kallend 2,143
Recommended Posts
normiss 886
Watch out John, they'll start slinging bible verses sure to make you believe!
winsor 236
QuoteIf you want to believe, fine. If you seek to justify your delusions as valid, you are going to run into the same problems every time. Belief is orthogonal to logic, so using anything pretending to be logic to support belief is a fool's errand.
BSBD,
Winsor
Maybe so. Science can only answer physical questions. Spirituality requires a whole different exploration. We either stick our heads in the sand or we search out the riches God has given us. For what I have found , I will glad to be a fool any day.
...
Your call, but I have never been one to suffer fools gladly.
kallend 2,143
QuoteWatch out John, they'll start slinging bible verses sure to make you believe!
Maybe the fish will believe, and have eternal life. I'd need a bigger tank, though, since they breed prolifically.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
jaybird18c 24
God & Natural Law
QuoteThe universe obeys certain rules—laws to which all things must adhere. These laws are precise, and many of them are mathematical in nature. Natural laws are hierarchical in nature; secondary laws of nature are based on primary laws of nature, which have to be just right in order for our universe to be possible. But, where did these laws come from, and why do they exist? If the universe were merely the accidental by-product of a big bang, then why should it obey orderly principles—or any principles at all for that matter? Such laws are consistent with biblical creation. Natural laws exist because the universe has a Creator God who is logical and has imposed order on His universe (Genesis 1:1).
The Word of God
Everything in the universe, every plant and animal, every rock, every particle of matter or light wave, is bound by laws which it has no choice but to obey. The Bible tells us that there are laws of nature—“ordinances of heaven and earth” (Jeremiah 33:25). These laws describe the way God normally accomplishes His will in the universe.
God’s logic is built into the universe, and so the universe is not haphazard or arbitrary. It obeys laws of chemistry that are logically derived from the laws of physics, many of which can be logically derived from other laws of physics and laws of mathematics. The most fundamental laws of nature exist only because God wills them to; they are the logical, orderly way that the Lord upholds and sustains the universe He has created. The atheist is unable to account for the logical, orderly state of the universe. Why should the universe obey laws if there is no law-giver? But laws of nature are perfectly consistent with biblical creation. In fact, the Bible is the foundation for natural laws.
The Law of Life (Biogenesis)
There is one well-known law of life: the law of biogenesis. This law states simply that life always comes from life. This is what observational science tells us: organisms reproduce other organisms after their own kind. Historically, Louis Pasteur disproved one alleged case of spontaneous generation; he showed that life comes from previous life. Since then, we have seen that this law is universal—with no known exceptions. This is, of course, exactly what we would expect from the Bible. According to Genesis 1, God supernaturally created the first diverse kinds of life on earth and made them to reproduce after their kind. Notice that molecules-to-man evolution violates the law of biogenesis. Evolutionists believe that life (at least once) spontaneously formed from nonliving chemicals. But this is inconsistent with the law of biogenesis. Real science confirms the Bible.
Everything in the universe, every plant and animal, every rock, every particle of matter or light wave, is bound by laws which it has no choice but to obey.
The Laws of Chemistry
Life requires a specific chemistry. Our bodies are powered by chemical reactions and depend on the laws of chemistry operating in a uniform fashion. Even the information that makes up any living being is stored on a long molecule called DNA. Life as we know it would not be possible if the laws of chemistry were different. God created the laws of chemistry in just the right way so that life would be possible.
The laws of chemistry give different properties to the various elements (each made of one type of atom) and compounds (made up of two or more types of atoms that are bonded together) in the universe. For example, when given sufficient activation energy, the lightest element (hydrogen) will react with oxygen to form water. Water itself has some interesting properties, such as the ability to hold an unusually large amount of heat energy. When frozen, water forms crystals with six-sided symmetry (which is why snowflakes are generally six-sided). Contrast this with salt (sodium chloride) crystals, which tend to form cubes. It is the six-fold symmetry of water ice that causes “holes” in its crystal, making it less dense than its own liquid. That’s why ice floats in water (whereas essentially all other frozen compounds sink in their own liquid).
