"God cannot create a square circle"

[sdelsolray]

Try "No" explanation. Lot of speculation though.

And the speculation would include an explanation. Even if it says 'maybe' as a prefix. You can't say there's no explanation and then admit there're explanations.

Did you mean 'evidence?' Are you trying to say that the speculation is based upon zero evidene? Which would be an odd claim, if we're speculating about chemistry, because we have discovered chemistry. So there's going to be some evidence contributing to the speculation.

Or did you mean: ' "No" explanation I'm willing to accept.' and then use 'speculation' as a put-down sort of sneer kind of label-game?

The speculations about the creation of the universe and life try to explain the viability of the speculation under the constraints of known natural laws. In every case, people conclude that reliance on natural laws cannot explain how the universe or life came to be. That is why we see scientists wanting to avoid the issue altogether by suggesting things like a multiverse where you don't have to deal with the initial creation of anything where nothing had existed or the seeding of the earth by aliens. People would not be entertaining these ideas if they could figure out how the universe or life could arise in the face of known natural laws which basically make these impossible.

You are losing this debate, and losing it badly. Much more than badly. There is some mild entertainment value however. I guess that's something.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

There's one thing that we're all missing here. If God didn't create the square circle ... where did it come from?

Is everybody claiming that there's a second omnipotent guy out there breaking the laws of geometry?

 

[Rhea]

There's one thing that we're all missing here. If God didn't create the square circle ... where did it come from?

Is everybody claiming that there's a second omnipotent guy out there breaking the laws of geometry?

Can you prove there isn't?

 

[Keith&Co.]

The speculations about the creation of the universe and life try to explain

And thus you admit there are explanations, and you were in error saying there were none.

In every case, people conclude that reliance on natural laws cannot explain how the universe or life came to be.

No... No, that isn't true.
That would be a major find, for people to claim that god or miracle was actually vital to explain where life came from.
I'm not aware of any such consensus.
It'd be on the cover of.... EVERYthing.

That is why we see scientists wanting to avoid the issue altogether by suggesting things like a multiverse where you don't have to deal with the initial creation of anything where nothing had existed or the seeding of the earth by aliens.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. The evidence leads to God so we'll invent something else. That's solid.

People would not be entertaining these ideas if they could figure out how the universe or life could arise in the face of known natural laws which basically make these impossible.

OR they entertain the ideas because there's some scientific reason to support the idea.
I haven't seen anything yet to think you've got enough of a grip on the scientific method to talk with any credibility about what EVERYONE concludes, much less the motivation behind every single theory that's ever been presented.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

There's one thing that we're all missing here. If God didn't create the square circle ... where did it come from?

Is everybody claiming that there's a second omnipotent guy out there breaking the laws of geometry?

Can you prove there isn't?

Ya. It's called the Bible.

 

[rhutchin]

And thus you admit there are explanations, and you were in error saying there were none.

The original comment that prompted this was, "a natural universe has fewer arbitrary explanations than a supernatural one." So, I'll concede the point. There are arbitrary explanations for the existence of the universe. If the explanation is arbitrary, what good is it. Everyone can have an opinion.

In every case, people conclude that reliance on natural laws cannot explain how the universe or life came to be.

No... No, that isn't true.

OK. Let me revise what I said. In every case, people have not been able to determine how the universe or life could come into existence within the constraints imposed by natural laws.

That would be a major find, for people to claim that god or miracle was actually vital to explain where life came from.
I'm not aware of any such consensus.
It'd be on the cover of.... EVERYthing.

And if anyone could actually discover a natural mechanism to explain where life came from, that would be on the cover of everything. There is a problem with the appearance of life - no one has a clue as to how it could happen - we know this because we haven't seen it on the cover of everything.

That is why we see scientists wanting to avoid the issue altogether by suggesting things like a multiverse where you don't have to deal with the initial creation of anything where nothing had existed or the seeding of the earth by aliens.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. The evidence leads to God so we'll invent something else. That's solid.

