When's the last time you heard something new from the Christians?

[Half-Life]

Not just coffee. 2 hydrogen molecules combine with an oxygen molecule and you get water. Why do you get water from that and not something else?

because a molecule of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom in a covalent bond is what water is. You were expecting kumquats?

These are the questions scientists can't answer.

No. These are questions that scientists understand quite well. You not understanding it is quite another matter.

Certain things lead to certain things. Why? It's unanswerable in a materialistic universe. Just a shoulder shrug with an "IDK" added to the end.

 

[skepticalbip]

because a molecule of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom in a covalent bond is what water is. You were expecting kumquats?

No. These are questions that scientists understand quite well. You not understanding it is quite another matter.

Certain things lead to certain things. Why? It's unanswerable in a materialistic universe. Just a shoulder shrug with an "IDK" added to the end.

You not understanding (and refusing to learn) is your problem, not a problem for science.

 

[abaddon]

The other thread got me thinking. It's been a long long time since I heard something novel from the Christians trying to explain their beliefs.

....

But religion? All their stuff I heard 40 years ago, you know?

When's the last time a christian gave you an argument that was knew and you had to look stuff up and decide how you felt about it?

Half-Life is illustrating why no theist arguments have been new to me for about 2 decades. Not in their basics.

I've been interested in the metaphors in language for a long time, as part of my interest in the values that inform beliefs. "I demolished his argument" expresses a battle metaphor. "The disease caught up with Joe" is a personification. And so many other examples.

The primary metaphor that informs theism is "made". You won't see a creationist ever come through who isn't fully persuaded by the metaphor. But it's unconscious which is why it seems so obvious to them. So much so that they think anyone who won't personify whatever does all the "making" must be insane.

By seeing metaphors in everything a fundy writes, I know what unconscious intuited assumptions inform the beliefs. Theists only ever reiterate the old metaphors -- primarily 'All Is Made' and 'A Person is the Maker'.

So, even if a theist came up with a new presentation, what underlies theistic thinking is already known. Details might be new (to me). I already knew of the KCA when it was first argued in detail here, but I didn't know all the technicalities they've added to the Kalam's basic syllogism. So, knowing the theist would inevitably say "You just don't get it" if I reviewed it and remained unconvinced by it, I made sure that I do indeed "get it". And not just "get it", but see the intuited assumptions based in language's metaphors that make its premises seem "obvious" to a believer.

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

Because one would be RANDOM and one would be made by God. Atheists love to say, "The universe is not random! It follows laws!" So, basically, the universe RANDOMLY made up its own laws and follows them? They love to say, "There were no laws at the Big Bang! It was all chaos! Then after the Big Bang we got the laws!"

WHAT?!?!

You seem to be confusing legally legislated laws (or god given laws?) and physical laws. Physical laws are simply a description of how things actually react. It wasn't that there were no physical laws "at the big bang" but that, since we can't observe it, we can only project from what we do know to how things would have reacted. "We don't know yet" does not translate to "god did it".

So you are claiming that no mind had to come up with the laws of thermodynamics? Those laws just do the same thing over and over every single time without fail on their own? Weird. You would think even a few times they would change randomly or something.

Maybe if you sweet-talk an apple, you can get it to go up instead of down when you drop it.

Things in nature DO change randomly (e.g. radioactive decay). Processes that don’t change (e.g. gravity) are documented by humans and called “laws”. People didn’t “enact” them.

This is like talking to a 5-year-old.

 

[skepticalbip]

So you are claiming that no mind had to come up with the laws of thermodynamics? Those laws just do the same thing over and over every single time without fail on their own? Weird. You would think even a few times they would change randomly or something.

Maybe if you sweet-talk an apple, you can get it to go up instead of down when you drop it.

Things in nature DO change randomly (e.g. radioactive decay). Processes that don’t change (e.g. gravity) are documented by humans and called “laws”. People didn’t “enact” them.

This is like talking to a 5-year-old.

Or better, Half Life should get his entire church congregation to pray for the apple to rise rather than fall in front of a group of scientists to prove that there are no laws of physics, only laws of god. Thus converting those heathen scientists.

 

[Half-Life]

The other thread got me thinking. It's been a long long time since I heard something novel from the Christians trying to explain their beliefs.

....

But religion? All their stuff I heard 40 years ago, you know?

When's the last time a christian gave you an argument that was knew and you had to look stuff up and decide how you felt about it?

Half-Life is illustrating why no theist arguments have been new to me for about 2 decades. Not in their basics.