The properties of elements and compounds are not arbitrary. In fact, the elements can be logically organized into a periodic table based on their physical properties. Substances in the same column on the table tend to have similar properties. This follows because elements in a vertical column have the same outer electron structures. These outermost electrons determine the physical characteristics of the atom. The periodic table did not happen by chance. Atoms and molecules have their various properties because their electrons are bound by the laws of quantum physics. In other words, chemistry is based on physics. If the laws of quantum physics were just a bit different, atoms might not even be possible. God designed the laws of physics just right so that the laws of chemistry would come out the way He wanted them to.
The Laws of Planetary Motion
The creation scientist Johannes Kepler discovered that the planets in our solar system obey three laws of nature. He found that planets orbit in ellipses (not perfect circles as had been previously thought) with the sun at one focus of the ellipse; thus a given planet is sometimes closer to the sun than at other times. Kepler also found that planets sweep out equal areas in equal times—in other words, planets speed up as they get closer to the sun within their orbit. And third, Kepler found the exact mathematical relationship between a planet’s distance from the sun (a) and its orbital period (p); planets that are farther from the sun take much longer to orbit than planets that are closer (expressed as p2=a3). Kepler’s laws also apply to the orbits of moons around a given planet.1
As with the laws of chemistry, these laws of planetary motion are not fundamental. Rather, they are the logical derivation of other laws of nature. In fact, it was another creation scientist (Sir Isaac Newton) who discovered that Kepler’s laws could be derived mathematically from certain laws of physics—specifically, the laws of gravity and motion (which Newton himself formulated).
The Laws of Physics
The field of physics describes the behavior of the universe at its most fundamental level. There are many different laws of physics. They describe the way the universe operates today. Some laws of physics describe how light propagates, how energy is transported, how gravity operates, how mass moves through space, and many other phenomena. The laws of physics are usually mathematical in nature; some laws of physics can be described with a concise formula, such as E=mc2. The simple formula F=ma shows how an object with mass (m) will accelerate (a) when a net force (F) is applied to it. It is amazing that every object in the universe consistently obeys these rules.
There is a hierarchy in physics: some laws of physics can be derived from other laws of physics. For example, Einstein’s famous formula E=mc2 can be derived from the principles and equations of special relativity. Conversely, there are many laws of physics that cannot be derived from other laws of physics; many of these are suspected to be derivative principles, but scientists have not yet deduced their derivation.
And some laws of physics may be truly fundamental (not based on other laws); they exist only because God wills them to. In fact, this must be the case for at least one law of physics (and perhaps several)—the most fundamental. (Logically, this is because if the most fundamental law were based on some other law, it would not be the most fundamental law.)
The laws of physics (along with their associated constants) are fine-tuned in just the right way so that life, particularly human life, is possible. This fact is called the “anthropic principle.”1
1Anthropic comes from the Greek word for man, anthropos.
The Laws of Mathematics
Notice that the laws of physics are highly mathematical in nature. They would not work if there were not also laws of mathematics. Mathematical laws and principles include the rules of addition, the transitive property, the commutative properties of addition and multiplication, the binomial theorem, and many others. Like the laws of physics, some laws and properties of mathematics can be derived from other mathematical principles. But unlike the laws of physics, the laws of mathematics are abstract; they are not “attached” to any specific part of the universe. It is possible to imagine a universe where the laws of physics are different, but it is difficult to imagine a (consistent) universe where the laws of mathematics are different.2
The laws of mathematics are an example of a “transcendent truth.” They must be true regardless of what kind of universe God created. This may be because God’s nature is logical and mathematical; thus, any universe He chose to create would necessarily be mathematical in nature. The secular naturalist cannot account for the laws of mathematics. Certainly he would believe in mathematics and would use mathematics, but he is unable to account for the existence of mathematics within a naturalistic framework since mathematics is not a part of the physical universe. However, the Christian understands that there is a God beyond the universe and that mathematics reflects the thoughts of the Lord. Understanding math is, in a sense, “thinking God’s thoughts after Him”3 (though in a limited, finite way, of course).
