god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!...
LGK

Mitcham, UK

#13439 Jan 31, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
But you're misunderstanding me. I never said humans could make up the rules of the universe. But if God wants ghost rocks (to be the rule), who are you to stop Him?
Please give me a natural rule, I take it you accept that the universe is natural, that has been made by humans. How are such human made rules enforced on the universe?

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#13440 Jan 31, 2012
LGK wrote:
<quoted text>
Please give me a natural rule, I take it you accept that the universe is natural, that has been made by humans. How are such human made rules enforced on the universe?
Gravity makes things fall. It is not a rule. It's just the way it is.
The Dude

Sunderland, UK

#13441 Jan 31, 2012
LGK wrote:
<quoted text>
Please give me a natural rule, I take it you accept that the universe is natural, that has been made by humans. How are such human made rules enforced on the universe?
I repeat, since you obviously should have gone to Specsavers:

I never said humans could make up the rules of the universe.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#13442 Jan 31, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
I repeat, since you obviously should have gone to Specsavers:
I never said humans could make up the rules of the universe.
It's a little game he likes to play. Rephrasing what someone else has said in order to make it sound silly. He thinks he's being clever. It gets tiresome.
LGK

Croydon, UK

#13443 Jan 31, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
As a medic, there's no reason you should know.(shrug)
Perhaps someone with a little more know can explain some more, but I can tell you that certain brain activity occurs during some specific mental activities. For example, channelling aggressiveness activates certain neural branches.
I can tell you that there are no EEG changes that can be decoded into particular thoughts. Thank God.

I can also tell you that some parts of my iPod e.g. the screen light up a certain way when producing certain sounds. This is so specific that if itís Beethoven playing, the LCD screen says ďBeethoven.Ē But I do not believe for 1 second that Beethoven symphony is a material thing, itís totally immaterial although it can be expressed via material objects.

I havenít used the iPod thing to be facetious but to expose whatís concealed by fancy jargon & may lead to wrong conclusions e.g. nothing = something. Iíve seen structural & functional scans of people in various states. There's at present no way (except what youíd call a conspiracy theory**) precise sentences can be tied down to a specific brain activity. If anyone can prove the contrary Iím all ears. Until then, that specific brain parts light up in association with ďcertain statesĒ is LESS informative than iPod displays. Guess what, whenever you speak your lips move. Are your ideas in your mouth? Of course not.

**Donít ask!
LGK

Croydon, UK

#13444 Jan 31, 2012
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
I repeat, since you obviously should have gone to Specsavers:
I never said humans could make up the rules of the universe.
That's OK & it clears up misunderstandings so we can move on. Good. Now seeing as the uinverse is full of rules & as you say none of them are Man-made, who made them?

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#13445 Jan 31, 2012
LGK wrote:
<quoted text>
Please give me a natural rule, I take it you accept that the universe is natural, that has been made by humans. How are such human made rules enforced on the universe?
I accept that the universe is natural, but I have no idea why you think it was made by humans. The rules we discover are tentative ones that are made to help us explain the behaviors we see in the things around us.*Our* rules are not 'enforced'. They are descriptive of the patterns we see around us. The goal of science is to discover those patterns and explain them. The patterns are not made by humans. They are not enforced. They simply are.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#13446 Jan 31, 2012
LGK wrote:
<quoted text>
That's OK & it clears up misunderstandings so we can move on. Good. Now seeing as the uinverse is full of rules & as you say none of them are Man-made, who made them?
Why do you assume every rule (i.e. pattern) is made by a 'who'?
Elohim

Branford, CT

#13447 Jan 31, 2012
LGK wrote:
<quoted text>
That's OK & it clears up misunderstandings so we can move on. Good. Now seeing as the uinverse is full of rules & as you say none of them are Man-made, who made them?
The Flying Spaghetti Monster of course. He boiled for your sins. or maybe Zeus. All hail Zeus! or maybe Harry Potter. All hail Harry Potter!!

“Pay it forward!”

Level 4

Since: Oct 09

Harrisburg

#13449 Feb 1, 2012
LGK wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll be happy to express fact without language & using the material if you ask the question without language & using the material. So, in your own time please & I shall answer accordingly.
I asked you first ... it was your comment, it's your burden ... express 1 + 1 = 2 without using language.
LGK

Barnsley, UK

#13450 Feb 1, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
I accept that the universe is natural, but I have no idea why you think it was made by humans. The rules we discover are tentative ones that are made to help us explain the behaviors we see in the things around us.*Our* rules are not 'enforced'. They are descriptive of the patterns we see around us. The goal of science is to discover those patterns and explain them. The patterns are not made by humans. They are not enforced. They simply are.
I think God not humans, made the universe. As you say, we discover rules. This means they pre-exist our discovery. You agree we cannot discover things that unless they exist first. So how did they arise before we discovered them & for us to discover them?

Itís irrelevant that rules are tentative or what the role of science is & I hope you not deliberately throwing up these red herrings. Rules exist, how did they arise? Itís a simple question.

At least youíve answered the question why we have rules. You think they simply are but Iím afraid itís easy to show that this is false. The rules are in the universe which itself simply isnít but had a beginning & a cause. We can deductively know that cause i.e.
PREMISE 1: ALL rules whose origin is known come from a mind.
PREMISE 2: The universe has rules
CONCLUSION: Therefore the universeís rules must also have come from a mind.

