Scientific method proves order cannot exist w/o intelligence

[rjh4 is back]

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?

My understanding is that Islam accepts at least some of the Bible, including the Gospels, and yet they do not believe Jesus died on the cross or rose from the dead. Since the Gospels teach that Jesus died on the cross and rose from the dead, there is a disconnect in Islam. Which teaching of Islam should one follow?

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.

As far as I know Christianity is the only one based on God coming to earth, dying on a cross for sins, and then rising from the dead as evidence that Jesus was God with us (all being done in history). That is enough for me.

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

If true and false are not absolute, what does this mean?

"Any statement is either true or fase." (the law of excluded middle)

If tue and false are not absolute, the law of excluded middle seems to be unitelligible.

Do you realise how retarded you sound?

I do realize how stupid some of my questions were. That was kind of my point. I was just going with the idea that the laws of logic were a human invention. I do think that that kind of thing is where such a position leads.

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

How does one determine what is consistent with reality? What is the standard if all is relative?

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.

As I understand it, while Western logic would say a statement is either true or false (and/or), Eastern logic allows for a statement to be both true and false (both/and). So this would also be a logic that is a human invention. If logic is a human invention, then both would be equally valid it seems.

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

Quite true but it seems to me that the only reason that they do not make sense is that we have this thing called logic that we know is valid for evaluating almost everything. It seems to me that the position that logic is a human invention does not really square with our intuition regarding logic. It seems to me that a much better explanation is that it is a tool that God gave us.

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

"Had" is the key word there. Today, Christianity is unique in this regard. I also am pretty sure that Christianity is the only religion where God does everything to secure our salvation and mankind just needs to trust in that. All the others involve some sort of works oriented salvation whereby we do good just to appease God. In that regard, Christianity is the easiest requirements for salvation but certainly one of the most reviled. It seems to me most of mankind would try to work towards God instead of relying on what God has already provided. Go figure.

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)

I accept the doctrine of original sin but we all also have personal sin. I really do not understand what you are asking. Could you try to rephrase please?

[Purple Rabbit]

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?

It is probably legend that he said that literally. But it captures his main point of opposition against the stance of the church. Also this sentence has become a reference to indicate that to forbid a statement is not an argument against the possible truth of the content of that statement.

Literalism was in the behaviour of the church when it came down to Psalm 93:1. If the church had given an metaphoric explanation of psalm 93 there would have been no issue with Galileo in the first place.

[chatpilot]

theVOID said: "The Bible says the Sun revolves around the earth, Science says the opposite."
rjh4 said: "Biblical citation please."
Joshua 10:12,13

12.At that time Joshua spoke to the LORD in the day when the LORD gave the Amorites over to the sons of Israel, and he said in the sight of Israel,
"Sun, stand still at Gibeon, and moon, in the Valley of Aijalon."
13.And the sun stood still, and the moon stopped,
until the nation took vengeance on their enemies.

That is pretty self explanatory, do you need me to elaborate? Not only did the sun stand still (implying it was moving) but so did the moon. With regards to Galileo he was essentially condemned for supporting the copernicum system of heliocentricity.

Galileo's championing of Copernicanism was controversial within his lifetime, when a large majority of philosophers and astronomers still subscribed (at least outwardly) to the geocentric view that the Earth is at the centre of the universe. After 1610, when he began publicly supporting the heliocentric view, which placed the Sun at the centre of the universe, ............... (quoted in part from wikipedia)

[Watson]

Again, I am not in the mood nor do I have the time to read through a helluva lot of pages on this subject, but the opening poster's logic is definitively flawed. Not all snowflakes are the same, because the crystals which compose them only have the order to collect, not the order to collect in a predetermined pattern with similarities or common traits between all. This is why no two snowflakes are alike, nor are two rainbows, or two super novas, etc. A better example would be huans, since most, if not all humans have two eyes, two ears, one mouth, two arms, two legs, etc., etc.

[Welsh cake]

I've been in major debates against atheists and time and time again, the fundamental flaws of atheism lead to their consistent defeat. This is expected because atheism's flaws are basic, fundamental in nature and cannot stand against good theist attacks.

Pray tell. You obviously couldn't have had that many debates since Atheism is the rejection of Theistic claims, for sake of argument it assumes the null hypothesis i.e. the default position is disbelief until said claim is proven true. Simply stating that "I have a lack of a belief in God and/or Gods" because you have never been presented with a single good reason to believe in such concepts has no fundamental flaws.

By the scientific method, we can conclude that inorganic objects are incapable of producing order of any kind without an intellgence/intelligent being guiding them.

Kindly define "order" or at least explain in what context you are using that term please.

Only intelligent beings, controlling inorganic objects can make these objects arrange into order as the scientific method proves.

Nonsense. Chemical bonding for instance, is an interaction between atoms or molecules which allows the formation of polyatomic chemical compounds, this is a natural ongoing process, and it does not require biological faculties of cognitive process (thought) to make it so. Besides the interaction of arranging inanimate objects together to organise or categorise them is an arbitrary labour, a concept, and certainly not taken as objective truth.