Posted on 03/19/2010 4:56:11 PM PDT by chessplayer
They may say so. Still, not everything is "art."
Sure you do. You just label it something *scientific* sounding to give it an air of respectability so you can mock anyone who doesn’t accept your speculations.
What are you going to refute ti with? An a priori belief? LOL!
This nonsense of demanding refutation without telling you what it is
Again, why don't you tell me what is God?
Then why use him as an example?
Avoiding the subject isn’t going to make us forget that evos haven’t answered P-Marlowe’s question yet.
So, I’ll copy and paste it here.......
“What is the current prevailing “scientific theory” for the origin of nature? “
Conservation of energy tells me nothing about the cause of energy.
But you retreat behind the "matter/energy cannot be either created or destroyed" rule. Which in this context obviates the problem of causation by fiat.
I have no problem with this rule — provided we recognize that it pertains only to the natural world.
I didn't. Nor would I. :^)
So vacuum is "nothing" but space and time are "something?" That's rich...
My life. My reason.
Any questions????
My question is older: what is God?
No, just prove it.
A priori belief? You mean like materialistic naturalism that scientists demand must be adhered to in order to do scientific research?
Scientists have never proved that the universe came into existence without intelligent intervention. They assume the conclusion.
And they have also constantly done what I pointed out earlier to shibumi, that is demand evidence for a creator and then reject everything that creationists bring to the table as not *real* evidence.
They have set up demands that are impossible to meet and then laugh and mock that creationists have nothing to support themselves but *belief* or *faith* or whatever they want to label it.
And yet they won't tell us what evidence evos WILL accept that would meet their standards as to whether it's evidence or not.
So while evos claim *Ha, ha, you can't prove it*, creationists say that they can but you won't accept it. Your unwillingness to accept the evidence does not mean that it doesn't exist or doesn't support the creationist point.
What He says.
I AM that I AM.
What is singularity?
Prove WHAT???
Please clue me into what, exactly, you want me to "prove."
//That doesn’t mean that if we imagine pink unicorns on Jupiter they must exist//
You have just proven yet once again that the evolutionist has no answer or argument otherwise you would not have to resort to such analogies.
It appears as you are trying to put people in a box with your questions, another evo tactic.
What you and other evos actuality accomplish is demonstrating that they have never given any deep thought to ‘what God is’ or you would understand that the creator is beyond all concepts. All that man can do is glimpse various aspects.
For a start take a look at a small amount of sand, there will be easily 30 or 40 thousand grains there at least. Then try to imagine how many grains of sand there are on the entire earth. Now expand that vision into each grain of sand as a star, then an entire galaxy, and then leap to each grain of sand represents an entire universe or creation— each with its own physical laws infinity eternity beginning and end. Now all of this is in his vision at once but he is beyond it and yet his consciousness is present all the time in every part down to the smallest sub atomic particle ad infinitum.
Without god-consciousness there is no universe, no reality.
Man nor science can ever boil the creator down into an equation or something in a test-tube
The evolutionist, rather than mocking and ridiculing the truth in the great works, would do well to mediate on them.
//////////////
Deuteronomy 32:6
Is this the way you repay the LORD, O foolish and unwise people? Is he not your Father, your Creator, who made you and formed you?
Proverbs 14:8 (New International Version)
8 The wisdom of the prudent is to give thought to their ways,
but the folly of fools is deception.
Proverbs 1:22
22 “How long will you simple ones [a] love your simple ways?
How long will mockers delight in mockery
and fools hate knowledge?
Excellent observation, dear metmom; and so just, so true.
It's worth noting that materialistic naturalism bans final causes in principle. Since Sir Francis Bacon, any and all "subjective elements" must be removed from the scientific method, in order to secure "objectivity."
Yet to ban final causes enormously complicates the problem of explaining biological function, among other noteworthy things in the natural universe.
To put it crudely, a biological function seems to "know" its maximally desirable endstate before its supervening organism "knows" it has the need to reach it — in order to maintain biological viability, metabolism, physical well-being, etc. and so forth.
One could say that in a certain way, biological function is programmed — that is, not a spontaneous, emergent production of physical processes which can only describe what is happening in an immediate instance, or moment in time.
Final cause supervenes time itself in this sense.
To put this into perspective, here is Aristotle on final cause:
The final cause is an end which is not for the sake of anything else, but for the sake of which everything [else] is. So if there is to be a last term of this kind, the process will not be infinite; and if there is no such term there will be no final cause. Those who maintain an infinite series do not realize that they are destroying the very nature of the Good, although no one would try to do anything if he were not likely to reach some limit (peras); nor would there be reason in the world (nous), for the reasonable man always acts for the sake of an end — which is a limit. — Metaphysics. Book 12, Section 7 IIRC. E. Voegelin, tr.Just love that guy, Aristotle: He is always trying to establish relations between the world of common human experience, and the world of the mind.
Our modern-day ideologues do not trouble themselves very much over problems like this. They simply dismiss them — by fiat.
Oh, so beautifully said, valkyrie1!
Thank you ever so much for your truthful witness/testimony.
Which is not truly objective since nothing in this universe can be. To be truly objective, one needs to be totally outside the system. An observer inside the system can never be truly objective and if they claim they are, that's a subjective judgment in and of itself, so right away disproves the alleged objectivity of the person claiming it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.