Don't tell me there's any proof for creationism.

farmerman wrote:

PS-Hokies statement was more an issue in semantics, not substance> I understand what he said and I think youre just trying to be cute. Fess up.

Semantics, eh? Is that what you call it when someone makes a blunder of this proportion?

If I had made a statement such as Hokie's:

USAFHokie wrote:

They (the laws of science) are imaginary

there would've been a dozen posts deriding me for it.

But an evolutionist says it, so he gets a pass. I thought science was self correcting and all of that.........

Hyper-naturalists like to pretend that nothing is real except that which is composed of matter/energy.

Fact is that scientific laws are real, but are also non-material. These laws rule the physical universe. But they themselves are non-physical.

Scientific laws are not imaginary. They operate whether man is aware of them or not.

farmerman wrote:

You, however , have made an error in logic, not semantics, thats serious and Im not buying it for a minisec.

I'd love to hear why you think my position (which you likely misunderstood, and are now engaging in CYA) is 'an error in logic' :

If God's existence predated the existence of matter, then He cannot be composed of matter.

Your misunderstanding of it is apparent when you say:

farmerman wrote:

God Created everything , this we Christians beleive.Related (but not consequent to this first point) We also believe that he is not composed of matter or has mass.

It necessarily follows that if God created ALL matter, then He cannot be composed of matter. You seem to miss this obvious point, as did Setanta and Hokie.

0 Replies

Real Life, the laws of science are real in the sense that they accurately describe and predict the physical world. They are just concepts though, descriptions of how real physical objects interact with each other. For example; gravity isn't an actual object or entity; it's a word we use to describe the curvature of space and time. I doubt you would be willing to make the same claim about god; that such an entity doesn't exist, but is merely a word used to describe people's emotional and moral interactions.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

It necessarily follows that if God created ALL matter, then He cannot be composed of matter. You seem to miss this obvious point, as did Setanta and Hokie.

I did not miss that, because it is not a point, it is an unfounded assertion on your part. You advance not a shred of evidence, not even logic. You don't even advance the bad excuse of doctrinal orthodoxy; although, of course, you are free to do so now.

No, it does not follow. If, in the beginning . . .

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him: and without him was made nothing that was made. In him was life, and the life was the light of men.

. . . then how do you account for life having been in your imaginary friend, if in fact, your imaginary friend were not corporeal? This is, of course, the essential problem of the bible thumper--their scripture does not consistently support their arguments without a great twisting of logic and an abandonment demonstrable realities.

It were possible that your imaginary friend were material, and that the cosmos that he/she created is a subset of a large structure--a "multiverse" as some are now fond of alluding to. It were possible that "the word" became flesh, became material, in order to accomplish its creative end.

In fact, when one wanders into the realm of unsubstantiated assertions about the nature of the cosmos and about any putative creator, there are no boundaries to what one may allege. You may, of course, allege that your imaginary friend is not composed of matter or energy, but in so doing, you simply increase the absurdity of your position. You increase the degree of strained credulity with which one must deal. You do so, because you find yourself squeezed ever more tightly into an unsupportable position, and in this case, it comes from your attempt to substantiate your position by denying that entropy can apply to your imaginary friend as you assert it does to the cosmos.

You can assert that your imaginary is not comprised of matter or energy, and with as much evidence and plausibility as you assert that he/she exists at all--which is to say, with no evidence. But there is no basis upon which you can demonstrate that your imaginary friend cannot be comprised of matter or energy--you can only make the claim without evidence, which is descriptive of every other aspect of the superstition which you attempt to foist off onto the others in the discussion, and any of the credulous who might read here.

0 Replies

fungotheclown wrote:

.......... They are just concepts though.....

.......I doubt you would be willing to make the same claim about god; that such an entity doesn't exist, but is merely a word used to describe.....

Scientific laws do exist. They are real. They are not just 'concepts' (i.e. human ideas). They are not merely 'words'.

They are not composed of matter/energy, but are real nonetheless.

Scientific laws operate in places man has never been.

Scientific laws that no human has ever put into words, (or had an intellectual awareness of ) are just as real as those that are well understood.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

real life wrote:
It necessarily follows that if God created ALL matter, then He cannot be composed of matter. You seem to miss this obvious point, as did Setanta and Hokie.

I did not miss that, because it is not a point, it is an unfounded assertion on your part. You advance not a shred of evidence, not even logic.

