Origin of Articles

[DeistPaladin]

My justification for the laws of uniformity and the whole reason science works is because the biblical God consistently keeps this universe in motion. Night and day, the seasons, orbits, life cycles, etc... He is omnipresent so I would also expect uniformity throughout the entire universe and also laws of logic to apply.

To anyone not indoctrinated into the cult of Christ, this seems a very shallow answer.

"Why do we have morality?"
"GodWillsIt"
"Why is there order in the universe?"
"GodDidIt"
"What is the meaning to our existence?"
"GodIsIt"

The three word answer to everything: "God", a verb, and "It".

How does that elucidate anything for us? Never mind the underlying assumption of yours that "God" must be Yahweh/Jesus and not Zeus, Odin, Ra, Shiva, Allah or many others. How does such a vapid three-word answer provide you with any greater understanding of any of these abstract philosophical issues?

The answer, of course, is that presuppositional nonsense isn't about understanding anything. It's about finding a reason to justify a belief that you already held before you even got started. Like most other canned apologetic philoso-babble, you start with the conclusions of your faith and try to find a way to work back to it.

The point you keep missing in your quest to invent evidence where none exists is that logical rules and scientific laws are not "things" nor are they mysterious forces that require the existence of a divine hand to maintain them. There is no magical power that prevents you from contradicting yourself nor is there some angel that stops you from creating or destroying energy or matter. They are nothing more than observations of reality and our way of measuring them. They no more shape our reality than a ruler creates distance.

Your demands that we justify why we use logic or science can be paraphrased into "I demand you figure out a reason why we figure things out without using the process to figure things out."

Then you say "GodWillsIt" (as if that explains anything) and follow it up with the hilarious non sequitur "Nyeth nyeth you don't know everything therefore Jesus" (to quote an earlier post that put it so well).

When I get answers like "science works because it works" that's a pretty arbitrary answer for the justification of uniformity.

Why do we need to provide you an answer at all? In the first place, you've asked an absurd question, that we figure out why we figure things out without using a process to figure things out. In the second place, not all preferences require any justification.

If I were to tell you "I like strawberry ice cream" and you ask me "why" and I tell you "I like the sensory inputs it leaves on my tongue" (I like the results it produces), this is a perfectly valid reason as far as personal tastes go. If you tell me "Well, I don't like strawberry ice cream" I will tell you, "Well, don't order it then."

Conversely, if I were to tell you "I like living in a rational society where science is ascendant" and you ask me "why", I will tell you "because I like the results it brings as opposed to what Western Civilization endured before the Age of Enlightenment. Now, if that's not your cup of tea, as with the ice cream example above, I'll tell you to join some cult's commune if you prefer magical thinking.

All wisdom and knowledge is hidden in Christ.

And he keeps it hidden, it would seem, since the Golden Age of Christianity is known to the rest of us as The Dark Ages. I prefer science, which has a better track record, but that's just my personal tastes, I guess. Go live in an Amish village if you don't like it.

---

No worries. If I had your worldview I'd be frustrated too.

Don't confuse all the face-palmings for a sign of victory. The frustration is not from the devastation of your arguments but from the painful realization that we have so far yet to go before we can achieve a truly rational society.