A Simple Question...or 3!

[jonb]

I can see how you people have no concept of God's love.

There is the telling phrase 'YOU PEOPLE' all atheists are the same we have no individuality. The Abrahamist doctrine black and white, I am right you are wrong no nuance, no set of prospectives just a division. My side, you people.

[Aractus]

Since all laws of physics govern the whole Universe - at least as far as we can tell (how's that for arrogance?) - you would have to step outside to be out of their frame of reference.

The universe doesn't work on the laws we give it, it has its own. The laws of physics are what we invented (theorized) they're not something we derived as absolute universal truth.

---

1. Latin V.... ancient history as far as Catholic's are concerned.

That simply is not true.

"Moreover, the same holy council considering that not a little advantage will accrue to the Church of God if it be made known which of all the Latin editions of the sacred books now in circulation is to be regarded as authentic, ordains and declares that the old Latin Vulgate Edition, which, in use for so many hundred years, has been approved by the Church, be in public lectures, disputations, sermons and expositions held as authentic, and that no one dare or presume under any pretext whatsoever to reject it.

"Furthermore, to check unbridled spirits, it decrees that no one relying on his own judgment shall, in matters of faith and morals pertaining to the edification of Christian doctrine, distorting the Holy Scriptures in accordance with his own conceptions, presume to interpret them contrary to that sense which holy mother Church, to whom it belongs to judge of their true sense and interpretation, has held and holds, or even contrary to the unanimous teaching of the Fathers, even though such interpretations should never at any time be published."

Council of Trent, Fourth Session, April 8, 1546. Link.

How is it you don't know what your own church believes?

2. I, nor the RCC ever considered the Word of God to be (sola scriptura) owned by us!

See above.

[The Grand Nudger]

The universe doesn't work on the laws we give it, it has its own. The laws of physics are what we invented (theorized) they're not something we derived as absolute universal truth.

We don't "give it" laws, we discover the laws. The theories that we leverage to explain the laws are not the laws themselves ie - the "theory of gravity" is not the "law of gravity". We "invented" these laws and theories as much as we "invented" flight...which is to say not at all. I've always loved that word, "invention"...it lays bare a sort of hubris about our actions and accomplishments that to my mind..is not entirely warranted. Nevertheless it's a useful word, and generally speaking we use it in a context where it's application isn't entirely disagreeable. However, on the subject of natural law and it's attendant theories the term has gone well past it's breaking point, imho. "Theory" is not synonymous with "invention", a hypothesis would be closer to an invention..but even then the relationship between the two words is tenuous in the best of cases. We don't invent the phenomena, we don't invent the evidence, all we have "invented" in the loosest definition of the word, is how we communicate the contents (and accuracy) of either between each other. Nothing in science is advertised as a "universal truth"..so mentioning that they are no such thing is superfluous.

As Stimbo mentioned, as far as we can tell physics is at play anywhere in this universe we care to look. If we want to move outside of the frame of reference of all of physics -not just one specific theory or law- we would have to leave anywhere we care to look. We might assume (for the lulz) that something beyond this "place" exists...but we have no observations to back that up (and how would we make such observations anyway?). We might invoke a thought experiment...but it's clear that our ability to imagine something is no guarantee of it's existence...hell, it can barely be said to be a reason to assume that it might exist- if the history of our imaginative conclusions is any indicator.

[Whateverist]

The universe doesn't work on the laws we give it, it has its own. The laws of physics are what we invented (theorized) they're not something we derived as absolute universal truth.

We don't "give it" laws, we discover the laws. The theories that we leverage to explain the laws are not the laws themselves ie - the "theory of gravity" is not the "law of gravity". We "invented" these laws and theories as much as we "invented" flight...which is to say not at all. I've always loved that word, "invention"...it lays bare a sort of hubris about our actions and accomplishments that to my mind..is not entirely warranted. Nevertheless it's a useful word, and generally speaking we use it in a context where it's application isn't entirely disagreeable. However, on the subject of natural law and it's attendant theories the term has gone well past it's breaking point, imho. Nothing in science is advertised as a "universal truth"..so mentioning that they are no such thing is superfluous.

I suppose a generous reading could grant that your point, Rhythm, is approximately the same point Daniel was making in the post you selected. It wasn't expressed as precisely -we all know that trade off- but I think he meant mostly to remind us that the 'laws' are not known in their entirety and the best current theory can yet be incomplete. As you say, the patterns in nature are ours to theorize about. It isn't a bad point to bring up from time to time when we encounter someone arguing the relevant laws of nature are settled factoids obvious even to a child.

