• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Why ... (2)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,870.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
The interactions of the particles are the laws. If there was just one particle you wouldn't have any laws because nothing would happen. Once you have material particles interacting then something has to happen, and those are the laws.

That is false. The interactions of the particles are such as the particles act or interact due to the laws that are outside of the particles themselves. Particles are material, they interact according to specific laws. If there is something that regulates, prohibits or allows for anything to happen to a thing it is not that thing that regulates, prohibits or allows for that thing to happen.
 
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,870.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Loudmouth --

Oncedeceived is not arguing for Special Creation. For a while I was confused what her "deal" was. She was willing to concede almost everything science teaches, and yet she still insisted on coming in on the Creationist side.

------------

What is Special Creation?



I think I'm finally starting to see the light -- or in this case get a small glimmer of your problem with science. You seem mainly to be upset because when Occam's Razor is applied, Science does not retain, as an essential asumption, the Supernatural workings of God, and the ideal (and thus unobtainable) "pure" version of the laws of nature.

I am sorry, I know that you are trying really hard to understand my position, but I feel this is partly to do with the fact that everyone seems to want to place people/ideas/beliefs into a set little mold that every person of this set should be the same.

I don't have a problem with science whatsoever. Science should not be anything other than man observing, gaining knowledge, testing and applying that knowledge to better understand the universe we are in. It works. It only goes off track when "unfounded" assumptions are made. Then hopefully in the long run it should correct for those unfounded assumptions.

This conversation is not me vs. science or me vs. evolution as defined. This is about does the Christian worldview reflect the universe and life more cohesively or does materialism. In many, their view of materialism denies God's work in the Creation of the Universe. My deal is that I don't think that the materialistic/naturalistic worldview is cohesive or consistent within that framework and that it self-refutes.

It might help if you learn more about Plato's Cave, if only to give us a common frame of reference to discuss the differences between the ideal/supernatural and the natural, and how they can and can't influence one another.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato%27s_Cave

Philosophy Bro: Plato's "The Allegory of the Cave": A Summary

faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/cave.htm

Edited to add: Sorry about the links that didn't take as links. I still have trouble working the copy/paste on my mobile, and the formatting buttons are just plain wonky, as well.

Science is not the issue. I hope that you understand that now.:)
 
Upvote 0

CabVet

Question everything
Dec 7, 2011
11,738
176
Los Altos, CA
✟35,902.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
That is false. The interactions of the particles are such as the particles act or interact due to the laws that are outside of the particles themselves. Particles are material, they interact according to specific laws. If there is something that regulates, prohibits or allows for anything to happen to a thing it is not that thing that regulates, prohibits or allows for that thing to happen.

You don't get it, do you? Particles don't interact due to the laws, rather, the laws are the descriptions of the interactions. Scientific laws have nothing to do with human "laws". Scientific laws don't "regulate" or "prohibit" anything.
 
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,870.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
You don't get it, do you? Particles don't interact due to the laws, rather, the laws are the descriptions of the interactions. Scientific laws have nothing to do with human "laws". Scientific laws don't "regulate" or "prohibit" anything.

You don't get it. You are correct, Scientific laws are descriptions of the universal laws that are absolute. Human laws are not scientific laws. Scientific laws do not regulate or prohibit anything but universal laws do. Universal laws are not scientific laws, scientific laws are based upon universal laws.
 
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,870.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
From what I can see, Oncedeceived is still arguing for the separate creation of kinds and against universal common descent through evolutionary mechanisms (with God involved in some undetermined way). If I am wrong then I would hope that Oncedeceived would correct me on this.

Lets see if we can create a meeting of the minds so to speak. Are there set and separate types of creatures on the earth? For instance are there Kingdoms? Could we say that these Kingdoms refer to a separation of creatures into groups of kinds? So when the Bible says Kinds, what does it mean? I don't know and either do you. We do however know that there are separate "kinds" and in that Kingdom for instance they are not interchangeable.

Did life begin with a common ancestor? I don't know and either do you. If it did then it would mean only that this common ancestor evolved from something other than itself or it simply just existed. We know that according to the law of cause and effect, it had to be caused by something. Now I claim that it was God creating all life forms. Can I prove it? No. I can however give supportive evidence that He could have and according to the Christian worldview, it is a more consistent argument than a naturalist one.
 
