LordReed:


I have no reason to think this universe was made by a god.

What bothers you about what I imagine doesn't concern me so feel free to be bothered.

That question is better suited for you.

That’s what you comfort yourself with.
Nobody really cares what you think about a world not made by you.

We only took interest when you mentioned God and the laws and principles. I guess you have no laws and principles that guide your life and discipline. You just do all you do by whims and uncoordinated activities. So it’s okay to ask why laws and principles in the universe.

Someone like you would tell friends what you want and not want; would state boundaries in relationships; would complain about politicians not sticking to the letters of the constitution; would even blame Christians for not practicing what their Bible teaches; would blame lecturers for going against school ethics; would blame the police for not doing enough; would complain about breakdown of law and order when we don’t have enough security to man the country; would complain about the menace of insurgence and terrorism and kidnapping; would take time to shave, keep clean and take care of your environment.

Yet you would hypocritically questions principles and laws God had put in the universe.

Nothingserious:


That’s what you comfort yourself with.
Nobody really cares what you think about a world not made by you.

We only took interest when you mentioned God and the laws and principles. I guess you have no laws and principles that guide your life and discipline. You just do all you do by whims and uncoordinated activities. So it’s okay to ask why laws and principles in the universe.

Someone like you would tell friends what you want and not want; would state boundaries in relationships; would complain about politicians not sticking to the letters of the constitution; would even blame Christians for not practicing what their Bible teaches; would blame lecturers for going against school ethics; would blame the police for not doing enough; would complain about breakdown of law and order when we don’t have enough security to man the country; would complain about the menace of insurgence and terrorism and kidnapping; would take time to shave, keep clean and take care of your environment.

Yet you would hypocritically questions principles and laws God had put in the universe.

LMAO! Yeah it is better than wallowing in delusion as exhibited by this here post of yours. You dream up a scenario in your head about me and believe it to be true with no shred of evidence. Par for the course I guess. Bwahahahahaha! OMFD, such delusion! LMFAO!

LordReed:


LMAO! Yeah it is better than wallowing in delusion as exhibited by this here post of yours. You dream up a scenario in your head about me and believe it to be true with no shred of evidence. Par for the course I guess. Bwahahahahaha! OMFD, such delusion! LMFAO!

Yes. Keep the denials coming. We will simply put holes in your illogical posts.
Lol

Nothingserious:


Yes. Keep the denials coming. We will simply put holes in your illogical posts.
Lol

Says the one with a delusion factory for a brain. LMFAO!

LordReed:


Says the one with a delusion factory for a brain. LMFAO!

Well I already made my point.
Push it down your consciousness.
If you bring up any other illogical statements again, we will again put holes in them.

Of course you can continue your mockery which are at best mockery and have no logical points

Nothingserious:


Well I already made my point.
Push it down your consciousness.
If you bring up any other illogical statements again, we will again put holes in them.

Of course you can continue your mockery which are at best mockery and have no logical points

I don't bother myself with your delusions so keep shadow boxing. LMFAO!

alphaNomega:

Fake also means not real.

True...that's why he asks you. If he tells you a story about spiderman, would you say it was a fake story? Saying something is fake is not same as saying fictional or mythology. I get what you mean. I am on your side. I dnt drag on semantics. But some do...sometimes to have a decent discussion you just have to use the right diction

Nothingserious:
Science works on beliefs and is not anti-belief.

I guess there's no point rehashing, considering the numerous views that believe otherwise.

Nothingserious:
Why do you think Genesis 1 is primitive?

Genesis 1 has been superseded by superior knowledge. We now know the universe is much older and did not come into existence as Gen 1 implies, and believing Gen 1 is like believing the science of Pytolemy instead of standing on his giant shoulders so one sees further.

budaatum:


I guess there's no point rehashing, considering the numerous views that believe otherwise.



Genesis 1 has been superseded by superior knowledge. We now know the universe is much older and did not come into existence as Gen 1 implies, and believing Gen 1 is like believing the science of Pytolemy instead of standing on his giant shoulders so one sees further.

What is the time frame between Genesis 1:1 and verse 2?

How did you arrive at your calculations?
You really haven’t said why Genesis is primitive.

Again science is simply hinged on beliefs.
Maybe you don’t know

Nothingserious:


What is the time frame between Genesis 1:1 and verse 2?

How did you arrive at your calculations?
You really haven’t said why Genesis is primitive.

