|
Donation/Premium |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
enegue
General
Premium Member
Joined: Aug 23, 2004
Posts: 3279
Location: Australia
|
 Posted: Fri Aug 27, 2004 10:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Ek,
| ekrubtap wrote: | | The other are not "laws" at all. They are different forces (or perhaps variations of the same force). |
A law is a rule, a principle, a mathematical formula that governs the behaviour of something. Here are some you might remember from junior high:
Archimedes' principle, Boyle's law, Conservation laws (energy, momentum, etc), Coulomb's law, Doppler effect, Faraday's law, Gauss' law, Hooke's law, Hubble's law, Joule's laws, Kepler's laws, Thermodynamics laws, Lenz's law, Maxwell's equations, Newton's laws, Ohm's law, Pascal's principle, Planck constant, relativity principle, speed of light, uniformity principle
| ekrubtap wrote: | | Nobody decided these were a good idea for the advancement of society. |
You are free to draw that conclusion
| ekrubtap wrote: | | On this basis alone, we cannot say that because civil law has provable authorship, it follows that "natural" law (for lack of a better term) must also have been authored. There is no connection, no causality. The one just doesn't follw the other. |
If I see in everything that is possible to observe and measure, that there is no order without laws, and that no laws exist without a lawmaker, then for me it naturally follows that a well-ordered universe that follows known laws/principles/rules, must also have a lawmaker.
| ekrubtap wrote: | | And you're playing a little loose with the term "evidence". "Evidence" that is not testable is not evidence. It's a leap of faith. |
Scientific method often involves drawing conclusions about unseen things based on observable phenomena.
When all is said and done though, what we are willing to accept as evidence is entirely subjective, and only needs to be satifying to one person.
| ekrubtap wrote: | | Have yourself a good weekend. |
Thank you. You too.
Cheers,
enegue
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
ekrubtap
Major
Joined: Feb 17, 2004
Posts: 868
Location: The Hinterland
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 20, 2004 3:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| enegue wrote: | | So for me, it is impossible to miss the abundance of evidence available to indicate that these natural laws also were formulated and set in place. |
This is the old 'cause and effect" argument. The application of scientific principles until we get to God. Then the principles go out the window and faith (superstition) rides to the rescue to solve the dilemma of "everything requires a cause except God."
| Quote: | | If I see in everything that is possible to observe and measure, that there is no order without laws, and that no laws exist without a lawmaker |
Again, you're talking apples and oranges here. Two different types of law.
One a set of statutes originated by humans, the other the percieved guiding forces of the universe, origin unknown at this time. To state that these forces must have an "author" and that author must be God, is illogical. It could just as easily be said, and with an equal amount of "evidence", that intelligent space aliens are responsible for the whole shebang, or any other fanciful notion you might imagine.
| Quote: | | Scientific method often involves drawing conclusions about unseen things based on observable phenomena. |
As long as they are testable and repeatable. All else is metaphysics and beyong empirical science.
| Quote: | | When all is said and done though, what we are willing to accept as evidence is entirely subjective, and only needs to be satifying to one person. |
If evidence was subjective, the law would truly be an ass. Nothing would be provable. Evidence must always be objective, or it is not evidence,
Well, I popped back here to attempt to tackle the "behemoth" but noticed I had somehow missed this, Now it's way past my bedtime. One of these days CG. 
_________________
If evolution is outlawed, only outlaws will evolve
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ekrubtap
Major
Joined: Feb 17, 2004
Posts: 868
Location: The Hinterland
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 20, 2004 4:40 am Post subject: Re: You may be a "fundy atheist if" and more... |
|
|
Ok, maybe this one bit for now.........
| chickengirl wrote: |
Learning to think spiritually isn't about accepting the supernatural. I am referring to that part of the human intellect that allows the mind to understand things that are not readily made obvious or explicitly stated. It is the same skill involved in interpreting poetry or in detecting the nuances that are present in higher literature. Most people already have this ability; they just need to learn how to apply it when it comes to the issue of God.
If you are an atheist who is interested in seeing if he can tune into God, I recommend that you first read "The Tao of Pooh" by Benjamin Hoff. It's short, sweet and easy to understand. Atheistic in its philosophy, this book will put you on the path to understanding truth in paradox. A paradox is that which appears to contradict, but upon closer examination, really does not. "The Tao of Pooh" removed much of my arrogance and knocked the owl right out of me, effectively diminishing two barriers that had allowed me to shut God out of my perception. |
Using the human intellect to allow the mind to understand things that are not readily made obvious or explicitly stated has nothing to do with spirituality. It is simply using the human intellect. Period. Nothing at all to do with "spiritual". Spirit, aside from "gumption", has everything to do with supernatural. Statements like this tend to get a rise out of me. To a non critical mind it might appear a sensible statement, even a bon mot, but in reality is just the by now predictable manipulation of language to further a religious agenda. A further example is the definition supplied for "paradox", "A paradox is that which appears to contradict, but upon closer examination, really does not." Wrong and misleading. A paradox is a statement that seems to conflict with common sense or to contradict itself but that might (not "really does not") be true.
| Quote: | | If you are an atheist who is interested in seeing if he can tune into God |
No such animal. If you're interested in seeing if you can tune into God, you're not an atheist.
