RE: Here's why Creatards might be right
October 30, 2015 at 4:25 pm
(This post was last modified: October 30, 2015 at 4:42 pm by jenny1972.)
(October 30, 2015 at 3:53 pm)robvalue Wrote: I don't have a hypothesis regarding the laws of nature. It isn't necessary for everyone to have one. I have no idea.
It could simply be the case that they have always been the way they are, and that's it. It's our natural obsession with assigning agency to everything that is leading to the assumption that something must have made everything.
It's obviously flawed, because if an intelligence must be behind the laws, then an intelligence must have made that intelligence, and an intelligence must have made that intelligence...
To just arbitrarily say that this stops at some point is to admit the very rule you're using isn't valid.
the belief that all things must have a beginning middle and end is a human concept based on observable reality the concept of infinity could exist since concepts exist despite our inability to comprehend them . if infinity is a concept that does exist.
(October 30, 2015 at 3:56 pm)Rhythm Wrote:(October 30, 2015 at 3:51 pm)jenny1972 Wrote: right , so why dont you answer that question now .if not intelligently created or self created what is the alternative theory of why they exist? and why do you believe in this theory what supports it ?I'm sorry....for clarity, are we now pretending that I didn't -just- answer this question.....and that no one else has previously offered an answer? I'd hate to have to call you a liar...again. Okay...you got me, I enjoy it, whats really got me wondering, is why you give me so many opportunities to do so?
im not pretending that you didnt im saying that you have not yet given your theory about how the laws of physics came to exist
(October 30, 2015 at 4:00 pm)Rhythm Wrote: It's been given to you. For clarity, are we pretending..that this thread doesn't exist? That no ones explained the fallacy of composition? That no ones explained the fallacy of strawmanning. That no ones explained the fallacy of arguing from incredulity? That no ones explained the difference between valid and invalid inferences? That you haven't been corrected on your misunderstandings of both cosmology and biology, or even the simple matter...of the meaning of words?
None of that's happened....this is 41 pages, of none of that happening?
yes all that has been explained im just waiting for a theory about why the laws of nature exist . not the word " laws of nature " not terms that man has developed to define it but the actual laws of physics and nature which are well organized what is the theory about why and how they exist.
Imagine there's no heaven It's easy if you try No hell below us Above us only sky Imagine all the people Living for today 
Imagine there's no countries It isn't hard to do Nothing to kill or die for And no religion too Imagine all the people Living life in peace You may say I'm a dreamer But I'm not the only one I hope someday you will join us And the world will be as one - John Lennon
The easy confidence with which I know another man's religion is folly teaches me to suspect that my own is also - Mark Twain
Imagine there's no countries It isn't hard to do Nothing to kill or die for And no religion too Imagine all the people Living life in peace You may say I'm a dreamer But I'm not the only one I hope someday you will join us And the world will be as one - John LennonThe easy confidence with which I know another man's religion is folly teaches me to suspect that my own is also - Mark Twain
