic worldview... I'd say the odds are on the materialistic side.

There is no consistent materialistic worldview, I think the Christian worldview is completely consistent with the way the world should look if it is true.

So, if that makes sense, how about the argument I made using that term and definition?
I repeat:



Seems obvious to me.
Basically, every distinction we humans make is also based on language. Classification, categorization, abstraction. "A rose" is an abstraction. "This rose" and "that rose", referring to existing objects, would not be. "This rose" and "that rose" would always refer to two distinct objects. Even if the roses were completely identical, they would still not be the same flower, would they?

They would not, I am still not following...sorry. :/

Hm, strange... I didn't say anything about an underlying order. So I do not know what you assume to agree with.
But as for "an underlying order to all the universe"... yes, I think it is possible to make such a view consistent with Christianity. But I don't think such a view is consistent with Christian theology nor Christian cosmological philosophy.

I'm sorry? Maybe it is me today but I am not following your thought process here.

Well, I don't assume a reason nor an underlying order for either the laws of the universe nor logic... and I don't assume such exactly because it doesn't make sense neither in a "purely materialistic worldview" nor in a theistic worldview.

Would you agree that the laws of logic and the laws of nature do not depend on human minds to exist?

 

[Oncedeceived]

One more time, you based your argument merely upon a vague phrase in the Bible. If you want to prove your case you need to show that Jews and Christians think of "God the Father" in the same way.

The Old Testament is written by those very Jews that you think don't think of God as the Father. You haven't provided anything that would show that not to be the case of Old Testament time Jews.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The Old Testament is written by those very Jews that you think don't think of God as the Father. You haven't provided anything that would show that not to be the case of Old Testament time Jews.

You claimed that you showed the same beliefs. You failed. I explained your failure and at this point I will only repeat myself from now on.

 

[Loudmouth]

Our universe could have had any set of laws that would have dictated how things worked. But we find ourselves in a finely tuned universe for life.

What makes you think it was fine tuned for life instead of pretty stellar nebulae or black holes?

Also, why would you expect to find humans in a universe incapable of supporting humans? It seems that you are ignoring a rather large confirmation bias.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You claimed that you showed the same beliefs. You failed. I explained your failure and at this point I will only repeat myself from now on.

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

That is what you said. Not God the Father and I showed you that Jews indeed used God the Father in the Bible. There are many names in the Old Testament for God and it is one. Jesus was a Jew, was very proficient with the Old Testament and Jewish beliefs as He was a Jew. He used God the Father in many of His teachings. Now it is up to you to show how He was incorrect in using God the Father in His teachings and how He was wrong in how the Jews understood God the Father.

 

[[serious]]

I showed you that Jews indeed used God the Father in the Bible.

First off, let's define terms. There is a difference between "our father who art in heaven" and God the father as part of the trinity. When Jesus is called the Son of God, we accept that that means something more than when we are called the children of God, correct? (this is not to dismiss nontrinitarian views in when they do mean the same thing, just establishing your position)

You presented 3 passages that refer to God as the father of David, Israel, and the Jews respectively. Unless you are saying that Jesus is synonymous with David, Israel, and the jewish people generally, those verses do not support your point.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is what you said. Not God the Father and I showed you that Jews indeed used God the Father in the Bible. There are many names in the Old Testament for God and it is one. Jesus was a Jew, was very proficient with the Old Testament and Jewish beliefs as He was a Jew. He used God the Father in many of His teachings. Now it is up to you to show how He was incorrect in using God the Father in His teachings and how He was wrong in how the Jews understood God the Father.

And your error was to assume that is the same "God the Father" that Christians use. And yes, Jesus may have used that term, but again, that seems to be different from the way that you used it. Once again you are making the error of thinking that your version of the past is correct without any evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

First off, let's define terms. There is a difference between "our father who art in heaven" and God the father as part of the trinity. When Jesus is called the Son of God, we accept that that means something more than when we are called the children of God, correct? (this is not to dismiss nontrinitarian views in when they do mean the same thing, just establishing your position)

You presented 3 passages that refer to God as the father of David, Israel, and the Jews respectively. Unless you are saying that Jesus is synonymous with David, Israel, and the jewish people generally, those verses do not support your point.

I don't think she will let herself understand. I pointed out her equivocation error and have tried to explain it to her too many times and an explanation that she would normally understand is going over her head. That implies that an automatic denial reaction is occurring and there is no way around it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

First off, let's define terms. There is a difference between "our father who art in heaven" and God the father as part of the trinity. When Jesus is called the Son of God, we accept that that means something more than when we are called the children of God, correct? (this is not to dismiss nontrinitarian views in when they do mean the same thing, just establishing your position)

You presented 3 passages that refer to God as the father of David, Israel, and the Jews respectively. Unless you are saying that Jesus is synonymous with David, Israel, and the jewish people generally, those verses do not support your point.

Maybe it is me today but I am not getting your point. You do know that the Holy Spirit was spoken of in the Old Testament too. And Jesus:

The hope of a Messiah, a Redeemer, is at the heart of our People it is throughout our liturgy, literature, and binds us together throughout history. It is also our greatest gift to mankind.

ADONAI promised Avraham Avinu, before we were even a People, that through his offspring, all the nations of the world will be blessed (Genesis 12:3), and that our Messiah will be a light to the Gentiles, bringing salvation to the ends of the earth, through a new covenant (Isaiah 42 & 49, Jeremiah 31). This has certainly happened through Yeshua, whom the Gentiles call Jesus!

http://www.jewishvoice.org/who-is-yeshua/?referrer=https://www.google.com/

 

[Oncedeceived]

And your error was to assume that is the same "God the Father" that Christians use. And yes, Jesus may have used that term, but again, that seems to be different from the way that you used it. Once again you are making the error of thinking that your version of the past is correct without any evidence.

How did I use it that was different than how Jesus used it?

 

[Oncedeceived]

I don't think she will let herself understand. I pointed out her equivocation error and have tried to explain it to her too many times and an explanation that she would normally understand is going over her head. That implies that an automatic denial reaction is occurring and there is no way around it.

Thank you for your free psychological analysis, but you don't seem able to show how I am in error.