Evolution? How?

Chumly wrote:

neologist wrote:

Chumly wrote:

What is your definition of natural law?
How firm a conclusion would you be expecting?

I thought this would be easy.

Are you expecting a rhetorical trap? That was not my intent.

But go ahead. You define natural law.

Let me watch, OK?

Dylan wrote:

But you and I, we've been through that, and this is not our fate. So let us not talk falsely now, the hour is getting late.

I was simply asking for a definition of terms, I have no idea how you meant natural law, nor if you meant conclusion beyond all doubt, or beyond reasonable doubt, or beyond present generally accepted scientific knowledge, or beyond doubt from my individual perspective and how I rationalize that perspective etc.

As a religious feller, and as one who believes god has selective knowledge, god might also have said

godt wrote:

I thought this would be easy.

Just pick a definition and be done with it.

The term 'natural law' is ambiguous. It refers to a type of moral theory, as well as to a type of legal theory, despite the fact that the core claims of the two kinds of theory are logically independent. According to natural law ethical theory, the moral standards that govern human behavior are, in some sense, objectively derived from the nature of human beings. According to natural law legal theory, the authority of at least some legal standards necessarily derives, at least in part, from considerations having to do with the moral merit of those standards.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/n/natlaw.htm

Ultimately, what they will accomplish will be not the achievement of their luddite aim but rather will be the further, if not the ultimate, discrediting and dismissal of the entire Fundamentalist Protestant Christian movement itself.

To me "natural law" just is. It incompases everything and anything.

The term 'natural law' is ambiguous. It refers to a type of moral theory, as well as to a type of legal theory, despite the fact that the core claims of the two kinds of theory are logically independent. According to natural law ethical theory, the moral standards that govern human behavior are, in some sense, objectively derived from the nature of human beings. According to natural law legal theory, the authority of at least some legal standards necessarily derives, at least in part, from considerations having to do with the moral merit of those standards.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/n/natlaw.htm

Would it be safe to conclude that all things have come into existence through the operation of natural law?

Since, as we discussed earlier, birds and insects etc can overcome gravity using energy and information

Birds overcome gravity and fly. Not because gravity is not a law, but because they use energy and information to supersede gravity using the principles of flight (lift, thrust, etc)

If gravity was 'absolute' nothing could ever leave the ground. In the strictest sense, you wouldn't be able to lift your arm.

Of course gravity is subject to external influence. But it is a law of science just the same.

Same thing with entropy.

neo, pre-emptively, I'll point out tradition and social convention do not qualify as valid differentiators. Astrology, triskadecaphobia, salt-over-the-shoulder, broken mirrors, black cats, and imaginary freinds postulated through a scriptural canon all are the same fabric, regardless the weave.

neo, You are showing foot in mouth syndrome. Not good.

To me "natural law" just is. It incompases everything and anything.

Both the Holy Scriptures and nature proceed from the Divine Word . . . Two truths can never contradict one another. - Galileo

Galileo, a man desperate to not get hung by the church. I'ld say sh*t like that too if I was looking at a noose.

Tell Chumly. Maybe he'll go with that.

neologist wrote:

Chumly wrote:

neologist wrote:

Chumly wrote:

What is your definition of natural law?
How firm a conclusion would you be expecting?

I thought this would be easy.

Are you expecting a rhetorical trap? That was not my intent.

But go ahead. You define natural law.

Let me watch, OK?

Dylan wrote:

But you and I, we've been through that, and this is not our fate. So let us not talk falsely now, the hour is getting late.

I was simply asking for a definition of terms, I have no idea how you meant natural law, nor if you meant conclusion beyond all doubt, or beyond reasonable doubt, or beyond present generally accepted scientific knowledge, or beyond doubt from my individual perspective and how I rationalize that perspective etc.

As a religious feller, and as one who believes god has selective knowledge, god might also have said

godt wrote:

I thought this would be easy.

Just pick a definition and be done with it.

Quote:

The term 'natural law' is ambiguous. It refers to a type of moral theory, as well as to a type of legal theory, despite the fact that the core claims of the two kinds of theory are logically independent. According to natural law ethical theory, the moral standards that govern human behavior are, in some sense, objectively derived from the nature of human beings. According to natural law legal theory, the authority of at least some legal standards necessarily derives, at least in part, from considerations having to do with the moral merit of those standards.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/n/natlaw.htm

Alrighty then, on the basis of the "weight of the generally presently accepted scientific evidence/argument/theories to date" yes a great many things have reasonable weighting to have come into existence without the express need of, or evidence for, a higher intervening power.

I would also add that scientific investigations and disciplines are in their infancy, and as such the future for further useful explanations of how things have come about looks very promising indeed.

cicerone imposter wrote:

To me "natural law" just is. It incompases everything and anything.

The Internet Encyclopedia Of philosophy wrote:

The term 'natural law' is ambiguous. It refers to a type of moral theory, as well as to a type of legal theory, despite the fact that the core claims of the two kinds of theory are logically independent. According to natural law ethical theory, the moral standards that govern human behavior are, in some sense, objectively derived from the nature of human beings. According to natural law legal theory, the authority of at least some legal standards necessarily derives, at least in part, from considerations having to do with the moral merit of those standards.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/n/natlaw.htm

But never let it be said that I am not an inclusive kind'a guy so let's apply cicerone imposter's definition to Neo's question.

neologist wrote:

Would it be safe to conclude that all things have come into existence through the operation of natural law?

If we use cicerone imposter's definition that "natural law…incompases everything and anything" then yes it's safe to conclude that all things have come into existence through the operation of natural law. I would in fact consider the question redundant based on cicerone imposter's definition.