The lack of evidence for the universe or life is leading people to avoid the issue altogether. A supernatural explanation is just sitting out there as a possible solution to the issue.

People would not be entertaining these ideas if they could figure out how the universe or life could arise in the face of known natural laws which basically make these impossible.

OR they entertain the ideas because there's some scientific reason to support the idea.
I haven't seen anything yet to think you've got enough of a grip on the scientific method to talk with any credibility about what EVERYONE concludes, much less the motivation behind every single theory that's ever been presented.

Kinda deflecting aren't you. If people start going off in those directions, there is a reason for it. I think everyone pretty much sees the difficulty in getting the universe or life with natural laws.

 

[rhutchin]

The speculations about the creation of the universe and life try to explain the viability of the speculation under the constraints of known natural laws. In every case, people conclude that reliance on natural laws cannot explain how the universe or life came to be.

It has been pointed out to you several times that this statement is untrue. Why do you knowingly repeat this lie?

What makes it a lie? People, like you, are claiming it to be untrue but presenting nothing to show that it is untrue.

The scientific literature does not include anything about experiments that show how the universe or life could arise under natural laws - these would be cited often in later articles as others would build on that research. We don't find this. Scientists have not found a solution to the appearance of the universe and life - the difficulty of getting the universe or life under natural laws is obvious since no one has figured out how it could happen. It's not for lack of trying - much money is being spent to resolve this difficulty.

 

[rhutchin]

It is not only clear that rhutchin holds his faith in higher priority than facts, facts must be subservient to his particular flavor of faith.

There are no facts subservient to faith in this matter. It is precisely because of the lack of facts to the contrary that faith in a supernatural explanation is possible.

 

[rhutchin]

You have been called out on this shit before and asked to show us the math behind this hyper-evolution fantastic claim you have made, but you have ignored it.

For now, let's call it a hypothesis required if we are to get the creationist conclusion. I have faith that science will eventually demonstrate that speciation can occur rapidly.

You have been called out to support your claim that the Biblical description of seemingly supernatural events is credible, but you have ignored those as well.

I think I have said that this is a matter of faith.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Kinda deflecting aren't you. If people start going off in those directions, there is a reason for it. I think everyone pretty much sees the difficulty in getting the universe or life with natural laws.

Everyone also pretty much sees that you'll sacrifice factual reports to support your faith. You're claiming that you understand the motivations of the entire branch of science, and it all exists only because they disagree with you. They're wagering their careers and standings on the physics equivalent of Piltdown Man, hoping that no one ever proves it's a fraud...
It's far more likely that you're wrong than that an entire branch of science is composed of stupid liars pretending to argue with each other.

 

[Elixir]

It has been pointed out to you several times that this statement is untrue. Why do you knowingly repeat this lie?

I don't know rhutchin from Adam, but IME most yecs seem to believe in the power of repetition.

 

[Keith&Co.]

It has been pointed out to you several times that this statement is untrue. Why do you knowingly repeat this lie?

I don't know rhutchin from Adam, but IME most yecs seem to believe in the power of repetition.

You can say that again...

 

[rhutchin]

It has been pointed out to you several times that this statement is untrue. Why do you knowingly repeat this lie?

I don't know rhutchin from Adam, but IME most yecs seem to believe in the power of repetition.

You can say that again...

You can repeat the truth over and over until someone can show that which you think to be true is not true.

"The speculations about the creation of the universe and life try to explain the viability of the speculation under the constraints of known natural laws. In every case, people conclude that reliance on natural laws cannot explain how the universe or life came to be."

I maintain that this is the truth. I have yet to find any report cited on any blog or in Nature or Science where research shows that natural laws can actually account for the existence of the universe or life. If there were something out there, everyone would know it and you guys would have cited it before now. The biggest obstacle to the creation of the universe and life are the natural laws. It is such an obstacle that people just assume it to be true and hope that future research will prove it.

