RE: Big Bang Theory
November 10, 2012 at 2:00 pm
(This post was last modified: November 10, 2012 at 2:21 pm by Truth Matters.)
[quote='Kirbmarc' pid='361035' dateline='1352567740']
[quote]Dr Alvin Plantinga (one of the most brilliant analytic philosophers on the planet) made this observation.[/quote]
Plantinga is a lunatic whose ideas about evolution are about as grounded as the tooth fairy.
Plantinga's argument is flawed for another reason: claiming supernatural intervention is an abuse of concept of cause. Cause and effect are attributes of phenomena, and do not apply to methaphysical entities. As a philosopher, Plantinga should know that.
[/quote]
This coming from a nitwit who thinks the ceterus paribus LAWS of Nature are rules OF matter (belonging to matter).
Prove Planting's views on evolution are not properly grounded. Prove the chemical illusion that causally determined that idea in your 100% chemical mind is the correct idea?
Prove what correct chemical illusion of evolution 'ought' to have been delivered into Plantinga's mind by his 100% chemical mind.
Explain your basis for knowing that the chemical delusion caused by chemicals in your mind are objectively correct chemicals delusions - delivering that objective basis required to claim Plantinga's chemicals delivered the wrong delusion to his mind?
Prove your interpretation of the concept of cause is correct?
Prove Plantinga's argument is an abuse of the concept of cause? Where is your objective evidence?
Prove metaphysical entities are bound by your interpretation of the concept of cause.
How do you know your interpretations are correct? Do the chemical illusions caused in your Atheist head cause that illusion.
How do you know your chemical illusion is the correct illusion? Do the chemicals in your head cause that illusion for you too? How do you know that illusion is the valid illusion? Prove that illusion is valid without depending on your chemical illusions to interpret the validity of the illusion?
How does the Atheist escape this madness of 100% chemically caused mind? Remember, No free-will or choice is logically possible when those chemicals 100% causally determine mind.
Or do you just ignore the absurdity with more hand-waving?
Let's see you sort out this exercise in Atheist madness with logical coherence?
See. I can play your game.
[quote='Kirbmarc' pid='361045' dateline='1352569662']
[quote]It is bound by Natural Laws when it interacts with natural world. The law that is violated is simply the law of symmetry: if you an object A interacts with a on object B, then the object B interacts with object A. And if object A obeys to the laws of nature, so must object A.[/quote]
Not when ceteris paribus is considered. An outside force no more violates the law when than you or I cause a force.
You dishonestly ignore ceteris paribus. You are proven wrong.
[quote]Your claim that those odds are "infinitesimaly narrow" is groundless and biased.
[/quote]
You are either lying - or ignorant. These Finely Tuned constants and quantities are very well known. These confirmation are exactly the impetus behind Multi-verse (infinite Universes) speculations. M-Theory is specifically contrived to increase the probabilistic resources necessary to overcome known infinitesimal improbabilities.
It's time you got honest.
These are the NATURAL LAWS that GOVERN matter when ceteris paribus conditions apply. These LAWS do not exist as some attributes belonging to matter as internal rules of behavior. You don't even understand the concept of Natural L
Natural laws are simply behaviors of matter-energy that depend on attributes of matter-energy.
You're clueless - and now dishonest. The Laws GOVERNING natural behavior do not exist as rules within matter. They exist as LAWS governing the behavior of matter. Do you seriously contend that the laws of gravity exist within matter, whether act upon matter?
You have absolutely no rational basis to claim supernatural intervention violates ceteris paribus Laws.
If you were honest, you would admit it. But you're not.
[quote]Dr Alvin Plantinga (one of the most brilliant analytic philosophers on the planet) made this observation.[/quote]
Plantinga is a lunatic whose ideas about evolution are about as grounded as the tooth fairy.
Plantinga's argument is flawed for another reason: claiming supernatural intervention is an abuse of concept of cause. Cause and effect are attributes of phenomena, and do not apply to methaphysical entities. As a philosopher, Plantinga should know that.
[/quote]
This coming from a nitwit who thinks the ceterus paribus LAWS of Nature are rules OF matter (belonging to matter).
Prove Planting's views on evolution are not properly grounded. Prove the chemical illusion that causally determined that idea in your 100% chemical mind is the correct idea?
Prove what correct chemical illusion of evolution 'ought' to have been delivered into Plantinga's mind by his 100% chemical mind.
Explain your basis for knowing that the chemical delusion caused by chemicals in your mind are objectively correct chemicals delusions - delivering that objective basis required to claim Plantinga's chemicals delivered the wrong delusion to his mind?
Prove your interpretation of the concept of cause is correct?
Prove Plantinga's argument is an abuse of the concept of cause? Where is your objective evidence?
Prove metaphysical entities are bound by your interpretation of the concept of cause.
How do you know your interpretations are correct? Do the chemical illusions caused in your Atheist head cause that illusion.
How do you know your chemical illusion is the correct illusion? Do the chemicals in your head cause that illusion for you too? How do you know that illusion is the valid illusion? Prove that illusion is valid without depending on your chemical illusions to interpret the validity of the illusion?
How does the Atheist escape this madness of 100% chemically caused mind? Remember, No free-will or choice is logically possible when those chemicals 100% causally determine mind.
Or do you just ignore the absurdity with more hand-waving?
Let's see you sort out this exercise in Atheist madness with logical coherence?
See. I can play your game.
[quote='Kirbmarc' pid='361045' dateline='1352569662']
[quote]It is bound by Natural Laws when it interacts with natural world. The law that is violated is simply the law of symmetry: if you an object A interacts with a on object B, then the object B interacts with object A. And if object A obeys to the laws of nature, so must object A.[/quote]
Not when ceteris paribus is considered. An outside force no more violates the law when than you or I cause a force.
You dishonestly ignore ceteris paribus. You are proven wrong.
[quote]Your claim that those odds are "infinitesimaly narrow" is groundless and biased.
[/quote]
You are either lying - or ignorant. These Finely Tuned constants and quantities are very well known. These confirmation are exactly the impetus behind Multi-verse (infinite Universes) speculations. M-Theory is specifically contrived to increase the probabilistic resources necessary to overcome known infinitesimal improbabilities.
It's time you got honest.
These are the NATURAL LAWS that GOVERN matter when ceteris paribus conditions apply. These LAWS do not exist as some attributes belonging to matter as internal rules of behavior. You don't even understand the concept of Natural L
Natural laws are simply behaviors of matter-energy that depend on attributes of matter-energy.
You're clueless - and now dishonest. The Laws GOVERNING natural behavior do not exist as rules within matter. They exist as LAWS governing the behavior of matter. Do you seriously contend that the laws of gravity exist within matter, whether act upon matter?
You have absolutely no rational basis to claim supernatural intervention violates ceteris paribus Laws.
If you were honest, you would admit it. But you're not.
