Causality

Anonymous
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Causality

 hey all! Maybe we could talk about causality. In the eternal conversation there is either eternal matter or an eternal God. In the conversation about eternal matter it is illogical because you cannot traverse infinite, time collapses and if you went back 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, you would still be closer to one than to infinite.  Only in the context of the conversation being an eternal God can there be a prime reality(God being uncaused and His existence found within Himself). From this subject we can talk about the 'Beginning'. If one is to say the Universe came into being uncaused out of nothing it is more illogical than to say God created it, on the basis that this is a precise existence of matter and laws that themselves cannot bring into existence. The laws of physics cannot bring into existence the agents that they govern, nor vice versa. It had to be constructed to do so. Like the famous Henry Ford analogy about the tribal people finding a Mustang in the middle of the forest and think that Henry Ford's spirit must live inside, but.. then they discover the laws and mechanics of internal combustion and realize he doesn't live in there. It is irrational to say on this basis that therefore Henry Ford doesn't exist. Of course he did, he created internal combustion through the ingenuity of complex mechanisms. On this note of causality it is for me more rational to say God created the ordered Universe and not that it just 'is'. We must not be tempted to talk on multiverse's here because the conversation immediately jumps into 'infinite regress'. How were those created? Plus there is no rational evidence to think they are there. This is not a closed door on the conversation but to the context of the webs name "Rational Response" It seems to me more rational to believe in a Creator than otherwise. May I say the other wise is a belief too! By they way I'm a Christian, but you probably came to that deduction while reading this! Thanks again for allowing me in these forums. There is great material here and I hope to learn as much as possible about my opponents!! Engage the subject, Love the Person!!!!  Randy Fitch, FL

 


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
Or, it is more rational to

Or, it is more rational to understand that it is possible that we evolved our knowledge in what is primarily a deterministic setting, while other areas of physics (quantum mechanics) might not be deterministic.  Before you even talk causality, you need to establish why nature is necessarily deterministic, without relying on your intuition.


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2397
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
Randy!!!!

 

 

          How art thou? First of all let us speak of fallacy's.  Henry Ford did not invent the internal combustian engine and no one; least of all Henry Ford ever said he did. Henry Ford did not invent the assembly line,   he did bring it to it's ultimate conclusion though:  from iron mine to finnished product.  I never heard of the analogy you wrote of.

 

 

          "The Laws of physics can not bring into existence the agents they govern."    NO SHIT!!!  The laws EXPLAIN physics no one ever said they created anything;  any LAW.

 

 

          Has for your creator. Do you have any proof that will stand up to scientific study AND   BE  repeatable.  If so you will recieve the very next Noble Prize for physics.   I will be in Oslo to shake your hand and give you a baby.

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


Randy7j (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
Hey Guys!!

 Thanks for your prompt response! I am pleased with your responses. To the first, for v4ultingbassist, the subject of determinism is irrelevant to our subject of causality, you need the agents to which can evolve first!! And that is just matter causation let alone your more harder subject of life from inanimate matter. Determinism is a basic thought tenet in purpose, not a full capsulation of the motion of humanity. 

 

To Jeffrick, I must say sorry for my misleading in that Henry Ford created internal combustion, it was to really pose that it was CREATED by an intelligent mind and not by mindless unguided chance. I use (or adapt) Henry Ford for the purpose of analogy. And I say that Laws cannot create matter to show the wall one must face in reductionism in a naturalistic sense. What then created matter? You CAN NOT repeat that expriement so we are both left to faith on that one, aren't we? Also you can NOT repeat Marcoevolution or (A)biogenesis either. So why postulate that as fact? 

 

Thanks! Hope to hear back from you!! 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Randy7j wrote: hey all!

Randy7j wrote:

 hey all! Maybe we could talk about causality. In the eternal conversation there is either eternal matter or an eternal God. In the conversation about eternal matter it is illogical because you cannot traverse infinite, time collapses and if you went back 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, you would still be closer to one than to infinite.  Only in the context of the conversation being an eternal God can there be a prime reality(God being uncaused and His existence found within Himself). From this subject we can talk about the 'Beginning'. If one is to say the Universe came into being uncaused out of nothing it is more illogical than to say God created it, on the basis that this is a precise existence of matter and laws that themselves cannot bring into existence. The laws of physics cannot bring into existence the agents that they govern, nor vice versa. It had to be constructed to do so. Like the famous Henry Ford analogy about the tribal people finding a Mustang in the middle of the forest and think that Henry Ford's spirit must live inside, but.. then they discover the laws and mechanics of internal combustion and realize he doesn't live in there. It is irrational to say on this basis that therefore Henry Ford doesn't exist. Of course he did, he created internal combustion through the ingenuity of complex mechanisms. On this note of causality it is for me more rational to say God created the ordered Universe and not that it just 'is'. We must not be tempted to talk on multiverse's here because the conversation immediately jumps into 'infinite regress'. How were those created? Plus there is no rational evidence to think they are there. This is not a closed door on the conversation but to the context of the webs name "Rational Response" It seems to me more rational to believe in a Creator than otherwise. May I say the other wise is a belief too! By they way I'm a Christian, but you probably came to that deduction while reading this! Thanks again for allowing me in these forums. There is great material here and I hope to learn as much as possible about my opponents!! Engage the subject, Love the Person!!!!  Randy Fitch, FL

 

1. What about the possibility of eternal energy (some of which could be converted to matter by natural processes)?

2. How can you claim God as an uncaused cause and dismiss causality as irrelevant to your discussion?

3. Why do you disparage something coming from nothing when it is a basic tenet of your faith?

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Jeffrick wrote:Noble Prize

Jeffrick wrote:

Noble Prize for physics [......] in Oslo

 

The Nobel prize for physics is handed out in Stockholm, as is, in accordance with Alfred Nobel's testament, the case with all Nobel prizes - except for the peace prize, which is handed out in Oslo (because Sweden was more bellicose - likely to participate in wars - than were Norway, at the time).

As for the foggy foggy OP... the answer is "we just don't know". Why would you assume that human 'logic' has anything to do with anything?

"The idea of God is the sole wrong for which I cannot forgive mankind." (Alphonse Donatien De Sade)

http://www.kinkspace.com


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
Randy7j wrote: Thanks for

Randy7j wrote:

 Thanks for your prompt response! I am pleased with your responses. To the first, for v4ultingbassist, the subject of determinism is irrelevant to our subject of causality, you need the agents to which can evolve first!! And that is just matter causation let alone your more harder subject of life from inanimate matter. Determinism is a basic thought tenet in purpose, not a full capsulation of the motion of humanity. 

 

 

The subject of determinism is not irrelevant.  Causality presupposes determinism.  If it is found that nature is a combination of stochastic and deterministic processes, then the idea of everything needing a cause is erroneous.

 

I really don't even need to bring this up, because it is fallacious to say that existence cannot be eternal but god can.  If you think everything needs a cause, then so does god.  If you admit that god does not need a cause, then the premise that everything needs a cause is wrong, and you are back to where you started.


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
I call Poe.

I call Poe.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Randy7j (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
response

 Hey Guys! Good to hear from you all! 

Jcgadly- The Second Law of Thermodynamics shows that heat flows to cold. Eternal energy would need a constant source of renewal. And we know that the universe is finite so how can energy create the matter that now exists? You also say if it is possible. What about the possibility of God? About God being uncaused, everything created and that we know exists in our universe finds the reason for it's existence outside itself. God is not created matter, therefore rests outside the criteria of what is created. Again a prime reality. Even in your argument about eternal matter or energy it is a illogical infinite regress because the reason for matters existence lies outside itself. God existence is eternal because by definition God is a prime reality and cannot be created. His existence does NOT hinder from outside himself. I do believe in the statement I gave about something from nothing, because God created everything from nothing! 

v4ultingbassits- random determinism doesn't rationalize the question "why do we exist?". Only once anything exists does anything have the capacity to be stochastic or deterministic. But on that subject, do you believe we are purely deterministic? If someone kills your sister, are they not responsible for there actions because it came from outside the will? That is hard to believe. Is love deterministic? Tell your loved ones next time you see them instead of saying "I love you" say that you are having random chemical nerve synapses, and it might just be deterministic. -as for the caused uncaused, see what i mentioned above to 'J' . I must say that we have to face the subject eternal, wether God or matter. If you say matter is eternal then you have to find the Elephants feet (because matter's existence comes from outside itself), and Good Luck. If you say matter is finite, then what? Please give your RATIONAL RESPONSE to it's cause! 

