"God cannot create a square circle"

[rhutchin]

There is no such thing as a miracle. Just that mankind is not advanced enough to know all the laws of nature.

Of course, if there are miracles, then there is a miracle worker. Maybe your objection is to existence of a miracle worker.

 

[rhutchin]

God can create a universe that behaves certain laws. He can then intervene in that universe to cause events that could not happen under the laws He established to govern the universe.

We generally use 'universe' to describe 'everything that exists.' This 'everything' would include gods, were they to exist, and any process they use to make things happen, whether or not this replicates processes that exist without their intervention.

You're special-casing God as apart from the universe. Thus redefining existing words for your agenda.... And that's just not cricket.

Within the context of the Bible, originally God was all that existed. God then created the universe making the universe a small portion of existence.

So yes, we should be aware of terms, like universe, mean in different contexts.

 

[rhutchin]

A miracle is something which cannot be explained by natural law as we understand them. There is plenty of room in our ignorance to find the explanation of miracles.

No. By definition, a miracle cannot be explained by natural law even if we have perfect understanding of natural law. A miracle cannot come about through natural laws. The question is whether such things as the appearance of life constitute a miracle.

No. We don't have a perfect understanding of natural law. Therefore it's premature to consider anything to be a miracle, much less confidently label it to be such.

True. Under our current understanding of natural law, the universe and life cannot exist as there is no way for either to begin. So, down the road, maybe some new law will be discovered that would account for the universe or life.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Within the context of the Bible, originally God was all that existed.

Wel, it doesn't really say that. It says that God created the heaven and the earth. It doesn't say there was nothing else.
But, hey, let's accept that God was all that existed.

God then created the universe making the universe a small portion of existence.

No, the Books does not say that God created the universe and it says bugger all about 'all that exists' being a big or small portion of 'all that exists.'

So yes, we should be aware of terms, like universe, mean in different contexts.

Yes, but if you're just going to make shit up and say you read it in the Books, there's really no point in the conversation.

 

[Keith&Co.]

True. Under our current understanding of natural law, the universe and life cannot exist as there is no way for either to begin..

Untrue. For one, no KNOWN way for the universe to begin does not mean there's no way. For another, it is not known that the universe began, thus there may not be an issue concerning its beginning.

So, down the road, maybe some new law will be discovered that would account for the universe or life.

So, until it's decided one way or another, it's still premature to make conclusions like 'can't happen' or 'impossible.'

 

[Keith&Co.]

There is no such thing as a miracle. Just that mankind is not advanced enough to know all the laws of nature.

Of course, if there are miracles, then there is a miracle worker.

How does that follow? Unless you're using yet another definition of miracle, as events that happen outside of known laws of physics AND as intentional acts of will... Which moves it even further from something that's simply a mystery. Now you're saying we KNOW someone DID it?

Maybe your objection is to existence of a miracle worker.

Or, maybe the objection is the abuse of science in order to define a miracle worker into being. Or to at least jimmy up a rationalization for the belief in the MW.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

God can create a universe that behaves certain laws. He can then intervene in that universe to cause events that could not happen under the laws He established to govern the universe.

We generally use 'universe' to describe 'everything that exists.' This 'everything' would include gods, were they to exist, and any process they use to make things happen, whether or not this replicates processes that exist without their intervention.

You're special-casing God as apart from the universe. Thus redefining existing words for your agenda.... And that's just not cricket.

Within the context of the Bible, originally God was all that existed. God then created the universe making the universe a small portion of existence.

It says God created heaven and earth. However, Gen 1:1 seems to be an overall statement of description, not a command. God's first command is for the creation of light. The story says God went down to the chaotic waters. It isn't as if after Gen 1:1, the Earth was there. The entire universe was a chaotic mess of water. It wouldn't be until the end of the second day that there is an actual Heaven and Earth.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

True. Under our current understanding of natural law, the universe and life cannot exist as there is no way for either to begin. So, down the road, maybe some new law will be discovered that would account for the universe or life.

Wrong. There most certainly is a way for life to begin without God. What you have here is pure argument from ignorance.
"There is no way for either to begin." Empty assertion. Can you prove that?

We find the basic building blocks of life in meteors, in vast clouds in outer space, in atmospheres of Jupiter, Saturn and on their moons.
The Urey/Miller experiments of the 50's and others demonstrate its easy to form such building blocks of life in many ways. Its rather obvious how life began when early Earth had vast oceans of materials and tens of millions of years for life to arise.

Waving our hands, rolling our eyes and solemnly intoning there is "no way for either to begin." ignores rather a lot of evidence just how it came about.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

...evolution needs no God, neither does naturalism. Is it that hard to grasp? Naturalism does the heavy lifting.

Naturalism cannot create the universe nor can it create life. Evolution would have nothing to work with.

This makes no sense. Naturalism just means basic lowest levels of reality. All else is contingent on naturalism. If not, we are back to why a supposedly goof God who creates all and makes the very logic of the Universe allows moral evil. Logically, this is the Problem of Evil on steroids. A logical non-starter.

 

[rhutchin]

...evolution needs no God, neither does naturalism. Is it that hard to grasp? Naturalism does the heavy lifting.