You can either admit that you misunderstood it, or purposely erected a strawman when you said:

Setanta wrote:

Do you allege that no being can create something composed of the same material of which they are themselves comprised? Every woman who gives birth proves the idiocy of such a contention. Therefore, one is justified in questioning any statement from authority that your deity cannot be comprised of matter and energy when you offer no proofs.

It's your call.

0 Replies

Quote:

Scientific laws do exist. They are real. They are not just 'concepts' (i.e. human ideas). They are not merely 'words'.

They are not composed of matter/energy, but are real nonetheless.

Scientific laws operate in places man has never been.

Scientific laws that no human has ever put into words, (or had an intellectual awareness of ) are just as real as those that are well understood.

You're missing the point. Laws are non-entities. They're effects. They're phenomenon. They don't exist in and of themselves; they are a result of space, time, energy and matter. Are you willing to see god in the same way, or do you admit this was a poor analogy?

0 Replies

real life wrote:

fungotheclown wrote:
.......... They are just concepts though.....

.......I doubt you would be willing to make the same claim about god; that such an entity doesn't exist, but is merely a word used to describe.....

Scientific laws do exist. They are real. They are not just 'concepts' (i.e. human ideas). They are not merely 'words'.

They are not composed of matter/energy, but are real nonetheless.

Scientific laws operate in places man has never been.

Scientific laws that no human has ever put into words, (or had an intellectual awareness of ) are just as real as those that are well understood.

Hi RL.

Hope you and your family had a grand Thanksgiving. We did. Our group ranged from 1-1/2 to 89 years old and everyone had a great time.

Related to this subject: I have to tell you that I'm losing track of which evolutionist(s) believes that scientific laws are real and which believes that SL's are only conceptually true.

How do you distinguish?

0 Replies

fungotheclown wrote:

Quote:
Scientific laws do exist. They are real. They are not just 'concepts' (i.e. human ideas). They are not merely 'words'.

They are not composed of matter/energy, but are real nonetheless.

Scientific laws operate in places man has never been.

Scientific laws that no human has ever put into words, (or had an intellectual awareness of ) are just as real as those that are well understood.

You're missing the point. Laws are non-entities. They're effects. They're phenomenon. They don't exist in and of themselves; they are a result of space, time, energy and matter. Are you willing to see god in the same way, or do you admit this was a poor analogy?

No, it's a poor understanding of scientific law on your part.

Do you really believe scientific laws to be 'effects' (i.e. 'results') instead of 'causes' ?

Scientific laws do exist in and of themselves. But they are not composed of matter/energy.

That's my point. You cannot seem to conceive of something which has an actual existence if it is not matter/energy.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Setanta wrote:
real life wrote:
It necessarily follows that if God created ALL matter, then He cannot be composed of matter. You seem to miss this obvious point, as did Setanta and Hokie.

I did not miss that, because it is not a point, it is an unfounded assertion on your part. You advance not a shred of evidence, not even logic.

You can either admit that you misunderstood it, or purposely erected a strawman when you said:

Setanta wrote:
Do you allege that no being can create something composed of the same material of which they are themselves comprised? Every woman who gives birth proves the idiocy of such a contention. Therefore, one is justified in questioning any statement from authority that your deity cannot be comprised of matter and energy when you offer no proofs.

It's your call.

I erected no strawman, and you continue to demonstrate that you do not know what the term strawman means were referring to a logical fallacy. A strawman is a willful mischaracterization of someone else's argument for the purpose of refuting the mischaracterization rather than the argument advanced by one's interlocutor. I did not mischaracterize your argument, i simply denied that you have any basis upon which to make your assertion--you make your assertion without substantiation.

In the world of theological fantasy, anything is possible, including that your silly imaginary friend could be comprised of matter and/or energy.

0 Replies

Quote:

No, it's a poor understanding of scientific law on your part.

Do you really believe scientific laws to be 'effects' (i.e. 'results') instead of 'causes' ?

Scientific laws do exist in and of themselves. But they are not composed of matter/energy.

That's my point. You cannot seem to conceive of something which has an actual existence if it is not matter/energy.

Umm... you're wrong again. They are effects. If there is no matter, there is no gravity. Simple as that. No energy, we have no electromagnetic attraction. Every scientific law is merely a description of the behavior of matter and energy. Therefore, they don't exist in and of themselves any more than human nature does (human nature simply being a handy term to describe human behavior).

