Time Upside Down

[BGoodForGoodSake]

I don't know if you expected an answer to this silliness.

Your continued assertion that evolutionary science is a neutral, a-religious practice has been shown to be wrong many times here, despite your dogmatic denials.

You beleive that science reaching the conclusion that a process is random is contradictory to the will of an omnipotent God. But how is this so?
You stated that a coin flip is ordained by God.

The post above is a great example of the slippery slope fallacy that you and the other atheist evolutionists so like to commit, whenever faced with the reality that the theory necessarily has metaphysical implications that are contrary to theism.

Such as the random nature of mutations? See above. Perhaps you can graciously reiterate this slippery slope fallacy. Thanks
=)

Why do you even bother coming to this board?

I enjoy our conversations. I am sorry if I am frustrating you, we can discuss in private if you wish.

[August]

I don't know if you expected an answer to this silliness.

Your continued assertion that evolutionary science is a neutral, a-religious practice has been shown to be wrong many times here, despite your dogmatic denials.

You beleive that science reaching the conclusion that a process is random is contradictory to the will of an omnipotent God. But how is this so?
You stated that a coin flip is ordained by God.

If something is random, it is down to chance as to what the outcome would be. God is omnipotent, which means He exercises power over everything, continuously, which leaves no room for chance. Do I need to explain this more?

So it's better to say that something is random, by chance etc, rather than to acknowledge it is by the will of an omnipotent God? So that people like you can claim there is no theistic God? If we understand the variables, as stated before, the outcome of a coin flip is not random. So if we follow the logic, we are back to where the laws that govern the outcome of a coin flip originate from.

Such as the random nature of mutations? See above. Perhaps you can graciously reiterate this slippery slope fallacy. Thanks

Sure. Whenever it is mentioned that (gasp) God is involved, you all get hysterical and claim that we are going back to the stone age, scientists work will be tainted, they are going to preach in the lab, aeroplanes are going to fall out of the sky, we are going to die of unnamed diseases because all scientific research will stop because we are simply going to say God did it. Hence the slippery slope fallacy, aptly demonstrated in your previous post.

I enjoy our conversations. I am sorry if I am frustrating you, we can discuss in private if you wish.

Frustrating me? Uh, ok, but you seem to have misinterpreted my question.

If we Christians are all so stupid, as you make us out to be, that we cannot understand the basics of science, and specifically the simple a-religious nature of evolutionary science, despite you having explained this to us many times, why do you bother?

[BGoodForGoodSake]

You beleive that science reaching the conclusion that a process is random is contradictory to the will of an omnipotent God. But how is this so?
You stated that a coin flip is ordained by God.

If something is random, it is down to chance as to what the outcome would be. God is omnipotent, which means He exercises power over everything, continuously, which leaves no room for chance. Do I need to explain this more?

Yet by our limited senses it appears random.

So it's better to say that something is random, by chance etc, rather than to acknowledge it is by the will of an omnipotent God? So that people like you can claim there is no theistic God?

Not so that people can proclaim there is no God, only to show that we do not know how or cannot predict when. Science is in the business of description, as detailed as humanly possible and sometimes random is the best description we have for a phenomenon.

If we understand the variables, as stated before, the outcome of a coin flip is not random. So if we follow the logic, we are back to where the laws that govern the outcome of a coin flip originate from.

The origin of the laws is God to many, but that does not eliminate the fact that some things in life are random to us. Nor do origins concern all areas of science, it is possible to study different aspects of the same thing or evolution without origins precicely because the implications are not emphasized. It does not matter that we do not have the full picture because the emphasis is on discovery.

Such as the random nature of mutations? See above. Perhaps you can graciously reiterate this slippery slope fallacy. Thanks

Sure. Whenever it is mentioned that (gasp) God is involved, you all get hysterical and claim that we are going back to the stone age

I did not, I only stated that observations should stand on their own.

scientists work will be tainted, they are going to preach in the lab

Nothing wrong with preaching in the lab, perhaps you should read my post more carefully.

aeroplanes are going to fall out of the sky, we are going to die of unnamed diseases because all scientific research will stop because we are simply going to say God did it.

What is it you want then? What is it you wish for scientists to do different?

Hence the slippery slope fallacy, aptly demonstrated in your previous post.

What is it you want scientists to do then? I don't think I follow, I specifically asked if you wanted Christian Scientists to do more than prostletize to their fellow scientists. I am asking you what you beleive should be the actions of a Christian scientitst.

I enjoy our conversations. I am sorry if I am frustrating you, we can discuss in private if you wish.

Frustrating me? Uh, ok, but you seem to have misinterpreted my question.
If we Christians are all so stupid, as you make us out to be, that we cannot understand the basics of science, and specifically the simple a-religious nature of evolutionary science, despite you having explained this to us many times, why do you bother?

