Oh my! I am betting that I understand science far better than you ever will.
Do you want to discuss basic science and how we know what we know?
There is no scientific evidence for a designer. That is why creationists always lose lawsuits. Judges, even conservative Christian ones, are experts in evidence and can see that there is none for your beliefs.
What makes you think that atheists believe that life is random? That is the claim of a person with no understanding of the sciences at all. You already lost by making such a claim. I would suggest that we go over the basics of science and work up from there. When you do not know what you are arguing against it is very hard to win.And there I was with, 'The fear of God is the beginning of knowledge'.
By all means. Let's start with the atheist's precept that you and I are just a couple of random electrified meatsacks. Please proceed to elaborate on the building project for your swamp-castle of epistemology.
So what are the chances and confidence intervals that you and I got here by chance? Know of any castles that built themselves?
What makes you think that atheists believe that life is random? That is the claim of a person with no understanding of the sciences at all. You already lost by making such a claim. I would suggest that we go over the basics of science and work up from there. When you do not know what you are arguing against it is very hard to win.
Why do you even say "chance"? Only the terribly ignorant make that claim.There are options other than chance or design? Really, do tell.
Apologies if my explanation was not clear. Perhaps Subduction Zone's explanations might be clearer in posts 161-164. If our explanations do not make sense, then you can work it out for yourself.Certainly looks like it took a picture of the whole globe? Or, did they crop it to make it look like a globe instead of showing the entire image?
With all due respect, your argument doesn't make sense to me.
Cropping would be disingenuous. But they are not cropped. Realising that a low earth orbit satellite is not far enough away to see the whole earth explains why you see what you see.Again... taken from far away or up close, if you're going to print a pic as "the globe" then you are being disingenuous if you crop it into the shape of a circle and leave parts out.
This is what would be expected.Nice try... both are presented as a picture of the "globe" in it's entirety and.... circular in shape and .... the continents are different sizes in percentage of the surface.
Why do you even say "chance"? Only the terribly ignorant make that claim.
If you want an explanation you do have some background learning to do first, otherwise the explanation would go over your head. Are you game? I will take my time and go over concepts with you.
Here is one simple example that might lead to your learning how you are wrong when you say "chance". When you drop a twenty pound rock over your bare foot is it chance that makes you almost immediately regret doing so?
I'm not responsible for your prejudices.
So how did the natural laws come into being: design or chance?
Come on, put up or shut up.
No prejudice on my part. Why the false accusation?
As to your question about how the laws of nature arose sometimes the correct answer is "We don't know yet".
But we do know some things. Such as the shape of the Earth.
Because I'm terribly ignorant, obviously.
Correction, you don't even know if it's knowable.
Why not use your God-given powers of deduction? Law ergo lawmaker. Book ergo author. Temple ergo builder. And so on.
Listen, here is knowledge:
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of people who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, that is, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, being understood by what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their reasonings, and their senseless hearts were darkened.
He who thinks he stands best beware lest he falls.
There is no need for a correction. That was covered in the post. We may know sometime in the future. We may not. It still makes your "chance" claim refuted since you cannot show that it was chance.
Because there probably is not a God. There is no reliable evidence for a God, just poor arguments. And worse yet you just made an equivocation fallacy. You used two different meanings of "laws". Human laws are proscriptive. Natural laws are descriptive. No author is needed for descriptive laws.
Nope, that is just a quote from the Bible. If you want to claim that it is "knowledge" you would have to prove that the Bible is true. Something that no Christian has ever done.
I see that you ran away from the offer to help you to learn. Ignorance is the best defense against reality.
Wow! You were just corrected on this error and then you repeated it. Amazing!Show me a law that makes itself, a house that builds itself, a book that writes itself. It doesn't happen by chance, period. That's science. If you have a hypothesis that it all occurred by a happy concatenation of coincidences, by all means prove it with observation and experiment. Didn't think so.
My hypothesis, on the other hand, is easily proven: put one brick upon another, repeat, and presto! magically a structure manifests.
It's like explaining colour to a blind man.
The atheist's problem is that there's no foundation on which to build, everything is conditional and impermanent, any theory is only as good as the next data dump to flush it away. McScientism lol, really atheists are just the devil's marginally useful idiots.