Again science is simply hinged on beliefs.
Maybe you don’t know

It was written at a time when much less was known about the earth and the universe. Early science without the knowledge we now have, though it did inform us where and how to seek.

If you go through the thread you'd see Workch claiming I said the same thing, that science is hinged on belief. It isn't and neither did I say it was, but the discussion that ensued might still inform you.

budaatum:


It was written at a time when much less was known about the earth and the universe. Early science without the knowledge we now have, though it did inform us where and how to seek.

If you go through the thread you'd see Workch claiming I said the same thing, that science is hinged on belief. It isn't and neither did I say it was, but the discussion that ensued might still inform you.

You didn’t say how many years are in between Genesis 1:1 and verse 2. So you are wrong in your calculations and assumptions about the age you quoted earlier. Maybe you can still comment on that.

Scientific tests and theories are all hinged on the fact that the universe is rationally intelligible to allow certain observations performed on the physical matter with the conditions remaining same any time the tests are done.
Once any of the conditions in the universe is tilted, the laws would come out differently. Science has no power to set those conditions or their continuous stability or permanence but would continue observing nature and hoping all the conditions are same tomorrow as they are today. That’s some kind of faith and belief.

Science has not said anything to make us think Genesis accounts are primitive. Maybe you are saying it in the name of science. Of course you aren’t science.

Nothingserious:


You didn’t say how many years are in between Genesis 1:1 and verse 2. So you are wrong in your calculations and assumptions about the age you quoted earlier. Maybe you can still comment on that.

Scientific tests and theories are all hinged on the fact that the universe is rationally intelligible to allow certain observations performed on the physical matter with the conditions remaining same any time the tests are done.
Once any of the conditions in the universe is tilted, the laws would come out differently. Science has no power to set those conditions or their continuous stability or permanence but would continue observing nature and hoping all the conditions are same tomorrow as they are today. That’s some kind of faith and belief.

Science has not said anything to make us think Genesis accounts are primitive. Maybe you are saying it in the name of science. Of course you aren’t science.

If someone is merely observing the universe why does he need to believe anything about the universe?

LordReed:


If someone is merely observing the universe why does he need to believe anything about the universe?

You smartly didn’t respond to my post.
That’s okay.
I would love you to. But if you don’t want to, then the premises on which your arguments are based are faulty.

Again, scientists observe and draw scientific laws and theories from observations and tests.
All are also hinged on the rational intelligibility of the universe: that the universe is not random , chaotic and mindless as some of you skeptics would have us think. No. If it were not ordered and designed like the theists and Christians think and preach, it would be difficult to have scientific laws and processes respond to same conditions everyday and over time before going into scientific texts.

Can you imagine what would happens if we wake up and don’t see the sun for 365 days as we were used to? Or gravity doesn’t work again as it used to? Would all the scientific laws hinged on the sun and gravity ( optics, mechanics and dynamics) remain same?

Science just believes the conditions would be same and relies on those assumptions. That is faith and belief.

Nothingserious:


You smartly didn’t respond to my post.
That’s okay.
I would love you to. But if you don’t want to, then the premises on which your arguments are based are faulty.

When you ask me a proper question I will respond.

Again, scientists observe and draw scientific laws and theories from observations and tests.
All are also hinged on the rational intelligibility of the universe: that the universe is not random , chaotic and mindless as some of you skeptics would have us think. No. If it were not ordered and designed like the theists and Christians think and preach, it would be difficult to have scientific laws and processes respond to same conditions everyday and over time before going into scientific texts.

Can you imagine what would happens if we wake up and don’t see the sun for 365 days as we were used to? Or gravity doesn’t work again as it used to? Would all the scientific laws hinged on the sun and gravity ( optics, mechanics and dynamics) remain same?

Science just believes the conditions would be same and relies on those assumptions. That is faith and belief.

You don't get it. If the universe changes today scientists are not going to put hands on their heads and start wailing about how their beliefs have been shattered, they'll instead be scrambling to take the new observations. Meaning, I don't see where belief fits into this. Simply observing the universe with its physical laws that have remained unchanged requires no faith or belief since you are merely watching and recording, any changes will similarly be seen and observed so how does faith or belief figure in it? We don't have faith it won't change seeing as we are merely observing that it hasn't changed. What would be the purpose of having faith here?

LordReed:


When you ask me a proper question I will respond.



