Origin of Articles

[libalchris]

The point was to expose your beliefs in a post. Thank you for finally answering. Science only works for you because you are inconsistent with what you believe and biblical creation is true.


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.

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

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

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.

I'm genuinely having a difficult time responding to something so nonsensical. I really don't see any kind of coherent logic anywhere. I genuinely can't respond if I don't know what your argument is.

Let me point out though that you misunderstood about what I said science's relationship was with uniformity. Let me explain completely. Experiments and observations have shown that the universe behaves in predictable, rational ways. Using that, we can assume that, for the most part, fundamental laws stay the same in the future, and have been the same throughout the past, unless there is reason to suspect something caused change. For example, you have not died in the past, but we cannot assume you will never die in the future, because known biological processes show that you will one day die. The universe is expanding, but we cannot assume it has always been because that would be impossible, it had to have started expanding at a minimal size.

---

ALL systems of epistemological inquiry start with axioms (or assumptions or presuppositions, if you prefer), even yours, whether you recognize it or not.

Properly, the question is not whether these axioms are provable - by definition, they cannot, they are self-evident, at least to the person holding them as axiomatic - but whether it is justifiable to treat them as such. Our observations are consistent with a reality that conforms to the principle of uniformity, and so from the scientific viewpoint, that axiom is justified. If our observations were not consistent with the principle of uniformity, then clearly, treating it as axiomatic would be unjustifiable and we'd have a problem. They aren't, so we don't.

You're free to disagree, of course, and I expect you will.

I'll also note that even if we couldn't justify our own axioms (even if not to your satisfaction), it in no way relieves you of the intellectual obligation to justify your own. Put another way, even if we're completely and utterly wrong, that says nothing about the truth value of your proposition.

This is where this whole conversation is going I think, I've seen it before. It's called presuppositional apologetics. Our friend here will say that his axiom is the holy bible. In other words, he makes his arguments that God exists, by assuming God exists.

This is why at this point I think I'm done with this conversation. I refuse to argue points like this for 2 reasons.
1. Presuppositional apologetics is bullshit. It's circular reasoning to attempt to prove the bible by assuming the bible is true.
2. It's worthless philosophical bullshit. Discussing things like this is worthless and accomplishes nothing. Unifomitarianism works because it has been observed. Every observation and experiment ever done has shown that physical laws don't change unless another predictable physical process causes them to. We can apply the principle of uniformity to radiometric dating, for example, because we understand what causes radioactive decay, and have run numerous experiments that show radioactive decay simply does not change.