It is sweet and delicious irony, Rhythm, that immediately after quoting me directly you could still manage to straw man my argument. "The context of our discussion," you said, "was a biblical justification for the concept of the fixed laws of material cosmology and the mechanisms thereof." Really? See, that is very strange because I was pretty sure the context of our discussion was "the direct or implied promise of the mechanism upon which we are assured the uniformity of nature" (Msg. 102). You even quoted me directly. It was sitting right there in front of you. That is what the verse supplied. The covenant God of creation and of Israel is the promised mechanism upon which we are assured the uniformity of nature. That covenant God is what gives us the reason "to assume that the laws of physics will remain the same" (Msg. 101). So no, his covenantal promise was not predicated on material cosmology. That is in fact precisely backwards. Your assumption of that uniformity, on the other hand, is constituted by the vicious circularity of induction. (As Statler was pointing out, you cannot justify induction except inductively).
"I try to avoid using the Bible as evidence for anything," you said. I see. So you will tell us what was going on in the text (i.e., that the fixed laws Jeremiah referred to were Chaldean) without bothering to interact with the text at all. We are supposed to just take your word for it. I find it interesting that you would not allow others to get away with ipse dixit conclusions, and feel no twinge of hypocrisy when you do it. "What other cosmology would they be referring to at this time?" you asked, seeming to hedge your ipse dixit behind an argumentum ad ignorantiam (it is true unless and until proven false). I just cannot see you allowing others to get away with something like this, having followed your responses to people elsewhere on these forums.
The fact that you find it all "fairly meaningless" apart from evidence that God exists is categorically irrelevant autobiographical information. What you happen to find meaningful or meaningless simply does not matter. That tells us something about you, but absolutely nothing about the issue being discussed.
And it is unfortunate that my positive opinion of you turns out to be a one-way street. Ah well.
"I try to avoid using the Bible as evidence for anything," you said. I see. So you will tell us what was going on in the text (i.e., that the fixed laws Jeremiah referred to were Chaldean) without bothering to interact with the text at all. We are supposed to just take your word for it. I find it interesting that you would not allow others to get away with ipse dixit conclusions, and feel no twinge of hypocrisy when you do it. "What other cosmology would they be referring to at this time?" you asked, seeming to hedge your ipse dixit behind an argumentum ad ignorantiam (it is true unless and until proven false). I just cannot see you allowing others to get away with something like this, having followed your responses to people elsewhere on these forums.
The fact that you find it all "fairly meaningless" apart from evidence that God exists is categorically irrelevant autobiographical information. What you happen to find meaningful or meaningless simply does not matter. That tells us something about you, but absolutely nothing about the issue being discussed.
And it is unfortunate that my positive opinion of you turns out to be a one-way street. Ah well.
Man is a rational animal who always loses his temper when
called upon to act in accordance with the dictates of reason.
(Oscar Wilde)
called upon to act in accordance with the dictates of reason.
(Oscar Wilde)