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,870.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
insignificance
meaninglessness
nothing
nothingness
zero


imperceptible
dishonest
false
intangible
invalid
irrelevant
unimportant
unsubstantial


spiritualism (whatever that means)

abstemious
mental
thrifty
ungreedy

(from thesaurus.com)



I asked, "Can you define what you mean by "immaterial", other than by telling me what it isn't?"

To rephrase, do you have a positive ontology for this "thing" that is "not material"?

So you want to play semantics?
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,143
Visit site
✟98,025.00
Faith
Agnostic
Lets see if we can create a meeting of the minds so to speak. Are there set and separate types of creatures on the earth? For instance are there Kingdoms? Could we say that these Kingdoms refer to a separation of creatures into groups of kinds? So when the Bible says Kinds, what does it mean? I don't know and either do you. We do however know that there are separate "kinds" and in that Kingdom for instance they are not interchangeable.

There are a lot of terms that need to be defined before we can have a meeting of the minds. For example, I would say that humans and chimps are separate species because there is no sharing of DNA between the populations. However, they are still linked by common ancestry and they are part of a larger nested hierarchy. Kingdoms are no different. You can put all of life into a single kind based on shared features.

If you think there are separate kinds that are not linked by common ancestry then we need someway of determine what these kinds are, and more to the point you need to explain why separately created kinds would necessarily fall into a twin nested hierarchy.

Did life begin with a common ancestor? I don't know and either do you.

Given the nested hierarchy and shared features, the evidence is strongly on the side of all life sharing a common ancestor. What evidence do you have that kinds were created separately?

If it did then it would mean only that this common ancestor evolved from something other than itself or it simply just existed. We know that according to the law of cause and effect, it had to be caused by something.

What scientific theory would this NOT apply to? There has to be an ultimate source of matter, so does this mean that we have to chuck scientific based chemistry? Do we need to know the ultimate origin of life in order to use fingerprints in forensic science?

I don't understand why creationists are so obsessed with ultimate causes with we are dealing with proximal effects. It is some kind of vapor lock or something. We don't have to understand the ultimate origin of matter in order to understand what is going on in the world around us.

Now I claim that it was God creating all life forms. Can I prove it? No. I can however give supportive evidence that He could have and according to the Christian worldview, it is a more consistent argument than a naturalist one.

So what is it? How do you explain the twin nested hierarchy?
 
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,870.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
God, or gods. No evidence.

Opinion.

Only in a strawman "materialist worldview" that uses definitions of "material" and "immaterial" of your own liking. Your argument gets no traction if we cannot agree on what the words you are using mean.

This is purely a argument based on semantics.

2.immateriality - the quality of not being physical; not consisting of matterincorporeality

Again, why is your belief that you have knowledge of the truth inversely proportional your apparent desire to take on the burden of evidence?

The discussion, and perhaps you were not reading the thread, was about what some of the naturalists in thread claimed as being proof of God not existing or creating the universe and its life forms. That only evolution would or could explain it. I was pointing out the two varying points of view or worldviews carry different self proclaiming "truths" or assumptions and I was using this to show how materialism is not consistent in that way.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,143
Visit site
✟98,025.00
Faith
Agnostic
You don't get it. You are correct, Scientific laws are descriptions of the universal laws that are absolute.

That's not quite it, either. Scientific laws are usually more of an observation than anything else, and sometimes we get new observations that change the laws. For example, Newton's Laws of Gravitation fit all of the observations made for 300 years or so until someone noticed that it did not fit the orbit of Mercury.

Overall, the word "law" really isn't used that much in science anymore. It is more of a holdover from Victorian times.

Human laws are not scientific laws. Scientific laws do not regulate or prohibit anything but universal laws do. Universal laws are not scientific laws, scientific laws are based upon universal laws.

Both legal laws and scientific laws are still human products. The universe just acts like the universe will act. We are the ones who construct scientific laws to describe how the universe acts.
 
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,870.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
No they want you to tell them what it IS, not what it ISN'T.

LOL the definition is that it isn't. I provided that from the dictionary.


im•ma•te•ri•al•i•ty (ˌɪm əˌtɪər iˈæl ɪ ti)

n., pl. -ties. 1. the state or character of being immaterial.
2. something immaterial.
 
