RE: Dear Resident Theists
August 20, 2015 at 9:14 am
(This post was last modified: August 20, 2015 at 9:33 am by Whateverist.)
(August 20, 2015 at 8:58 am)lkingpinl Wrote:(August 20, 2015 at 8:55 am)Irrational Wrote: Key word is "appear". It's meant to be rhetorical whereby a difficulty is acknowledged but then a naturalistic solution/explanation is provided. Sort of like how Darwin acknowledged the complexity of the eye.
The universe is not, objectively speaking, finely-tuned for life. We're just conditioned to see it that way since we ourselves experience life and we like to focus on ourselves and the immediate surroundings. But what we often ignore is that the majority of the universe doesn't seem to be filled with life.
And do you agree with his naturalistic explanation of "That because there is a law of gravity the Universe can and will create itself" and "That in the singularity the laws of nature necessarily breakdown"?
I have to think the sentence you quote is a figure of speech. Here "laws of nature" is loose talk to describe the predictability of the world as we find it.
(August 20, 2015 at 8:58 am)lkingpinl Wrote: The laws of mathematics say that 1+1=2, but the laws have never produced a single dollar,
A colloquialism (your coinage?) which seems to imply that if there is any value in "the laws of nature" they ought to be profitable. But is there anything on earth more profitable to the production of technology, engineering and design than being able to accurately predict how best to exploit the world as we find it?
(August 20, 2015 at 8:58 am)lkingpinl Wrote: .. if the laws of nature are broken down in the singularity, then the naturalistic starting point is also supernatural.
That is an absurd comment. The 'laws' which allow us to predict the properties of materials in the universe as we know it wouldn't apply before the universe had become the way we now experience it. That is not a very remarkable statement.
You seem to imply that when the universe was in conditions prior to those we experience, it was not behaving naturally. But you're the only one claiming that the 'natural laws' which apply now must be eternal. No naturalist thinks that. A naturalist merely thinks there is a natural explanation for how prior conditions led to the conditions we experience now. We don't think there was a jump from a supernatural voodoo universe into the 'natural' universe we know today.
Frankly Kingy this disappoints me. Do you really misunderstand naturalism so badly? Or do you deliberately say what you know to be false merely to mislead.