Origin of Articles

[genkaus]

Admirable work you're doing among the savages, genkaus. Can't say I think any good will come of it, but I commend you on your patience.

I'm simply fulfilling the purpose assigned to us atheists by Lord Almighty.

[Mister Agenda]

The point was to expose your beliefs in a post.

So you were being ingenuous, deceitful, and tricky. I hate to put it this way, but thank you for exposing yourself.

Thank you for finally answering. Science only works for you because you are inconsistent with what you believe and biblical creation is true.

Science works for everyone, regardless of their philosophy or religion.

Let me point out that uniformitarianism is incorrect when it says "the past is the key to the future." If that were the case then I guess I'll never die since I never have in the past. It's ridiculous to think that way.

I can't imagine a more naive pseudo-understanding of uniformitarianism. You've got us. Scientists really think you're never going to die because you haven't died so far, rather than noting everyone so far observed has died and concluding you will, too. Not to mention that we know why you're going to die. For you to not ever die without a physical explanation would be proof that the grand age of uniformitarianism was over. It's ridiculous to think that way.

You say science establishes a "principle" of uniformity because of multiple experiments with consistent results. It DOESN'T rely on uniformity. WOW!

If not for uniformity, the experiments would not produce consistent results, thus allowing science to prove that uniformity is not so uniform. If things were different, they'd be different.

Well there isn't much confidence in that sort of reasoning since MANY things in nature change. You do agree I hope!

Everybody who is not an idiot agrees. What kind of idiot would think people might not?

You are assuming that the same natural laws and processes that operate in the universe now, have always operated in the universe in the past and apply everywhere in the universe.

It's not assumption, and by the way, modern physics entails that certain natural laws and processes operated differently in the first moments of the universe's expansion. It's almost like science follows the evidence rather than basing everything on an assumption of uniformity.

---

Looks like we have a case of empiricism here.
Well if your observations were consistent in noticing uniformity that's what I would expect as a believer in biblical creation. The laws of uniformity were already pre-existent for your observations to discover them.

Ayep. It's kinda hard to observe things that don't exist yet. Good catch.

My justification for the laws of uniformity and the whole reason science works is because the biblical God consistently keeps this universe in motion. Night and day, the seasons, orbits, life cycles, etc... He is omnipresent so I would also expect uniformity throughout the entire universe and also laws of logic to apply.

That could be it. Or it could be Brahma. Or it could be the work of multitudes of spirits. Once you introduce supernatural explanations, there's no logically consistent reason to exclude any other supernatural explanation.

When I get answers like "science works because it works" that's a pretty arbitrary answer for the justification of uniformity.

More accurately: working is what makes it science.

Without justification for the law of uniformity from the evolutionist it becomes as arbitrary as a child believing in Santa Clause coming down the chimney Christmas Eve.

If the child sees Santa Clause coming down the chimney every Christmas Eve, your analogy becomes apt.

I would have to call you out on your conclusion above.
You're assuming your observations are giving you reliable information.

Not all observations give reliable information. Science is based on not assuming that the obvious is true, that's why observations must be repeatable.

Plus if empiricism is your method then you must have empirically come to that conclusion which is impossible since knowledge is not observable.

That would present an equal problem for you wouldn't it? Empiricism is unavoidable in learning anything. You couldn't even start to read the Bible without trusting that your previous reading experience produced reliable results.

If you disagree then tell me what color it is.

If you reject empiricism, tell me how you know what the Bible says.

All wisdom and knowledge is hidden in Christ.

Pity the part about supporting your assertions is still hidden to you.

No worries. If I had your worldview I'd be frustrated too.

It can be a curse to be able to recognize moronic thinking when you run into it.

---

I keep getting the "it works, it works" answer.

It becomes vicious circular reasoning when you use your senses to validate your senses, your reason to validate your reason.

Viciously circular reasoning - Occurs when one attempts to infer a conclusion that is based upon a premise that ultimately contains the conclusion itself.

Or the Bible to justify belief in the Bible?

[Mister Agenda]

You still haven't given a valid reason why science should work in your personal evolutionary worldview.

What does evolution have to do with why science works? Science could have found evidence that led to a very different theory, the theory of evolution is a product of science, science doesn't depend on evolution. Science works because it compensates for our fallible senses and reasoning.

You have no reason to believe any given experiment would produce the same result in the future as it has in the past.

Declaring that an experiment producing the same results no matter how many times its repeated is not not a reason to believe it will produce the same results again is not actually a reason to think that's the case. We can't learn anything at all if past experience has no value, empiricism is necessary to human functioning. How many times do you have to put your hand in the fire before you conclude your predictions based on experience are reliable enough for you to stop doing it?

You're taking for granted the law of uniformity upheld by our creator. Gen 8:22 for example.

Gen 8:22 is false. Seedtime and harvest will end long before the planet is gone. You see, we understand the universe well enough to make some reliable predictions about how the future will be different from the past. If nothing else ends life as we know it on earth first, in about 600 million years, plant life will die off due to low CO2 levels. About 7 billion years later the sun expands into a Red Giant that will aborb the earth.

Any other response to this post that doesn't address this issue would just continue to prove my point.

Nothing so far has even begun to prove your point.

---

You're not understanding that in order for your beliefs to be rational they have to satisfy the preconditions of intelligibility.

You're still not understanding that merely declaring something to be so doesn't make it so.

Logic, Uniformity of nature, morality, dignity, freedom, etc. Without these you can't have knowledge.

Is this an argument from not having much of an imagination?

Only the Biblical God can have justification for these.

And what IS the biblical God's justification for these? Why can't Brahma or Ptah justify them?

The biblical creation worldview is true and knowledge is possible because of this.

This isn't a conclusion, it's just another assertion.

