Blowing Up Darwin

"The existence of laws cannot be explained by recourse to laws,"

"..... because I say so.''

Interesting how the religious extremists know these things with 100% certainty while possessing 0% facts.
No thing can serve as its own explanation because all explanations in the sciences are reductionist, as someone said here recently, I - Holmes - am owning you, you are like putty in my hands, you are powerless and unequipped to engage with me so I'm now ignoring you, goodbye.
 
If there was proof out there how would you recognize it? You never would because you revert too the atheist crutch known as "Science of the gaps" aka scientism.
As expected, you equivocate and make excuses, aka religionism.

Why not have your gods do magic tricks to present 'pwoof' of their existence. There was a time when your gods often did magic tricks. Why did they stop?
 
No thing can serve as its own explanation because all explanations in the sciences are reductionist, as someone said here recently, I - Holmes - am owning you, you are like putty in my hands, you are powerless and unequipped to engage with me so I'm no ignoring you.
You didn't realize you just dismantled your own feeble attempts at arguments for your gods.

Explanations for science are evidence based, repeatable and can be used to make predictions. Your claims to magic and supernaturalism are not. That is why you are reduced to the pointless, school boy claims you have a habit of retreating to.
 
Yes, that's my position (I am a creationist). The existence of laws cannot be explained by recourse to laws, we must look deeper, elsewhere for the origin of laws, science (which relies in laws) can never explain the existence of laws.
Does light travel at some Divine Speed? One at which tells us it IS Divine. Say Exactly One biblical day/week to get to earth?
Does Oxygen tend to be O2 because GodDidIt/the Divine FALLACY?
One terrible and Brainwashed case of 'God of the Gaps FALLACY.'
One that would have would have made you believe in the Fire, Lightning, and fertility gods (at the time) as well.



Yes we do, we have written revealed knowledge for example we can read "by the power of his will" this tells us that God has "will" intent, and by that will he created everything, we too have will and everything man creates also begins with the will to do so. Have you ever made or designed or constructed anything without the will to do it?
"By the power His Will" is NOT Science it's brainwashed faith Written by a couple of superstitiouis primitives.
One of thousands creation myths.

This Coming out of the Chuch Closet does expain all your previous and Dishonest Voodoo ambiguation attempts. (if NOT life or the universe)
You need to join the OP in the 7-11 AdvenTiTs or Jehovahs WitLess meetings.

And what about Vishnu, Voodoo, and Allah and Their "by his Will?"


`
 
Last edited:
You are asking big questions. Worse, it delves into semantics. I'm not sure it is something to be taken lightly much less attempted to explain on social media. The very word "supernatural" is misleading because by definition, if supernatural things exist, then they are part of the phenomenal universe which is defined by natural laws, so then, the difference between natural and supernatural becomes a matter of perspective.

I will leave it at this: I'm a man of science, but I can also tell you that God is real. I do not speak of faith. These are not mutually exclusive items as most try to claim.
there is nothing misleading about using the term 'supernatural' to address the claims of religionists who falsely insist that their gods are outside of the natural, rational world.

The supernaturalists may see life on the planet and 6,000 year old earth resulting from the special magic of supernatural gods, but there is no evidence of those gods and the planet is clearly far older than 6,000 years.
 
Proof means there is no scope for doubt, no basis for doubt. Not quite proof of God, but I regard it as proven that the existence of the universe can not have a scientific explanation, we can prove that something other than laws was involved (because until laws exist nothing can happen yet we know something happened).
Laws are man-made constructs to explain nature. Did God mandate that 1 + 1 = 2? Was that true before creation?

By all means accept theories as truths if you want but that's simply belief, that's what a belief is. You speak of gravitation and that's a superb example that underlines what I'm saying. For several hundred years people accepted Newton's theory of universal gravitation as being a truth, there was no doubt, it was never questioned, it was regarded as a perfect theory fully supported by experimental tests.

But Newton's theory was wrong and that only began to emerge in the very late 19th century when the motion of the perihelion of Mercury's orbit was found to not accord with Newton's mathematical theory. The observations of Mercury eventually disproved Newton's theory yet it had been accepted as a true!
Newton was not wrong, his theory was just not complete. As more data became available, the theory was refined. Science evolves.

What was attributed to God? can you give some examples of these "many things"?
Rain, plagues, earthquakes, etc.

You miss the point (many do) in that we cannot rely on "eventually" here. Look at the number π do you think we might one day eventually find two integers that allows us to show that π is rational? Do you think you could try hard and for long enough and find a rational representation of π ?
You're confusing science with math. Math has proofs, science does not.
 
"The existence of laws cannot be explained by recourse to laws,"

Of course they can.

It's called recursion.

Any first year computer student should know that.

Interesting how the religious extremists know these things with 100% certainty while possessing 0% facts.
Same story - jumping through hoops to maintain the veracity of things that are taken on faith.