I've been interested in the metaphors in language for a long time, as part of my interest in the values that inform beliefs. "I demolished his argument" expresses a battle metaphor. "The disease caught up with Joe" is a personification. And so many other examples.

The primary metaphor that informs theism is "made". You won't see a creationist ever come through who isn't fully persuaded by the metaphor. But it's unconscious which is why it seems so obvious to them. So much so that they think anyone who won't personify whatever does all the "making" must be insane.

By seeing metaphors in everything a fundy writes, I know what unconscious intuited assumptions inform the beliefs. Theists only ever reiterate the old metaphors -- primarily 'All Is Made' and 'A Person is the Maker'.

So, even if a theist came up with a new presentation, what underlies theistic thinking is already known. Details might be new (to me). I already knew of the KCA when it was first argued in detail here, but I didn't know all the technicalities they've added to the Kalam's basic syllogism. So, knowing the theist would inevitably say "You just don't get it" if I reviewed it and remained unconvinced by it, I made sure that I do indeed "get it". And not just "get it", but see the intuited assumptions based in language's metaphors that make its premises seem "obvious" to a believer.

But all the arguments against God have been refuted for centuries. When have theists heard new arguments from atheists? Not in decades it seems. Atheists may not like the answers, but all arguments have been refuted.

Problem of evil was refuted by showing that God never said there would be no evil in this world. In fact, the Bible says there will be evil until the final days. So, atheists claiming there is a problem with evil is their own problem, not a Christian's.

 

[abaddon]

But all the arguments against God have been refuted for centuries. When have theists heard new arguments from atheists? Not in decades it seems. Atheists may not like the answers, but all arguments have been refuted.

Wasn't talking about refutations. Everyone uses the metaphors of language. They inform everybody's thought and beliefs. So it's important to not rely too heavily on language to determine how reality is. Theists tend to rely on language completely since they've got little else going for them except slopping words together this or that way.

That's not a refutation of God's existence. It's just part of why I find arguments for God to be old news.

Problem of evil was refuted by showing that God never said there would be no evil...

It's not God's place to say. He is superseded by reason. So long as people say God's all-good, almighty and all-knowing, then it's hard to reconcile the fact of evil/suffering with that. So the problem exists until you or somebody redefines God.

 

[Keith&Co.]

So you are claiming that no mind had to come up with the laws of thermodynamics?

More to the point, if you are going to claim that a mind was required for the universe to operate in predictable, reliable ways, then you are going to have to submit a great deal more evidence than angry incredulity.

Those laws just do the same thing over and over every single time without fail on their own? Weird. You would think even a few times they would change randomly or something.

Why would you think that? Are you comparing the universe to artifacts, again, tp prove that the universe is NOT like a made thing?

 

[Keith&Co.]

Problem of evil was refuted by showing that God never said there would be no evil in this world.

has no one explained to you that you cannot revvute an argument ifbyou do not understand it? Seriously, this is not The Problem Of Evil.
So your claim of success is just once more demonstrating that you don't know shit about the topic you are claiming victory in.

 

[bigfield]

What is the difference between one scientist saying "that's just when it freezes" and another scientist saying "that's just how God made it"?

Because one would be RANDOM and one would be made by God.

The question remains. What is the difference between "random" and "made by God"? What does the latter explain that the former doesn't?

If I flip a coin and it lands on tails, does it matter whether I say it was "random" or whether I say that "God made it happen"?

 

[Rhea]

What is the difference between one scientist saying "that's just when it freezes" and another scientist saying "that's just how God made it"?

Because one would be RANDOM and one would be made by God. Atheists love to say, "The universe is not random! It follows laws!" So, basically, the universe RANDOMLY made up its own laws and follows them? They love to say, "There were no laws at the Big Bang! It was all chaos! Then after the Big Bang we got the laws!"

WHAT?!?!

That. Is hilarious.

 

[Rhea]

The primary metaphor that informs theism is "made". You won't see a creationist ever come through who isn't fully persuaded by the metaphor. But it's unconscious which is why it seems so obvious to them. So much so that they think anyone who won't personify whatever does all the "making" must be insane.

Great observations. It really distills a lot of their arguments to a root. It’s an interesting way to decipher what seems like random weirdness. They start with “it’s made” and then try to build a story around that.

So, knowing the theist would inevitably say "You just don't get it" if I reviewed it and remained unconvinced by it, I made sure that I do indeed "get it". And not just "get it", but see the intuited assumptions based in language's metaphors that make its premises seem "obvious" to a believer.