Randy- Isaiah 1:18 "Come let us reason together"

Engage the subject, Love the Person. 


liberatedatheist
atheistScience Freak
liberatedatheist's picture
Posts: 137
Joined: 2009-12-08
User is offlineOffline
Randy7j wrote:Jcgadly- The

Randy7j wrote:

Jcgadly- The Second Law of Thermodynamics shows that heat flows to cold. Eternal energy would need a constant source of renewal.

Eternal energy would absolutely not need a constant source of renewal; I don't understand how you came to that conclusion. And the first law of thermodynamics states that all energy and matter, as a whole because they are interchangeable, are conserved aka eternal

 

Randy7j wrote:
 And we know that the universe is finite so how can energy create the matter that now exists?

we don't know that the universe is finite but even if it turns out to be, that has no bearing on the creation of matter. Matter is created by energy and the majority of what we conceive as being matter is energy. Science is working on the creation of matter now through the Large Hadron Collider

Randy7j wrote:
 You also say if it is possible. What about the possibility of God? About God being uncaused, everything created and that we know exists in our universe finds the reason for it's existence outside itself. God is not created matter, therefore rests outside the criteria of what is created. Again a prime reality. Even in your argument about eternal matter or energy it is a illogical infinite regress because the reason for matters existence lies outside itself. God existence is eternal because by definition God is a prime reality and cannot be created. His existence does NOT hinder from outside himself. I do believe in the statement I gave about something from nothing, because God created everything from nothing!

rather convenient. just because we can define something as being outside the laws of logic doesn't motivate its existence

Randy7j wrote:
 v4ultingbassits- random determinism doesn't rationalize the question "why do we exist?". Only once anything exists does anything have the capacity to be stochastic or deterministic. But on that subject, do you believe we are purely deterministic? If someone kills your sister, are they not responsible for there actions because it came from outside the will? That is hard to believe. Is love deterministic? Tell your loved ones next time you see them instead of saying "I love you" say that you are having random chemical nerve synapses, and it might just be deterministic. -as for the caused uncaused, see what i mentioned above to 'J' . I must say that we have to face the subject eternal, wether God or matter. If you say matter is eternal then you have to find the Elephants feet (because matter's existence comes from outside itself), and Good Luck. If you say matter is finite, then what? Please give your RATIONAL RESPONSE to it's cause!

everything is deterministic. Love being deterministic doesn't make it less real. I think it is kind of poetic to think that my love for someone was fated ever since the moment of creation (creation being the big bang). Matter's existence comes from energy, and energy does not need a creator.

 

 

 

I Am My God

The absence of evidence IS evidence of absence


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
 Hi Randy, can I request

Hi Randy, can I request that you break your content up into a number of paragraphs (one for each individual point might be good) it's just a little easier to read that way, Thanks Smiling


Randy7j wrote:
  hey all! Maybe we could talk about causality.



Sure, why not, Causality is one of our oldest and most fundamental naturalistic postulates.

Randy wrote:

In the eternal conversation there is either eternal matter or an eternal God. In the conversation about eternal matter it is illogical because you cannot traverse infinite, time collapses and if you went back 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, you would still be closer to one than to infinite.  Only in the context of the conversation being an eternal God can there be a prime reality(God being uncaused and His existence found within Himself).


 

Oh... you want it to be law so that we need "God" to break it. I think I have heard this one before.



Quote:
From this subject we can talk about the 'Beginning'. If one is to say the Universe came into being uncaused out of nothing it is more illogical than to say God created it, on the basis that this is a precise existence of matter and laws that themselves cannot bring into existence.


 

Yeah, nah, I'd say they're about equal on the scale of being logical, that is... they're both illogical.

 

Quote:
The laws of physics cannot bring into existence the agents that they govern, nor vice versa. It had to be constructed to do so.



 

Even if that were true, the lack of an explanation should, I'd imagine, motivate a real truth seeker to review the original postulate (premise of causality) as logic dictates - not wedge a magical figure in the gap.

 

Quote:
  Like the famous Henry Ford analogy about the tribal people finding a Mustang in the middle of the forest and think that Henry Ford's spirit must live inside, but.. then they discover the laws and mechanics of internal combustion and realize he doesn't live in there.


 

That is famous? Wow fame is cheap where you're from, hey?

 

Quote:
It is irrational to say on this basis that therefore Henry Ford doesn't exist.


 

The whole thing is irrational... a tribal people finds a car and thinks ???? Henry Ford ???? lives in it?