Upvote 0

Oncedeceived

Senior Veteran
Jul 11, 2003
21,214
629
✟66,870.00
Gender
Female
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
That's not quite it, either. Scientific laws are usually more of an observation than anything else, and sometimes we get new observations that change the laws. For example, Newton's Laws of Gravitation fit all of the observations made for 300 years or so until someone noticed that it did not fit the orbit of Mercury.

Overall, the word "law" really isn't used that much in science anymore. It is more of a holdover from Victorian times.



Both legal laws and scientific laws are still human products. The universe just acts like the universe will act. We are the ones who construct scientific laws to describe how the universe acts.

I totally agree with everything but the last statement. The laws are known to be True, mathematical, stable, absolute, and universal. How the universe will act is in fact the laws of the universe.
 
Upvote 0

OllieFranz

Senior Member
Jul 2, 2007
5,328
351
✟31,048.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
What is Special Creation?

Special Creation is what most Creationists advocate: God created the various "kinds" of living things separately ("specially") during the six days described in Genesis 1, and if science does not agree, then the scientists did something wrong. Some of the posters here are still posting what you see as irrelevant challenges to you because they think that you advocate that kind of Creationism.


I am sorry, I know that you are trying really hard to understand my position, but I feel this is partly to do with the fact that everyone seems to want to place people/ideas/beliefs into a set little mold that every person of this set should be the same.

I don't have a problem with science whatsoever. Science should not be anything other than man observing, gaining knowledge, testing and applying that knowledge to better understand the universe we are in. It works. It only goes off track when "unfounded" assumptions are made. Then hopefully in the long run it should correct for those unfounded assumptions.

This conversation is not me vs. science or me vs. evolution as defined. This is about does the Christian worldview reflect the universe and life more cohesively or does materialism. In many, their view of materialism denies God's work in the Creation of the Universe. My deal is that I don't think that the materialistic/naturalistic worldview is cohesive or consistent within that framework and that it self-refutes.



Science is not the issue. I hope that you understand that now.:)

I agree that science is not your issue. Your issue is philosophy. That is why I suggested that we discuss the issue after refreshing ourselves on the philosophical study of Plato's Cave. Whether or not God is behind and sustaining the laws of nature is a question for the philosophy of science. Not for the application of science to immediate real-world problems. That would be Engineering.

An engineer wants to know his bridge won't collapse. He needs to know the tensile and compressive strengths of his materials, and the load the bridge can be expected to bear.

A scientist studies nature to discover how the various parts of it interact. He is the one who works out, empirically, and inductively, the formulas that the engineer applies to find his materials' properties. A scientist's education may include a class on the history of science, and another on the philosophy of science, but they would be part of an overview. Most of the work would be nuts and bolts observation and experimentation.

It is possible to do the nuts and bolts work while remaining skeptical or neutral about God's role in sustaining the laws we discover (agnostic). However, the antagonism between religion and science began entirely on the side of religion, especially organized religion. Despite his trouble with the Church, Galileo continued to believe in God. Isaac Newton also believed in God, as did most Western scientists.

The "controversy" around Evolution disagreeing with Special Creation stepped up the antagonism between the faithful and earnest scientists, especially agnostic/atheistic scientists. This is why, in an effort to "fight back" many atheistic scientists express their personal opinion that the supernatural in general, and God in particular, does not exist as if it were incontrovertible truth.
 
Upvote 0

Davian

fallible
May 30, 2011
14,100
1,181
West Coast of Canada
✟46,103.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Ignostic
Marital Status
Married
So you want to play semantics?
Semantics - the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning.

Is that not the game already in progress?
You said, "God of the gaps only allows that God possibly could have worked but does not provide any such evidence."

God or gods. No evidence.

I am in agreement.

As for my opinion about gods, it is open to falsification.
This is purely a argument based on semantics.
Then one must be especially careful with linguistics and logic concerned with meaning.
2.immateriality - the quality of not being physical; not consisting of matterincorporeality
Your use of a word that lacks a positive ontology is problematic for your argument.

Of what use is your strawman argument?
The discussion, and perhaps you were not reading the thread, was about what some of the naturalists in thread claimed as being proof of God not existing or creating the universe and its life forms. That only evolution would or could explain it. I was pointing out the two varying points of view or worldviews carry different self proclaiming "truths" or assumptions and I was using this to show how materialism is not consistent in that way.
Sure. But it is a dead end, as I have said repeatedly. Inconsistencies in an other's worldview is not evidence for gods. Or your God.