The Bible teaches that God placed enough clues for those willing to find Him do. It also teaches that God shall send a powerful delusion to those who are unwilling & they shall believe a lie. The lie is that rules simply are & in its wider context the lie is called atheism. This is not a problem or evidence or reason, itís down to will.
LGK

Barnsley, UK

#13451 Feb 1, 2012
SsixtytwoS wrote:
<quoted text>
I asked you first ... it was your comment, it's your burden ... express 1 + 1 = 2 without using language.
I KNOW I cannot express anything i.e. think, without language. Neither can you. This is because relationships like 1 + 1 = 2 cannot exist without thought or langauge. As they pre-date humanity this is proves a prior non-human mind, God.

Next time you want to prove to yourself that God exists, try expressing 1 + 1 = 2 without langauge. It's proof that never fails.

cannot exist without thought. How much more That's why it's so obvious that which is property of thought & neither can anyoone. it's not possible. This is precisle which is the

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#13452 Feb 1, 2012
LGK wrote:
PREMISE 1: ALL rules whose origin is known come from a mind.
Assertion. Provide the data.
LGK

Barnsley, UK

#13453 Feb 1, 2012
Sixtytwo: Sorry about the last paragraph which shouldn't have been there. Bloody cut-&-paste!!!!!
LGK

Barnsley, UK

#13454 Feb 1, 2012
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do you assume every rule (i.e. pattern) is made by a 'who'?
I don't use "rule" & "pattern" as synonyms. My last post should explain why I say rules come from a mind & it's a deduction, not an assumption.

Also rules require a mind & only a mind to decipher them. Whenever rules are deciphered e.g. anything you read, it's a meeting of minds. God created the universe, it's obvious.

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#13455 Feb 1, 2012
SsixtytwoS wrote:
<quoted text>
I asked you first ... it was your comment, it's your burden ... express 1 + 1 = 2 without using language.
Rat Fishin.

http://forcoloredgurls.files.wordpress.com/20...

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

#13456 Feb 1, 2012
LGK wrote:
<quoted text>
I don't use "rule" & "pattern" as synonyms. My last post should explain why I say rules come from a mind & it's a deduction, not an assumption.
Also rules require a mind & only a mind to decipher them. Whenever rules are deciphered e.g. anything you read, it's a meeting of minds. God created the universe, it's obvious.
Why don't you bring us up to date and define 'rule'.

Proof read it a couple times, would you, to ensure it can be distinguished from mumbo jumbo.
crocoduck

Plano, TX

#13457 Feb 1, 2012
LGK wrote:
<quoted text>

PREMISE 1: ALL rules whose origin is known come from a mind.
PREMISE 2: The universe has rules
CONCLUSION: Therefore the universeís rules must also have come from a mind.
This is a poor attempt at deception. I like how you leave out the important part in "premise 2".

Let's try it again the honest way...and I will use the term "rules" just for the hell of it to play along

Premise 1: All rules (whose origin is known) come from a mind
Premise 2: The universe has rules (but the origins are not known)
Conclusion: None can be drawn.
LGK

Barnsley, UK

#13458 Feb 1, 2012
crocoduck wrote:
<quoted text>
This is a poor attempt at deception. I like how you leave out the important part in "premise 2".
Let's try it again the honest way...and I will use the term "rules" just for the hell of it to play along
Premise 1: All rules (whose origin is known) come from a mind
Premise 2: The universe has rules (but the origins are not known)
Conclusion: None can be drawn.
The purpose of deductive reasoning is to "deduce" that which we do not know from that which we do know. You are right "the origins [of universe's laws] are not known, that's why they are in premise 2. It's the whole point!!!

You make a very basic mistake & it betrays zero grasp of formal deductive reasoning. If your attitude acknowledged there are things that you don't actually understand I'd explain some basics. This (attitude) appears not to be the case. I think it's best you suite yourself with your own counsel self-confident ignorance. If you believe your argument makes sense, good luck.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Indianapolis, IN

#13459 Feb 1, 2012
LGK wrote:
<quoted text>
The purpose of deductive reasoning is to "deduce" that which we do not know from that which we do know. You are right "the origins [of universe's laws] are not known, that's why they are in premise 2. It's the whole point!!!
You make a very basic mistake & it betrays zero grasp of formal deductive reasoning. If your attitude acknowledged there are things that you don't actually understand I'd explain some basics. This (attitude) appears not to be the case. I think it's best you suite yourself with your own counsel self-confident ignorance. If you believe your argument makes sense, good luck.
You so-called logic is pure horseshit.

PREMISE 1: ALL rules whose origin is known come from a mind.

Rules are a construct of the mind. They describe reality. They do not cause it. The phenomenon described by the inverse-square law existed before any mind.

PREMISE 2: The universe has rules

The universe exists.

CONCLUSION: Therefore the universeís rules must also have come from a mind.

Existence came before 'rules' You conclusion is faulty.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 min Subduction Zone 30,146
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 2 hr yehoshooah adam 3,793
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 3 hr 15th Dalai Lama 70,135
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 5 hr ChromiuMan 161,443
Mathematicians PROVED evolution IMPOSSIBLE! 6 hr Paul Scott 146
Do alleged ERVs confirm common descent? 12 hr Subduction Zone 20
G-d versus Evolution? 14 hr Dogen 21
More from around the web