Don't bother me with the facts, I've made up my mind.

My personal faith comes from inside, not from a book. It's easier that way. I don't have to defend anyone else's faith, just my own.
 
there is nothing misleading about using the term 'supernatural' to address the claims of religionists who falsely insist that their gods are outside of the natural, rational world.

It's not even that.

It's ascribing attributes to a God they don't understand.

The supernaturalists may see life on the planet and 6,000 year old earth resulting from the special magic of supernatural gods, but there is no evidence of those gods and the planet is clearly far older than 6,000 years.
Young earth creationism is foolish. Is anyone in this thread trying to defend it?

It's a book against 18 million pieces of scientific evidence. There's no contest.
 
Proof means there is no scope for doubt, no basis for doubt. Not quite proof of God, but I regard it as proven that the existence of the universe can not have a scientific explanation, we can prove that something other than laws was involved (because until laws exist nothing can happen yet we know something happened).

By all means accept theories as truths if you want but that's simply belief, that's what a belief is. You speak of gravitation and that's a superb example that underlines what I'm saying. For several hundred years people accepted Newton's theory of universal gravitation as being a truth, there was no doubt, it was never questioned, it was regarded as a perfect theory fully supported by experimental tests.

But Newton's theory was wrong and that only began to emerge in the very late 19th century when the motion of the perihelion of Mercury's orbit was found to not accord with Newton's mathematical theory. The observations of Mercury eventually disproved Newton's theory yet it had been accepted as a true!

What was attributed to God? can you give some examples of these "many things"?

You miss the point (many do) in that we cannot rely on "eventually" here. Look at the number π do you think we might one day eventually find two integers that allows us to show that π is rational? Do you think you could try hard and for long enough and find a rational representation of π ?

"What was attributed to God? can you give some examples of these "many things"?

Can you depend on tornadoes and hurricanes killing people? Yes you can. Thank the gods for that. They invented convection currents and the peculiar tilt / rotation of the planet. Together, those elements cause “twisters”, and hurricanes that kill people every year. How about earthquakes and tsunami waves? The gods invented tectonic plates that occasionally slide, cause faults which topple buildings and cause massive waves that kill little Johnny and Janes. I guess that global flood thing didn’t really satiate those evil and vindictive gods.

Hooray for godly designs.
 
Laws are man-made constructs to explain nature. Did God mandate that 1 + 1 = 2? Was that true before creation?


Newton was not wrong, his theory was just not complete. As more data became available, the theory was refined. Science evolves.


Rain, plagues, earthquakes, etc.


You're confusing science with math. Math has proofs, science does not.

Stick to the engineering.

Accomplishments are proof enough.

If they're repeatable and independently verifiable, they meet the standard.

Any 6 year old kid can build a radio. That's proof enough.
 
Conjecture would be saying we have a good idea what God is through God himself but having no actual evidence.
Having direct experience of something but no external evidence you can show to others is NOT "conjecture." Conjecture is just guessing.

God is supernatural. Science is limited to nature.
Who says, you? How can God be purely supernatural if he is present throughout nature?

So only your religion is the true one?
Now you asign me my own religion too? Boy, you sure are on a roll. :laughing0301:
 
Laws are man-made constructs to explain nature.
Remind yourself of that next time you fly.
Did God mandate that 1 + 1 = 2? Was that true before creation?
I don't know.
Newton was not wrong, his theory was just not complete. As more data became available, the theory was refined. Science evolves.
He was not right. He was wrong about universal time, he was wrong about simultaneity, he was wrong about the nature of the gravitational field he was wrong about the gravitational field change travelling at infinite speed.

Numerically his theory is adequate for certain practical purposes and the numeric difference we get from Newton for Mercury's orbit is small but his theoretical structure is completely different to Einstein's the entire theoretical edifice is radically different. Newton's theory was falsified you can either believe me or not, I don't care.
Rain, plagues, earthquakes, etc.
Well if God created the universe then all of those things are indirectly, attributable to God.
You're confusing science with math. Math has proofs, science does not.
Indeed and that's why you were wrong to say "they are accepted as truths" because no physicist accepts theory as truth for the very reason you cite - there are no proofs but there are disproofs, i.e. Newtonian gravitation and Mercury's orbit.
 
there is nothing misleading about using the term 'supernatural' to address the claims of religionists who falsely insist that their gods are outside of the natural, rational world.
But I was not talking about the claims of such "religionists."

The supernaturalists may see life on the planet and 6,000 year old earth resulting from the special magic of supernatural gods, but there is no evidence of those gods and the planet is clearly far older than 6,000 years.
How can there be evidence for a supernatural God? Yes, that is the problem with ascribing God as being purely supernatural. And the whole 6,000 year Earth thing is obviously pure bunk. I can go out in my backyard and pick up stones far older than that.
 
But I was not talking about the claims of such "religionists."


