Where did the laws of nature come from?

[Oncedeceived]

Anything that comes out of the Hovinds' mouths.

Hovind is not the spokes person for Christianity or Christian views.

 

[HitchSlap]

Hovind is not the spokes person for Christianity or Christian views.

And neither are you.

 

[Oncedeceived]

And neither are you.

That is very true. However, you said that you dislike unreasonable explanations...which would those be then?

 

[HitchSlap]

That is very true. However, you said that you dislike unreasonable explanations...which would those be then?

All of them.

 

[stevevw]

What about the calculations that no Leprechauns are behind things, or no Invisible Pink Unicorns, no Spaghetti Monsters, or no Vishnu?

As I said we can use our minds as well to apply some reason to things. God doesn't ask us to go and blindly believe everything and anything without good cause. The conviction for many comes within them from God. So its like God is witnessing there before them. So to them they are not blindly believing because they have the Holy spirit who is active and real. Of course a disbeliever will think thats just another fairy tale. But the point is to the person who trusts in God it is real and this is part of their evidence to deferential between Pink Unicorns or Vishnu.

But the other thing is people use examples of things like Spaghetti Monsters without any foundation. Its a poor example and one that has become a cliche rather than proving that belief cant tell the difference between one kind of god or myth and another. Its quite obvious that the God of the bible and a Spaghetti Monsters are different. The God of the bible tells us He is the creator of that universe we are talking about and the spaghetti Monster tells us nothing. The God of the bible is followed by millions and millions of people and the spaghetti Monster has nothing.

So we can use reason and deduction here and see that there are some supports for why someone would believe in God and find the qualities for a creator in Him rather than a spaghetti Monster. We can make a case for God scientifically through the design of things in nature. It may not be the God of the Bible but it certainly wont be the spaghetti Monster or Invisible Pink Unicorns or Vishnu for that matter.Using things like the spaghetti Monster as an example of showing that people who believe in God being the creator of the universe is a logical fallacy.

I will agree that Christians tend to see things.

When all else fails revert to ridicule.

 

[[serious]]

What you have neglected to note is how life itself is no easy matter. There is no reason to suppose that life comes from non-life. It is simple to ascertain how a puddle came into existence, life not so much.

If the universe we live in could not produce life, it would kind of undercut the fine tuning argument, no? You seem to be forwarding two contradictory arguments.

 

[Willis Gravning]

That would be a positive belief in the supernatural, would it not?

I don't think that necessarily follows.

 

[Willis Gravning]

I take it you do, then.

No.

 

[HitchSlap]

No.

Your position is a classical argument from incredulity, something along the lines of, 'I don't have enough faith to believe all this arose from chance, therefore god,' or some permutation of this, right?

 

[Willis Gravning]

Your position is a classical argument from incredulity, something along the lines of, 'I don't have enough faith to believe all this arose from chance, therefore god,' or some permutation of this, right?

I respectfully disagree. The first clause is correct. 'I don't have enough faith to believe all this arose from chance,'. That is only a statement of a lack of belief. But I did not say, '...therefore God.' So I did not commit the logical fallacy which you mentioned. I'm just stealing a page from the atheist playbook.

 

[Oncedeceived]

All of them.

Really? That sounds more like you are dismissing out of hand rather than using any reason.

 

[Oncedeceived]

If the universe we live in could not produce life, it would kind of undercut the fine tuning argument, no? You seem to be forwarding two contradictory arguments.

How is that two contradictory arguments?

 

[HitchSlap]

Really? That sounds more like you are dismissing out of hand rather than using any reason.

Yep, I'm dismissing all unreasonable arguments as being unreasonable.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yep, I'm dismissing all unreasonable arguments as being unreasonable.

Considering you are unwilling to present these "unreasonable" arguments, it doesn't make a very good argument from your position.

 

[HitchSlap]

Considering you are unwilling to present these "unreasonable" arguments, it doesn't make a very good argument from your position.

I try to avoid making unreasonable arguments altogether.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I try to avoid making unreasonable arguments altogether.

You are making one now.

 

[HitchSlap]

You are making one now.

Please show how making a reasonable argument is somehow unreasonable.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Please show how making a reasonable argument is somehow unreasonable.

Where is the reasonable argument?

 

[HitchSlap]

Where is the reasonable argument?

You said it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You said it.

Let me clarify...where is your reasonable argument?