(September 11, 2014 at 4:24 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:(September 11, 2014 at 4:00 pm)sswhateverlove Wrote: I guess I don't have any context in which I have ever observed "laws" or "rules" to exist without them being written, created, or imposed by some being with some intelligence.
Hm. You ought to know that just because, say, there's a rule by which the freezing temperature of water can be determined, it's otherwise comparable to a rule that humans make up to govern their own activities. Rules and laws of nature are descriptions of consistent ways reality behaves. They're really more analogous to landscape painting than to laws. It really makes no sense to link the creation of human laws with the creation of natural ones, it's a conflation of two very different things that happen to have the same name. It's like reasoning that feathers can't be dark, because they're light. People make these kinds of errors all the time, but I doubt this particular one would occur in a language that didn't use the same word for both senses.
law/lô/
noun
1.the system of rules that a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and may enforce by the imposition of penalties.
2.a statement of fact, deduced from observation, to the effect that a particular natural or scientific phenomenon always occurs if certain conditions are present.
(September 11, 2014 at 4:18 pm)coldwx Wrote: You still have not addressed why you think there is an atheist perspective on evolution. As many have repeatable told you, atheism and evolution are mutually exclusive. My atheism simply means I reject the claim that god exists. Are you claiming that you know that the "intelligence" in design is god? Once again, you don't get to shift the burden of proof. What is an atheist perspective on evolution?
'Mutually exclusive' is probably not the best phrasing, as it implies that an atheist cannot also accept evolution, when it's closer to say that an atheist doesn't have to accept evolution.
I agree there is a difference between man-made laws and laws that man assumes are consistent in the natural world. I also feel like there are times when man assumes he knows laws of the natural world, but with additional information, he realizes he misunderstood the data and the laws that he thought applied to everything, actually only apply to a small portion of things.