Any worldview contradicting the God of the Bible can't satisfy the preconditions of intelligibility.

First: show the preconditions of intelligibility are necessary. Second: Show that God exists. Third: Show that God satisfies the preconditions. Fourth: Show that no other explanation can do so. That's what you have to do to make your assertions justified.

You borrow from the Christian worldview and take for granted these preconditions.

Modern science is rooted in ancient Egypt and Greece, not ancient Israel and Palestine.

When I ask for rational reasons from evolutionists they try to answer these questions without God and I just get people talking about ice cream and telling me science works because it works. No rational answer from anyone.

It must be very difficult to go through life without being able to understand what reasonable people are saying.

Until you justify rationally your belief in evolution my sig describes the type of faith you have in it.

Do you get some kind of prize based on how many unsupported assertions you make?

What piece of evidence convinced you that evolution was true???

Speaking for myself, no single piece of evidence did it, it was the (literally in the case of fossils) tons of accrued evidence over more than a century with support from every scientific line of investigation that touched on it; combined with not ever encountering someone who rejects evolution who doesn't have a stupid misconception about it. I started out as a young earth creationist, but in those days we didn't have the internet to make it easy to only look at sources filtered through creationist websites, I read about what science was discovering from scientists and learned that what I had been taught about the theory of evolution was crammed with lies. I don't see much hope for you realizing that because you've bought into presuppositionalism, so reason no longer works on you.

---

So looks like for you someday the laws of logic will change. You do know what invariant means right?

Someday they could conceivably change. I don't expect them too, but I'm not omniscient. You're the one telling US that we presuppose uniformity no matter how many times we point out that we don't presuppose it, we conclude it.

If laws of logic were determined by matter
then we would expect them to change like you stated.

Why would we expect them to change?

"So far"

So good.

The universe does change and I've had to remind people on this forum that their illogical conclusions keep forgetting that important fact.

You've never had to remind anyone here of that. You're suffering from the effect of not knowing enough to know how wrong you are about what other people think.

If laws of logic were merely an extension of the physical universe, then we would have no basis for arguing that they must apply in unknown regions of the universe or in the future, since no one has experienced these things (there goes Universal laws out the door).

We have no basis for arguing they must be different in unknown regions of the universe or in the future, and it's logically fallacious to argue from ignorance. The argument you're projecting onto us is: 'We don't know that the laws of the universe can't be different in places we don't know about so we must assume they ARE different'. That would be a pretty stupid argument.

It does no good to counter that laws of logic do work in known regions and have always worked in the past. This is irrelevant to unknown regions and the future unless we already presupposed an underlying uniformity, which only the consistent Christian has a right to expect.

You're claiming that it is unreasonable to infer reliability from reliability. Inferring unreliability from reliability is what is unreasonable.

All of this makes sense in the Christian worldview, since God is beyond time, and, thus, His thoughts are as well.

Yet another unsupported assertion.

I'm not sure you know what you're trying to describe here.
Examples:
1) Law of excluded middle- a statement is either true or false.

What do you make of the following statement: 'This statement is false.'?

2) Law of non-contradiction- Something cannot be itself and not itself at the same time in the same relationship.

See quantum superposition.

3) Law of Identity- Something is what it is. Something that exists has a specific nature.

A Moebius strip is both one-sided and two-sided.

Note that I am not rejecting the laws of thought. Just pointing out that they are not unassailable. Paradoxes are problematic for them.

[elunico13]

Besides, there are known examples of areas of the universe (black-holes) or the past (before big-bang) that we know that laws of logic wouldn't work and we do not attempt to apply them there.

This goes to show that your big bang theory has no logical reason for ever causing a bigbang in the first place since laws of logic never existed prior. You just proved the fact that your beliefs aren't based on logic.

Bullshit. The only assumption of underlying uniformity comes from the fact that in most cases, we do not know of its absence and where it is absent, we do not presume it. Its your christian worldview that's senseless and illogical. To begin with, the laws of logic are applicable only in a spatio-temporal context and you Christians are always trying to cheat that one.

It would be hard to support the notion that laws of logic are a reflection or extension of the physical universe because they do not describe the physical universe (as laws of nature do). Laws of logic have to do more with the reasoning process; they describe the correct “chain of reasoning” from premises to conclusions. For example the law of non-contradiction (A and not-A cannot both be true at the same time and in the same relationship) deals with concepts—not with nature, per se. Laws of logic connect conceptual relationships, rather than describing specific conditions or processes in the physical universe

No need to get emotionally upset about these things.

[Epimethean]

The laws of logic give no help in generating a defense of the existence of a deity. Your argument falls to the floor every time you get there.

[elunico13]

The laws of logic give no help in generating a defense of the existence of a deity. Your argument falls to the floor every time you get there.

If you can provide a rational reason for believing so I'd like to read it.
Otherwise its just another arbitrary opinion. Check the rest of the thread first so you don't contradict your fellow atheists.

[Epimethean]

You don't understand any of what has been pointed out to you in this thread, do you?

[frankiej]

Check the rest of the thread first so you don't contradict your fellow atheists.

Are you aware that we don't all act like a hive mind? We don't all have the same opinions and thoughts as every other atheist.

[elunico13]

First: show the preconditions of intelligibility are necessary.

This right here is the main reason why your not fully understanding this thread. I went on the assumption that by posting this thread under philosophy that people who understood the subject might respond. I would recommend a little research on the subject before posting. Or just stay out of philosophical threads.

V/R
elunico13

[The Grand Nudger]

Wondered how long it would take till El here slipped a little arsenic in the well..lol.

It seems like you're making a dedicated effort to scuttle your own boat...at this point I don't think that anyone would have to respond to you at all, you'll dismantle your arguments by yourself.