But, my question is not about the ball in play, but is more a comment for you in general: why is your belief that you have knowledge of the truth inversely proportional your apparent desire to take on the burden of evidence?
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,143
Visit site
✟98,025.00
Faith
Agnostic
The discussion, and perhaps you were not reading the thread, was about what some of the naturalists in thread claimed as being proof of God not existing or creating the universe and its life forms. That only evolution would or could explain it.

Evolution is the only coherent explanation. When a forensic scientist finds a fingerprint at a crime scene they can not say with 100% certainty that a Leprechaun did not plant that fingerprint instead of the suspect. The same forensic scientist can not say with 100% certainty that God did not plant the suspect's DNA at the crime scene. If you were on a jury, would you take this as a reason to reject fingerprint and DNA evidence in a murder trial?

I was pointing out the two varying points of view or worldviews carry different self proclaiming "truths" or assumptions and I was using this to show how materialism is not consistent in that way.

I would say that you are completely inconsistent in how you treat evidence.
 
Upvote 0

Archaeopteryx

Wanderer
Jul 1, 2007
22,229
2,608
✟78,240.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Awesome! How much longer and in what?

In the early stages currently, in clinical neuroscience.

The laws, of the kind that we are talking about, are outside of the relationships in any phenomenon. Relationships are governed by them, not they by them.

I'm not sure if that makes sense. For some reason you are separating "the laws" from the relationships.

If logic were mere descriptions of anything, whether that be relationships or propositions they would be subjective and not universal in nature. They would not be consistent nor would they be evident in the universe as a whole. Descriptions are man's answer to observation, relationship is something in relation to another in that each has a connection to the other. The laws of mathematics for instance, is a relationship to reality in that it is a true measure of that reality but it is not the reality in itself.

Again, I'm not sure where you get this idea from. What makes you think that if logic is a description of relationships among propositions that it would necessarily be subjective?

So logic is primarily the "logical" form those relationships take, however that is circular due to the fact that the logic must be present prior to the logical forms the relationships take.

Ummm... why?

That is totally illogical. Why would I deny the concept of a relationship?

You are claiming the concept 'relationship' is not possible in a material universe.
 
Upvote 0

Cheeky Monkey

Newbie
Jun 11, 2013
1,083
14
✟23,848.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
That is false. The interactions of the particles are such as the particles act or interact due to the laws that are outside of the particles themselves. Particles are material, they interact according to specific laws. If there is something that regulates, prohibits or allows for anything to happen to a thing it is not that thing that regulates, prohibits or allows for that thing to happen.

It's from observing regular interactions that we come up with our descriptions called laws or principles. The interactions aren't governed by laws, regular interactions are the laws.
 
Upvote 0

Davian

fallible
May 30, 2011
14,100
1,181
West Coast of Canada
✟46,103.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Ignostic
Marital Status
Married
You don't get it. You are correct, Scientific laws are descriptions of the universal laws that are absolute. Human laws are not scientific laws. Scientific laws do not regulate or prohibit anything but universal laws do. Universal laws are not scientific laws, scientific laws are based upon universal laws.

That's not quite it, either. Scientific laws are usually more of an observation than anything else, and sometimes we get new observations that change the laws. For example, Newton's Laws of Gravitation fit all of the observations made for 300 years or so until someone noticed that it did not fit the orbit of Mercury.

Overall, the word "law" really isn't used that much in science anymore. It is more of a holdover from Victorian times.



Both legal laws and scientific laws are still human products. The universe just acts like the universe will act. We are the ones who construct scientific laws to describe how the universe acts.

I totally agree with everything but the last statement. The laws are known to be True, mathematical, stable, absolute, and universal. How the universe will act is in fact the laws of the universe.

Then why did the laws of gravitation turn out to be wrong?
Oncedeceived is playing a poor game of semantics here. You are using the typical "law", a scientific generalization based on factual observations (dictionary.com). She has slipped is this 'universal law' and defined them as "...known to be True, mathematical, stable, absolute, and universal". How she was able to verify any of that is a mystery. However, the capitalized "True" makes me very wary. Beware of dogma, it says to me. :)

I prophesize that the "universal laws" will be equated with or require a god (her god) within a page or so.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.