Scientific method proves order cannot exist w/o intelligence

[theVOID]

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.

Fair enough about the FSM, but you conveniently dropped my point about Allah, or any other religion for that matter.

So how do you know your revelations are correct and theirs are not? Where are the standards here?

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 am fully aware that you are certain God exists, but the act of believing does not make the belief true. If that was the case then every religion would be true, which you and i both know isn't the case. Again, when you have contradictory claims based on the same standard of evidence you must use another standard by which to discern between the claims.

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.

Why are you asserting God into my world view? My above statement was not a hypothetical assuming he exists so being autonomous from god is entirely irrelevant.

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?

True and false are not absolute terms, they are laws that are designed to be consistent with any statement you could make about reality.

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.

Do you realise how retarded you sound?

You could claim that an Orange is an Apple, but it's not. An orange has defining attributes and so does an apple and while some are the same (i.e reasonably round) as a whole they do not come out as items with equal attributes.

This is what I mean by being consistent with reality, your model would not be consistent.

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"?

See above.

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?

Eastern logic? Never heard of it.

Also, embraces contradictions? Contradictions are things that by definition are incompatible. If you can demonstrate that something held as contradictory is in fact not, then it is no longer a contradiction, but contradictions are still, as defined, incompatible.

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.

*Facepalm*

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

They all deserved a lot more mockery than i gave them, lets just say that.

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.

*facepalm*

And how do you know that the Bible is the word of God? Because God said so? And how do you know God said the bible was his word? Because the Bible said so?...

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

Biblical citation please.

Couldn't find one that wasn't totally vague, so I take that assertion back.

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.

But people still had a mechanism for escaping the consequences of Sin, so your 'unique' piece of Christian theology is invalid.

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

Because we still sin here.

Original Sin is sin you have from birth, before you have had a chance to sin.

Why is that still taught if Jesus died for the consequences of sin? (though if you don't accept original sin then no need to answer)