You don't get it. If the universe changes today scientists are not going to put hands on their heads and start wailing about how their beliefs have been shattered, they'll instead be scrambling to take the new observations. Meaning, I don't see where belief fits into this. Simply observing the universe with its physical laws that have remained unchanged requires no faith or belief since you are merely watching and recording, any changes will similarly be seen and observed so how does faith or belief figure in it? We don't have faith it won't change seeing as we are merely observing that it hasn't changed. What would be the purpose of having faith here?

So you agree that the current scientific laws and theories are based on presuppositions ( belief/faith) that the current status quo in nature isn’t altered?

You didn’t respond to the rational intelligibility of the universe that makes science and scientific observations possible.
If the universe and its laws were chaotic, purposeless, disorderly and mindless, won’t we get varying results for same scientific tests performed over same conditions? Would the laws and theories we have be possible?

No. They won’t. So there is order. There are laws. There is a designer. There is a law giver.

Back to my question which you have avoided yet found it important to estimate the age of the earth from Genesis. What is the time frame between Genesis 1:1 and verse 2? You think the question is irrelevant? Lol! Yet you think your assumptions about the age of the earth to ridicule Christins from same book is appropriate.

You don’t have to have the answer. It’s for you to ponder on.

Nothingserious:


So you agree that the current scientific laws and theories are based on presuppositions ( belief/faith) that the current status quo in nature isn’t altered?

No they are not. They are based on observation, there is no belief required.

You didn’t respond to the rational intelligibility of the universe that makes science and scientific observations possible.
If the universe and its laws were chaotic, purposeless, disorderly and mindless, won’t we get varying results for same scientific tests performed over same conditions? Would the laws and theories we have be possible?

I didn't say that the universe was chaotic and disorderly. I do say it is mindless and purposeless though.

Once again the laws and theories we have are based on observation and so are descriptive.

What you haven't answered is what any of this needs faith or belief.

No. They won’t. So there is order. There are laws. There is a designer. There is a law giver.

Scientific laws are not determination issued by a mind but descriptions of processes observed so how do you leap from that to therefore there is a designer or lawgiver?

Back to my question which you have avoided yet found it important to estimate the age of the earth from Genesis. What is the time frame between Genesis 1:1 and verse 2? You think the question is irrelevant? Lol! Yet you think your assumptions about the age of the earth to ridicule Christins from same book is appropriate.

You don’t have to have the answer. It’s for you to ponder on.

You asked budaatum the question. No need to ponder it though since the Bible is not a science text and is subject to any sort of interpretation.

Nothingserious:

You didn’t say how many years are in between Genesis 1:1 and verse 2. So you are wrong in your calculations and assumptions about the age you quoted earlier. Maybe you can still comment on that.

I have quoted no "calculations and assumptions about the age" between Gen 1:1 and 2, nor does the Bible give any. You may wish to oblige me however.

Nothingserious:
Scientific tests and theories are all hinged on the fact that the universe is rationally intelligible to allow certain observations performed on the physical matter with the conditions remaining same any time the tests are done.
Once any of the conditions in the universe is tilted, the laws would come out differently. Science has no power to set those conditions or their continuous stability or permanence but would continue observing nature and hoping all the conditions are same tomorrow as they are today. That’s some kind of faith and belief.

You say science is "hinged on the fact that the universe is rationally intelligible to allow certain observations", yet you claim scientists "would continue observing nature and hoping all the conditions are same". Are you somehow claiming scientists ignore the changing conditions or outright close their eyes so as not to see the conditions changing?

A person who does what you claim is no scientist at all, because they are willfully blinding themselves instead of opening their eyes and using all their senses to ask and knock and seek, which is what science is.

Nothingserious:
Science has not said anything to make us think Genesis accounts are primitive. Maybe you are saying it in the name of science. Of course you aren’t science.

Science does not talk. It is humans who speak, some after using their heart and soul and mind and being to ask and knock and seek.

LordReed:


If someone is merely observing the universe why does he need to believe anything about the universe?

Can someone who believes anything about the universe or anything at all even observe?

Are they not blinded by their beliefs so can not see to observe?

budaatum:


Can someone who believes anything about the universe or anything at all even observe?

Are they not blinded by their beliefs so can not see to observe?

Abi o!

LordReed:


Oh you got me there. What I mean by my question is such a concept as you propose is incoherent. You're asking if à being can exist outside of existence, that is not a coherent proposition in my view.

No. I said "a creator outside its creation". Keyword(s): Creation(or).

