Origin of God's Morality.

[Archaeopteryx]

Full Definition of system

1. 1: a regularly interacting or interdependent group of items forming a unified whole <a number system>: asa (1) : a group of interacting bodies under the influence of related forces <a gravitationalsystem> (2) : an assemblage of substances that is in or tends to equilibrium <a thermodynamic system>b (1) : a group of body organs that together perform one or more vital functions <the digestive system> (2) : the body considered as a functional unitc : a group of related natural objects or forces <a river system>d : a group of devices or artificial objects or an organization forming a network especially for distributing something or serving a common purpose <a telephone system> <a heatingsystem> <a highway system> <a computer system>e : a major division of rocks usually larger than a series and including all formed during a period or eraf : a form of social, economic, or political organization or practice <the capitalist system>
   
   
2. 2: an organized set of doctrines, ideas, or principles usually intended to explain the arrangement or working of a systematic whole <the Newtonian system of mechanics>
   
   
3. 3a : an organized or established procedure <the touch system of typing>b : a manner of classifying, symbolizing, or schematizing <a taxonomic system> <the decimal system>
   
   
4. 4: harmonious arrangement or pattern : order <bring system out of confusion — Ellen Glasgow>
   
   
5. 5: an organized society or social situation regarded as stultifying or oppressive : establishment 2 —usually used with the

Show me a system by the definition above, that's not designed.

Notice that the definition does not entail design? It allows for some systems to be designed, but does not specify design as an essential criterion.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Simple Definition of law

• : the whole system or set of rules made by the government of a town, state, country, etc.

In other words, laws are systems made by someone.

Another person who has a faint grasp of polysemy. See this entry.

 

[civilwarbuff]

I did provide the full definition. You never answered my question about polysemy.

No, I believe you made a reference to monosemic....don't recall polysemic anywhere....

 

[civilwarbuff]

Where did I say that it happened by chance? You are falling into the same false dichotomy again.

Randomness if it makes you feel happier.....

 

[Archaeopteryx]

No, I believe you made a reference to monosemic....don't recall polysemic anywhere....

You don't know the relation between the two?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Randomness if it makes you feel happier.....

Nope, because you clearly haven't been paying attention at all.

 

[civilwarbuff]

You don't know the relation between the two?

You wanted a reply to a word you never made a question about, what am I supposed to think?

 

[civilwarbuff]

Nope, because you clearly haven't been paying attention at all.

Then why don't you tell me what word would tickle your fancy and I will use it......

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You wanted a reply to a word you never made a question about, what am I supposed to think?

My question was whether you understood that words can have multiple meanings.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Then why don't you tell me what word would tickle your fancy and I will use it......

I already did: systematic. You insist on (1) conflating "systematic" with "designed", and (2) presenting the same false dichotomy all over again: "if it isn't designed, then it must be random!"

 

[civilwarbuff]

My question was whether you understood that words can have multiple meanings.

Yes, I do but what I don't do is pick and choose the meaning that I think will best prove my point. I choose the meaning based on the context of what is being discussed.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Another person who has a faint grasp of polysemy. See this entry.

Not really. We consider "Nature" or "natural law" to come from God.

 

[Davian]

The fact that the primary founder of the Big Bang theory was a scientist by profession and a priest by vocation says that he believed that God is the Prime Mover and initiated the Big Bang.

I didn't ask what he believed.

Again, Catholicism doesn't subscribe to young earth creationism, though we do believe God could do it in His own way, in His own time.

I didn't ask for you to speak on behalf of any particular group.

There are Bible verses which admit that God is outside of time, as we know it.

Sure, and there are Bible verses that state that the Earth is immovable, and look how wrong that is. Not a source of scientific information, I have seen you say.

I asked, do you uncritically accept the big bang cosmological model, and the billions of years required for the formation of the heavier elements, then our solar system, followed by the eventual cooling of our planet that permitted the process of life to begin some 3.8 billion years ago? If not, where do you feel it is inaccurate?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Not really. We consider "Nature" or "natural law" to come from God.

Yes, you keep repeating variations of that same claim, but you stop short of actually showing how you reasoned to that conclusion.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Yes, I do but what I don't do is pick and choose the meaning that I think will best prove my point. I choose the meaning based on the context of what is being discussed.

And yet you ignored the context in which I was clearly using the word in favour of another context altogether.

 

[bhsmte]

Are your eyes open? Good! There's the evidence!

LOL

 

[bhsmte]

Because everything is designed.

Evidence?

 

[bhsmte]

Just follow the thread up......

Dont see it. Give me a number.

 

[Root of Jesse]

I didn't ask what he believed.

Snark

I didn't ask for you to speak on behalf of any particular group.

Snark

Sure, and there are Bible verses that state that the Earth is immovable, and look how wrong that is. Not a source of scientific information, I have seen you say.

Name them, please, and tell me what kind of book they exist in?

I asked, do you uncritically accept the big bang cosmological model, and the billions of years required for the formation of the heavier elements, then our solar system, followed by the eventual cooling of our planet that permitted the process of life to begin some 3.8 billion years ago? If not, where do you feel it is inaccurate?

I, and you, for that matter, do not know for sure how long a time the process from then to now took. We can speculate, and I personally believe it's been billions of years. So did Lemaitre.
For the record, it does seem like you try to pit those who believe in young earth creationism against those who believe in the Big Bang. As if there is a dichotomy between the Genesis account of creation and the scientific account of how it all began. I don't see any dichotomy at all. They, even, the YECreationists might believe there's a dichotomy. But there isn't.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Evidence?

Name something that isn't designed?