Scientific method proves order cannot exist w/o intelligence

[theVOID]

Salvation from the consequences of sin = Forgiveness when repentance is genuine?

If that is the case then almost all religions offer Salvation from Sin.

If that's not what you mean then you will need to be more specific.

Nope...it means trusting in the One who took the consequences for us...Jesus Christ.

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

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

Are you going to answer my previous questions Void? They are not that difficult.

By the time I read this post I already had I missed your post before responding to later ones.

[Purple Rabbit]

It explains how the universe came to be.

That's really interesting. So does the Higgs boson exist and what caused the imbalance between matter and antimatter? Don't you see that your skyhook is making you claim you know everything? So what about supersymmetry? Is it real?

It explains our consciousness and natural ability to comprehend the rest of creation.

So how does this explain qualia? How did you verify this?

It explains our ability to communicate.

Bacteria communicate with chemicals, where is it exactly that god steps in? Is he a messenger boy?

It explains our appreciation of music and beauty.

So where exactly do I need your god in my appreciation of Steve Vai's Blue Powder?

It explains why there is evil in the world, i.e., as a result or consequence of sin.

So all Haitians, kids included are paying for sin? You're being immoral again. How did you verify this?

It explains our generally innate morality (how I just know certain things would be wrong even if the law said otherwise...and I am quite sure most, if not all, people know the same thing as some point in their lives)

Please elaborate on how he does this. And please elaborate how priests who are so close to god do it with children all the time. And what is the innate moral of a serial killer, is it divinely inspired? Have you ever really observed any innate morality or are you just talking abot behaviour?

It explains how others can do things that are morally wrong and not feel anything (because of continued sin in their lives they kill their conscience so they do not think they do anything wrong).

Doesn't this neutralize the argument above since hereby you've created innate morality and the lack of innate morality ending up with unverifiable statements that can go either way? And if this is true, how did you verify it?

It explains or innate consciousness that we are not perfect (I know I know I am not perfect, and I do not know any that would say they are.)

Seems repetition to me.

It explains why science can even work at all (uniformity of nature...God upholds the universe in generally law like fashion)

Have you checked all universes in the multiverse or are you just bluffing your way through?

It explains why laws of logic are generally agreed upon and even when they are not they end up providing for the basis of disagreement.

Please explain where god intervens in human communication to get us to agree on things. How did you verify this? And if he did, is it really agreement among people or just god's manipulation? Who is agreeing anyway? Is god agreeing with himself?

It explains people's desire to be autonomous from God (sin).

Empty argument. At this point you could have said the opposite and we wouldn't notice tthe difference in reality. How did you test this?

It explains why people struggle to do what they know is the right thing to do.

Why is it necessarily so that god is required in decision making? How did you verify that god is needed in decision making? Does this mean that atheists cannot make decisions regarding moral issues?

It explains how people can sacrifice for others knowing it will have drastic consequences for themselves.

It is observed with animals too. In my backyard the other day as a matter of fact. How do you know that your god intervened and can you show me where exactly and how in order to get this behaviour? And if he intervened why do you attribute such behaviour to people instead of to the god who manipulated man to act this way? How did you test this truth statement?

It explains why people need/desire hope.

How does it explain that?

It explains the hope people can have.

I hope you're right. QED

It explains how we can be right before God.

Circular. You're using the assumption of god to explain we should need an attitude towards god.

I think my presuppositions get me pretty far!!!

What a pitty. Try again.

[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.

[tackattack]

Usually cited Job 26:7 or Psalm 93:1 for the earth comment, it doesn't say that explicidly though.

[theVOID]

Nice one PR, i couldn't be fucked tackling that list

Also, Steve Vai rocks my socks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5BrE1Pi5cU

[rjh4 is back]

@ Purple Rabbit

Haven't seen you posit anything regarding your worldview to see how it explains some of the things I mentioned. At least Void has the guts to try. It's easy to criticize and merely say "try again". I am trying to both provide my point of view and analyze Void's and that is what I see him doing with me. If you want to join in, fine. But why not let me have a shot at analyzing your point of view also?

[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)

[Purple Rabbit]

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

Biblical citation please.

The verse that was the 'biggy' for Galileo Psalm 93:1 which states, "The LORD reigneth, he is clothed with majesty; the LORD is clothed with strength, wherewith he hath girded himself: the world also is established, that it cannot be moved." (KJV)

Galileo: "E pur si muove!"

[tackattack]

PR check again.. Galileo didn't actually say that.. or there is no evidence of him saying that. Not that it makes it any less true.

I'm sure he also shared an augustinean approach to non literal translations of scripture. I'm fairly certain that both you and Void aren't literalists, but I could be wrong. If you are then why quote Galileo?

[Purple Rabbit]

@ Purple Rabbit

Haven't seen you posit anything regarding your worldview to see how it explains some of the things I mentioned. At least Void has the guts to try. It's easy to criticize and merely say "try again". I am trying to both provide my point of view and analyze Void's and that is what I see him doing with me. If you want to join in, fine. But why not let me have a shot at analyzing your point of view also?

Where have you been hiding? I've given my PoV in abundance all over the forum here. And I am not bound to your idiotic list of circular reasoning, wannabee explanations, deus ex machina constructs and immoral opinions. In most cases they are not even verifiable or observable as a real phenomenon uniquely originating from the divine. I've given you long lists of what I think are indeed deliverables of science and technology instead. A list on which you did not react at all.

Be a big boy now and put your money where your mouth is. You've claimed that you can explain how the universe came to be. If you have a real explanation it should make clear where the antimatter went. To state it clear, science does not claim to know that. Instead it can explain a lot from about 10 exp(-35) second right after the alleged beginning such as the abundance of elements, the microwave background radiation, the age of the universe and so on. Now baffle us with the descriptive power of your explanation and tell us where the antimatter went.

By now it must be clear to you that you've really made a beginners misstake rjh4. You've taken on the role of your deity as an omniscientific being and proclaimed that you know how he did it. As a christian you must always ensure that you hide behind your faith. You have to stick to the faith that god did it and keep silence on every shred of explanation.