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.
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.
How could the laws be immaterial when they are derived from the material?
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.
------------
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
God, or gods. No evidence.
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.
Again, why is your belief that you have knowledge of the truth inversely proportional your apparent desire to take on the burden of evidence?
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.
No they want you to tell them what it IS, not what it ISN'T.
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,
What is Special Creation?
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.
Semantics - the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning.So you want to play semantics?
You said, "God of the gaps only allows that God possibly could have worked but does not provide any such evidence."Opinion.
Then one must be especially careful with linguistics and logic concerned with meaning.This is purely a argument based on semantics.
Your use of a word that lacks a positive ontology is problematic for your argument.2.immateriality - the quality of not being physical; not consisting of matterincorporeality
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.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.
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.
Awesome! How much longer and in what?
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.
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.
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.
That is totally illogical. Why would I deny the concept of a relationship?
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. 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.
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.Then why did the laws of gravitation turn out to be wrong?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?