Proof there is a God
- Thread starter JBrentonK
- Start date
The concept of natural laws eliminates the concept of 'beyond' them. If it can be measured, it can be modeled. If it can be modeled it is natural because there is no non-physical measurement. If it can't be detected, it can't be measured and can't influence anything at all since that influence could be detected therefore it is meaningless to say it 'exists'. If it can be detected, it can be measured. THerefore it is natural. If god exists, god is either recursively outside our universe or god is a bit player within it. If the former, then it cannot influence our universe without being detected which would make it modelable and the loop goes on. If God is whatever is recursively outside our universe, then absolutely nothing can be known about god unless you want to call god natural law itself which again makes god natural and we're back to the beginning which is that supernatural refers to a category of magic which no longer has a category in our language. The category which has wholly replaced it is 'natural'.
Stop the equivocation, Jan. You know full well we're not talking about the philosophy but the actual laws of nature, the laws by which the universe operates, irrespective of human reason or cognisance.Jan Ardena said:
It should have been patently obvious that this is the case to anyone who doesn't have to look up every word in the dictionary, so I'm asking again: is English your first language?
Last edited:
It has seemingly gotten to the point in this particular exchange where Jan does his utmost to nose-dive it into the mire rather than remain respectful. It is Jan's MO in such situations where he has no tenable coherent response.
I have a list of 3 things that Jan generally does at this stage so will be interesting to see how quickly I can tick them off.
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
Maybe the word we should analyse and nail down an acceptable meaning is the word fiction.
Once we have I think the word fiction may well be the one which would be most useful to use when dealing with the OP.
Alex
Once we have I think the word fiction may well be the one which would be most useful to use when dealing with the OP.
Alex
No it doesn't.
Nobody can say what is beyond the laws of nature.
Ghosts, for example, telepathy, remote viewing, psychic abilities, and other stuff, is considered by no one, to be beyond the laws of nature. But they are considered supernatural by those who do not understand, or believe it.
Funnily enough that is the main thrust of every definition.
You're in denial, Dave.
Jan.
I don't mind if you see it as fiction. You only need to understand what it means without distortions.
That is the crux. You don't seem able to accept it even as a fiction. This is why it comes across as a type of fear.
Jan.
Xelasnave.1947
Valued Senior Member
No Jan no fear here your view here is influenced by your beliefs.
I have no fear of death whatsoever.
My belief is my reality is on my observation eternal.
I have no comprehension of when I got here and will have no comprehension of leaving.
My personal reality is eternal. That really works. I have no need of a make believe after life or even a reason to be here and I think that is why I am happier than others I meet. And best of all no guilt or regret.... So no fear of anything really. Mind you I wont pick up a snake or drive with my eyes closed.
I have truthfully enjoyed your posts Jan. I started life in law and later owned a real estate office and so mastery of words gains my respect.
Mindyou if before a judge you would have been told to get to the point and failing to do so would see you lose the case. In real estate selling one had to be most subtle and really the way of it was to put an idea in a clients head such they would think they thought of the idea all by themselves.
I was a master and enjoyed a reputation as a non pushy guy.
I found this thread, thanks in part to you, most entertaining.
I have been tempted to engage the but as I said earlier such is my belief in my ability that I could not would not risk destroying your belief.
I never lost a case or a fist fight so my belief is I could change your belief and I really wont think of doing that.
that is the reason I would not try.
Having said that I think you would be a most formitable opponent.
Forget I mentioned fiction and have a great life.
Alex
He has already used the term laws of nature on a number of occasions. So why would I accept 'natural laws' as the laws of nature. Especially given the subject matter, and mind set I'm discussing it with.
Poor Sarkus, has to resort to ad hominem attacks.
Jan.
Is that really the best answer you can come up with? "Why not?"
This is pathetic, Jan. Noone had raised the philosophy of "natural law" because it is entirely outside the context of the discussion (the philosophy is related to the matter of morals and creation of legislation, not to Laws as per scientific usage of the term). As such, anyone with one jot of common sense would have taken "natural laws" to be synonymous with "laws of nature" - further given that "natural" is an adjective that means "of nature".
Your efforts to derail the discussion through this ridiculous equivocation are truly astounding.
It is a genuine question, Jan. Your grasp of the English language usually seems adequate but every now and then it is as though you have learnt it at a school for foreign students, and are just not up to speed with idioms and colloquial usage, and how meaning changes in context.
So it is not an ad hominem, Jan - I am not using the question in any way as substitute for an argument - it is a genuine question as the only other non-medical explanation I can come up with is that you're doing it deliberately to derail the line of discussion.
Your entire argument is based on your assumption that God exists. Why do you assume just one?
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Hm. This is too easy... I'l pick a few of my favorites...
There is no better way to win a debate than to cause one's opponent to contradict themselves.
Did you just lump God in the same bucket as telepathy, remote viewing and psychic abilities? I am OK with that.
This is self-contradictory. First you say no one considers them to be beyond the laws of nature, then in the next sentence you refer to those who consider it supernatural.
There is no better way to win a debate than to cause one's opponent to contradict themselves.
Yes. Exactly. The level-headed thinkers that have stopped seances and virginal sacrifices and so many other things that were borne out of ignorance. But for the skeptics who seek evidence over superstition, the world would burn.
I don't need to assume God exists, as I am basing my entire argument on the the scriptural definition of God. I am simply agruing in favour of God's existence.
We need a starting point. No?
Imagine the no.1, and what it represents.
Now imagine someone asking to imagine different types of no. 1's, and why you only stick to that no.1?
That's how silly your question is.
Jan.
No. I'm lumping God in the supernatural bucket. That is your contention with God, isn't it?
I get you. Despite the actual meaning of the term "supernatural", you are goinge with a meaning that cannot possibly represent the actual meaning of the word.
Jan.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Your chosen meaning of the term will do just fine:
Like I said, the best way to win a debate is to get one's opponent to contradict themselves.
Last edited:
Write4U
Valued Senior Member
So the starting point is ; "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was God".
This your definition of God?
Which of course is not a functional definition at all and we are still left with just a Word..
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Do you acknowledge that many people do not take scripture as objective evidence?
It can essentially be considered begging the question.
As a matter of fact, that is the very example used here (not your exact claim, but the logical flaw is the same):
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html