Our knowledge of existence is limited, we can't even understand all that we know exists but even science makes us know that there is more that we don't know and understand.

A creator primarily exists outside its creation and creates laws and regulations or principles that govern how it operates.

Ehiscotch:


No. I said "a creator outside its creation". Keyword(s): Creation(or).

Our knowledge of existence is limited, we can't even understand all that we know exists but even science makes us know that there is more that we don't know and understand.

A creator primarily exists outside its creation and creates laws and regulations or principles that govern how it operates.

You are basically asking me if a god exists beyond the universe. The universe is how we describe the totality of existence so how can something exist outside existence? You either have a god who is also part of existence or a god which is nonexistent since it is not part of existence.

budaatum:

I have quoted no "calculations and assumptions about the age" between Gen 1:1 and 2, nor does the Bible give any. You may wish to oblige me however.



You say science is "hinged on the fact that the universe is rationally intelligible to allow certain observations", yet you claim scientists "would continue observing nature and hoping all the conditions are same". Are you somehow claiming scientists ignore the changing conditions or outright close their eyes so as not to see the conditions changing?

A person who does what you claim is no scientist at all, because they are willfully blinding themselves instead of opening their eyes and using all their senses to ask and knock and seek, which is what science is.



Science does not talk. It is humans who speak, some after using their heart and soul and mind and being to ask and knock and seek.

If I am not mistaken, you had made reference to no of years or something. That was why I asked you to show me from Genesis 1. I don’t have the answers cause the Bible didn’t say.

You didn’t deny the fact that science is hinged on presuppositions ( faith and belief) that the conditions in nature that allow scientific observations will remain same for same laws to exist.

If individuals speak for science using their minds, soul and heart, then scientific data cannot be completely empirical.
Several scientists would run data and make philosophical decisions on what results to come up with based on worldview, parties interested in the data, funding etc.
That would lead to varying results from different scientists. A Christian scientist will say all records point to a designer God in the universe.
A skeptical scientist would say there is order without anyone in charge.

Is that the science you think is based on empirical facts?

LordReed:


No they are not. They are based on observation, there is no belief required.



I didn't say that the universe was chaotic and disorderly. I do say it is mindless and purposeless though.

Once again the laws and theories we have are based on observation and so are descriptive.

What you haven't answered is what any of this needs faith or belief.



Scientific laws are not determination issued by a mind but descriptions of processes observed so how do you leap from that to therefore there is a designer or lawgiver?



You asked budaatum the question. No need to ponder it though since the Bible is not a science text and is subject to any sort of interpretation.

Scientifc laws are placed in the universe by a mind ( God). They weren’t manufactured by science. They are arranged as though they had been designed to respond in a particular order. So they are ordered. For order and laws to exist, there must be a lawgiver and a designer who placed the orders.
This is why science is possible: that the universe acts with rational intelligibility.

Scientific practices are simply hinged on presuppositions ( faith, belief) that certain conditions in nature that had been observed over time by experience would always remain same. If they change, what we know today would then be different. If they change every day, there really might be no established scientific laws as we know them.

Thus you may not notice that belief is involved in the underlying principles of science.
So many a scientist had boasted that they hope science would in the future have answers to many origin , experience and philosophical questions. So we just keep faith and keep hoping

Nothingserious:


Scientifc laws are placed in the universe by a mind ( God). They weren’t manufactured by science. They are arranged as though they had been designed to respond in a particular order. So they are ordered. For order and laws to exist, there must be a lawgiver and a designer who placed the orders.
This is why science is possible: that the universe acts with rational intelligibility.

Scientific practices are simply hinged on presuppositions ( faith, belief) that certain conditions in nature that had been observed over time by experience would always remain same. If they change, what we know today would then be different. If they change every day, there really might be no established scientific laws as we know them.

Thus you may not notice that belief is involved in the underlying principles of science.
So many a scientist had boasted that they hope science would in the future have answers to many origin , experience and philosophical questions. So we just keep faith and keep hoping

There is no belief that they wouldn't change nor is there a presupposition that they wouldn't change since we are merely observing that they unchanged. If they change this very second no scientist is going to act as if he lost something instead they'd all be eager to find out the new information so I dunno where you are getting this presupposition idea from.

Hoping that science can explain stuff in the future is not faith, it is a desire or wish, how does that translate into it is faith.

BTW the physical laws of the universe do not require mind to form they are off shoots of the interaction between the fundamental forces of nature and energy. Also we see no mind issuing anything.

