skeptical has a hard time with concepts

Discuss arguments for existence of God and faith in general. Any aspect of any orientation toward religion/spirituality, as long as it is based upon a positive open to other people attitude.


User avatar
Joined:Tue Jan 22, 2008 8:03 am
skeptical has a hard time with concepts

Post by Metacrock » Sun May 14, 2017 1:14 am

He can;t understand the distinction between not seeing a law maker for the cosmos and seeing there being no law maker. my statements in bold

OK. Let me get this straight. You quote scientists saying that the laws of physics are descriptive and not prescriptive. Fine I already knew that, and I don't dispute it. But then (if I follow your line of "reasoning"), you think that because these human formulations of physical laws are not prescriptive (which is to say that man does not tell nature how to behave), then it follows that nature isn't bound by them, and therefore, any behavior is allowed. So miracles can happen. Is that what you are saying?

that's like saying isn't it amazing that all these state lines just happen to fall the way the rivers flow? TRY IT THE OTHER WAY AROUND! since there is no law-like force that tells nature what to do and since our descriptions of what happens can't be totally actuate the objection to miracles that we never see them has to be flawed,since our observations are not complete maybe we do see them,when we have examples those expels could be true.

This is stunning. You have apparently no grasp whatsoever of what physical laws are. It is true that we don't tell nature how to behave.

Obviously I do since you just agreed that what I say about it is right,what you really mean is, in addition I am taking a step further that takes you down the road that you have not considered and you are disinterested philosophically, That makes you afraid so you cling to the ideology all the more. then you have to evoke the "you don't know anything I'm smarter than you in an attempt to convince yourself you are on the right track

Nevertheless, we observe that nature does behave according to some set of rules that are never violated.

Lesson from Popper you can never say "never" because you can't observe it forever.So any assumption of never is always just an assumption; since the argument is that our observations can't be 100% then there is always room for a miracle. Don't try to pretend that you have some kind of mathematical accuracy that proves your judgement of "never." your"never" is not mathematical it's probability and that means always open to difference.

This has nothing to do with whether there is a law-giver. It's just how nature works.

I am not makimng a law giver argument,I am just setting the context, that was explaining the context of the quotes.

It's what we observe.

I'm not predicating my argumemt on the basis of need for lawmaker but we do not observe the lack of a lawmaker,that's begging the question.

And it is the fact that we observe these regularities of behavior that we can conclude that there are no miracles.

you only conclude that on the basis of the circular reasoning that allows you to ignore the previous examples of miracles.

A miracle would, by definition, be something contrary to the way nature works.

Don't you know what descriptive means? IF DESCRIPTION IS NOT 100% you can't say never.

But nature doesn't do that - it works the way it works. And the way nature works is what we call the laws of physics. There are no miracles. Period.

Period is prescription. you can't say period when it's descriptive unless you know your observations are 100%.

Joe Hinman said...
I'm not predicating my argumemt on the basis of need for lawmaker but we do not observe the lack of a lawmaker,that's begging the question.

Period is prescription. you can't say period when it's descriptive unless you know your observations are 100%.

Are you joking? The thing we don't observe is this lawmaker, or God or whatever mythical being you think exists because of YOUR circular reasoning.

that is not the same as observing there is no law makimng. Obviously there is reason to think there is one since there is a law-like regularity you can't assert that not seeing a lawmaker is the same as seeing there is none, We don't see air.

What I'm saying is that in 100% of our observations, there is a regularity of nature.

Nope, you that;s BS. there are anomalies, especial in terms of healing and miracles,(btw the term anomalies comes fr alpha privative for "not" and Greek word nomos for law so it means not a law).

Now that doesn't preclude the philosophical possibility that there could be some as yet unseen thing that violates natural laws, but it does provide justification for inductive conclusions consistent with what we see.

It also opens the door to marginalized observations being accepted since there is no law or structure forbidding such behavior it's purely a mater of what we see we konw we don't see it all.

You, on the other hand, have never seen this lawmaker - you have 0% of all human observations to back up your contention, but you still insist that he must be there, and miracles must exist, because if these fantasies weren't true, it would really upset your apple-cart. And you think that I'm the one who isn't being logical.

I felt his presence and seen his work. One should not expect to see God like saying why believe in subatomic particles if you haven ever seen then,we don't have no pictures of them ,we have no pictures of stings but science is willing to accept them purely on the bass i of theory,
Have Theology, Will argue: wire Metacrock
Buy My book: The Trace of God: Warrant for belief

Post Reply