 
But I suppose you're alluding to some sort of universe designer, yeah?



Most of your question can be explained away by the fact that you're obviously not well versed in physics and have the mistaken impression that saying "Maxwell's equations are to hands as Newton's second is to a car" is reasonable.

 
No... on second thought, all of it is explained away by your ignorance... I mean, thats a really really bad analogy... do you have any clue how unlike "a car turns up in a pre-industrial civilisation" the universe is? I doubt it. 

 


 

Edit: I've tried everything imaginable to get rid of the underline.. it just won't go. *headdesk*

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


JonathanBC
Posts: 139
Joined: 2010-01-28
User is offlineOffline
I haven't joined in this

I haven't joined in this conversation yet because I find philosophical arguments appaling and unnecessary, I'd rather discuss hard science than word play. I'm not trying to derail the conversation, I just had to get that out of the way to make this point. Your belief in Jesus Christ as your savior does not stem from the watchmaker argument. Belief in a supernatural holy trinity, and an afterlife of heaven and hell, is utterly unrelated to the arguments you've brought up. At most, you are only preaching to a choir of one, you, as a justification for the delusion you already believe in. I would respect you a great deal more if you admit that.

Randy7j wrote:

Tell your loved ones next time you see them instead of saying "I love you" say that you are having random chemical nerve synapses, and it might just be deterministic.

I will genuinely tell my girlfriend those exact words, though saying "random" is a drastic misunderstanding of the human brain, if you do something for me. Tell your loved ones you love them because of a 2300 year old book you believe was inspired by a supernatural being. Let me know if we have a deal.

Randy7j wrote:

Also you can NOT repeat Marcoevolution or (A)biogenesis either. So why postulate that as fact?

Humans don't live long enough and natural selection is too slow to show you macroevolution in a laboratory setting right now. Rest assured, we're working on that. To date, Kyoto University has come the farthest, though not nearly far enough to be considered macro. They've just released research on an experiment lasting over 50 years, studying the evolution of flies when deprived of light. With an average life span of roughly eight days, we're talking many thousands of generations. We're also mapping the genome of more and more species in the last decade. If you want to see proof of macroevolution, stick around.

Abiogenesis has been repeated hundreds if not thousands of times, you're wrong or you're entirely using the wrong terminology. I'm not even convinced you understand what you're talking about yourself based on the parenthesis. Biogenesis means life from previously existing life. All you have to do to repeat that is have a child. Abiogenesis is life from non life, therefore the "a" prefix. The difference is, literally, the same as the difference between theist and atheist.


v4ultingbassist
Science Freak
v4ultingbassist's picture
Posts: 601
Joined: 2009-12-04
User is offlineOffline
Randy7j wrote: Hey Guys!

Randy7j wrote:

 Hey Guys! Good to hear from you all!

Jcgadly- The Second Law of Thermodynamics shows that heat flows to cold. Eternal energy would need a constant source of renewal.

And we know that the universe is finite so how can energy create the matter that now exists? You also say if it is possible.

What about the possibility of God? About God being uncaused, everything created and that we know exists in our universe finds the

reason for it's existence outside itself. God is not created matter, therefore rests outside the criteria of what is created.

Again a prime reality.

Even in your argument about eternal matter or energy it is a illogical infinite regress because the reason for matters existence

lies outside itself. God existence is eternal because by definition God is a prime reality and cannot be created. His existence

does NOT hinder from outside himself. I do believe in the statement I gave about something from nothing, because God created

everything from nothing!

v4ultingbassits- random determinism doesn't rationalize the question "why do we exist?". Only once anything exists does anything

have the capacity to be stochastic or deterministic. But on that subject, do you believe we are purely deterministic? If someone

kills your sister, are they not responsible for there actions because it came from outside the will? That is hard to believe.

Is love deterministic? Tell your loved ones next time you see them instead of saying "I love you" say that you are having random

chemical nerve synapses, and it might just be deterministic. -as for the caused uncaused, see what i mentioned above to 'J' .

I must say that we have to face the subject eternal, wether God or matter. If you say matter is eternal then you have to find

the Elephants feet (because matter's existence comes from outside itself), and Good Luck. If you say matter is finite, then what?

Please give your RATIONAL RESPONSE to it's cause!

Randy- Isaiah 1:18 "Come let us reason together"

Engage the subject, Love the Person.