Some have supposed that mathematics is a human invention. It is said that if human history had been different, an entirely different form of math would have been constructed—one with alternate laws, theorems, axioms, etc. But such thinking is not consistent. Are we to believe that the universe did not obey mathematical laws before people discovered them? Did the planets orbit differently before Kepler discovered that p2=a3? Clearly, mathematical laws are something that human beings have discovered, not invented. The only thing that might have been different (had human history taken a different course) is the notation—the way in which we choose to express mathematical truths through symbols. But these truths exist regardless of how they are expressed. Mathematics could rightly be called the “language of creation.”
The Laws of Logic
All the laws of nature, from physics and chemistry to the law of biogenesis, depend on the laws of logic. Like mathematics, the laws of logic are transcendent truths. We cannot imagine that the laws of logic could be anything different from what they are. Take the law of noncontradiction for example. This law states that you cannot have both “A” and “not A” at the same time and in the same relationship. Without the laws of logic, reasoning would be impossible. But where do the laws of logic come from?
The atheist cannot account for the laws of logic, even though he or she must accept that they exist in order to do any rational thinking. But according to the Bible, God is logical. Indeed, the law of noncontradiction reflects God’s nature; God cannot lie (Numbers 23:19) or be tempted with evil (James 1:13) since these things contradict His perfect nature. Since we have been made in God’s image, we instinctively know the laws of logic. We are able to reason logically (though because of finite minds and sin we don’t always think entirely logically).
The Uniformity of Nature
The laws of nature are uniform. They do not (arbitrarily) change, and they apply throughout the whole cosmos. The laws of nature apply in the future just as they have applied in the past; this is one of the most basic assumptions in all of science. Without this assumption, science would be impossible. If the laws of nature suddenly and arbitrarily changed tomorrow, then past experimental results would tell us nothing about the future. Why is it that we can depend on the laws of nature to apply consistently throughout time? The secular scientists cannot justify this important assumption. But the Christian can because the Bible gives us the answer. God is Lord over all creation and sustains the universe in a consistent and logical way. God does not change, and so He upholds the universe in a consistent, uniform way throughout time (Jeremiah 33:25).
Conclusion
We have seen that the laws of nature depend on other laws of nature, which ultimately depend on God’s will. Thus, God created the laws of physics in just the right way so that the laws of chemistry would be correct, so that life can exist. It is doubtful that any human would have been able to solve such a complex puzzle. Yet, the Lord has done so. The atheist cannot account for these laws of nature (even though he agrees that they must exist), for such laws are inconsistent with naturalism. Yet, they are perfectly consistent with the Bible. We expect the universe to be organized in a logical, orderly fashion and to obey uniform laws because the universe was created by the power of God.
Dr. Jason Lisle holds a Ph.D. in astrophysics from the University of Colorado at Boulder. Dr. Lisle is a popular author and researcher for Answers in Genesis and also uses his knowledge of the heavens to proclaim the handiwork of God in DVDs, such as Distant Starlight and Creation Astronomy.
normiss 886
Did you seriously copy and paste that babble in reply to a physics professor???
"And some laws of physics may be truly fundamental (not based on other laws); they exist only because God wills them to."
jaybird18c 24
QuoteProve it.
I don't believe you.
Prove your God even exists!
Where did matter/energy come from?
jaybird18c 24
QuoteDid you seriously copy and paste that babble in reply to a physics professor???
"And some laws of physics may be truly fundamental (not based on other laws); they exist only because God wills them to."
Dr. Jason Lisle holds a Ph.D. in astrophysics from the University of Colorado at Boulder. Dr. Lisle is a popular author and researcher for Answers in Genesis and also uses his knowledge of the heavens to proclaim the handiwork of God in DVDs, such as Distant Starlight and Creation Astronomy.
kallend 2,143
An omnipotent god could choose any laws she liked. Your argument is silly at all levels from the most fundamental to the specific and suggests that your god is neither omnipotent nor omniscient.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
jaybird18c 24
The Big Bang as it is understood today is an inadequate theory since there are many fundamental problems that are seldom mentioned in the pertinent literature. The following are some "missing links" in the theory:
1. Missing Origin. The Big Bang theory assumes an original concentration of energy. Where did this energy come from? Astronomers sometimes speak of origin from a "quantum mechanical fluctuation within a vacuum." However, an energy source is still needed. Actually, there is no secular origin theory, since every idea is based on preexisting matter or energy.
