Shadowy Man

You obviously have not a single clue as to how science is done or the type of thinking that is required.

Keith

God will always act in accord with his own personal nature. The laws of nature are a reflection of, and a product of, God's personality. The laws of nature aren't the same thing as God, but they show us something about what God is like.

For example, God's nature doesn't change but God is free to alter the laws of nature to suit his purposes.

It isn't a contradiction to say that nature seems to have always displayed a certain uniformity (the sun has kept on rising every morning) and also to say that God is free to change this and other features of nature as he wishes, if he wishes. I can't be certain that God won't change gravity some day. But I know that God has a plan and a purpose for the things he does.

What does seem inconsistent is to say that we live in a completely non-purposeful chance-driven universe AND we have good reason to believe that "nature" will operate in the same way tomorrow as it does today. How can we characterize the reliability of non-purposeful chance-driven processes?

Keith

Keith

Does it make any sense to do a scientific experiment for the purpose of learning something useful about reality when the scientist has absolutely no reason to think that his results will have any bearing on reality at any time into the future?

Keith

Keith

No, you can't. Remember:

1. Atheism can't explain anything.
2. On the atheistic worldview science is futile.
3. On your worldview you have no method of determinng what is true or even reasonable to believe.

The atheist goose hasn't just been cooked...its been carved, eaten, digested and eliminated.

Keith

AnthonyAdams45

You're right. It's not. But a reality that changes with God's whim is not the reality described by science. The equations that lay down the orbits of the planets, that describe chemical interactions, that govern body Ph, none of them come with the proviso "If God so wills." If we add that proviso, it may be good religion, it may even be right, but it's not science! So your worldview eviscerates science, not mine.

The principle of the uniformity of nature, an acknowledged assumption, was proposed by J. S. Mill, an atheist who was raised as an atheist. He says we assume it, not out of observation, but rather because if the universe isn't uniform, the lawlike, predictive nature of science is impossible. In short, for science to be science, nature, past present and future, must be uniform. If the universe is not uniform, which he and I are prepared to acknowledge it may not be, then science is impossible.

Keith

I didn't become a Christian because I was unhappy being an atheist. When it happened it came as quite a big surprise to me, and to everyone around me. God chose me before I chose him.

What if we apply the same question to you?


Christianity has been around for 2000 years. How long would it or should it take for atheists to prove the bible untrustworthy? Now let's do a critique of atheism. Oh wait...we can't, atheism isn't even a worldview, its just the assertion that no gods exist.

But seriously, if no gods exist, do you ever wonder...

1. Why everyone argues as though there is an objective moral standard to which we are all bound?

2. Where do the laws of logic come from?

3. How can universal abstracts (laws of any kind) exist?

4. How are we going to know which fact goes with another fact to form a coherent view of anything?

5. Is reasoning possible? How is reasoning possible?

6. What is justice, and where did the concept originate?

7. Do human beings have rights? Why? From who do we get them?

8. Is human life worth any more than say, a living fungus?

Sorry if I ask too many questions. It seems that humans are rather curious.

Keith

AnthonyAdams45

If it's any good, you'll get answers to every one of those questions, and most of them will never have to mention the divine. In fact the earliest answers, indeed some of the best and most influential, predate Christianity by three centuries.

But surely you knew that and you didn't really mean to rehearse the 2500 year history of Western philosophy?

Sheesh, Epictetus gave good answers to most of those, and you encountered him on the way in the door.

Sue Sponte

Given your fixation on questions and abhorrence of answers, I can see why faith plays such a role in your life. Perhaps you have generated enough questions for yourself and should dedicate some time to looking for answers.

But before we leave the fun of questions, I've a few for you:

But seriously, if gods does exist, do you ever wonder...

1. Why there are wars?

2. Where diseases come from and why they exist?

3. Why Christians die at the same rate as people of other faiths?

4. Why god wanted Abraham to be willing to kill his first born?

5. Why priests are allowed to use the authority of the church to lure children into sexual molestation?

6. Why the bible needs continual "re-interpretation" in light of scientific advances?

7. Why the meek haven't inherited the earth?

8. Why it took so long for the bible to appear on Earth?

9. Why there needs to be a text of anything, when god could simply have made humans understand all sacred things without need for scripture?

10. Why it is so irritating when someone keeps asking you questions?

anonymite

Hi Keith. Nice of you to answer the different posts out there, with an even temperment and alll. Anyway here are my responses to your list's first few questions:

1. That's a pretty big assumption. And It's an incorrect one considering I am a part of 'everyone' and I don't argue as if I'm bound to an objective moral standard. I do believe in some absolute truth, but please don't mis-quote me on this: that truth could have nothing to do with a god or morality. The absolute truth might well be "Jell-O tastes good." It's not an assumption I care to make.

2. I think it's inaccurate to classify logic as a system of laws. It's the principle of non-contradiction: no true thing contradict another true thing. I think you'd have a hard time showing that non-contradiction needed to come from anything, or needed to have a beginning or end.

3. I think The universe has definable characteristics, which result in universal abstracts. I think the sentence "The universe has no definable characteristic," is self-contradictory, and therefore false. Even if the Universe was completely random, its randomness would distinguish it from something very ordered, and thus be a characteristic.

Shadowy Man

and

It appears that in your theistic viewpoint, there is less reason to expect the future to adhere to the rules of the past than in the atheistic viewpoint.

Oh, and if you believe that science is that futile, then can I please have your computer? Also, you should probably stop using your telephone, automobile and satellite television. I'd also recommend that if you ever need to get an MRI, X-ray, or any type of advanced medical treatment that you avoid telling the doctors and technicians that their science is futile in explaining anything. Of course, I'm sure you can find a barber who is willing to put leeches on your body.