God is Science.

LordReed:


You are basically asking me if a god exists beyond the universe. The universe is how we describe the totality of existence so how can something exist outside existence? You either have a god who is also part of existence or a god which is nonexistent since it is not part of existence.

What do you call existence?

What "exists" physically and can be proven by scientific methods?

Ehiscotch:


What do you call existence?

What "exists" physically and can be proven by scientific methods?

If you mean existence as a noun, it is the sum total of all things that exist. If you mean it as a verb then it is the quality of having objective manifestation.

I can't possibly give you a list of all the things that exist and can be shown so by science but anything with the above characteristic will fall under it.

LordReed:


There is no belief that they wouldn't change nor is there a presupposition that they wouldn't change since we are merely observing that they unchanged. If they change this very second no scientist is going to act as if he lost something instead they'd all be eager to find out the new information so I dunno where you are getting this presupposition idea from.

Hoping that science can explain stuff in the future is not faith, it is a desire or wish, how does that translate into it is faith.

BTW the physical laws of the universe do not require mind to form they are off shoots of the interaction between the fundamental forces of nature and energy. Also we see no mind issuing anything.

Where do the laws in nature come from?
What are the origins of the fundamental forces of nature and energy?
Science has never claimed to create any of them. Science only talks about the observations it sees in a universe already existing for scientific researches.

Scientific laws and principles would have been random, disorderly and chaotic if they were not ordered by a mind and a lawgiver.
There is no law without a lawgiver.
There is no design without a designer.

If the conditions that make science as we know it today changed every second, what we had called empirical data or naturalistic methodology would be different. We cannot call whims and randomness science today. So it won’t be the same.

Science as we know it is only possible because scientists assume the conditions that led to the empirical data we have will remain same. So science is still hinged on presuppositions ( beliefs and faith).

Nothingserious:


Where do the laws in nature come from?
What are the origins of the fundamental forces of nature and energy?
Science has never claimed to create any of them. Science only talks about the observations it sees in a universe already existing for scientific researches.

Already said where they come from. We do not know where the fundamental forces come from, they could have preceeded the expansion of the universe, we just don't know.

Scientific laws and principles would have been random, disorderly and chaotic if they were not ordered by a mind and a lawgiver.
There is no law without a lawgiver.
There is no design without a designer.

All you need to do is provide evidence of this mind you are describing to show that you are correct.

If the conditions that make science as we know it today changed every second, what we had called empirical data or naturalistic methodology would be different. We cannot call whims and randomness science today. So it won’t be the same.

So what if it was different? How does that prove that science requires belief? Are you not proving we need no faith since if it was random we would need faith to achieve anything?

Science as we know it is only possible because scientists assume the conditions that led to the empirical data we have will remain same. So science is still hinged on presuppositions ( beliefs and faith).

As we know it. If it was different it would be different. How does that mean we need faith?

Nothingserious:


Scientific laws and principles would have been random, disorderly and chaotic if they were not ordered by a mind and a lawgiver.
There is no law without a lawgiver.
There is no design without a designer.

What are your thoughts on Chaos theory and the works behind it?

LordReed:


Already said where they come from. We do not know where the fundamental forces come from, they could have preceeded the expansion of the universe, we just don't know.



All you need to do is provide evidence of this mind you are describing to show that you are correct.



So what if it was different? How does that prove that science requires belief? Are you not proving we need no faith since if it was random we would need faith to achieve anything?




As we know it. If it was different it would be different. How does that mean we need faith?

It’s faith/belief/presuppositions as we know it and as most scientists talk about it now.
If the conditions change then this discussion changes too. Scientists haven’t changed the empirical data stance based on the presuppositions I gave you before. So why should we talk about what they would say if the conditions change?

At least we all agree science never created the forces and laws in nature but only observe them based on presuppositions( beliefs, faith) that the nature they met and observe will not change.

You know faith and reason are basic in religion.
That is given and is not at contention.
What is at contention is the assumption that science works on strict empiricism.
No scientific law has ever been scientifically proven, yet we assume they are all valid.
Most decisions arrived at after scientific tests and hypotheses are carried out are still subjected to philosophical decisions on what is the best and what the result aims to achieve and what the financiers of the project have in mind as end result.

All of science is based on presuppositions/faith/belief in the laws of nature present before the scientific studies.

IMAliyu:

What are your thoughts on Chaos theory and the works behind it?

Please tell us about it