Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(June 29, 2011 at 4:06 pm)thebigfudge Wrote: secular journals of course.
Why only a secular journal?
(June 29, 2011 at 4:18 pm)Rhythm Wrote:
Creation science appears to be the science of defining things in a favorable manner to creationists.
You know what, that comment didn't add anything to the discussion, let me try again.
In what way is a god who is indistinguishable from the natural world different than no god at all?
Creation Science is older than Secular Science so maybe it is you guys who have redefined terms in a favorable light no? Either way, it's pretty commonly understood that Natural Laws cannot cause anything.
Where did I say that God was indistinguishable from the natural world?
I think that this answer pretty much sums up why
(June 29, 2011 at 5:11 pm)reverendjeremiah Wrote: I imagine we could have satanist journals to check from as well. Oh, and new age journals to check from. We can consult the crystals to see what answer is correct, or we can pray to Jesus and ask for a sign for which answer is correct. Then we can teach the children to pray to Allah to look for a sign as to wether the world is created or not.. and then we can teach them to meditate Zen style to reach enlightnement. That surely sounds good, and how can an enlightened one be wrong? Sure, why JUST secular journals?
I used to live in a room full of mirrors; all I could see was me. I take my spirit and I crash my mirrors, now the whole world is here for me to see. Jimi Hendrix
I'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not. Kurt Cobain
June 29, 2011 at 5:31 pm (This post was last modified: June 29, 2011 at 5:36 pm by Statler Waldorf.)
(June 29, 2011 at 5:08 pm)Rhythm Wrote:
Not too long ago, two posts up actually
"Well keep in mind that natural laws do not cause anything, they are merely descriptions of what we observe to happen regularly. We define this predictable upholding by God as "natural”. If God did not give nature an overlaying uniformity we could not gain any knowledge really because we could not make predictions about the future. So it is in our best interest that He does maintain Creation in this manner."
In what manner?
In a preIn a predictable and uniform manner. I never said God was indistinguishable from nature, His consistent upholding of His creation was.dictible and uniform manner. I never said God was indistinguishible from nature, His consistent upholding of nature was.
(June 29, 2011 at 5:29 pm)thebigfudge Wrote: I think that this answer pretty much sums up why
Really? Can you even name a scientifically peer reviewed Satanist journal? I can't. Red herring. So I guess I will just ask again, why are you allowed to use journals that presuppose the Bible is false and I can’t use journals that presuppose the Bible is true? That’s nothing more than special pleading, how about we are allowed to use both sets of journals? Fair?
What is the difference between a god who's method of upholding his creation is indistinguishable from a natural explanation and no god at all?
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
(June 29, 2011 at 5:47 pm)Rhythm Wrote: What is the difference between a god who's method of upholding his creation is indistinguishable from a natural explanation and no god at all?
Creation would not behave in a uniform manner without God and all knowledge and intelligibility would be impossible.
June 29, 2011 at 5:58 pm (This post was last modified: June 29, 2011 at 5:58 pm by fr0d0.)
(June 29, 2011 at 5:47 pm)Rhythm Wrote: What is the difference between a god who's method of upholding his creation is indistinguishable from a natural explanation and no god at all?
Statler, spare me the suspense, are you hinting at Swinburne's cosmological argument?
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
June 29, 2011 at 6:38 pm (This post was last modified: June 29, 2011 at 6:40 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
Meh, Swinburnes, Kalam, any number of cosmological arguments. Doesn't really make a difference which you're employing. You know this is the second chance I've had to post this link up in two days.
Please explain to me how your argument differs from the cosmological argument (which, for reasons explained at length, is unsound)
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Meh, Swinburnes, Kalam, any number of cosmological arguments. Doesn't really make a difference which you're employing. You know this is the second chance I've had to post this link up in two days.
Please explain to me how your argument differs from the cosmological argument (which, for reasons explained at length, is unsound)
Ugh, Wikipedia. Not sure where you get the idea that the cosmological argument is necessarily unsound just because some atheistic/agnostic logicians objected to it, there are many theistic logicians who do believe it is sound. That being said, I was not making a cosmological argument at all, but rather a presuppositoinal one. In order for any knowledge to be gained, you have to presuppose that we live in a universe created by the God of the Bible because it is only this universe that could even be intelligible. So the fact that you are even trying to make an argument against God's existence is in turn proving His existence because you would be unable to even do this in an atheistic universe.