Causality in the universe and the question "why do we exist" are not related. I don't know where that question even came from.

Do you mean "how did we come to exist?" That is more appropriate. I don't know if the universe is purely deterministic, though

I doubt that it is.  I will argue that the randomness, if present, is much more prevalent at the particle level, so its impact

is not noticeable at our level.  Classical physics (physics describing things on our scale) is deterministic.  And honestly,

what makes you think that every nerve synapse in your body works perfectly every time anyway?  Your faith could have come about

from a cluster of neurons malfunctioning.

 


"(because matter's existence comes from outside itself)"

Not if it is eternal, and that is the point.

Your argument is this:

1)  Everything has a cause.

2)  From 1, the universe has a cause.

3)  God caused the universe.

4)  In order to prevent an infinite regress, God is not caused.

Premise 4 violates premise 1.  Premise 1 may also be wrong. 

And like liberatedatheist said, we don't know if the universe is finite.  But tell me, what caused god?  Nothing?  Well, from your argument,

that doesn't make sense, because you seem to think everything has a cause.

 

 


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3388
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Eloise wrote:Hi Randy, can I

Eloise wrote:

Hi Randy, can I request that you break your content up into a number of paragraphs (one for each individual point might be good) it's just a little easier to read that way, Thanks Smiling


Randy7j wrote:
  hey all! Maybe we could talk about causality.



Sure, why not, Causality is one of our oldest and most fundamental naturalistic postulates.

Randy wrote:

In the eternal conversation there is either eternal matter or an eternal God. In the conversation about eternal matter it is illogical because you cannot traverse infinite, time collapses and if you went back 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, you would still be closer to one than to infinite.  Only in the context of the conversation being an eternal God can there be a prime reality(God being uncaused and His existence found within Himself).


 

Oh... you want it to be law so that we need "God" to break it. I think I have heard this one before.



Quote:
From this subject we can talk about the 'Beginning'. If one is to say the Universe came into being uncaused out of nothing it is more illogical than to say God created it, on the basis that this is a precise existence of matter and laws that themselves cannot bring into existence.


 

Yeah, nah, I'd say they're about equal on the scale of being logical, that is... they're both illogical.

 

Quote:
The laws of physics cannot bring into existence the agents that they govern, nor vice versa. It had to be constructed to do so.



 

Even if that were true, the lack of an explanation should, I'd imagine, motivate a real truth seeker to review the original postulate (premise of causality) as logic dictates - not wedge a magical figure in the gap.

 

Quote:
  Like the famous Henry Ford analogy about the tribal people finding a Mustang in the middle of the forest and think that Henry Ford's spirit must live inside, but.. then they discover the laws and mechanics of internal combustion and realize he doesn't live in there.


 

That is famous? Wow fame is cheap where you're from, hey?

 

Quote:
It is irrational to say on this basis that therefore Henry Ford doesn't exist.


 

The whole thing is irrational... a tribal people finds a car and thinks ???? Henry Ford ???? lives in it?

 
But I suppose you're alluding to some sort of universe designer, yeah?



Most of your question can be explained away by the fact that you're obviously not well versed in physics and have the mistaken impression that saying "Maxwell's equations are to hands as Newton's second is to a car" is reasonable.

 
No... on second thought, all of it is explained away by your ignorance... I mean, thats a really really bad analogy... do you have any clue how unlike "a car turns up in a pre-industrial civilisation" the universe is? I doubt it. 

 


 

Edit: I've tried everything imaginable to get rid of the underline.. it just won't go. *headdesk*

 

hey, el, what's up with the new avatar?  it's kinda blurry--looks like a shot from an old SNES game or something.

(sorry to break topic.  i'd love to PM that kinda stuff, but the segregated PMing policy here makes that impossible.)

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


Marquis
atheist
Marquis's picture
Posts: 776
Joined: 2009-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Or, more to the point,

Or, more to the point, what's up with all the underlining of text in this thread?


Magus
High Level DonorModerator
Magus's picture
Posts: 592
Joined: 2007-04-11
User is offlineOffline
Marquis wrote:Or, more to

Marquis wrote:

Or, more to the point, what's up with all the underlining of text in this thread?

 

Fixed.

Sounds made up...
Agnostic Atheist
No, I am not angry at your imaginary friends or enemies.