0 Replies

baddog1 wrote:

real life wrote:
fungotheclown wrote:
.......... They are just concepts though.....

.......I doubt you would be willing to make the same claim about god; that such an entity doesn't exist, but is merely a word used to describe.....

Scientific laws do exist. They are real. They are not just 'concepts' (i.e. human ideas). They are not merely 'words'.

They are not composed of matter/energy, but are real nonetheless.

Scientific laws operate in places man has never been.

Scientific laws that no human has ever put into words, (or had an intellectual awareness of ) are just as real as those that are well understood.

Hi RL.

Hope you and your family had a grand Thanksgiving. We did. Our group ranged from 1-1/2 to 89 years old and everyone had a great time.

Related to this subject: I have to tell you that I'm losing track of which evolutionist(s) believes that scientific laws are real and which believes that SL's are only conceptually true.

How do you distinguish?

Hey baddog,

We had a great Thanksgiving. Mrs RL put together the best dinner this side of heaven and our group (though small in numbers) had a super day.

Folks around here are in mourning for the 'Hawks, but I'm not much of a fan, so I was gonna enjoy the game no matter who won, ( I was born and raised in MO, but now live is KS).

It is hard to keep track of who believes what , but that's part of the fun of bringing folks out of the box for a peek at a bigger world.

0 Replies

Here, "real life," you consistently f*ck-up when you allude to a strawman argument, so have a definition:

The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.

Source

I did not mischaracterize your "argument," i simply denied what you had alleged, and pointed out that you make your statement without foundation. You claim that "god" cannot be comprised of matter or energy, and the only basis which you advance is that as your imaginary friend is alleged to have created matter and energy, he/she cannot him/herself be comprised of it. I have denied that, but i haven't willfully or even unintentionally mischaracterized your position.

If you don't know what straw man argument means, or are unable to properly apply the term, you shouldn't use it.

0 Replies

Baddog1, no evolutionist will argue with you that scientific laws are true, or at least as true as anything we're going to find. There is a difference between true and real, and we might not all agree where the line is drawn, but that doesn't change our support of the laws.

If you have something you want to say to us, how about cutting the passive aggressiveness and saying it? Your post reminded me of a smug 5th grader looking down on 4th graders, and frankly, I don't think you have grounds to do that. 1) It's rude and condescending, and 2) you only get to be smug if you do in fact have the higher ground, and if this thread has shown anything, its that the evolutionists have infinitely more evidence and support for their theories than do the creationists.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

real life wrote:
Setanta wrote:
real life wrote:
It necessarily follows that if God created ALL matter, then He cannot be composed of matter. You seem to miss this obvious point, as did Setanta and Hokie.

I did not miss that, because it is not a point, it is an unfounded assertion on your part. You advance not a shred of evidence, not even logic.

You can either admit that you misunderstood it, or purposely erected a strawman when you said:

Setanta wrote:
Do you allege that no being can create something composed of the same material of which they are themselves comprised? Every woman who gives birth proves the idiocy of such a contention. Therefore, one is justified in questioning any statement from authority that your deity cannot be comprised of matter and energy when you offer no proofs.

It's your call.

I erected no strawman, and you continue to demonstrate that you do not know what the term strawman means were referring to a logical fallacy. A strawman is a willful mischaracterization of someone else's argument for the purpose of refuting the mischaracterization rather than the argument advanced by one's interlocutor. I did not mischaracterize your argument, i simply denied that you have any basis upon which to make your assertion--you make your assertion without substantiation.

In the world of theological fantasy, anything is possible, including that your silly imaginary friend could be comprised of matter and/or energy.

Where did I state or imply :

Setanta wrote:

Do you allege that no being[/i] can create something composed of the same material of which they are themselves comprised?

(emphasis mine)

0 Replies

I did not assert that you had stated that, i was asking a question. Are you familiar with a question mark, and it's meaning? Don't try to peddle your "straw man" horseshit again, it's not working.

As for what you did state or imply:

[url=http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=2952611#2952611][b]real life[/b][/url] wrote:

Setanta wrote:
Do you apply your limited view of entropy to your imaginary friend?

Entropy applies to matter/energy.

God, by definition, is not composed of matter/energy.

