"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands." (Psalm 19:1)
https://discussions.godandscience.org/
Philip: Audie, despite your determination that your thinking about this matter is unique only to you, your assertions most certainly are necessarily found withing the confines of my stated parameters of possible choices. Again, what other possibilities are there???!!! Is it a caricature to show parameters that exist for ALL persons. And ALL non-theists must fit into premises 2 - 4. If there is another possibility, please enlighten us!
Ok, Audie, we're ALL waiting to hear your answer as to how your views don't necessarily fit my stated premises 2-4.Audie responded: In general the purpose of a gish gallop is to make it impractical to attempt to respond. Ok P, you succeeded. It would take too long even to sort out all the new things you made up.
It would though Audie.Audie wrote:If someone hasnt the capacity to recognize it when they make things up and then declare them to be true, I dont think my listing them is going to accomplish anything.
I've no wish to have anything to do with you or anyone like you.
Let's all do the Audie Sidestep. C'mon folks it's easy.Audie wrote:If someone hasnt the capacity to recognize it when they make things up and then declare them to be true, I dont think my listing them is going to accomplish anything.
I've no wish to have anything to do with you or anyone like you.
That is not what I said about the 2nd law,I said they found a way around it to promote evolution,they have a new definition of the 2nd law you now go by.The original definition of the 2nd law contradicted evolution so they found a new way to explain the 2nd law to get around it.Audie wrote:Oh dear, the "ToE violates the TLOT" canard again.
On 4/13/15 at 10:00pm (page 55) I gave a #5 that did not fit any of your 1-4 stated premises. You neglected to respond to it. Care to respond to it now?Philip wrote:Philip: Audie, despite your determination that your thinking about this matter is unique only to you, your assertions most certainly are necessarily found withing the confines of my stated parameters of possible choices. Again, what other possibilities are there???!!! Is it a caricature to show parameters that exist for ALL persons. And ALL non-theists must fit into premises 2 - 4. If there is another possibility, please enlighten us!Ok, Audie, we're ALL waiting to hear your answer as to how your views don't necessarily fit my stated premises 2-4.Audie responded: In general the purpose of a gish gallop is to make it impractical to attempt to respond. Ok P, you succeeded. It would take too long even to sort out all the new things you made up.
And what have I made up? What, if ANYTHING, makes your creation views unique or that makes them fall ANYWHERE outside of my stated parameters?
You just are echoing the common responses of countless agnostics, essentially that there must be a Godless alternative that explains the universe, but that you have no reasonable, scientifically plausible or logical explanation for. So, your options are: Faith in the unknown, unsubstantiated/unproven/totally inexplicable that is both unfathomably and necessarily precedes every known physical thing, matter, dimension and time, process, and mechanism that didn't previously exist, suddenly came into existence all at once, with unimaginable power, precision and immediately began self-organizing its many, incomprehensible, self-designed mechanisms and intricate and necessarily interactive mechanisms and processes vs. an Intelligent Designer and Creator.
Oh what incredible faith it takes to believe in "Pop Metaphisics!" Or to even merely entertain it as a reasonable possibility. Yes, Audie, your own beliefs force you to be constrained within your own "Gish Gallop" straitjacket of impossibilities and mathematically absurd probabilities - the position all atheists and agnostics force themselves into.
Ken,Kenny wrote:On 4/13/15 at 10:00pm (page 55) I gave a #5 that did not fit any of your 1-4 stated premises. You neglected to respond to it. Care to respond to it now?Philip wrote:Philip: Audie, despite your determination that your thinking about this matter is unique only to you, your assertions most certainly are necessarily found withing the confines of my stated parameters of possible choices. Again, what other possibilities are there???!!! Is it a caricature to show parameters that exist for ALL persons. And ALL non-theists must fit into premises 2 - 4. If there is another possibility, please enlighten us!Ok, Audie, we're ALL waiting to hear your answer as to how your views don't necessarily fit my stated premises 2-4.Audie responded: In general the purpose of a gish gallop is to make it impractical to attempt to respond. Ok P, you succeeded. It would take too long even to sort out all the new things you made up.
And what have I made up? What, if ANYTHING, makes your creation views unique or that makes them fall ANYWHERE outside of my stated parameters?
You just are echoing the common responses of countless agnostics, essentially that there must be a Godless alternative that explains the universe, but that you have no reasonable, scientifically plausible or logical explanation for. So, your options are: Faith in the unknown, unsubstantiated/unproven/totally inexplicable that is both unfathomably and necessarily precedes every known physical thing, matter, dimension and time, process, and mechanism that didn't previously exist, suddenly came into existence all at once, with unimaginable power, precision and immediately began self-organizing its many, incomprehensible, self-designed mechanisms and intricate and necessarily interactive mechanisms and processes vs. an Intelligent Designer and Creator.