If this is not the case, this issue would have been put to bed by now - and you would have the citations. You don't have those citations because they do not exist - but you still have your faith.

 

[rhutchin]

Kinda deflecting aren't you. If people start going off in those directions, there is a reason for it. I think everyone pretty much sees the difficulty in getting the universe or life with natural laws.

Everyone also pretty much sees that you'll sacrifice factual reports to support your faith. You're claiming that you understand the motivations of the entire branch of science, and it all exists only because they disagree with you. They're wagering their careers and standings on the physics equivalent of Piltdown Man, hoping that no one ever proves it's a fraud...
It's far more likely that you're wrong than that an entire branch of science is composed of stupid liars pretending to argue with each other.

In this area, there is a lot of corruption.

The same thing is happening in the climate change debate when someone challenges the party line. Science is pure; scientists are not. At the end of the day, it usually involves money and who gets the grants.

 

[Keith&Co.]

"The speculations about the creation of the universe and life try to explain the viability of the speculation under the constraints of known natural laws. In every case, people conclude that reliance on natural laws cannot explain how the universe or life came to be."

I maintain that this is the truth.

You can maintain it all you want.
Can you show it to be a fact, though?

I have yet to find any report cited on any blog or in Nature or Science where research shows that natural laws can actually account for the existence of the universe or life.

But to make your claim true, you need to show that EVERY CASE leads to a positive conclusion that the natural laws are insufficient. There's a big difference, there.

If there were something out there, everyone would know it and you guys would have cited it before now.

The fact that no one's published a definite claim that THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED is not the same as being right that EVERYONE HAS CONCLUDED that it could never happen.
You're projecting. Based on your faith, not on the actual state of anyone's research, much less a 100% universal conclusion held among the researchers.

 

[Mageth]

You can repeat the truth over and over until someone can show that which you think to be true is not true.

You're not repeating the truth...you're repeating that which you think to be true. See your own words ^.

Repeat "that which you think to be true" all you want...that does not make it "the truth".

That's not the only place in this post that you play sloppy with words...

"The speculations about the creation of the universe and life try to explain the viability of the speculation under the constraints of known natural laws.

I strongly disagree. Science leaves room for discovering "natural laws" (so to speak) that are not known. Or for adjusting the "natural laws" as we currently understand them according to what we discover.

I think it's important here to point out (once again) that so-called "natural laws" are descriptive, and not prescriptive. rhutchin's argument appears to rely on the sleight-of-hand assumption that "natural laws" are presecriptive.

In every case, people conclude that reliance on natural laws cannot explain how the universe or life came to be."

This is just a BS statement, as others have pointed out.

I'll also point out that, since the so-called "natural laws" are descriptive, discoveries in this arey would not violate so-called "natural laws", but instead may redefine what we consider "natural laws". In other words, an explanation as to how the universe or life came to be may well change what we know, or involve a change of what we know, of so-called "natural law". (It's probably easier just to drop the "natural law" crap and just refer to it as "nature").

I maintain that this is the truth.

Repeat "that which you think to be true" all you want...that does not make it "the truth".

I have yet to find any report cited on any blog or in Nature or Science where research shows that natural laws can actually account for the existence of the universe or life. If there were something out there, everyone would know it and you guys would have cited it before now.

Continuing your argument from ignorance, I see...

The biggest obstacle to the creation of the universe and life are the natural laws.

There is a universe and there is life. So-called "natural laws" are descriptive of nature, and not prescriptive, and thus are not an obstacle to nature or anything in or about nature. Therefore, your assertion is easily traversed and discarded.

It is such an obstacle that people just assume it to be true and hope that future research will prove it.

You are either intentionally, or out of ignorance, misrepresenting what "people" actually think about these things.

If this is not the case, this issue would have been put to bed by now - and you would have the citations. You don't have those citations because they do not exist - but you still have your faith.