This is part of why they fascinate me as well. Trying to see what they “get” and how they get to it - in part to hold actual discussions with them honestly in their reference frame, and in part because it is just fascinating how some people think; the mazes of their mind.

 

[Rhea]

Not just coffee. 2 hydrogen molecules combine with an oxygen molecule and you get water. Why do you get water from that and not something else?

These are the questions scientists can't answer.

This is fascinating - the way you think.

That a hill only has an “up” and a “down” because someone told it to. Not because “up” and “down” are capable of existing without being told.

That an atom of hydrogen will stay an atom of hydrogen, only because someone told it to, not because physical things lack any mechanism to change themselves. Further, that two atoms of hydrogen and one of oxygen, given their sub-atomic shapes and natures, would do something different in relationship to each other every time they touch, instead of just reacting to their physical natures - like expecting thrown dice to sometimes land on their corners without someone telling them to lie down.

What a universe!
(Tip: Scientists answered this long ago)

 

[Half-Life]

Not just coffee. 2 hydrogen molecules combine with an oxygen molecule and you get water. Why do you get water from that and not something else?

These are the questions scientists can't answer.

This is fascinating - the way you think.

That a hill only has an “up” and a “down” because someone told it to. Not because “up” and “down” are capable of existing without being told.

That an atom of hydrogen will stay an atom of hydrogen, only because someone told it to, not because physical things lack any mechanism to change themselves. Further, that two atoms of hydrogen and one of oxygen, given their sub-atomic shapes and natures, would do something different in relationship to each other every time they touch, instead of just reacting to their physical natures - like expecting thrown dice to sometimes land on their corners without someone telling them to lie down.

What a universe!
(Tip: Scientists answered this long ago)

Who made its physical nature?

 

[skepticalbip]

Not just coffee. 2 hydrogen molecules combine with an oxygen molecule and you get water. Why do you get water from that and not something else?

These are the questions scientists can't answer.

This is fascinating - the way you think.

That a hill only has an “up” and a “down” because someone told it to. Not because “up” and “down” are capable of existing without being told.

That an atom of hydrogen will stay an atom of hydrogen, only because someone told it to, not because physical things lack any mechanism to change themselves. Further, that two atoms of hydrogen and one of oxygen, given their sub-atomic shapes and natures, would do something different in relationship to each other every time they touch, instead of just reacting to their physical natures - like expecting thrown dice to sometimes land on their corners without someone telling them to lie down.

What a universe!
(Tip: Scientists answered this long ago)

Who made its physical nature?

What evidence do you have that someone made its physical nature?

 

[Half-Life]

Who made its physical nature?

What evidence do you have that someone made its physical nature?

Because it does something.

Let's start with a basic question:

Does the universe follow laws or is it random?

 

[skepticalbip]

Who made its physical nature?

What evidence do you have that someone made its physical nature?

Because it does something.

WTF does that mean?

Let's start with a basic question:

Does the universe follow laws or is it random?

What do you think "physical laws" mean? We gotta be speaking the same language if you want a discussion.

 

[Rhea]

This is fascinating - the way you think.

that two atoms of hydrogen and one of oxygen, given their sub-atomic shapes and natures, would do something different in relationship to each other every time they touch, instead of just reacting to their physical natures - like expecting thrown dice to sometimes land on their corners without someone telling them to lie down.

Who made its physical nature?

What was it that made you think a “someone” had to make its physical nature?

There are things. Of various sizes. They act and react due to their size.
No one has to make that.

 

[Half-Life]

This is fascinating - the way you think.

that two atoms of hydrogen and one of oxygen, given their sub-atomic shapes and natures, would do something different in relationship to each other every time they touch, instead of just reacting to their physical natures - like expecting thrown dice to sometimes land on their corners without someone telling them to lie down.

Who made its physical nature?

What was it that made you think a “someone” had to make its physical nature?

There are things. Of various sizes. They act and react due to their size.
No one has to make that.

Why do they react due to their size?

You see? You are assuming things work on their own with no God.

 

[Half-Life]

Because it does something.

WTF does that mean?

Let's start with a basic question:

Does the universe follow laws or is it random?

What do you think "physical laws" mean? We gotta be speaking the same language if you want a discussion.

You know it sounds ridiculous in a materialistic universe to say that the universe follows laws. But if you say it's random, then that also sounds ridiculous because anyone can tell the universe is ordered.

Materialism is bankrupt.