I don't think Christians are stupid as you imply. I am strongly against politicizing science, it is an endeaver to broaden the knowledge of mankind, and should be undertaken no matter what the political and social implications may be within ethical limitations. Because in the end the observations and studies of the natural world are by themselves only revalations of nature and nothing more.

It appears you have a problem with evolution because athiests use it to come to the conclusion that there is no God. Evolution itself does not reach this conclusion. The term random is descriptive just as the term blue is. If I somehow misunderstood you please let me know.

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

The origin of the laws is God to many,

August can hold his own of course, but BGood, this statement is absurd. The laws either do or don't have their origin in God. None of your nonsensical subjective reality and truth

[BGoodForGoodSake]

The origin of the laws is God to many,

August can hold his own of course, but BGood, this statement is absurd. The laws either do or don't have their origin in God. None of your nonsensical subjective reality and truth

To someone who is Christian practicing science the laws of the Universe are attributable to a God.
Being a philosophical idea not everyone prescribes to the same beleifs. Is this too foreign of a concept to you KMart?

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

The origin of the laws is God to many,

August can hold his own of course, but BGood, this statement is absurd. The laws either do or don't have their origin in God. None of your nonsensical subjective reality and truth

To someone who is Christian practicing science the laws of the Universe are attributable to a God.
Being a philosophical idea not everyone prescribes to the same beleifs. Is this too foreign of a concept to you KMart?

No, genius, but the fact that not everyone believes something does not make truth subjective.

[BGoodForGoodSake]

To someone who is Christian practicing science the laws of the Universe are attributable to a God.
Being a philosophical idea not everyone prescribes to the same beleifs. Is this too foreign of a concept to you KMart?

No, genius, but the fact that not everyone believes something does not make truth subjective.

Of course not, I didn't claim that truth was subjective.
But your beleifs although true to you are not true to others, it is this reality which makes your "truth" subjective.
In any case whether or not it is true, does not impact on the ability to conduct scientific research. As August stated earlier many scientists are Christians as well. And as I stated earlier the origins of these laws are inconsequential to most scientific endeavers.

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

To someone who is Christian practicing science the laws of the Universe are attributable to a God.
Being a philosophical idea not everyone prescribes to the same beleifs. Is this too foreign of a concept to you KMart?

No, genius, but the fact that not everyone believes something does not make truth subjective.

Of course not, I didn't claim that truth was subjective.
But your beleifs although true to you are not true to others, it is this reality which makes your "truth" subjective.
In any case whether or not it is true, does not impact on the ability to conduct scientific research. As August stated earlier many scientists are Christians as well. And as I stated earlier the origins of these laws are inconsequential to most scientific endeavers.

If everyone doesn't believe in something, how do you come to the conclusion that truth is subjective? Nonsense. First, it's not necessarily true-the premises don't necessarily lead to the conclusion you come to. Second, your belief leads to absurdities

[BGoodForGoodSake]

No, genius, but the fact that not everyone believes something does not make truth subjective.

Of course not, I didn't claim that truth was subjective.
But your beleifs although true to you are not true to others, it is this reality which makes your "truth" subjective.
In any case whether or not it is true, does not impact on the ability to conduct scientific research. As August stated earlier many scientists are Christians as well. And as I stated earlier the origins of these laws are inconsequential to most scientific endeavers.

If everyone doesn't believe in something, how do you come to the conclusion that truth is subjective? Nonsense.

I did not say truth is subjective, I stated very clearly that what you see as truth is subjective.

A calvinist may beleive in predestination and therefore reject true free will, to them this is the truth. How can you then deny it? Since truth is objective? How come your truth that free will exists is rejected by a Calvinist? blah blah blah.

This is certainly not the point of this thread, and I would apprecitate if either a Mod moved this section out or if you could continue via PM.

[Byblos]

You beleive that science reaching the conclusion that a process is random is contradictory to the will of an omnipotent God. But how is this so?
You stated that a coin flip is ordained by God.

If something is random, it is down to chance as to what the outcome would be. God is omnipotent, which means He exercises power over everything, continuously, which leaves no room for chance. Do I need to explain this more?

Yet by our limited senses it appears random.

So it's better to say that something is random, by chance etc, rather than to acknowledge it is by the will of an omnipotent God? So that people like you can claim there is no theistic God?

Not so that people can proclaim there is no God, only to show that we do not know how or cannot predict when. Science is in the business of description, as detailed as humanly possible and sometimes random is the best description we have for a phenomenon.

If we understand the variables, as stated before, the outcome of a coin flip is not random. So if we follow the logic, we are back to where the laws that govern the outcome of a coin flip originate from.