Aside from your continuing to make one big argument from ignorance, it takes no faith to say "I don't know" when asked if you know precicely the "truth" as to how the universe or life originated. "I don't know" is actually the most honest answer to the question. And not knowing does not lead to "therefore, goddidit".

In other words, your attempt at "tu quoque" in regards to our alleged posession of "faith" falls flat on its face.

Seriously, is this recycled and totally predictable tripe all you have. rhutchin? It's not even a challenge to rebut.

 

[Mageth]

"The speculations about the creation of the universe and life try to explain the viability of the speculation under the constraints of known natural laws. In every case, people conclude that reliance on natural laws cannot explain how the universe or life came to be."

For good measure and (hopefully) clarity, it is not correct to view "known natural laws" as forming "constraints" that scientific research must work within. So-called "natural laws" describe how nature behaves, and do not prescribe how nature behaves. Answers to scientific questions such as how the universe came to be and/or how life came to be may well involve changes in the way we understand that nature works, and thus changes in the so-called "natural laws" to better describe our understanding of how nature behaves.

 

[Mageth]

"The speculations about the creation of the universe and life try to explain the viability of the speculation under the constraints of known natural laws. In every case, people conclude that reliance on natural laws cannot explain how the universe or life came to be."

And in addition - what do you refer to when you assert "natural laws"? You appear to be committing a fallacy of composition / category error with regard to "natural laws" and the universe. As in, it's not justified to assert "natural laws" based on our observations of things within the universe as a constraint on "the creation of the universe" itself.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

You can repeat the truth over and over until someone can show that which you think to be true is not true.

"The speculations about the creation of the universe and life try to explain the viability of the speculation under the constraints of known natural laws. In every case, people conclude that reliance on natural laws cannot explain how the universe or life came to be."

I maintain that this is the truth. I have yet to find any report cited on any blog or in Nature or Science where research shows that natural laws can actually account for the existence of the universe or life. If there were something out there, everyone would know it and you guys would have cited it before now. The biggest obstacle to the creation of the universe and life are the natural laws. It is such an obstacle that people just assume it to be true and hope that future research will prove it.

If this is not the case, this issue would have been put to bed by now - and you would have the citations. You don't have those citations because they do not exist - but you still have your faith.

Again, super-omnipotence. If God creates the laws, rules. and logic of the Universe and is perfectly good, we would have no moral evil. We have moral evil. Either God, defined as good is not good and thus logically self contradictory and non-existent, or naturalism exists transcendent to God, out side God and is the true ground of all existence and the cause of all material things. If God as defined is self contradictory and then is non-existent, naturalism is all that exists, it must be true if God as a theory collapses.

Its simple. What part of truth and logic is so confusing here? God is easily shown to be impossible with some trivial logical deduction. The entire Universe is based then on naturalism.

Future "research" will never disprove the above. Not from Christian apologists of any stripe. Atheism is basically naturalism, and is supportable logically, Christianity is not supportable and can never be supportable because its own definitions of God fail in this manner. Atheism is reasonable, your religion is not.

Now the debate shifts to, why do people reject truth and logic so readily?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Kinda deflecting aren't you. If people start going off in those directions, there is a reason for it. I think everyone pretty much sees the difficulty in getting the universe or life with natural laws.

Everyone also pretty much sees that you'll sacrifice factual reports to support your faith. You're claiming that you understand the motivations of the entire branch of science, and it all exists only because they disagree with you. They're wagering their careers and standings on the physics equivalent of Piltdown Man, hoping that no one ever proves it's a fraud...
It's far more likely that you're wrong than that an entire branch of science is composed of stupid liars pretending to argue with each other.

In this area, there is a lot of corruption.

The same thing is happening in the climate change debate when someone challenges the party line. Science is pure; scientists are not. At the end of the day, it usually involves money and who gets the grants.

Science is hardly pure. It is murky and uncertain and can take quite a while to gain a proper understanding of concepts.