[The Grand Nudger]

They may not be obvious to a child, but they are "settled factoids". They will continue to be so until such time as we have reason to impeach them. To suggest otherwise would make the word fact, and all communication of said "facts" meaningless/impossible (which it may very well be...but here we are communicating..nevertheless). The point of calling a "settled factoid" into question (without actually offering anything to call it into question) is rarely one of correction or accuracy...merely an attempt to scorch the earth...which won't actually help either party (the earth is burning for the aggressor as well as the defender..nothing can be offered as evidence for any proposition from that point on if consistency is a requirement - (Apo had a great thread on this..an endless regress of "you may be wrong" is always possible). Besides, this damning indictment of "settled factoids" is an invocation of a "settled factoid" itself, the mind reels. I have no problem in discussing the excruciating inaccuracies of a word or term as applied in general to science....but that's rarely the conversation that's being had. "We may be wrong" is often pretext for "and so this next assertion of mine is at least that much more correct - that space between scientific law or theory and absolute truth -whatever that space may be- is where my proposition resides"

For example.

It is scientifically impossible to fly by means of magical incantations. This is a settled factoid.
-that's not absolute truth...those things that would suggest this are just a scientific theories we've invented....we may be wrong-
Fine, then we may also be wrong about there being such a thing as flight at all, "flight" is also dependent on those observations and their attendant explanations- your spells are still insufficient.

(be as generous as you like Whatevs...I think that it's probably apparent that it isn't in -my- nature..hehehehe)

[Cyberman]

Since all laws of physics govern the whole Universe - at least as far as we can tell (how's that for arrogance?) - you would have to step outside to be out of their frame of reference.

The universe doesn't work on the laws we give it, it has its own. The laws of physics are what we invented (theorized) they're not something we derived as absolute universal truth.

Okay, while it is true that physicists invented the concept of physics in the sense of definable laws, it is not true to say that we then imposed them upon the Universe. It's rather like saying that there was no colour blue in the Universe before we invented a word for it. Just as in physics, it's the exact opposite way round. If there were no physical principles operating at all, there would be nothing to describe, which is all a theory does. So in fact the laws of physics are something we derived as absolute Universal truth, since they describe the physical principles which govern the Universe.

[Welsh cake]

Actually, all laws of physics break as soon as you move out of their field of reference.

Field of reference? We're talking about singularities here. We're trying to construct a working model in Cosmogony.

By that same logic all the atheists have to say "we currently don't know" to the existence of God.

You're a sharp one aren't you?

[/sarcasm]

Yes... Daniel... we don't know of any god or gods. Hence the fact that we're atheists.

Its not so much logic as it is being intellectually honest.

Me for example? The fact that I don't know of any god or gods is only half the story. I don't care is the other half.

Seriously, people like you made an apatheist of me. You've never once demonstrated a clear positive ontology of this "thing" you labelled "god". You all contradict one another. You don't provide a meaningful coherent definition of what you're arguing about. The case for deities has never been presented in any fashion that's ever made me think its relevant or significant to my life.

You're just a bunch of Bible nerds.

[Minimalist]

How is it you don't know what your own church believes?

Maybe his asshole is still sore from his last encounter with a priest?

[Whateverist]

Me for example? The fact that I don't know of any god or gods is only half the story. I don't care is the other half.

Seriously, people like you made an apatheist of me. You've never once demonstrated a clear positive ontology of this "thing" you labelled "god". You all contradict one another. You don't provide a meaningful coherent definition of what you're arguing about. The case for deities has never been presented in any fashion that's ever made me think its relevant or significant to my life.

You're singing my song. What's a god? Why should I care? And don't tell me what it says in your special books, their relevance is precisely what is at issue.

[Cinjin]

We had an old pastor at my church that had a saying that always bothered me, and intrigued me at the same time! "God won't put us in Hell....we will march there ourselves, willingly." I'm realizing that message hanging around here!

You're a halfwit and your pastor can't read. Your silly Bible CLEARLY states that your douche bag god CASTS people into hell. Nobody walks into eternal torment. That's an apologists load of horse shit at a lame attempt to get around the glaring fact that your fuckstick of a god designed and built hell to torment BILLIONS of people and then brags about CASTING them into it. Tell your fucktard of a preacher to learn to fucking read. After that, try pulling jesus' dick outta your ass. Phoney fucking messiahs can really make one constipated.