Eloise
Theist
Eloise's picture
Posts: 1804
Joined: 2007-05-26
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote: hey, el,

iwbiek wrote:

 

hey, el, what's up with the new avatar?  it's kinda blurry--looks like a shot from an old SNES game or something.

It's an actual pic photoshopped with a distort filter and then colour enhanced. It is me, as usual, just that my last avvie was gaining a little too much direct attention so I thought I would go for something more subtle.

Quote:

(sorry to break topic.  i'd love to PM that kinda stuff, but the segregated PMing policy here makes that impossible.)

yeah, it is a little bit of a pain, innit.

Theist badge qualifier : Gnostic/Philosophical Panentheist

www.mathematicianspictures.com


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13661
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Jeffrick

Jeffrick wrote:

 

 

          How art thou? First of all let us speak of fallacy's.  Henry Ford did not invent the internal combustian engine and no one; least of all Henry Ford ever said he did. Henry Ford did not invent the assembly line,   he did bring it to it's ultimate conclusion though:  from iron mine to finnished product.  I never heard of the analogy you wrote of.

 

 

          "The Laws of physics can not bring into existence the agents they govern."    NO SHIT!!!  The laws EXPLAIN physics no one ever said they created anything;  any LAW.

 

 

          Has for your creator. Do you have any proof that will stand up to scientific study AND   BE  repeatable.  If so you will recieve the very next Noble Prize for physics.   I will be in Oslo to shake your hand and give you a baby.

I love that shit how the theist will take lagit science lingo and twist it to mean a magical "lawgiver" because scientific method has lead PEOPLE (scientists) to use the word "law" as a description of observable nature.

"law" in science is not a "law" like a speed limit humans agree on. "Law" in science is merely a word description of what scientists observe.

Law is not "given" to scientists, it is merely a word used as a description.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


bpwaddell
bpwaddell's picture
Posts: 46
Joined: 2009-10-29
User is offlineOffline
Causality

Discussing the "infinite " of things is very interesting but also dangerous..
It does not help in Mathematical equations and and it certainly doesn't help in trying to explain the "why" of our existence
but it is fun to contemplate... However , one has to tread slowly .. and NOT jump to conclusions...
There are lots of things we do not know yet !!

We do know the cause of certain things .. like hurricanes, earthquakes, chemical reactions, delusion, group hysteria and my favourite Evolution , plus  many others
assigning any of these to a supernatural cause is giving up on finding the true answer ..

 

 

 

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13661
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:The Second Law of

Quote:
The Second Law of Thermodynamics shows that heat flows to cold.

Yea, so?

This means that a magical invisible super brain with no brain, no neurons, no cerebellum exists?

Evil Knievel tried to jump the Grand Canyon which is a big gap and he failed. You make that look like a puddle jump.

Here is your thought process.

Step one: Buy ancient myth

Step two: Fuel it with credulity and emotionalism

Step three: Allow ego to ignore the possibility of being wrong.

Step four: When critics kick the tires, attempt to retrofit modern science to prop up popular myth

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


kidvelvet
atheist
kidvelvet's picture
Posts: 162
Joined: 2010-01-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Quote:The

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
The Second Law of Thermodynamics shows that heat flows to cold.

Yea, so?

This means that a magical invisible super brain with no brain, no neurons, no cerebellum exists?

Evil Knievel tried to jump the Grand Canyon which is a big gap and he failed. You make that look like a puddle jump.

Here is your thought process.

Step one: Buy ancient myth

Step two: Fuel it with credulity and emotionalism

Step three: Allow ego to ignore the possibility of being wrong.

Step four: When critics kick the tires, attempt to retrofit modern science to prop up popular myth

 

You for got a few steps:

Step six: Collect Underpants.

Step seven: ???

Step eight: Profit!

Dolt:"Evolution is just a theory."
Me:"Yes, so is light and gravity. Pardon me while I flash this strobe while dropping a bowling ball on your head. This shouldn't bother you; after all, these are just theories."


Sapient
High Level DonorRRS CO-FOUNDERRRS Core MemberWebsite Admin
Sapient's picture
Posts: 7522
Joined: 2006-04-18
User is offlineOffline
 Randy J,  In a recent

 Randy J,

 

 In a recent deletion of multiple spam related accounts your account was accidentally removed.  Please re-create an account with the same email address you used last time.  You can use the same name as well.  Sorry.

- Brian Sapient


Buy popular atheist books and support the Rational Response Squad at the same time on Amazon.