Evidence for God from Science

Audie,

Speaking as a layman(so don't be too harsh) I'd say that scientific laws determine how water flows, right? It won't flow uphill. The direction it flows may or may not seem random. But it definitely has laws it must follow.

Would you agree?

RickD wrote:Audie,

Speaking as a layman(so don't be too harsh) I'd say that scientific laws determine how water flows, right? It won't flow uphill. The direction it flows may or may not seem random. But it definitely has laws it must follow.

Would you agree?

Of course, Ardy. Who would suggest otherwise.

But are you suggesting that nothing is random?

Yes.

The water fallswhere it does, by chance maybe but like Byblos said, why is there motion at all?

Storyteller wrote:Yes.

The water fallswhere it does, by chance maybe but like Byblos said, why is there motion at all?

So nothing can be discussed without first knowing the ultimate secrets of the universe.

Knowing, and accepting, are two different things.

Storyteller wrote:Knowing, and accepting, are two different things.

And irrelevant is irrelevant.

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:Audie,

Speaking as a layman(so don't be too harsh) I'd say that scientific laws determine how water flows, right? It won't flow uphill. The direction it flows may or may not seem random. But it definitely has laws it must follow.

Would you agree?

Of course, Ardy. Who would suggest otherwise.

But are you suggesting that nothing is random?

I guess I'd ask you to define random.

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:Audie,

Speaking as a layman(so don't be too harsh) I'd say that scientific laws determine how water flows, right? It won't flow uphill. The direction it flows may or may not seem random. But it definitely has laws it must follow.

Would you agree?

Of course, Ardy. Who would suggest otherwise.

But are you suggesting that nothing is random?

I guess I'd ask you to define random.

Did I introduce the term?

Audie: Is a waterfall "random"? Planned?

Story: The water falls where it does, by chance maybe but like Byblos said, why is there motion at all?

Is a waterfall random? Why is there motion at all? BOTH are wrong questions. The real questions are: 1) Why is there a waterfall to begin with? And why is there a waterfall or ANYTHING else, rather than nothing at all? Whether a waterfall operates randomly or not is simply a pointless thing to ponder, as, for the billionth time, it is a dependent thing upon the things that came first, and especially upon the CAUSE of those things? Oh, and the hydrological processes, just like so many other essential and specifically operating processes and mechanisms that operate with amazing interactive and necessary synergies, operate precisely as they are designed to, yet within the unique and fixed parameters of each of them, as well. So, the REAL question is, why is there ANYTHING rather than nothing?

So, how ridiculous are questions about whether a dependent thing, designed to operate within key parameters, which must interact with many other key and designed things, has any randomness as to how it operates. Of COURSE it has randomness - yet ONLY randomness within key, unchangeable and exceptionally narrow and dependent parameters. And those PARAMETERS are anything BUT random! People need to ask the most important questions, and not focus on dependent things. Whatever randomness is possible from a thing with otherwise key and locked parameters, does in no way show randomness can explain things that have ONLY have some randomness in WITHIN their operational parameters, but in which the PARAMETERS are FIXED. So, a waterfall can't produce flames. It can't flow upwards. It can't turn to ice UNLESS other processes, operating within their own fixed parameters, create the conditions. And when temperatures are below a certain degree/at a certain altitude and atmospheric pressure, waterfalls will ALWAYS ice over. Is there randomness within temperatures, and with various altitudes? Of course, but the RANGE of their parameters are fixed. There is not unlimited parameters of things that can can nonetheless exhibit a certain range of randomness within whatever their respective fixed parameters.

Is Audie looking for integrated science?

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:Audie,

Speaking as a layman(so don't be too harsh) I'd say that scientific laws determine how water flows, right? It won't flow uphill. The direction it flows may or may not seem random. But it definitely has laws it must follow.

Would you agree?

Of course, Ardy. Who would suggest otherwise.

But are you suggesting that nothing is random?

I guess I'd ask you to define random.

Did I introduce the term?

As far as I can tell, yes. Here

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:

Audie wrote:

RickD wrote:Audie,

Speaking as a layman(so don't be too harsh) I'd say that scientific laws determine how water flows, right? It won't flow uphill. The direction it flows may or may not seem random. But it definitely has laws it must follow.

Would you agree?

Of course, Ardy. Who would suggest otherwise.

But are you suggesting that nothing is random?

I guess I'd ask you to define random.

Did I introduce the term?

