• 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!!

JerryL

Well-Known Member
Fascist Christ said:
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.
It's not an authority: a : persons in command; specifically : [size=-1]GOVERNMENT[/size] b : a governmental agency or corporation to administer a revenue-producing public enterprise <the transit authority>

Recall also that you are discussing a subset of "a binding custom or practice of a community", how it is binding, how is it a custom or practice, and how is it of a community. None of these criteria are met in your example.

Now let's go back to the actual definition of "natural law": 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

Where is there a requirement for a creater of the relation (obviously, there's a creator for the statement)? Where is one even inferred?
 
FascistChrist said:
A cookie making machine has no mother or father.
Ah, but a cookie making machine has a cookie making machine maker, who has a cookie making machine maker's mother and father. :D

FascistChrist said:
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.
"Could" be? No, by your reasoning there MUST be. If you can't have a cookie without a cookie maker, you can't have a cookie maker without a cookie maker mother and father, either. Otherwise you're being inconsistent.

Mmm...cookies.....
 

Fascist Christ

Active Member
JerryL said:
It's not an authority: a : persons in command; specifically : [size=-1]GOVERNMENT[/size] b : a governmental agency or corporation to administer a revenue-producing public enterprise <the transit authority>

Recall also that you are discussing a subset of "a binding custom or practice of a community", how it is binding, how is it a custom or practice, and how is it of a community. None of these criteria are met in your example.
It appears that we are in a disagreement over this specific wording. Let's cross-reference it with another source.

Law
(1) A rule of conduct or procedure established by custom, agreement, or authority.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=law

Authority
(1) (a)The power to enforce laws, exact obedience, command, determine, or judge.
(1) (b)One that is invested with this power, especially a government or body of government officials.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=authority

So, we have:
A rule of conduct established by one invested with the power to enforce the rule.

The beast qualifies.

JerryL said:
Now let's go back to the actual definition of "natural law": 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

Where is there a requirement for a creater of the relation (obviously, there's a creator for the statement)? Where is one even inferred?
My point is that though there is nothing to state that it is required, since it occurs in all other circumstances, there is no reason to assume that this would be any different.
 

Fascist Christ

Active Member
Mr Spinkles said:
Ah, but a cookie making machine has a cookie making machine maker, who has a cookie making machine maker's mother and father. :D

"Could" be? No, by your reasoning there MUST be. If you can't have a cookie without a cookie maker, you can't have a cookie maker without a cookie maker mother and father, either. Otherwise you're being inconsistent.

Mmm...cookies.....
My reasoning does not claim that anything "must" be, just that it is reasonable to assume. Likewise, the existence of a god-maker is also reasonable, and such a thought does not effect my belief system in any way.
 

Jayhawker Soule

-- untitled --
Premium Member
Fascist Christ said:
My reasoning does not claim that anything "must" be, just that it is reasonable to assume.
You may be correct. I'd be interested in hearing your criteria for reasonableness.
 

JerryL

Well-Known Member
A rule of conduct established by one invested with the power to enforce the rule.
"I'll chase off rivals" isn't a rule of conduct, it's not established, and the head bull isn't invested with power... but we are risking a semantic argument here.

My point is that though there is nothing to state that it is required, since it occurs in all other circumstances, there is no reason to assume that this would be any different.
There are only 3 circumstances. There are three different meanings of the word. One discusses "man-made laws", one discusses "natural laws", and one discusses "laws of sctructure".

Leaving out the third (as it is its own kettle of fish), you've asked me to give an example of the second type of laws without referencing the second set of laws. It's definitionally impossable, and not a valid argument regardless.

Give me an example of a hamburger made by an Eskimo: OK, all hamburgers must be made by non-Eskimos.

Give me an example of a law, other than Chiense laws, which were made by the Chinese government. You can't? Then no laws were made by the Chinese government.

Do you see the pattern?
 
Fascist Christ said:
My reasoning does not claim that anything "must" be, just that it is reasonable to assume. Likewise, the existence of a god-maker is also reasonable, and such a thought does not effect my belief system in any way.
Fair enough.
 

Fascist Christ

Active Member
JerryL said:
"I'll chase off rivals" isn't a rule of conduct, it's not established, and the head bull isn't invested with power... but we are risking a semantic argument here.

There are only 3 circumstances. There are three different meanings of the word. One discusses "man-made laws", one discusses "natural laws", and one discusses "laws of sctructure".

Leaving out the third (as it is its own kettle of fish), you've asked me to give an example of the second type of laws without referencing the second set of laws. It's definitionally impossable, and not a valid argument regardless.

Give me an example of a hamburger made by an Eskimo: OK, all hamburgers must be made by non-Eskimos.

Give me an example of a law, other than Chiense laws, which were made by the Chinese government. You can't? Then no laws were made by the Chinese government.