Re the Tao of Pooh. Read it many moons ago Had some fairly wise stuff. A little too cutesy in places for my taste. I find a lot of Taoist "wisdom" a little arbitrary.
Note that the above quotes are not statements by chickengirl, but are quoted by her. See the original post for author. Both me and my computer are too tired and slow to go back for the authors name or url.
_________________
If evolution is outlawed, only outlaws will evolve
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
enegue
General
Premium Member
Joined: Aug 23, 2004
Posts: 3279
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 20, 2004 9:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
Lo Ek,
| ekrubtap wrote: | Again, you're talking apples and oranges here. Two different types of law.
One a set of statutes originated by humans, the other the percieved guiding forces of the universe, origin unknown at this time. |
"Origin unknown" is how you perceive it, not necessarily how it is (for me, not how it is).
| ekrubtap wrote: | | To state that these forces must have an "author" and that author must be God, is illogical. |
This is the old "if you don't like the conclusion, deny the logic" argument.
| ekrubtap wrote: | | If evidence was subjective, the law would truly be an ass. |
You said it! Look at our judicial system.
| ekrubtap wrote: | | Using the human intellect to allow the mind to understand things that are not readily made obvious or explicitly stated has nothing to do with spirituality. It is simply using the human intellect. Period. Nothing at all to do with "spiritual". Spirit, aside from "gumption", has everything to do with supernatural. |
I agree with you here, ek. Thoughts and the application of intellect would have to be regarded as natural processes.
Cheers,
enegue
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ekrubtap
Major
Joined: Feb 17, 2004
Posts: 868
Location: The Hinterland
|
| Posted: Mon Sep 20, 2004 5:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| enegue wrote: | | ekrubtap wrote: | | To state that these forces must have an "author" and that author must be God, is illogical. |
This is the old "if you don't like the conclusion, deny the logic" argument. |
Tho I would of course state it as "if you don't like the arbitrary Christian conclusion, deny the illogic."
| enegue wrote: | | ekrubtap wrote: | | If evidence was subjective, the law would truly be an ass. |
You said it! Look at our judicial system. |
Yes, and this is but one of the areas we could better devote the energy and monies expended on religion. A couple of other areas that could benefit are world and local politics (tho religion and politics are the same thing in too many parts of the world.), and much more equitable management and development of world and local economies.
_________________
If evolution is outlawed, only outlaws will evolve
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
enegue
General
Premium Member
Joined: Aug 23, 2004
Posts: 3279
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 21, 2004 12:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Ek,
| ekrubtap wrote: | | Yes, and this is but one of the areas we could better devote the energy and monies expended on religion. |
I think I agree with this, if by "religion" you are referring to parent institutions that acquire wealth and power, and not to local subentities of the institution that work hard to provide for the needs of their communities.
Cheers,
enegue
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
otter75
Cadet
Joined: Dec 22, 2004
Posts: 1
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 22, 2004 9:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It's interesting someone referred to the White moth/black moth observation. I believe that was to have taken place in England and was later revealed to be a hoax. And belief is not "de facto" knowledge. I believe OJ murdered Nicole Brown and whatshisface but I have no knowledge that he did--direct or otherwise.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
enegue
General
Premium Member
Joined: Aug 23, 2004
Posts: 3279
Location: Australia
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 23, 2004 1:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
Hi Otto75 and welcome,
The black & white peppered moths were real, but using them as an example of mutation was an error, viz:Genetic Variation
What we believe is a matter of peripheral things. We know the peripheral things, and they are sufficient to convince us of the central thing. For example, if someone tells us something of which we have no knowledge, we are faced with choosing to believe or not believe. The choice we make depends entirely of the peripheral things: Is the person knowledgable?; Is the person trustworthy? Is the "something" likely to be true? What will it cost me to believe was is being presented? Consideration of the things we know, enables us to make a judgement, and so we believe, or don't believe.
I might just add, that human nature being what it is, if the person presenting the "something" is an adversary, it is highly likely that the choice will tend towards non-belief. On the other hand, people will generally believe their friends.
Cheers,
enegue
Last edited by enegue on Thu Dec 23, 2004 1:37 am, edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ZippyZingo
General
Premium Member
Joined: Apr 07, 2004
Posts: 3690
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 23, 2004 1:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
Actually the peppered moths are real and the change in color is well documented. What is coming under examination is the process that Kettelwell us in his test. Evolutionist are now saying that there were problems with the way he did his testing so are now saying that his findings are "incomplete".
ZZ
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001 phpBB Group
|
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Login to check your private messages
Login
