Scientific method proves order cannot exist w/o intelligence

[Purple Rabbit]

Well if you personally don’t start with first principles that at least you think are absolute and objectively true, then I don’t know why you have such a high regard for whatever worldview you hold such that you find mine so laughable.

If you use this as an argument your implicit assumption is that only absolute truth can be a basis of any true statement. But you provide no absolute proof for the fact that your assumption of god is absolute. So you really are making a reproach to your self also.

The difference between the scientific approach that has build a vast consistent framework of interlinked pieces based onreproducible evidence and your skyhook god that is a vast fabulation floating in mid air is seen in what can be accomplished with it. Your god cures no diseases, heals no amputees, fights no viruses, does not supply the power to your home, did not invent a combustion engine, did not give us radio, telephone or wifi, did not improve crop, does not help the Haitians, did not invent the internet, provides no navigation, food or fuel, does not give us insight in the CO2-problem, did not tell us what fuels the sun, did not provide solar cells, and some zillion other things that science helped accomplish.

The score between reason and god fabulation now is a zillion to nill.

[tackattack]

All created by God.. 1zillion to infinity.. we win (sorry I had to chime in there)

[rjh4 is back]

Your god cures no diseases, heals no amputees, fights no viruses, does not supply the power to your home, did not invent a combustion engine, did not give us radio, telephone or wifi, did not improve crop, does not help the Haitians, did not invent the internet, provides no navigation, food or fuel, does not give us insight in the CO2-problem, did not tell us what fuels the sun, did not provide solar cells, and some zillion other things that science helped accomplish.

The score between reason and god fabulation now is a zillion to nill.

God created the people who do/did all that and gave them the abilities to do those things. Given that I do not see how man is superior to God.

---

Don't just assert it, show us how and why you know that your presupposition gets you anywhere.

It explains how the universe came to be.

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

It explains our ability to communicate.

It explains our appreciation of music and beauty.

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

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)

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).

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.)

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

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.

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

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

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

It explains why people need/desire hope.

It explains the hope people can have.

It explains how we can be right before God.

I think my presuppositions get me pretty far!!!

Unless you can demonstrate valid logical reasoning for holding a positive belief in the existence of God your personal need for authority is worthless.

Don't kid yourself into thinking that there isn't a highest authority in your own worldview. I would guess it is you.

I asked you to point them out, since you claim everyone has them by default.

I don't call Anything completely impossible, therefore I exclude nothing by default. My positions are based a weighing of evidence where it is available and withholding judgement where none is available.

Ok...let me ask you some questions to see if we can get to some first principles in your thinking.

You say you are a materialist (in your profile)...how would you define this?

You rely on the laws of logic...do you think there is an explanation/proof for the laws of logic? If so, what is it?

You can go two ways from here, you can either recognise that the current standard being used to substantiate your claims is logically insufficient and move on to a higher standard of evidence in an attempt to prove the viability of your claims over the other contradictory ones, or you can admit that you don't much care that you cannot rationally verify your position.

Those are not the only two options. How about you just answer the questions above to see if we can pinpoint your presuppositions and see if they get you anywhere.

You don't think it's accurate yet you reject the scientific method the minuet it produces answers that contradict your world view.

As far as I know, science doesn't contradict the Bible except where it begins to extrapolate into the past where everyone is interpreting things based on some framework. (I know of nothing in operational science that contradicts the Bible.) So, yes, I have no problem rejecting what scientists say about the past when it contradicts the Word of God.

[Purple Rabbit]

Your god cures no diseases, heals no amputees, fights no viruses, does not supply the power to your home, did not invent a combustion engine, did not give us radio, telephone or wifi, did not improve crop, does not help the Haitians, did not invent the internet, provides no navigation, food or fuel, does not give us insight in the CO2-problem, did not tell us what fuels the sun, did not provide solar cells, and some zillion other things that science helped accomplish.

The score between reason and god fabulation now is a zillion to nill.

God created the people who do/did all that and gave them the abilities to do those things. Given that I do not see how man is superior to God.

