Are You A Good Man....

[seer]

The laws and constants of the natural world do not allow for supernatural interference. E.g. the speed of light is empirically measurable and verified. Variations of the speed of light by say divine intervention renders the speed of light no longer a reliable law of nature.

That is just silly Tass, let's say that Christ did defy the law gravity and walk on water does that mean that gravity was suspended in the rest of the world or universe? Local violations don't mean universal violations.

You mean like with Communist rule?

[37818]

Focus!

ALL

Please give one example of such a rule, to make your case. Is that asking too much?

The laws and constants of the natural world do not allow for supernatural interference. . . .

Based on what? If there is no supernatural, there would be no basis. And you have effectively not presented really anything to justify the mere denial of anything beyond nature.

. . . E.g. the speed of light is empirically measurable and verified. Variations of the speed of light by say divine intervention renders the speed of light no longer a reliable law of nature.

Energy conservation, E = mc² would be violated. The true God does not lie.

[Tassman]

That is just silly Tass, let's say that Christ did defy the law gravity and walk on water does that mean that gravity was suspended in the rest of the world or universe? Local violations don't mean universal violations.

Any capricious exception to the fixed laws and constants of the universe renders them unreliable and useless in scientific endeavour.

[Tassman]

Please give one example of such a rule, to make your case. Is that asking too much?

Based on what? If there is no supernatural, there would be no basis. And you have effectively not presented really anything to justify the mere denial of anything beyond nature.

The burden of proof is on you to present evidence of anything beyond the natural, material universe.

Energy conservation, E = mc² would be violated. The true God does not lie.

Any violation of the laws of nature would render them unreliable.

[seer]

Any capricious exception to the fixed laws and constants of the universe renders them unreliable and useless in scientific endeavour.

Again that is stupid. First God interfering with the laws of nature would not be capricious, it would be intentional, for a purpose. Second, like I asked, if Christ did walk on the water how was the law of gravity effected in the rest of the universe - it wasn't. Never mind the fact that you can not know if these fixed laws will remain the same tomorrow, or if they are fixed or constant in areas of the universe that we have no access to.

[37818]

Ok, you cite what has been called "The Golden Rule." http://www.harryhiker.com/chronology.htm
Now the question becomes where did this ability originate?

The burden of proof is on you to present evidence of anything beyond the natural, material universe.

So are you saying that the natural material universe always was? There is no evidence to support that the natural material universe always was. The known evidence suggests it has a beginning. which would imply that there would be a pre-natural of some kind. Then the argument becomes that the pre- would never be super-.
Now do you believe ability comes for inability?

Any violation of the laws of nature would render them unreliable.

Yeah. Where do the laws of nature come from? Do you think they always were?

[Tassman]

Again that is stupid. First God interfering with the laws of nature would not be capricious, it would be intentional, for a purpose.

Anything, including the interference of a deity, that renders the laws and constants of the universe no longer fixed means that they are capricious and unreliable.

Second, like I asked, if Christ did walk on the water how was the law of gravity effected in the rest of the universe - it wasn't.

Never mind the fact that you can not know if these fixed laws will remain the same tomorrow, or if they are fixed or constant in areas of the universe that we have no access to.

[Tassman]

Ok, you cite what has been called "The Golden Rule." http://www.harryhiker.com/chronology.htm
Now the question becomes where did this ability originate?

It evolved via Natural Selection in exactly the same way that similar behaviours developed in our fellow primates and other social species.

So are you saying that the natural material universe always was? There is no evidence to support that the natural material universe always was. The known evidence suggests it has a beginning. which would imply that there would be a pre-natural of some kind. Then the argument becomes that the pre- would never be super-.

Now do you believe ability comes from inability?

The evolution of biological complexity from biological simplicity is one important outcome of the process of evolution.

Yeah. Where do the laws of nature come from? Do you think they always were?

Do you think that god-did-it, why? Based upon what evidence? AKAIK the laws of nature have existed as long as there has been a universe. The proponents of multiverse theory would say that natural laws have always existed, because the greater cosmos is infinite. To paraphrase Hamlet: There are more things in the universe than your philosophy doth allow 37818.

[seer]

Anything, including the interference of a deity, that renders the laws and constants of the universe no longer fixed means that they are capricious and unreliable.

No it doesn't, you are just making that up. If Christ walked on water at a specific time and place how did that disrupt gravity anywhere else in the universe? Or even in the next town over?