Do you see the pattern?
Notice how www.m-w.com has only one set of definitions for "law." This is because they are all definitions of a law in the same sense. Contrarily, we can look at another word, such as "bill" which m-w has 3 sets of definitions for the noun. The first set describes a bill in the sense of a shape. The second set describes a bill in the sense of a weapon or tool. The third describes a bill in the sense of a document.

For this reason, we know that each definition within the set under "law" is a law as the same fundamental principle and not a completely different "kettle of fish." If a specific definition does not exempt a similarity shared amongst the others, it should be reasonable to assume that it, too, would have that same similarity.
 
I have yet to see any evidence for Intelligent Design. All I have seen is an argument that a "law-maker" exists which could literally be *anything* (intelligent or otherwise) which made the universe the way it is, and of which it can be "reasonably assumed" that there are additional "law-makers" who made the law-maker.
 

greatcalgarian

Well-Known Member
Mr Spinkles said:
I have yet to see any evidence for Intelligent Design. All I have seen is an argument that a "law-maker" exists which could literally be *anything* (intelligent or otherwise) which made the universe the way it is, and of which it can be "reasonably assumed" that there are additional "law-makers" who made the law-maker.
We could end this thread by equating ID = Flying Spaghetti Monster:biglaugh:

The all the cookies will all start from the FSM, whether there is a mother or father will no longer be important.:D
 
The scientific evidence is the fact that the design is perfect that we fit so wonderfully into the tapestry, but have some how found a way to giz all over it. Lol i crack myself up.
 

JerryL

Well-Known Member
For this reason, we know that each definition within the set under "law" is a law as the same fundamental principle and not a completely different "kettle of fish." If a specific definition does not exempt a similarity shared amongst the others, it should be reasonable to assume that it, too, would have that same similarity.
I'd laugh if I didn't think you were serious.

Please try to follow along. I know it's hard for you.

- I didn't exempt anything.
- They are different uses of the word... if they were the same, you wouldn't have to infer would you?
- Your choice of inference is arbitrary.
- Your "smell cookie" use of induction, and your "lawmaker" false metaphor are two different things.
 

Fascist Christ

Active Member
JerryL said:
I'd laugh if I didn't think you were serious.

Please try to follow along. I know it's hard for you.

- I didn't exempt anything.
- They are different uses of the word... if they were the same, you wouldn't have to infer would you?
- Your choice of inference is arbitrary.
- Your "smell cookie" use of induction, and your "lawmaker" false metaphor are two different things.
They are not the same. They are similar. They are not similar simply because they are called the same thing. They are similar because they are based on the same basic principle.

Correct me if I am wrong, but your suggestion appears to be that the use of "law" in "Laws of Nature" is similar only in spelling (ie: a homograph) to other uses of the word. However, I am pointing out that m-w, as with other dictionaries, seperate the homographs to distinguish unrelated definitions. See their explanation here:
http://www.m-w.com/help/dictnotes/entries.htm

Consequently, my inference is not arbirary, since the presentation dictates that the specified senses of the word are related, and that the trait I attribute to the one is uncontested of the others.
 

Fascist Christ

Active Member
Mr Spinkles said:
I have yet to see any evidence for Intelligent Design. All I have seen is an argument that a "law-maker" exists which could literally be *anything* (intelligent or otherwise) which made the universe the way it is, and of which it can be "reasonably assumed" that there are additional "law-makers" who made the law-maker.
The attribute of intelligence is derived from the perception that this is the "best of all worlds," ie: that there is no way that we would improve the Universe. This evidence is subjective, but it is none the less evidence to the perceiver.
 

JerryL

Well-Known Member
They are not the same. They are similar. They are not similar simply because they are called the same thing. They are similar because they are based on the same basic principle.
What, exactly, is that "basic principle"?

Correct me if I am wrong, but your suggestion appears to be that the use of "law" in "Laws of Nature" is similar only in spelling (ie: a homograph) to other uses of the word. However, I am pointing out that m-w, as with other dictionaries, seperate the homographs to distinguish unrelated definitions. See their explanation here:
No, I'm saying that the only commanality between "laws of nature" and "laws of man" is that they are called "laws".

Consequently, my inference is not arbirary, since the presentation dictates that the specified senses of the word are related, and that the trait I attribute to the one is uncontested of the others.
No, the word used has no effect on reality. The reality is that there is no relationship between "natural laws" and "man-made laws". Your striving to create one is irrellevent. Try applying one definition to the other (expecially fun if you try to make a "manlaw" confrom to the definition for a "naturelaw".
 