As far as I can tell, yes. Here

Oh, where Story says "nothing is that random"

Audie wrote:Oh, where Story says "nothing is that random"

There's nothing 'random' about water forming waterfalls but we must be careful not to swing completely to the other deterministic side.

Water forms into waterfalls because that's what water tends to do under those conditions (gravity, lots of water that seeks its level, overflows seek more channels, etc etc).

The key words are of course underlined. What does it mean to 'tend to' do something? Well, it is inherent in the property of the thing, what makes it what it is. Assuming no other factors, water will sit in a cup for ever and ever. If the cup is broken, water will seek its level. It is the potential of water to do so, until that potential is turned into an actuality.

So long as things have the potential to be one thing or another and that potential is actualized, the thing is now said to be in act.

A quick note about randomness, what I would consider a random act is something totally inexplicable. A horse suddenly appearing out of nowhere in the middle of the room is a random, inexplicable act.

Byblos wrote:

Audie wrote:Oh, where Story says "nothing is that random"

There's nothing 'random' about water forming waterfalls but we must be careful not to swing completely to the other deterministic side.

Water forms into waterfalls because that's what water tends to do under those conditions (gravity, lots of water that seeks its level, overflows seek more channels, etc etc).

The key words are of course underlined. What does it mean to 'tend to' do something? Well, it is inherent in the property of the thing, what makes it what it is. Assuming no other factors, water will sit in a cup for ever and ever. If the cup is broken, water will seek its level. It is the potential of water to do so, until that potential is turned into an actuality.

So long as things have the potential to be one thing or another and that potential is actualized, the thing is now said to be in act.

A quick note about randomness, what I would consider a random act is something totally inexplicable. A horse suddenly appearing out of nowhere in the middle of the room is a random, inexplicable act.

I suppose any waterfall starts in the ocean. The water that evaporates eventually forms as raindrops. While each molecule reacts to its circumstances in accordance with forces outside itself, there seems to be no pattern in which molecules are in which raindrops, nor to the pattern of which falls where on any given acre of ground.

I think we'd all be satisfied that the pattern of raindrops falling on that acre is random.

Likewise, that there is no order to the soil particles picked up and moved by the rain.
This one could have been two inches from that one rather than touching, and it would all work out the same way.

What goes into a waterfall is random on some levels, and all the time determined
in others by physical laws. Is not so?

Your definition of random seems to be either "miracle" or, "impossible"

Audie wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Audie wrote:Oh, where Story says "nothing is that random"

There's nothing 'random' about water forming waterfalls but we must be careful not to swing completely to the other deterministic side.

Water forms into waterfalls because that's what water tends to do under those conditions (gravity, lots of water that seeks its level, overflows seek more channels, etc etc).

The key words are of course underlined. What does it mean to 'tend to' do something? Well, it is inherent in the property of the thing, what makes it what it is. Assuming no other factors, water will sit in a cup for ever and ever. If the cup is broken, water will seek its level. It is the potential of water to do so, until that potential is turned into an actuality.

So long as things have the potential to be one thing or another and that potential is actualized, the thing is now said to be in act.

A quick note about randomness, what I would consider a random act is something totally inexplicable. A horse suddenly appearing out of nowhere in the middle of the room is a random, inexplicable act.

I suppose any waterfall starts in the ocean. The water that evaporates eventually forms as raindrops. While each molecule reacts to its circumstances in accordance with forces outside itself, there seems to be no pattern in which molecules are in which raindrops, nor to the pattern of which falls where on any given acre of ground.

I think we'd all be satisfied that the pattern of raindrops falling on that acre is random.

Likewise, that there is no order to the soil particles picked up and moved by the rain.
This one could have been two inches from that one rather than touching, and it would all work out the same way.

What goes into a waterfall is random on some levels, and all the time determined
in others by physical laws. Is not so?

I would agree to a certain extent since there seems to be no rhyme or reason as to why a particular molecule ends up on one side of the terrain as opposed to another. But even though that seems to be the case (randomness) I would bet even at the molecular/atomic (even sub-atomic and quantum) levels actions can be explained by the laws of physics, wouldn't you agree? I don't know enough about the laws of physics and how they govern at the lowest levels but I bet it's a bottom up approach that is consistent, i.e. cause and effect. Otherwise we would not see the order we observe and randomness (a la horse suddenly appearing) would be much more common.

Audie wrote:Your definition of random seems to be either "miracle" or, "impossible"

I suppose it is, I can't think of anything else that fits the description.