Just answer the question - how would that local event effect gravity in the rest of the universe - it wouldn't and you know it.


Yes we can thank a rational God for a rational universe. And yes they "appear" to be constant, but who knows what they are in other parts of the universe, or what they were in the distant past or if they will remain constant tomorrow - no one knows.

[37818]

It evolved via Natural Selection in exactly the same way that similar behaviours developed in our fellow primates and other social species.

You are claiming an ability of Natural Selection. Do you really think ability comes from inability (nothing)?


There is no evidence that the known natural material universe did not have a beginning. Either it came from nothing or it has something before it. There would therefore be a pre-natural origin - super-natural if you will.

The evolution of biological complexity from biological simplicity is one important outcome of the process of evolution.

Again, you are citing a claimed ability. Does this ability come from an inability (nothing)?

Do you think that god-did-it, why? Based upon what evidence? AKAIK the laws of nature have existed as long as there has been a universe. The proponents of multiverse theory would say that natural laws have always existed, because the greater cosmos is infinite. To paraphrase Hamlet: There are more things in the universe than your philosophy doth allow 37818.

There are only two possibilities. 1) That ability came from inability (nothing). [which we can rule out] 2) That ability comes from ability. [which is the only rational possibility]

[JonathanL]

Anything, including the interference of a deity, that renders the laws and constants of the universe no longer fixed means that they are capricious and unreliable.

I don't know if there's a "the sky is falling"-fallacy, but there definitely should be.

[Tassman]

No it doesn't, you are just making that up. If Christ walked on water at a specific time and place how did that disrupt gravity anywhere else in the universe? Or even in the next town over?

Just answer the question - how would that local event effect gravity in the rest of the universe - it wouldn't and you know it.

See above.

Yes we can thank a rational God for a rational universe.

And yes they "appear" to be constant, but who knows what they are in other parts of the universe, or what they were in the distant past or if they will remain constant tomorrow - no one knows.

[Tassman]

You are claiming an ability of Natural Selection. Do you really think ability comes from inability (nothing)?

It comes from what went before. Your

There is no evidence that the known natural material universe did not have a beginning. Either it came from nothing or it has something before it. There would therefore be a pre-natural origin - super-natural if you will.

You're wrong. There is evidence that we live in an infinite multiverse without any beginning.

http://www.space.com/32728-parallel-universes.html

Even if this is not the case there's no good reason to conjecture that god-did-it. This is merely attempt to explain natural phenomena that science cannot (at the time of the argument).

Again, you are citing a claimed ability. Does this ability come from an inability (nothing)?

Our understanding of the molecular basis of biology shows that biological processes are governed by the laws of physics and chemistry and evolved from microorganisms via Natural Selection dating back millions of years.

There are only two possibilities. 1) That ability came from inability (nothing). [which we can rule out] 2) That ability comes from ability. [which is the only rational possibility]

False dichotomy! Natural Selection demonstrably reveals that complex structures evolve from simpler ones, step-by-step, through a gradual evolutionary process favouring intermediate forms along the way.

[seer]

That is merely an assertion since a local event would not effect these laws in general.



Well we have two possible choices, the universe was created and is governed by the Rational or the non-rational.


Not the point, you can not know, you may have faith that it is so (universally), and you have no idea what these non-rational forces will do tomorrow.

[37818]

It comes from what went before. Your

In your fallacy you are asserting ability from no ability. Something from nothing. Am I wrong? You have asserted certain abilities to natural physical universe. Which are in evidence. There are only two simple possibilities: 1) Ability from no ability and 2) Ability from ability. Now which two views do you hold?

You're wrong. There is evidence that we live in an infinite multiverse without any beginning.

http://www.space.com/32728-parallel-universes.html

Claims uncited evidence. The article presents no evidence.

Even if this is not the case there's no good reason to conjecture that god-did-it. This is merely attempt to explain natural phenomena that science cannot (at the time of the argument).

What do you mean by "god." I will say it again. Ability. Ability exists. Your position has to assert ability from no ability (nothing).

Our understanding of the molecular basis of biology shows that biological processes are governed by the laws of physics and chemistry and evolved from microorganisms via Natural Selection dating back millions of years.

Where does the ability and laws of physics and chemistry come from? Ability or no ability (nothing)?

False dichotomy! Natural Selection demonstrably reveals that complex structures evolve from simpler ones, step-by-step, through a gradual evolutionary process favouring intermediate forms along the way.

You are citing ability are you not?