Scientific method proves order cannot exist w/o intelligence

[rjh4 is back]

As would any Carte Blanche explanation, such as the presupposition of the FSM or Allah, they provide exactly the same function. That's the problem with saying "God did it", sure you can use it to explain anything, but you have no way of knowing whether you are correct in presupposing the existence of God. It may well be the case that while your presupposition does offer an explanation for why everything is, it is still the wrong answer.

So yes, your presuppositions give you a carte blanche, but they get you nowhere to being able to verify the conclusions of the presupposition as true.

Really? So tell me where FSM said or revealed anything about what I said. That should be good because we both know that you would be making it all up. I can look at the Bible as that is part of my presupposition. There is a difference.

While you doubt that my presuppositions are the correct answer, I am confident that the are. Just because using science leaves plenty of doubt for you doesn't mean that everyone is in that same boat.

I never said there are no authorities higher than me, the democratically elected government has more authority than me in social settings. but in non social settings there is no authority that i look to for rules about what behaviour i can and cannot display, i make those decisions all on my own.

Anyway, that was not even the point of my statement, it was to state that i don't care if God makes more sense of life for you or not, just because you follow orders that you believe are from a higher power does not mean that a) The orders are from a higher power or b) That you need these laws at all.

Not much of a point. All this shows to me is how much you want to justify yourself as being autonomous from God.

An explanation for Logic? Yes. Humans invented it to help discern between the true and the false by establishing a framework that can test if the reasoning behind an argument is valid and thus consistent with reality or fallacious and inconsistent.

For example the law of identity, it states that an apple cannot be not an apple, it is entirely consistent with reality, as are all logical statements because if they were not consistent, i.e if there was such a thing as an apple that was not an apple, they would not be logical laws.

Could you please explain how the humans who invented logic knew what was "true" and what was "false" so as to be able to know if these laws of logic were able to give the correct answer? Whose perceptions were used? What if they were wrong?

So if the laws of logic are a human invention, then I could reasonably come up with my own logic. Any society could. I could arbitrarily say that an apple is an orange and be totally rational within my own logical system and you should not be able to criticize it at all. After all, if logic is merely a human invention then all logical systems have the same validity. Do you agree with that? If not, why? And on what basis could you possibly tell me that my logic that says an apple is an orange would not be "logical laws"?

Do you agree that Eastern logic, which ebraces contraditions, is just as valid as the logic you use? If not, why? After all, theirs is logic of human invention, too. Why wouldn't theirs be just as valid and consistent with the way they view reality?

In fact, if logic is merely a human invention, why bother trying to correct anybody's use of logic as then they could reasonably respond that you have your logic and they have theirs. Who is to say that your logic is better? Logic that embraces fallacies would be just as valid.

I think these are all reasonable questions given your position. Don't you?

It was not a false dichotomy: If you claim that your revelations are valid but contradictory revelations that others have received are invalid then you must have a higher standard of evidence to call upon. You either search for this standard that can be used to differentiate between the claims and thus prove or disprove the validity of your revelation over the contradictory revelation or you don't.

The standard IS the God of the Bible. Any God other than the Biblical one is merely a god, not God.

The Bible says the Sun revolves around the earth, Science says the opposite.

Biblical citation please.

---

Scapegoating is pre-christian. The Jews used to command their sins onto a goat and drive it off a cliff.

Quite true and that was a foreshadowing of the sacrifice made by Jesus. Jesus was the ultimate and final scapegoat.

Also, if that is true then why do the consequences of original sin still effect us?

Because we still sin here.