RE: Let's be honest
May 16, 2023 at 2:44 pm
(This post was last modified: May 16, 2023 at 2:53 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
(May 16, 2023 at 12:11 pm)Kingpin Wrote: My point was the differing levels of explanation. If you don't like the Henry Ford analogy, take Frank Whittle as the inventor/creator of the jet engine. The point is Whittle does NOT compete with the laws and engineering steps to create the jet engine. Both explain the existence.Whittle doesn't explain the existence of engines anymore than Ford did. I could know absolutely everything about either man and I would still know nothing about engines. If I know anything about engines, all details about either man are extraneous to that understanding...of engines.
Quote: I would saw that the jet engine DOES require a person/mind to USE the laws to make it work. That's what inventing is. Using the world we have, the knowledge we've acquired to invent something new. Requires a mind. One explains HOW/WHAT is happening, the other is WHY, but both satisfy the question regarding a jet engine.
Like a squid, you mean? Do squid explain how jet, or why jet?
Quote:Same with water boiling. Someone walks in to your kitchen and see a pot on the stove bubbling and asks you, "Why is the water boiling?" Do you respond with a scientific answer like heat induction and water molecule excitement? No. It's boiling because I'm making pasta for dinner. But that explanation is not contradictory to the scientific explanation to the question. They are both correct. I'm not drawing any lines in the sand, just that I see a lot of naturalist/materialist say that modern science has removed the need for God to explain anything and I disagree because of this differing level of explanation, one from agency.I think if we kept going with these examples we'd find a pattern. Yes, I do respond to questions accurately. If you ask me what boiling water is, I'll tell you. If you ask me how water boils, I tell you. If you ask me who is boiling water, I'll tell you. What you're telling me, is that you would consistently answer at least two if not all three of these questions with the same response.
There's more than just science and theism competing in these semantics, imo.
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!
