Why ... (2)

[Oncedeceived]

You initially claimed the reason it worked was because of the information in organisms. I'm trying to figure how you detect and quantify this information.

This is my initial claim:

I don't know why you can't understand that God created a way for life forms to adaptation and change for the survival of those creatures. Those life forms evolved and changed aided by the mechanisms that were instilled by Him. We see the result of that in our discoveries. Man then claimed that rather than God who created and instilled this ability in His creatures, it was a mindless naturalistic process. The reason it works is that the information is there, it is just man that is doing the describing. That is why the ToE has had to "evolve" itself in the face of challenges and anomalies that present themselves in the new discoveries.

I wasn't speaking about the information of the organism.

 

[lasthero]

This is my initial claim:

I don't know why you can't understand that God created a way for life forms to adaptation and change for the survival of those creatures. Those life forms evolved and changed aided by the mechanisms that were instilled by Him. We see the result of that in our discoveries. Man then claimed that rather than God who created and instilled this ability in His creatures, it was a mindless naturalistic process. The reason it works is that the information is there, it is just man that is doing the describing. That is why the ToE has had to "evolve" itself in the face of challenges and anomalies that present themselves in the new discoveries.

I wasn't speaking about the information of the organism.

Oh, I see. What's wrong with the way man describes fossils and DNA?

 

[StormanNorman]

This is my initial claim:

I don't know why you can't understand that God created a way for life forms to adaptation and change for the survival of those creatures. Those life forms evolved and changed aided by the mechanisms that were instilled by Him. We see the result of that in our discoveries. Man then claimed that rather than God who created and instilled this ability in His creatures, it was a mindless naturalistic process. The reason it works is that the information is there, it is just man that is doing the describing. That is why the ToE has had to "evolve" itself in the face of challenges and anomalies that present themselves in the new discoveries.

I wasn't speaking about the information of the organism.

Most major scientific theories that I am aware of do evolve and adjust as new evidence is discovered, tested, etc. That's called science.

 

[Oncedeceived]

No, gaps do not make it inconsistent. Inconsistencies make for inconsistency.

This is not a gap, which again shows that you are unable or unwilling to actually understand the point being made. Intelligence and logic are foundational necessities for any form of discovery or knowing. In the materialistic worldview, there is no way that intelligence arose from non-intelligent processes. It is not just a gap in your knowledge, it is that knowledge/intelligence could not arise at all.

Anyway, what if I named the gap "Fred"?

You can name your little friend what ever you wish.

Scientists - plural. And we are not talking about what it true, but what works. It means that they have terms that they can agree on and work with.

Yes, it was plural in my sentence but I guess I was typing to fast.

Yes, indeed they do. Regardless, it is a sub-fallacy (if such a thing existed) of appeal to popularity. Language and communication in itself would arise from intelligence which leaves you in the same predicament.

What works and what is true may be separate entities but the naturalist claims that it is the only thing that is relied upon when seeking knowledge and knowing what we know. If what we know can not be relied upon to be based in truth, your thoughts about what is reality means nothing more than my thoughts about reality and neither would reflect truth.

It would seem that your demand of evidence for anything would in the end mean nothing anyway. It may work in that it may supply or appear to lack evidence but evidence has no absolute value.

How does that work?

Provide an answer to each of the following questions:
1) If gravity is considered to behave like a wave/particle, how fast does it propagate?

2) If gravity was created by a god, and is considered to behave like a wave/particle, how fast does it propagate?

Of what significance is question #2?

Drop the worldview crutch.

What word would you like to use to replace worldview?

You question of course is designed to show God is unnecessary, but for gravity to be observed to behave in any way, to understand the speed of it or anything else, one needs intelligence to arrive at such conclusions. This brings us to the point at hand, how does intelligence arise from non-intelligent processes?

As I was with you.

It was you who asked as if you had an example in regard to the question.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Most major scientific theories that I am aware of do evolve and adjust as new evidence is discovered, tested, etc. That's called science.

When you change the mode of something that is said to be the entire premise, how do you separate that from falsifying a theory then? Anything that is newly discovered and that can be tested can be just said to be adjusting the theory. It becomes unfalsifiable.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Oh, I see. What's wrong with the way man describes fossils and DNA?