JerryL

Well-Known Member
Ogre
Pronunciation: 'O-g&r
Function: noun
Etymology: French, probably ultimately from Latin Orcus, god of the underworld
1 : a hideous giant of fairy tales and folklore that feeds on human beings : [size=-1]MONSTER[/size]
2 : a dreaded person or object

One word, one entry in the dictionary, two seperate things. We cannot take what we know about one and infer from the other. The only similarities are in what caused them both to be called "ogre" in the first place. This is why they are "definition 1" and "defintion 2".

rule
Pronunciation: 'rül
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English reule, from Old French, from Latin regula straightedge, rule, from regere to direct -- more at [size=-1]RIGHT[/size]
1 a : a prescribed guide for conduct or action b : the laws or regulations prescribed by the founder of a religious order for observance by its members c : an accepted procedure, custom, or habit d (1) : a usually written order or direction made by a court regulating court practice or the action of parties (2) : a legal precept or doctrine e : a regulation or bylaw governing procedure or controlling conduct
2 a (1) : a usually valid generalization (2) : a generally prevailing quality, state, or mode <fair weather was the rule yesterday -- N.Y. Times> b : a standard of judgment : [size=-1]CRITERION[/size] c : a regulating principle d : a determinate method for performing a mathematical operation and obtaining a certain result
3 a : the exercise of authority or control : [size=-1]DOMINION[/size] b : a period during which a specified ruler or government exercises control
4 a : a strip of material marked off in units used especially for measuring : [size=-1]RULER [/size]3, [size=-1]TAPE MEASURE[/size] b : a metal strip with a type-high face that prints a linear design; also : a linear design produced by or as if by such a strip

Again one word: rules of conduct, how people behavie "as a rule", rule of a king. Three definitions, three different things.

law
Pronunciation: 'lo
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English lagu, of Scandinavian origin; akin to Old Norse log law; akin to Old English licgan to lie -- more at [size=-1]LIE[/size]
1 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]
2 a often capitalized : the revelation of the will of God set forth in the Old Testament b capitalized : the first part of the Jewish scriptures : [size=-1]PENTATEUCH[/size], [size=-1]TORAH[/size] -- see [size=-1]BIBLE [/size]table
3 : a rule of construction or procedure <the laws of poetry>
4 : the whole body of laws relating to one subject
5 a : the legal profession b : law as a department of knowledge : [size=-1]JURISPRUDENCE[/size] c : legal knowledge
6 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

Now 6 different things... just because the same word is used for two different things deosn't mean that the two things are similar. Usually the only similarity is the one which resulted in the same word being used in the first place (though in the case of troll (for example) there's no similarity at all).
 
Fascist Christ said:
The attribute of intelligence is derived from the perception that this is the "best of all worlds," ie: that there is no way that we would improve the Universe.
Both your premise and your logic are wrong. Your premise is wrong because this is not the "best of all worlds": we have birth defects and deadly viruses and pain and suffering and war. I can imagine a better world. How about getting rid of harlequin fetus, for starters?

Your logic is wrong because a set of unintelligent forces could concievably form any "world" one could imagine. Conversely, it does not logically follow that, even if an intelligent force existed, it would necessarily create a "best of all worlds". If you choose to believe this to be the case, that's fine; but you have "derived" nothing at all.

Fascist Christ said:
This evidence is subjective, but it is none the less evidence to the perceiver.
It is not "evidence", it's simply what you choose to believe is true. The cosmic background radiation is evidence. Fossils are evidence. Why? Because you don't need to believe in the cosmic background radiation or fossils to percieve them. Anyone can percieve them, whether they want to or not.
 

Fascist Christ

Active Member
JerryL said:
Ogre
Pronunciation: 'O-g&r
Function: noun
Etymology: French, probably ultimately from Latin Orcus, god of the underworld
1 : a hideous giant of fairy tales and folklore that feeds on human beings : [size=-1]MONSTER[/size]
2 : a dreaded person or object
This is an excellent example. Do you seriously not see the similarity?
JerryL said:
Now 6 different things... just because the same word is used for two different things deosn't mean that the two things are similar. Usually the only similarity is the one which resulted in the same word being used in the first place (though in the case of troll (for example) there's no similarity at all).
So, are they similar or not? If not, why are they not separated like 1bill, 2bill, 3bill, 4bill, and 5bill?
 

Fascist Christ

Active Member
Mr Spinkles said:
Both your premise and your logic are wrong. Your premise is wrong because this is not the "best of all worlds": we have birth defects and deadly viruses and pain and suffering and war. I can imagine a better world. How about getting rid of harlequin fetus, for starters?

Your logic is wrong because a set of unintelligent forces could concievably form any "world" one could imagine. Conversely, it does not logically follow that, even if an intelligent force existed, it would necessarily create a "best of all worlds". If you choose to believe this to be the case, that's fine; but you have "derived" nothing at all.

It is not "evidence", it's simply what you choose to believe is true. The cosmic background radiation is evidence. Fossils are evidence. Why? Because you don't need to believe in the cosmic background radiation or fossils to percieve them. Anyone can percieve them, whether they want to or not.
Way to completely bypass the idea of subjectivity.
 
Top