Oh what incredible faith it takes to believe in "Pop Metaphisics!" Or to even merely entertain it as a reasonable possibility. Yes, Audie, your own beliefs force you to be constrained within your own "Gish Gallop" straitjacket of impossibilities and mathematically absurd probabilities - the position all atheists and agnostics force themselves into.
Ken
You realize that what you're proposing, is outside the realm of science, right?5) That nothing just popped into existence, that nothing was ever created without using existing materials, that there was never a point in history when nothing existed, and that matter has always existed in one form or another; and just evolved into what we have now.
I also realize what he is proposing is outside the realm of science. Outside the realm of science isn't going to stop an atheist or agnostic from believing it.RickD wrote:Ken,Kenny wrote:On 4/13/15 at 10:00pm (page 55) I gave a #5 that did not fit any of your 1-4 stated premises. You neglected to respond to it. Care to respond to it now?Philip wrote:Philip: Audie, despite your determination that your thinking about this matter is unique only to you, your assertions most certainly are necessarily found withing the confines of my stated parameters of possible choices. Again, what other possibilities are there???!!! Is it a caricature to show parameters that exist for ALL persons. And ALL non-theists must fit into premises 2 - 4. If there is another possibility, please enlighten us!Ok, Audie, we're ALL waiting to hear your answer as to how your views don't necessarily fit my stated premises 2-4.Audie responded: In general the purpose of a gish gallop is to make it impractical to attempt to respond. Ok P, you succeeded. It would take too long even to sort out all the new things you made up.
And what have I made up? What, if ANYTHING, makes your creation views unique or that makes them fall ANYWHERE outside of my stated parameters?
You just are echoing the common responses of countless agnostics, essentially that there must be a Godless alternative that explains the universe, but that you have no reasonable, scientifically plausible or logical explanation for. So, your options are: Faith in the unknown, unsubstantiated/unproven/totally inexplicable that is both unfathomably and necessarily precedes every known physical thing, matter, dimension and time, process, and mechanism that didn't previously exist, suddenly came into existence all at once, with unimaginable power, precision and immediately began self-organizing its many, incomprehensible, self-designed mechanisms and intricate and necessarily interactive mechanisms and processes vs. an Intelligent Designer and Creator.
Oh what incredible faith it takes to believe in "Pop Metaphisics!" Or to even merely entertain it as a reasonable possibility. Yes, Audie, your own beliefs force you to be constrained within your own "Gish Gallop" straitjacket of impossibilities and mathematically absurd probabilities - the position all atheists and agnostics force themselves into.
Ken
Philip can respond if he wants, but I just want to make sure you understand what you said.You realize that what you're proposing, is outside the realm of science, right?5) That nothing just popped into existence, that nothing was ever created without using existing materials, that there was never a point in history when nothing existed, and that matter has always existed in one form or another; and just evolved into what we have now.
Well, I'm only wrong IF POP Metaphysics is true! It sure as heck isn't a process ANY science I've read about can explain. And it only exists in the minds (fantasies?) of those who deny a theistic explanation.StoryT: It would though Audie.
You ask others to justify themselves yet you won't.
You can't argue with someone if you won't present an argument.
You can't just say he is wrong.
Does that apply to God as well? Can’t time be attributed to his actions as well? Or perhaps before time God was immobile like a bug stuck in amber. If so, is it fair to say before time God was indiscernible from non-existent?RickD wrote: If matter has always existed, that would go against what is known from science. Specifically the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Also, a little something about the idea that if there's change, there has to be time. And time cannot go back infinitely.
No. God is unchanging.ken wrote:
Does that apply to God as well? Can’t time be attributed to his actions as well?
God is Spirit. Not physical like a prehistoric bug in Amber.Or perhaps before time God was immobile like a bug stuck in amber. If so, is it fair to say before time God was indiscernible from non-existent?
ken wrote:
Does that apply to God as well? Can’t time be attributed to his actions as well?
Not change, movement. Aren't there instances in the Bible of God moving?RickD wrote:No. God is unchanging.
kenny wrote:Or perhaps before time God was immobile like a bug stuck in amber. If so, is it fair to say before time God was indiscernible from non-existent?
Can't time be applied to the actions of spirits?RickD wrote:God is Spirit. Not physical like a prehistoric bug in Amber.
God is existence.