If you can't answer a simple question - design or chance - then what value could you possibly have to impart? As for me, I can boast in the absolute certitude of the eternal power of God.
And as to earthly matters - flat, stationary, enclosed. Prove me wrong, Mr Accidental Tourist.
Wow! You were just corrected on this error and then you repeated it. Amazing!
Did you want a serious discussion or are you just admitting that you are wrong by refusing to be serious?
So more false claims. "Scientism" is a claim of the ignorant. Scientism is the improper application of the scientific method and that has not been done here.
Unfortunately you do not appear to know enough to ask proper questions. When you ask bogus questions I will point out your errors. And you may be certain in your belief in God. But then a child.may be certain that two plus two equals five. That does not make him right.
Oh that has already been done. Unfortunately you lack the basic high school level of science and math to understand how this has been done.
The question is are you willing to learn? If so I can teach you how to test the world yourself to see if it is flat or not.
Ah, the secret doctrine, that only you know. Seems heresy has been found in me.
Design or chance? If you answer 'Don't know', then your 'science' can go no further.
Let's get the basics straight first. How do you account for reason? Is it by chance or design? Can you reason your way out of a paper bag? Let me guess - 'We don't know yet'.
Scientism are claims that have the appearance of being scientific, but lack any real basis. Like E=MC2. Or 'The earth is a spinning spaceball'.
I'm not certain of my belief in God, I'm certain of God's existence, without which truth is impossible.
It's all just hot air coming from you, not a sliver of substance.
I can learn nothing from an atheist except from the opportunity to practice patience and forbearance, which are gifts from God, and in which I'm very poor. Lord have mercy.
Nothing secret about it. You made the error of using an equivocation fallacy. That is where one uses a word that has two different characters meanings, in this case "law" and try to argue using the wrong definition.
This was already answered. Neither. You are now using a false dichotomy.
Wrong on all counts. Just because you do not understand something does not mean that the concepts lack a real basis. If you want to learn you should be able to. Fear will probably prevent you from learning. You clearly do not lack intelligence. For now you should lay off the false accusations. They are technically violations of the Ninth Commandment.
Your belief is not a rational or even logical one since you apparently cannot support it aside from claiming that God has to exist.
You cannot learn because you are afraid. Fear causes you to make false claims about others. If you are so certain that God exists you should be eager to learn some of the details of how he made our universe.
Okay, I like to focus on one topic at a time. You also have to acknowledge your errors when you make them. When it comes to your question "Chance or design" the answer will almost always be that that question has a false dichotomy and is therefore an improper question. The only answer that can be given is that the evidence indicates that it is neither.Now now. Newton's so called law of inertia describes a real natural process. Beyond the description is an intangible yet comprehensible law, rule or thing. Did that occur by chance or design?
Lol the question is not rendered false by your inability to answer it.
What false accusations, will the hypothetical spaceball sue me for defamation now? The fear of God is the beginning of knowledge.
The skies proclaim the handiwork of God. Again, what do you see when you look in the mirror - just a random electrified meatsack held together by sheer force of will lol? Design ergo designer.
Help me Obi-Wan, you're our only hope. Listen, I was an atheist for the worst part of 40 years. So I'm not unfamiliar with the theory. But once I started to look into it, putting aside prejudices, I found that it was all illusion, and ultimately, totally surprisingly, it led to the foot of the Cross, where God changed my heart and mind. As an atheist one has such a denuded, limited and myopic concept of what truth even means.
The offer's there - Jesus comes to give life, and in abundance. But the doctor only comes for the sick, the healthy have no need.
They look like ghosts. The deer in the headlights. Stuck between a rock and a hard place. Deceived, yet under oath to secrecy. Realizing all those "rehearsals" were used as actual footage, while they did some laps round the earth as ISS does.Do you think that's why they looked so depressed in the press conference afterwards?
They look like ghosts. The deer in the headlights. Stuck between a rock and a hard place. Deceived, yet under oath to secrecy. Realizing all those "rehearsals" were used as actual footage, while they did some laps round the earth as ISS does.