How can there be evidence for a supernatural God? Yes, that is the problem with ascribing God as being purely supernatural. And the whole 6,000 year Earth thing is obviously pure bunk. I can go out in my backyard and pick up stones far older than that.
Bear in mind though that one variant of the 6,000 year hypothesis is that the scripture is describing a remake, a facelift over an already ancient earth. The text does not strictly say that the earth itself was created 6,000 years ago but that the earth was created in the distant past and then later on something happened and "darkness was upon the face of the earth" and then "God said let there be light" and that the remake was 6,000 years ago.
 
The universe exists therefore God exists - simple logic.
You certainly are simple. Nothing about the universe suggests the existence of your supernatural gawds. Zeus, of course, is a different matter.

Your hand-me-down gods are clearly subordinate to Zeus and the unionized Greek gods.

The presence of the universe is evidence for God, once again what else could it possibly be evidence of? you've offered no answer to my question (and atheists rarely do).
He presence of the universe provides no evidence of your gods. Other gods, yes, but not yours.

Madrassah is just the Arabic term for educational institution, nothing to do with "prayer".
Madrassah derives from the Latin Term, "religious schools of indoctrinated hate, fear and superstition''.

That should have been evident as you were rocking back and forth while memorizing your Koran verses.
 
But I was not talking about the claims of such "religionists."


How can there be evidence for a supernatural God? Yes, that is the problem with ascribing God as being purely supernatural. And the whole 6,000 year Earth thing is obviously pure bunk. I can go out in my backyard and pick up stones far older than that.
Your argument is best directed to those who insist their bibles and the supernatural events in the bible are an accurate rendering of earth's history.
Bear in mind though that one variant of the 6,000 year hypothesis is that the scripture is describing a remake, a facelift over an already ancient earth. The text does not strictly say that the earth itself was created 6,000 years ago but that the earth was created in the distant past and then later on something happened and "darkness was upon the face of the earth" and then "God said let there be light" and that the remake was 6,000 years ago.
Remarkable. Quite an equivocation. What is a 'hypothesis'? Is that to mean any religioner can invent his own version of ''the bible says"?

The Genesis fable offers nothing about facelifts. In fact, the genesis fable is a complete mess of errors, omissions and contradictions. You never actually read it, right?

Another hypothesis is that the unknown authors of the various bibles were superstitious people who had little knowledge of the world and cobbled together a book of tales and fables that described the fears and superstitions prevalent at the time.
 
Last edited:
Of course they can.

It's called recursion.
Recursion is a term from mathematics (lambda calculus) not physics. There is no theory in physics that can be described as "recursive".

Science is reductionist not recursive, science decomposes abstractions into other smaller and different abstractions. An atom is reduced to electron orbits and a nucleus. The nucleus is reduced to protons and neutrons and so on.

There is no "thing" in science that is structurally explained in terms of itself. Yes the behavior we see can be described by recursive functions sometimes.

Furthermore recursion is nothing more than an alternative representation of iteration, they are different ways to represent the same operation (this stems from the fact that lambda calculus and Turing machines are equally viable ways of defining computable functions).

If anyone said "I can explain gravity, it is the result of gravity" or "We now know that quarks are made from quarks" or "we now think we have evidence that a bacterium is actually made from a bacterium" I doubt they'd be seeing a Nobel prize any time soon.

I've written far far far more recursive code than anyone in this thread and likely the entire forum, I know of what I speak. Recursion is a way of describing computable functions go and learn about lambda calculus and functional programming languages, but whatever you do keep away from physics for your own good.

Once again scruffy you've made a fool of yourself as is often the outcome when you try to confront Sherlock Holmes.
 
Last edited:
I've written far far far more recursive code than anyone in this thread and likely the entire forum, I know of what I speak.

No you don't. You're just another ignorant asswipe.

Recursion is THE BASIS OF BIOLOGICAL SHAPE, you clueless moron.

If you weren't such an arrogant jackass you might be curious about the role of recursion in string theory.

EVERY fractal is recursive, or can be changed into a recursion. ALL space filling curves are recursive, or can be represented as recursion.

Your knowledge of math is equivalent to your knowledge of religion. ZERO. Zip. Squat. Nada.
 
No you don't. You're just another ignorant asswipe.

Recursion is THE BASIS OF BIOLOGICAL SHAPE, you clueless moron.

If you weren't such an arrogant jackass you might be curious about the role of recursion in string theory.
Calm down man.
EVERY fractal is recursive, or can be changed into a recursion. ALL space filling curves are recursive, or can be represented as recursion.
The length of coastline is a fractal curve, but if we repeatedly zoom in what do we find? we find sand particles, then molecules then atoms then quarks.
Your knowledge of math is equivalent to your knowledge of religion. ZERO. Zip. Squat. Nada.
Show me any law of physics that you think is recursive, but before embarking upon that quest read this:

1734815330006.png

I await your next tantrum...
 

New Topics

Back
Top Bottom