Origin of Articles

[Mister Agenda]

You still haven't given a valid reason why science should work in your personal evolutionary worldview.

What does evolution have to do with why science works? Science could have found evidence that led to a very different theory, the theory of evolution is a product of science, science doesn't depend on evolution. Science works because it compensates for our fallible senses and reasoning.

You have no reason to believe any given experiment would produce the same result in the future as it has in the past.

Declaring that an experiment producing the same results no matter how many times its repeated is not not a reason to believe it will produce the same results again is not actually a reason to think that's the case. We can't learn anything at all if past experience has no value, empiricism is necessary to human functioning. How many times do you have to put your hand in the fire before you conclude your predictions based on experience are reliable enough for you to stop doing it?

You're taking for granted the law of uniformity upheld by our creator. Gen 8:22 for example.

Gen 8:22 is false. Seedtime and harvest will end long before the planet is gone. You see, we understand the universe well enough to make some reliable predictions about how the future will be different from the past. If nothing else ends life as we know it on earth first, in about 600 million years, plant life will die off due to low CO2 levels. About 7 billion years later the sun expands into a Red Giant that will aborb the earth.

Any other response to this post that doesn't address this issue would just continue to prove my point.

Nothing so far has even begun to prove your point.

---

You're not understanding that in order for your beliefs to be rational they have to satisfy the preconditions of intelligibility.

You're still not understanding that merely declaring something to be so doesn't make it so.

Logic, Uniformity of nature, morality, dignity, freedom, etc. Without these you can't have knowledge.

Is this an argument from not having much of an imagination?

Only the Biblical God can have justification for these.

And what IS the biblical God's justification for these? Why can't Brahma or Ptah justify them?

The biblical creation worldview is true and knowledge is possible because of this.

This isn't a conclusion, it's just another assertion.

Any worldview contradicting the God of the Bible can't satisfy the preconditions of intelligibility.

First: show the preconditions of intelligibility are necessary. Second: Show that God exists. Third: Show that God satisfies the preconditions. Fourth: Show that no other explanation can do so. That's what you have to do to make your assertions justified.

You borrow from the Christian worldview and take for granted these preconditions.

Modern science is rooted in ancient Egypt and Greece, not ancient Israel and Palestine.

When I ask for rational reasons from evolutionists they try to answer these questions without God and I just get people talking about ice cream and telling me science works because it works. No rational answer from anyone.

It must be very difficult to go through life without being able to understand what reasonable people are saying.

Until you justify rationally your belief in evolution my sig describes the type of faith you have in it.

Do you get some kind of prize based on how many unsupported assertions you make?

What piece of evidence convinced you that evolution was true???

Speaking for myself, no single piece of evidence did it, it was the (literally in the case of fossils) tons of accrued evidence over more than a century with support from every scientific line of investigation that touched on it; combined with not ever encountering someone who rejects evolution who doesn't have a stupid misconception about it. I started out as a young earth creationist, but in those days we didn't have the internet to make it easy to only look at sources filtered through creationist websites, I read about what science was discovering from scientists and learned that what I had been taught about the theory of evolution was crammed with lies. I don't see much hope for you realizing that because you've bought into presuppositionalism, so reason no longer works on you.

---

So looks like for you someday the laws of logic will change. You do know what invariant means right?

Someday they could conceivably change. I don't expect them too, but I'm not omniscient. You're the one telling US that we presuppose uniformity no matter how many times we point out that we don't presuppose it, we conclude it.

If laws of logic were determined by matter
then we would expect them to change like you stated.

Why would we expect them to change?

"So far"

So good.

The universe does change and I've had to remind people on this forum that their illogical conclusions keep forgetting that important fact.

You've never had to remind anyone here of that. You're suffering from the effect of not knowing enough to know how wrong you are about what other people think.

If laws of logic were merely an extension of the physical universe, then we would have no basis for arguing that they must apply in unknown regions of the universe or in the future, since no one has experienced these things (there goes Universal laws out the door).

We have no basis for arguing they must be different in unknown regions of the universe or in the future, and it's logically fallacious to argue from ignorance. The argument you're projecting onto us is: 'We don't know that the laws of the universe can't be different in places we don't know about so we must assume they ARE different'. That would be a pretty stupid argument.

It does no good to counter that laws of logic do work in known regions and have always worked in the past. This is irrelevant to unknown regions and the future unless we already presupposed an underlying uniformity, which only the consistent Christian has a right to expect.

You're claiming that it is unreasonable to infer reliability from reliability. Inferring unreliability from reliability is what is unreasonable.

All of this makes sense in the Christian worldview, since God is beyond time, and, thus, His thoughts are as well.

Yet another unsupported assertion.

I'm not sure you know what you're trying to describe here.
Examples:
1) Law of excluded middle- a statement is either true or false.

What do you make of the following statement: 'This statement is false.'?

2) Law of non-contradiction- Something cannot be itself and not itself at the same time in the same relationship.

See quantum superposition.

3) Law of Identity- Something is what it is. Something that exists has a specific nature.

A Moebius strip is both one-sided and two-sided.

Note that I am not rejecting the laws of thought. Just pointing out that they are not unassailable. Paradoxes are problematic for them.