Got to love ya.

 

[Oncedeceived]

"Laws" are scientific generalizations based on factual observations (dictionary.com). They are created by humans.

Please define what you mean by "law" in this context.

Laws of nature are those configurations of the universe that provide the absolute constants of the universal system. The force of gravity, time, the laws of physics, laws of mathematics, the laws of logic. Not man made laws about the laws themselves. The rules that the universe is governed by.

If you mean something else, which I think you do, and I cannot provide an explanation, will that qualify as a "gap"?

It is not a gap, it is an absolute necessity to the existence of the universe and the life therein. There is no reasonable explanation given the purely naturalistic origin of the universe for these.

A presupposition then. Do you scrutinize your own presuppositions, or just others'?

Of course. It has been a process.

Again, not the subject, the person. Can you provide an example where a "materialist" - a scientist - claimed that evidence was not necessary in support of their scientific theory? A peer reviewed paper, published work, etc?

I'll think about it.

Missed in your response to my post was: could present your evidence in the form of a testable, falsifiable hypothesis?

Which post?

 

[Oncedeceived]

I think it would be better to first determine if it is not you yourself that is in the box.

Both, actually. While difficult, it is possible to detect within oneself where self-deception is occurring.

Cute.

I have not left the game in progress.

Ah, that explains a lot.

Whoa - slow down with the presuppositions there.

I did not mention "being", or what form it takes, or where it might be located, or that it be proven objectively. The point is to explore if this an actual relationship, or one that is imagined.

I am going to come back to this...if I forget please do remind me because I have quite a bit to say about this and I am not sure how long I have tonight to post.

I said, is there one Christian that can show, in an objective manner, that they have a relationship with something outside of their own imagination?

See above.

 

[StormanNorman]

When you change the mode of something that is said to be the entire premise, how do you separate that from falsifying a theory then? Anything that is newly discovered and that can be tested can be just said to be adjusting the theory. It becomes unfalsifiable.

It depends on the evidence and how much it disagrees or is contrary to the current evidence. Sometimes it is so drastic that you simply can't just adjust the existing theory.

 

[Oncedeceived]

It depends on the evidence and how much it disagrees or is contrary to the current evidence. Sometimes it is so drastic that you simply can't just adjust the existing theory.

I think that is true with most scientific hypothesis's that are not dealing with ToE. ToE has become so intrenched in the scientific psyche that it has become a hindrance to original thought. That is my opinion of course.

 

[StormanNorman]

I think that is true with most scientific hypothesis's that are not dealing with ToE. ToE has become so intrenched in the scientific psyche that it has become a hindrance to original thought. That is my opinion of course.

We do have a right to our opinions, but, in the case, mine doesn't agree with yours. The real problem (from your perspective) is that the evidence for evolution is so overwhelming. There is just so much evidence across a wide range of science disciplines and independent lines of inquiry. It's actually rather remarkable. Now, it's not alone; there are other entrenched theories like the theory of gravity, etc. And I don't think that that is as much a reflection on the scientific psyche as it is a reflection on the strength of the theories themselves.

 

[Davian]

This is not a gap, which again shows that you are unable or unwilling to actually understand the point being made.

Perhaps it was your use of the word "gap" that confused the issue.

Intelligence and logic are foundational necessities for any form of discovery or knowing. In the materialistic worldview, there is no way that intelligence arose from non-intelligent processes. It is not just a gap in your knowledge, it is that knowledge/intelligence could not arise at all.

Another gap. Do you know of anyone that adheres to that worldview that you just described? I don't.

How was it established that knowledge/intelligence could not arise at all?

You can name your little friend what ever you wish.

Great. In my worldview, Fred Ovthigaps explains everything not addressed by science. Knowledge? Intelligence? Gravity? Abiogenesis? No problem. I believe Fred can explain it.

Please note that Fred Ovthigaps is not available at this time to join this forum, and is unreachable by regular means, but rest assured, he can explain everything. It's all in a book somewhere.

Yes, it was plural in my sentence but I guess I was typing to fast.