You have failed to provide your definition of "god." You have only alluded to "Christian" definitions of "god," and have provided no evidence that what you alleged constitutes a definition so widely held as to be reasonably described as a "Christian" definition. While it may be true that any number of Christians might choose to agree to your proposition if you presented it to them, even a number sufficiently wide-spread to justify your use of the adjective, your burden would be to prove that this were the case absent your suggestive questioning. Your burden would be to prove that "Christian" theology has pointedly defined "god" as a being who is not composed of the matter or energy which he/she created, without reference to your silly argument.

Even if you succeeded in that task, it would make it no more true than if we dealt only with your unfounded assertions. To quote Anatole France, "That fifty million people believe a foolish ting, it is still a foolish thing." Now, i don't assert that it is necessarily a foolish thing to assert that "god" cannot be composed of the same matter or energy which he/she created--athough absent evidence, it is foolish to assert it as though it were a demonstrated fact. I am asserting that absent evidence, your mere assertion that any "god" exists is a foolish thing, and more foolish still is to begin to circumscribe on no more authority than your "say-so" what the nature of said imaginary being might be. And your "god" is an imaginary being, unless and until you can establish the existence of said being.

************************************

To return to the burden of the thread, what evidence (and Wilso stipulated testable evidence) do you have for creationism?

I know you love to dodge the core questions of a thread, and to wander off into stupid and irrelevant discussions, but i'm happy to continue to point out that you have long been involved in a thread calling for "proof" of creationism, and continue to offer no such proof.

0 Replies

fungotheclown wrote:

Baddog1, no evolutionist will argue with you that scientific laws are true, or at least as true as anything we're going to find. There is a difference between true and real, and we might not all agree where the line is drawn, but that doesn't change our support of the laws.

If you have something you want to say to us, how about cutting the passive aggressiveness and saying it? Your post reminded me of a smug 5th grader looking down on 4th graders, and frankly, I don't think you have grounds to do that. 1) It's rude and condescending, and 2) you only get to be smug if you do in fact have the higher ground, and if this thread has shown anything, its that the evolutionists have infinitely more evidence and support for their theories than do the creationists.

fungo: My statement to RL was not intended to offend you (as it appears to have done) and I should have worded it differently. RL, myself, and most others understand that there are no 'literal absolutes' in scientific laws - or nearly anything else for that matter. However the direction of your related conversation with RL seemed to imply that you were using the 'literally absolute' position as a means to defend. My apologies.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

I did not assert that you had stated that, i was asking a question. Are you familiar with a question mark, and it's meaning? Don't try to peddle your "straw man" horseshit again, it's not working.

I refer you back to your own definition of a strawman , where one 'ignores a person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position.'

Ignoring my true position, you posted your question, followed by a remark about the 'idiocy of such a contention'.

Since no one had put forth such a contention, to whom did you refer?

Deny it all you want. It's there for all to see and judge for themselves.

0 Replies

I really dont want to dwell on your lack of logic RL but in one of your last statements to me(before I went and had an urgent need of a haircut) you said

Quote:

I'd love to hear why you think my position (which you likely misunderstood, and are now engaging in CYA) is 'an error in logic'

Then your very next statement began with "IF". Thats a propositional statement in logic and a "given" in geometry(as in "if and only if") . The only guy covering his butt here is you.

The very preposterous statement that something composed of matter having mass, can only be brought avbout by something that resides in the "sprit world" is not too bright a statement.
Your entire argument is specious and lacks any threads of credibility because it first requires the listener to buy into a ridiculous opening statement of the proposition such as

"If the Flying spaghetti monster created everything---he could not possibly be made of spaghetti"

Lets get back to the real tap dance that RL, baddog, et al are trying to choreograph by never providing any evidence for their worldviews.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

"If the Flying spaghetti monster created everything---he could not possibly be made of spaghetti"

Heh heh, well said Smile

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

...Lets get back to the real tap dance that RL, baddog, et al are trying to choreograph by never providing any evidence for their worldviews.

You've got the "tapdance" moniker correct fm. RL, myself, et al present 'evidence' (yes including "any") then you, and/or et al begin the tap dance of moving the bar for 'evidence'. We present a case - and you, and/or et al - alter your perception of evidence. Pretty soon the room for anything to fit into the 'evidence' window is about this >< big.

Oh yeah - I too chuckled at this:

Quote:

"If the Flying spaghetti monster created everything---he could not possibly be made of spaghetti"

0 Replies

Don't tell me there's any proof for creationism.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know