You mixed up the skyhook and the deliverables. And with skyhooks he thing is that what can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof. Try again please.

Is there really nothing you can think of that is a unique deliverable of your religion? Come on, I can do better yhan that.

[rjh4 is back]

Is there really nothing you can think of that is a unique deliverable of your religion? Come on, I can do better yhan that.

Sure that is an easy one...salvation from the consequence of sin.

---

And with skyhooks he thing is that what can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.

The proof is everywhere...you just ignore it as evidence of God. So Mr. Hitchens' quote is more appropriately: What can be asserted such that one can still ignore the proof can be dismissed without proof.

[theVOID]

Is there really nothing you can think of that is a unique deliverable of your religion? Come on, I can do better yhan that.

Sure that is an easy one...salvation from the consequence of sin.

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.

[Rhizomorph13]

Good one Void, but don't forget that all those religions also offer condemnation if you are not part of their specific religion. Judaism, Islam, and Christianity all have clauses in the books they accept that negate the salvation effects from the other two.

[rjh4 is back]

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.

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

[theVOID]

Don't just assert it, show us how and why you know that your presupposition gets you anywhere.

---

It explains how the universe came to be.

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

It explains our ability to communicate.

It explains our appreciation of music and beauty.

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

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)

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).

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.)

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

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.

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

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

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

It explains why people need/desire hope.

It explains the hope people can have.

It explains how we can be right before God.

---

I think my presuppositions get me pretty far!!!

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.

Unless you can demonstrate valid logical reasoning for holding a positive belief in the existence of God your personal need for authority is worthless.

Don't kid yourself into thinking that there isn't a highest authority in your own worldview. I would guess it is you.

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.

I asked you to point them out, since you claim everyone has them by default.

I don't call Anything completely impossible, therefore I exclude nothing by default. My positions are based a weighing of evidence where it is available and withholding judgement where none is available.

Ok...let me ask you some questions to see if we can get to some first principles in your thinking.

You say you are a materialist (in your profile)...how would you define this?

That should probably be fixed, I have changed my position since joining these boards from being convinced that all that exists is matter and energy (the materialist position) to one of 'all we have evidence for is matter and energy'. This is the same change in position essentially from my previous certainty that God did not exist to my current position that there is no valid reason to believe he exists.

You rely on the laws of logic...do you think there is an explanation/proof for the laws of logic? If so, what is it?

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.

You can go two ways from here, you can either recognise that the current standard being used to substantiate your claims is logically insufficient and move on to a higher standard of evidence in an attempt to prove the viability of your claims over the other contradictory ones, or you can admit that you don't much care that you cannot rationally verify your position.

Those are not the only two options. How about you just answer the questions above to see if we can pinpoint your presuppositions and see if they get you anywhere.

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.

You don't think it's accurate yet you reject the scientific method the minuet it produces answers that contradict your world view.

As far as I know, science doesn't contradict the Bible except where it begins to extrapolate into the past where everyone is interpreting things based on some framework. (I know of nothing in operational science that contradicts the Bible.) So, yes, I have no problem rejecting what scientists say about the past when it contradicts the Word of God.

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

Do you believe that the Sun revolves around the earth?

[Purple Rabbit]

Is there really nothing you can think of that is a unique deliverable of your religion? Come on, I can do better yhan that.

Sure that is an easy one...salvation from the consequence of sin.

So you like the concept that a person is not responsible for his own actions. If I do evil, it's OK that someone else goes to jail for it. I think that's an immoral concept that's rather detrimental to society. So you haven't convinced me and no judge on earth that you have a real deliverable of faith here. Try again.

And with skyhooks he thing is that what can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof.

The proof is everywhere...you just ignore it as evidence of God. So Mr. Hitchens' quote is more appropriately: What can be asserted such that one can still ignore the proof can be dismissed without proof.

That is as much proof of your god as it is for Zoroaster, pink unicorns, purple rabbits fom the 26th dimension or my vacuum cleaner.