Naturalism cannot create the universe nor can it create life. Evolution would have nothing to work with.

This makes no sense. Naturalism just means basic lowest levels of reality. All else is contingent on naturalism.

And a naturalist system cannot create the universe or life.

If not, we are back to why a supposedly goof God who creates all and makes the very logic of the Universe allows moral evil. Logically, this is the Problem of Evil on steroids. A logical non-starter.

Nothing illogical about it. God can do as he pleases.

 

[rhutchin]

True. Under our current understanding of natural law, the universe and life cannot exist as there is no way for either to begin. So, down the road, maybe some new law will be discovered that would account for the universe or life.

Wrong. There most certainly is a way for life to begin without God. What you have here is pure argument from ignorance.
"There is no way for either to begin." Empty assertion. Can you prove that?

If there is a way for life to begin without God, no one has determined what that could be. Lot of speculation, though.

We find the basic building blocks of life in meteors, in vast clouds in outer space, in atmospheres of Jupiter, Saturn and on their moons.
The Urey/Miller experiments of the 50's and others demonstrate its easy to form such building blocks of life in many ways. Its rather obvious how life began when early Earth had vast oceans of materials and tens of millions of years for life to arise.

Urey/Miller was a dead end. We know that because no one pursued their research and built on it.

We can find the basic building blocks of life in a living cell. Still, take a living cell, put it in a suitable medium that allows the cell to be punctured and all its components float freely in the medium and no one can put it back together. Having the basic building blocks is nice. Having everything put together is nicer. Still, no one but God has been able to put those building blocks together to fashion a living cell.

 

[rhutchin]

There is no such thing as a miracle. Just that mankind is not advanced enough to know all the laws of nature.

Of course, if there are miracles, then there is a miracle worker.

How does that follow? Unless you're using yet another definition of miracle, as events that happen outside of known laws of physics AND as intentional acts of will... Which moves it even further from something that's simply a mystery. Now you're saying we KNOW someone DID it?

I am using a standard definition of the term, "miracle." What is your definition?

Maybe your objection is to existence of a miracle worker.

Or, maybe the objection is the abuse of science in order to define a miracle worker into being. Or to at least jimmy up a rationalization for the belief in the MW.

What abuse of science? No one has abused science. We take what the information science gives us and work with it.

 

[rhutchin]

So, down the road, maybe some new law will be discovered that would account for the universe or life. So, until it's decided one way or another, it's still premature to make conclusions like 'can't happen' or 'impossible.'

I see you are a man of faith, also.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

So, down the road, maybe some new law will be discovered that would account for the universe or life. So, until it's decided one way or another, it's still premature to make conclusions like 'can't happen' or 'impossible.'

I see you are a man of faith, also.

That's not what the word faith means and you know it.

 

[Underseer]

So, down the road, maybe some new law will be discovered that would account for the universe or life. So, until it's decided one way or another, it's still premature to make conclusions like 'can't happen' or 'impossible.'

I see you are a man of faith, also.

That's not what the word faith means and you know it.

There isn't enough evidence to form a conclusion. In consideration of that, you have not formed an opinion, whereas he has formed a definite opinion which he believes to be 100% true, therefore you are both exactly as bad, therefore his position is valid and reasonable.

Why do I have to keep explaining this logic stuff to you atheists? [/theist]

 

[rhutchin]

That's not what the word faith means and you know it.

Your inability to provide us a definition for faith does not advance your case.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

That's not what the word faith means and you know it.

Your inability to provide us a definition for faith does not advance your case.

Faith : 1. Use of inductive reasoning to apply observations of past events to recognize a potential that future related events may occur in a similar fashion but avoiding coming to a conclusion about it.
"Based on my seeing the sun rising in the east every day of my life, I have faith that maybe it will do the same thing tommorrow morning and I can't say for sure."

The above is an invalid definition of faith. When you used this definition to describe Keith&Co as a "man of faith", your statement was as invalid as the definition.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I am using a standard definition of the term, "miracle." What is your definition?

You supplied the definition:

By miracle, we mean only that no one has the evidence to support any theory of the creation of the universe or life so the best that anyone can say is that it is a miracle.

For which 'mystery' works as a better word.
And i complained that the word 'miracle' tends to imply divine power.
NOW you seem to agree with my use of miracle rather than the mystery one you offered. Nowhere in that is there a logical link that a 'mystery' requires a 'mysteryer.'

If you're going to change meanings of words in the middle of the conversation, then you're just an apologist.

What abuse of science? No one has abused science. We take what the information science gives us and work with it.

No, you take what science gives you and thrust in your creator.
Then accuse the others of bias.

- - - Updated - - -

So, down the road, maybe some new law will be discovered that would account for the universe or life. So, until it's decided one way or another, it's still premature to make conclusions like 'can't happen' or 'impossible.'

I see you are a man of faith, also.

Two more PRATTs and i get a BINGO!

 

[Keith&Co.]

That's not what the word faith means and you know it.

Your inability to provide us a definition for faith does not advance your case.

See, the fact that he had not provided a definition of faith should not be taken as his being unable to provide a definition.
These leaps to desired conclusions demonstrate either an unwillingness or inability to work ideas logically.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Guys, the fact that we don't believe in talking snakes means we have faith too!