Christianity v. Secular Humanism

[night912]

"With that being said, hydrogen and oxygen atoms exist . . . " DESPITE THE LAW. THAT is the point!

And how does that violate the law? THAT is the point. You do know how an atom is determined whether it's hydrogen or oxygen, right?

So far, all you've been doing is claim that the law is violated and gave similar examples like the one that I used. You have not been able to show how the law was violated. Every time that it's pointed out that in your example, it did not show that the law was violated. And when asked for you to present the evidence to support your claim, all you did was basically give the same explanation using different "things" and declaring that the law was violated because those "things" exist.

You not knowing how a "thing" can exist, is not evidence that the law was violated. You making a claim, is not evidence for your initial claim. A "thing" existing, does not violate the law. The only way how the Law of Conservation of mass/energy can be violated is if mass/energy are created and/or destroyed. And you have not been able to demonstrate that mass/energy was created and/or destroyed, therefore, the law has not been violated. Your ignorance is not evidence for your claim.

So in conclusion..........
You CREATED an argument about something you thought you knew about, but the MATTER of fact is, you were ignorant about it and ended up with your argument being DESTROYED.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I didn't say to just state the law, I said explain what you think the law means.

I wrote that without referencing anything else from memory, THAT's what it MEANS. The atoms forming the keys I typed this message on COULD NOT HAVE COME INTO EXISTENCE VIA NATURAL LAW.

 

[BilliardsBall]

And how does that violate the law? THAT is the point. You do know how an atom is determined whether it's hydrogen or oxygen, right?

So far, all you've been doing is claim that the law is violated and gave similar examples like the one that I used. You have not been able to show how the law was violated. Every time that it's pointed out that in your example, it did not show that the law was violated. And when asked for you to present the evidence to support your claim, all you did was basically give the same explanation using different "things" and declaring that the law was violated because those "things" exist.

You not knowing how a "thing" can exist, is not evidence that the law was violated. You making a claim, is not evidence for your initial claim. A "thing" existing, does not violate the law. The only way how the Law of Conservation of mass/energy can be violated is if mass/energy are created and/or destroyed. And you have not been able to demonstrate that mass/energy was created and/or destroyed, therefore, the law has not been violated. Your ignorance is not evidence for your claim.

So in conclusion..........
You CREATED an argument about something you thought you knew about, but the MATTER of fact is, you were ignorant about it and ended up with your argument being DESTROYED.

Huh?

You and I cannot exist based on CURRENT NATURAL LAW. This LAW WAS suspended at Planck time. Agree with almost 100% of non-super-atheist cosmologists and physicists and "get over it" already. Methinks you dost protest far too much.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Huh?

You and I cannot exist based on CURRENT NATURAL LAW. This LAW WAS suspended at Planck time. Agree with almost 100% of non-super-atheist cosmologists and physicists and "get over it" already. Methinks you dost protest far too much.

These physicists you keep referring to do not agree with your assertion that that is evidence for the supernatural. They haven't reached the same conclusion you have. They haven't declared the existence of the supernatural, as you have.
I have no idea why you keep referring to them as though they do.

Basically you're making an argument from ignorance to declare the existence of a supernatural world/realm/whatever you want to call it.
Yeah, we don't know every single thing about how the universe "began" or what happened "before" or if those words even make sense when talking about the BB. But what you've done is say, "well we don't understand something here, so it must be supernatural, and that supernatural must contain the personal god I worship."
Sorry, but that's not a demonstration of anything supernatural.

 

[BilliardsBall]

These physicists you keep referring to do not agree with your assertion that that is evidence for the supernatural. They haven't reached the same conclusion you have. They haven't declared the existence of the supernatural, as you have.
I have no idea why you keep referring to them as though they do.

Basically you're making an argument from ignorance to declare the existence of a supernatural world/realm/whatever you want to call it.
Yeah, we don't know every single thing about how the universe "began" or what happened "before" or if those words even make sense when talking about the BB. But what you've done is say, "well we don't understand something here, so it must be supernatural, and that supernatural must contain the personal god I worship."
Sorry, but that's not a demonstration of anything supernatural.

Just because a physicist doesn't make this move > Natural Law suspended/violated = Supernatural creation does not alleviate you of the fact, which you seem reluctant to admit:

Physicists/cosmologists agree Natural Law suspended/violated

Therefore, I ask you to tell me what happened that was NOT supernatural, you know, to save me from coming to the obvious conclusion.

The problem, of course, in this discussion is the usual. Anything unknown to the skeptic equals "Natural Law not yet discovered!" which is a restating of the typical (weak, no offense meant here) skeptical "arguments":

1) I don't believe X which belies

2) I don't want to believe X

 

[SkepticThinker]

Just because a physicist doesn't make this move > Natural Law suspended/violated = Supernatural creation does not alleviate you of the fact, which you seem reluctant to admit:

Sure it does. Especially if you're going to reference them in this discussion.
Their conclusions don't agree with your conclusions. That's a problem for your arguments where you've reached the conclusion that some supernatural realm exists in which things occur.

Physicists/cosmologists agree Natural Law suspended/violated

Therefore, I ask you to tell me what happened that was NOT supernatural, you know, to save me from coming to the obvious conclusion.

Physicists don't agree with you that anything supernatural happened.
That's a problem.

The problem, of course, in this discussion is the usual. Anything unknown to the skeptic equals "Natural Law not yet discovered!" which is a restating of the typical (weak, no offense meant here) skeptical "arguments":

1) I don't believe X which belies

2) I don't want to believe X

The problem is that you're drawing your own conclusions based on your pre-conceived beliefs about God and the Bible.

Anything unknown is by definition, unknown. We don't get to make assertions about unknown things, as you are attempting to do. Logic and reason don't work that way.

You're the one wanting to believe something and drawing conclusions based on those pre-conceived beliefs (as in your #2 above). Please stop projecting that onto me.