Yes, indeed they do. Regardless, it is a sub-fallacy (if such a thing existed) of appeal to popularity.

No, through scientific methodology and common definitions of terms, they can reach scientific consensus, not to be confused with consensus of opinion (and the appeal to popularity).

Language and communication in itself would arise from intelligence which leaves you in the same predicament.

Not me. I have Fred.

What works and what is true may be separate entities but the naturalist claims that it is the only thing that is relied upon when seeking knowledge and knowing what we know.

Do you have a name for this naturalist that you refer to?

If what we know can not be relied upon to be based in truth, your thoughts about what is reality means nothing more than my thoughts about reality and neither would reflect truth.

Yet somehow your computers work, airplanes fly, and my computer programs (eventually) function reliably. How is that?

It would seem that your demand of evidence for anything would in the end mean nothing anyway. It may work in that it may supply or appear to lack evidence but evidence has no absolute value.

What do you mean by "absolute value"? If I don't understand how the world works at a quantum level I can't drive my car anymore?

What word would you like to use to replace worldview?

Will you fall down without your crutch?

The theories, hypotheses and supporting evidence should be independent of worldviews.

You question of course is designed to show God is unnecessary, but for gravity to be observed to behave in any way, to understand the speed of it or anything else, one needs intelligence to arrive at such conclusions. This brings us to the point at hand, how does intelligence arise from non-intelligent processes?

Emergence. Did you miss that post?

It was you who asked as if you had an example in regard to the question.

It was a dead end anyway, unless you wish to pursue it.

 

[lasthero]

Got to love ya.

Likewise. I will say you're much easier to talk to than pretty much every other creationist on this forum.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

The relationship comes first and then comes faith.

In what way? If the relationship came first then there would be no need for faith.

 

[Davian]

Laws of nature are those configurations of the universe that provide the absolute constants of the universal system. The force of gravity, time, the laws of physics, laws of mathematics, the laws of logic. Not man made laws about the laws themselves. The rules that the universe is governed by.

Then you need another word other than "laws", as Newton (and others) beat you to it some time ago.

You then will have the conundrum of demonstrating where and how the man-made "laws" fail to show, for the lack of a better word, reality.

Your Nobel awaits you.

It is not a gap, it is an absolute necessity to the existence of the universe and the life therein. There is no reasonable explanation given the purely naturalistic origin of the universe for these.

Argument from ignorance. This is not going well. How did you determine this? Have you discussed this with Lawrence?

Of course. It has been a process.

I'll think about it.

Excellent. I wouldn't want to presume that you are fabricating a straw man.

Which post?

#66. I will reiterate it here:

You say you that have material evidence of God on Earth. Where is this evidence, and can you present it in the form of a testable, falsifiable hypothesis?

 

[Shemjaza]

In what way? If the relationship came first then there would be no need for faith.

I get the impression that it's supposed to work like:
"You meet them, they are awesome. The faith is that they know what they are doing and will provide all the explanations later."

 

[Kellyvee]

I get the impression that it's supposed to work like:
"You meet them, they are awesome. The faith is that they know what they are doing and will provide all the explanations later."

I think the fault lies with the people who fell for the lies first, the rest just followed the leader.

 

[Oncedeceived]

In what way? If the relationship came first then there would be no need for faith.

I think where you are confused is that religion is sometimes referred to as faith. The Christian faith, the Islamic faith and so forth.

In Christianity, one must begin with a relationship with God first. I don't know of anyone that claims a relationship with God would also claim that they had faith in God first. Faith and trust are almost synonymous in the Christian's life. You can not trust someone without knowing them. You can not know them fully until your trust in them has been confirmed.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I get the impression that it's supposed to work like:
"You meet them, they are awesome. The faith is that they know what they are doing and will provide all the explanations later."

I always find it interesting to watch as unbelievers try so hard to make believers into these little caricatures of human beings. I have seen some ranting incoherent evolutionists that would make the craziest fundamentalist look like Einstein.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I think the fault lies with the people who fell for the lies first, the rest just followed the leader.

I think that for a discussion to commence on this subject, it would be best to put it in the correct forum. You made a pretty direct accusation of dishonesty among a certain set of people. I hope you have evidence for such a claim.