The origin of the laws is God to many, but that does not eliminate the fact that some things in life are random to us. Nor do origins concern all areas of science, it is possible to study different aspects of the same thing or evolution without origins precicely because the implications are not emphasized. It does not matter that we do not have the full picture because the emphasis is on discovery.

Such as the random nature of mutations? See above. Perhaps you can graciously reiterate this slippery slope fallacy. Thanks

Sure. Whenever it is mentioned that (gasp) God is involved, you all get hysterical and claim that we are going back to the stone age

I did not, I only stated that observations should stand on their own.

scientists work will be tainted, they are going to preach in the lab

Nothing wrong with preaching in the lab, perhaps you should read my post more carefully.

aeroplanes are going to fall out of the sky, we are going to die of unnamed diseases because all scientific research will stop because we are simply going to say God did it.

What is it you want then? What is it you wish for scientists to do different?

Hence the slippery slope fallacy, aptly demonstrated in your previous post.

What is it you want scientists to do then? I don't think I follow, I specifically asked if you wanted Christian Scientists to do more than prostletize to their fellow scientists. I am asking you what you beleive should be the actions of a Christian scientitst.

I enjoy our conversations. I am sorry if I am frustrating you, we can discuss in private if you wish.

Frustrating me? Uh, ok, but you seem to have misinterpreted my question.
If we Christians are all so stupid, as you make us out to be, that we cannot understand the basics of science, and specifically the simple a-religious nature of evolutionary science, despite you having explained this to us many times, why do you bother?

I don't think Christians are stupid as you imply. I am strongly against politicizing science, it is an endeaver to broaden the knowledge of mankind, and should be undertaken no matter what the political and social implications may be within ethical limitations. Because in the end the observations and studies of the natural world are by themselves only revalations of nature and nothing more.

It appears you have a problem with evolution because athiests use it to come to the conclusion that there is no God. Evolution itself does not reach this conclusion. The term random is descriptive just as the term blue is. If I somehow misunderstood you please let me know.

Randomness, chance, uncertainty, unpredictability.

I agree with August that if something is truly, totally random then it cannot be ascribed to God. I, at the same time, do not believe anything is truly and totally random (see below).

I also agree with BGood in the sense that random is nothing more than our lack of understanding as to how something came about. We go back to probabilities, the coin toss is somewhat random over a small number of tosses. The probability converges to 50/50 over a large enough number of coin tosses. Does this mean it is totally random? No. In fact it has been proven (at MIT I believe) that a coin toss can be completely predictable given a constant set of force, direction, wind, drag, friction, etc.

What does this tell me? It tells me that random is nothing more than my own inability to measure the variables. In other words, if the variables could be measured effectively, the outcome will be predictable and randomness goes out the window. I cannot speak about any other possible universes, but I can certainly say the above is true of our universe. This tells me that there's a definite order to the universe, however complex the formula and however infinite the variable values.

Definite order + unknown variables = randomness

IMO, both of you are saying the same thing.

[BGoodForGoodSake]

What does this tell me? It tells me that random is nothing more than my own inability to measure the variables. In other words, if the variables could be measured effectively, the outcome will be predictable and randomness goes out the window. I cannot speak about any other possible universes, but I can certainly say the above is true of our universe. This tells me that there's a definite order to the universe, however complex the formula and however infinite the variable values.

Definite order + unknown variables = randomness
IMO, both of you are saying the same thing.

Bingo Bango!
*Bgood puts one finger on his nose and points at Byblos with the other and says AAAAAHHHH!*

[Mastriani]

I have already read a number of Bgood's posts. I can't honestly say that a lot of his opinions are agreeable, but nonetheless, in this case, he is correct.

The philosophical framework of human logical is subjective, as proven repeatedly by psychiatric testing, and more importantly, real scientific empirical methodology. It is a known fact that the human mind in 90%+ of cases will autonomously opt for a "best case" scenario, especially with regards to core psychological beliefs based on the inherent foundation of the individual value system - extrinsically or intrinsically created.

Hence, truth is not an irrefutable maxim, it is subject to the conditions of logic and psychological framework of a particular individual, at particular periods.

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

I think you are referring to our perception of the truth, not the truth itself. Truth is not subject to our beliefs and logic, just perceptions of truth.

[BGoodForGoodSake]

I think you are referring to our perception of the truth, not the truth itself. Truth is not subject to our beliefs and logic, just perceptions of truth.

Hey your back!
I missed you, AND I agree!!!!

Holy Cow!!!

Not only must time be upside down but the whole world with it.

How was Christ's Mass?

[AttentionKMartShoppers]

What the krap? You OK? Fall on your head?