page 2 fire in the equasions


 Debate on TWeb with Atheist named "The Pixie"
Metacrock

Point 3

Natural laws are not the same as legal laws. Natural laws cannot be broken. There are no law enforcement agents for natural laws. There are no courts to judge contraventions of natural laws, no lawyers to represent or accuse you. There is no punishment for breaking the laws of nature.

I've already covered that. you are in a dilemma, don't you understand what a dilemma is?

so you have no basis for challenging miracles and you can't explain how there comes to be soemthing rather than nothing the argument accomplishes it's goal of making a rational warrant for belief in God.



Given these differences, why suppose that the laws of nature require a law giver.

because if they not law lie then you get the side of the dilemma I already said. I said a dilemma don't' you understand that concept. you are now on the right horn.



Really, this is a semantic argument. These things in nature are called laws for convenience; suppose they were called "certainties", because the effects are certain in a given set of conditions. Does your argument still hold if we just change the name? No, it suddenly makes no sense:
that doesn't answer the dilemma, saying "this science" doesn't clear it up. Giving it a name doesn't help. You an call it anything you want, that doesn't answer the problem.





The certainties of nature are general statements about what we are certain must happen in a given set of conditions, demanding a certainties giver (certainties implies a certainties giver)

It just becomes nonsense.
I see you are in that school that says if you can argument names you make it go away. sorry that doesn't' work. calling it names like "nonese" wont solve it.

how do you explain a description of universal behavior when there is no universe to so behave?


what's makes a universe come into being?

what basis do you have for doubting miracles if there are no law like statements?

Look if "laws" are nothing more than statements about how things tend to happen than any given miracle can be a tendency that you missed. so you have no basis for denying the resurrection.



Given that all products of the natural world require a cause, what does that tell us about things outside the natural world? Nothing. We have no way to know what rules apply outside the naturl world. So what can we know about the process that created the natural world, or that created the laws of nature? Nothing.
(1) why do you make a dichotomy between natural world and "outside" if there are no law like statements? what would make the natural world corporate the way it does if it's just a tendency and not a law?

you are trying to have it both ways

(2) why should we doubt miracles when there are no law like statements to enforce the limits of the natural world

(3) how do you know something from outside is not effecting something inside when a miracle happens? if there is no law like statement to violate there's nothing to stop it.

(4) why even speak of a "natural" world when there is no law like line to cross that enforces the natural?


(5) one can see that you view is fraught with inconsistent you are just trying to demand that an ideology has to control they way we look at it. But since that ideology is so contradictory it really can't demand much of us in terms of adherence.

The second law of thermodynamics is one of the most solidly established laws in science, and yet it is merely a tendency. How that allows for the supernatural, I have no idea. Can you explain?
then if it's merely a tendency it can be violated. that's just obvious. If it's a tendency then what tendency is observed in the origins of things? If there are no thing yet to make a tendency how does non existent tendency make something happen?

(1) if it's just a tendency things can go through the cracks. so there's no basis for doubting miracles.

(2) nothing to make things happen so no origin is explained.





Let us allow the supernatural. How does that help your argument?
your concept of the supernatural is wrong. It's hard enough getting people to understand this so I can't feed to the false notion.

But you have no basis for doubting the supernatural if there are no law-like laws. If they are just tendencies they can be hijacked by a supranational force.


that's really feeding the false concept but just for argument sake to prove the point you can't answer it.

Point 4


Who? You cite Hawking on your webpage, but Hawkings has changed his mind apparently. Your link (MetaList on Scinece and religion) goes nowhere.
He doesn't say he changed his mind. He's calling it "gravity."

He's got something with the attributes of God that he calls "gravity" so he's calling God by another name.

So how does this lead to an all-knowing, all-loving God, or to the Christian God. In what sense is this "unitive principle" a god, as the term is used on TWeb? Even if this "unitive principle" was proved to be true, I would still call myelf an atheist, because it is not what I consider a god to be.
how does he know it' snot loving? He set's up the basis for a set of "laws" or some sort of "mind" that conducts law-like operation to make things happen with regularity and so forth, that's basically some attributes of God, so how does he know it lacks the other attributes? he's never seen gravity.

Did you know Newton really believe that gravity was the force of God's mind?

Point 5 (point 4 in the contents)

No, the laws of nature themselves also lead to organization (eg crystal formation). Furthermore, even if it was the only example, that would not preclude other unknown instances - especially given we are talking about things beyond the natural world.
ah so now you are willing to appeal to some unknown force, then you have faith it's ot God right? pull the other one. That's believe without evidence, that's just the same as the religious people you chide.


You are not speaking from a standpoint of empirical data. we have no photographs of laws. you are just assuming, all of scinece is just assuming. they have no way of knowing that they are not talking about God.


the kind of contradictions your ideology has gaping in them it's obvious there's room to assume it is God.

Now it is merely the best? What gives?

No it does not. Every mind we know of has a physical location (the brain). It is possible that there are minds that have no physical location, but equally there could be something else.

now you are trying to limit the possibilities based upon an extremely limited sample. that's just begging the question. so you are willing to have faith that the whatever iti s is not God and not loving when you don't have any evidence to rule it out,b ut you reuse to rule in the opposite possibility which is at least better becasue it doesn't have the kind of contradictions your views does have.

that is all very screwed up. Too screwed up to attack the kind smirking certainty to the mystique of science that atheist try to parle into "there's no proof for your God."

there's no proof for your gravity.