-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Evidence for ID THREAD!!
- Thread starter Fatmop
- Start date
Fascist Christ
Active Member
And of course, in reality, you are wrong.JerryL said:
scitsofreaky
Active Member
Or so you think
Because of the inability to do these two things, we cannot know if we can know what we are thinking. Perhaps some day we will find out, something I hope I'm alive to see.But it is only evidence to the perciever, to everyone else it is heresay (a term you should be aware of as a deist). I am all for personal experience being the foundation for belief, this applies to everyone. So there is no point in trying to argue personal experience because that leads to experience v. experience, and we cannot know who is right, we can only assume that we are right.Fascist Christ said:
Fascist Christ
Active Member
That is what I am saying. I have no conclusive proof, only subjective evidence from my own experience. I see the Universe in a different way than JerryL, and he insists that my view is wrong. I am only trying to show that someone with my view is justified in his assumptions.scitsofreaky said:
In other words, if I think I smell cookies, I should be able to assume that a cookie exists, citing the smell as evidence. Additionally, since I have never known a cookie without a maker, I should be able to assume that this cookie has a cookie maker. JerryL's reply is that I don't smell any cookies, which is not something he could possibly know unless his brain was wired to my nose.
JerryL
Well-Known Member
That's not where my complaint comes up at all.
Cookies are round, people make cookies.
Drops of water are also round, that implies that people make drops of water.
"laws of man" are described with the term "law", and people make them
"laws of nature" are also described with the term "law", that implies people make them.
"houseplants" are described as plants, they are organic
"powerplants" are also described as plants, it's implied that they are organic.
You are the one that brought up subjective experience vs objective reality. I've mostly been discussing how arbitrary similarities (and few things can be more arbitrary than "what someone called it") don't infer other similarities (definitional similarities notwithstanding).
Your little cookie story has noting to do with inference and everything to do with induction. This is an entirely different discussion. I jumped off the roof, I fell. I induce that if I do it again, I will fall again.
You've smelled a smell and tracked it to be cookies. You smell the smell again and you induce that it's cookies again. This is not metiphorical at all (your laws argument is).
Fascist Christ
Active Member
Right, that came next.JerryL said:
Either not understanding or not caring where "p" came from, you took my statement "if p then q" and changed it to "if p then r" and claim that if the new statement is false then so is the old. As if this isn't absurd enough, let's look even deeper.
In my statement, and each analogy derived thereform, we have:
p = there exists x
and
q = there exists y
whereas
y = some member of the set A = {all possible makers of x}
Consequently, your new statement gives us:
r = there exists z
whereas
z = some member of set B
whereas
B = a subset of A
Going back to the cookie analogy...
I say that the existence of a cookie implies a cookie maker.
You say that the existence of a cookie implies an oatmeal cookie maker.
greatcalgarian
Well-Known Member
I thought these two gave good debate skill and present to us good reading materials.:bounceFatmop said:
Mr Spinkles
Mr
And I say the existence of a cookie maker implies a cookie maker mother and a cookie maker father.FascistChrist said:
JerryL
Well-Known Member
Why would oatmeal make a cookie?
There is no parity with your cookie analogy. You did not mention a cookie maker, you siad "I smelled cookies, cookies likely existed"; this was entirely different from "law", and is entirely different from what you are saying now.
Gravity and the prohibition against trespass are no more similar than a powerplant and a houseplant. Your "it infers" is simply arbitrary. You've inferred, but there's no actual inference there.
Fascist Christ
Active Member
Arbitrary?JerryL said:
Other than anything that could be considered a "Law of Nature" (whether beleive they exist or not) please name a few things that could be considered a "law" under any definition of the noun, which do not have a maker.
Fascist Christ
Active Member
That is a fair statement. However, since I do not know enough about the maker, whether it is man or machine or something else, I feel that it is best to reserve my opinion on the matter. All I can do is study the cookie. It sure smells good.Mr Spinkles said:And I say the existence of a cookie maker implies a cookie maker mother and a cookie maker father.
JerryL
Well-Known Member
There are only a few *different* definitions for "law".
There's the "legal system": a (1) : a binding custom or practice of a community : a rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority (2) : the whole body of such customs, practices, or rules (3) : [size=-1]COMMON LAW[/size] b (1) : the control brought about by the existence or enforcement of such law (2) : the action of laws considered as a means of redressing wrongs; also : [size=-1]LITIGATION[/size] (3) : the agency of or an agent of established law c : a rule or order that it is advisable or obligatory to observe d : something compatible with or enforceable by established law e : [size=-1]CONTROL[/size], [size=-1]AUTHORITY[/size]
There's the laws related to procedure: a rule of construction or procedure <the laws of poetry>
There's "laws of nature": a : a statement of an order or relation of phenomena that so far as is known is invariable under the given conditions b : a general relation proved or assumed to hold between mathematical or logical expressions
Finally, I offer you your own problem
Other than anything that could be considered a "Law of Nature" (whether beleive they exist or not) please name a few things that could be considered a "law" under any definition of the noun, which do not have a HUMAN maker.
Every "Law of Nature" has a maker. Why? Because a "law of nature" (or "law of science" or "law of physics") is nothing more than a human description of an observed or inferred regularity. But "the map is not the territory", and I know of zero evidence that the regularities defined by thermodynamics, evolution, etc., have a maker. Feel free to offer some.Fascist Christ said:
Fascist Christ
Active Member
All of these definitions have a maker.JerryL said:
But, as requested:
"a rule of conduct or action prescribed or formally recognized as binding or enforced by a controlling authority"
Any territorial beast defining the boundaries of its territory. The beast will enforce these boundaries as it deems apropriate.
Mr Spinkles
Mr
Oh no, Fascist Christ, by your own reasoning we know plenty about the cookie maker. After all, just as none of us have ever seen a cookie without a cookie maker, none of us have ever seen a cookie maker without a cookie maker mother and cookie maker father. If you can make the first inference, you can make the second.FascistChrist said:
JerryL
Well-Known Member
The first definition does, the last does not, the middle may or may not (depending on how you look at it).Fascist Christ said:
You've missed the forest through the trees though.
An animal would not be "formally recognized as a controlling authority". You've stretched the definition past breaking.
An impressive response none-the-less.. it does perhaps offer you a "law" without a specific maker though: The law of the jungle: which the the confluence of circumstance, not a creation.
Fascist Christ
Active Member
A cookie making machine has no mother or father. Maybe it would be better to say "cookie maker maker." I agree that it makes sense, and I am not beyond saying that there could be a god-maker. However, since we cannot even be sure what god is or was, cannot observe it, cannot communicate with it, and do not have any conclusive proof of its existence, your suggestion remains a hypothesis on top of a hypothesis. It is a fair and legitimate suggestion, just not something I would choose to put much thought into.Mr Spinkles said:
Fascist Christ
Active Member
I asked for examples, not definitions.JerryL said:
Let's break it up:JerryL said:
"a rule of conduct or action"
(a)"prescribed"
-or-
(b)"formally recognized as binding"
-or-
(c)"enforced by a controlling authority"
My example satisfies (c) as the beast is the enforcer. Since the beast defined its territory, the beast made the law. It may be imposed based on circumstance rather than intelligence, but none the less it has a non-human maker.