2. Missing Fuse. What ignited the Big Bang? The mass concentration proposed in this theory would remain forever as a universal black hole. Gravity would prevent it from expanding outward.
3. Missing Star Formation. No natural way has been found to explain the formation of planets, stars, and galaxies. An explosion should produce, at best, an outward spray of gas and radiation. This gas should continue expanding, not form intricate planets, stars, and entire galaxies.
4. Missing Antimatter. Some versions of the Big Bang theory require an equal production of matter and antimatter. However, only small traces of antimatter (positrons, antiprotons) are found in space.
5. Missing Time. Some experiments indicate that the universe may be young, on the order of 10,000 years old. If true, then there is not sufficient time for the consequences of the Big Bang to unfold. A short time span would not allow for the gradual evolution of the earth, heavens, and mankind.
6. Missing Mass. Many scientists assume that the universe will eventually stop expanding and begin to collapse inward. Then it will again explode, and repeat its oscillating type of perpetual motion. This idea is an effort to avoid an origin and destiny for the universe. For oscillation to occur, the universe must have a certain density or distribution of mass. So far, measurements of the mass density are a hundred times smaller than expected. The universe does not appear to be oscillating. The necessary mass is "missing."
7. Missing Life. In an evolving universe, life should have developed everywhere. Space should be filled with radio signals from intelligent life forms. Where is everybody?
1. Missing Origin. The Big Bang theory assumes an original concentration of energy. Where did this energy come from? Astronomers sometimes speak of origin from a "quantum mechanical fluctuation within a vacuum." However, an energy source is still needed. Actually, there is no secular origin theory, since every idea is based on preexisting matter or energy.
2. Missing Fuse. What ignited the Big Bang? The mass concentration proposed in this theory would remain forever as a universal black hole. Gravity would prevent it from expanding outward.
3. Missing Star Formation. No natural way has been found to explain the formation of planets, stars, and galaxies. An explosion should produce, at best, an outward spray of gas and radiation. This gas should continue expanding, not form intricate planets, stars, and entire galaxies.
4. Missing Antimatter. Some versions of the Big Bang theory require an equal production of matter and antimatter. However, only small traces of antimatter (positrons, antiprotons) are found in space.
5. Missing Time. Some experiments indicate that the universe may be young, on the order of 10,000 years old. If true, then there is not sufficient time for the consequences of the Big Bang to unfold. A short time span would not allow for the gradual evolution of the earth, heavens, and mankind.
6. Missing Mass. Many scientists assume that the universe will eventually stop expanding and begin to collapse inward. Then it will again explode, and repeat its oscillating type of perpetual motion. This idea is an effort to avoid an origin and destiny for the universe. For oscillation to occur, the universe must have a certain density or distribution of mass. So far, measurements of the mass density are a hundred times smaller than expected. The universe does not appear to be oscillating. The necessary mass is "missing."
7. Missing Life. In an evolving universe, life should have developed everywhere. Space should be filled with radio signals from intelligent life forms. Where is everybody?
jaybird18c 24
Quote
An omnipotent god could choose any laws she liked. Your argument is silly at all levels from the most fundamental to the specific and suggests that your god is neither omnipotent nor omniscient.
The problem with you guys always spouting that God is omnipotent and omniscient and assigning blame is that God is also personal and a laundry list of other things (and that's just what He's revealed to us). You assign motive based on a very limited scope.
kallend 2,143
QuoteQuoteDid you seriously copy and paste that babble in reply to a physics professor???
"And some laws of physics may be truly fundamental (not based on other laws); they exist only because God wills them to."
Dr. Jason Lisle holds a Ph.D. in astrophysics from the University of Colorado at Boulder. Dr. Lisle is a popular author and researcher for Answers in Genesis and also uses his knowledge of the heavens to proclaim the handiwork of God in DVDs, such as Distant Starlight and Creation Astronomy.
One of the members of "Queen" has a PhD in astrophysics too.
Maybe your god has a rock band....
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
jaybird18c 24
kallend 2,143
QuoteThe Big Bang as it is understood today is an inadequate theory since there are many fundamental problems that are seldom mentioned in the pertinent literature. The following are some "missing links" in the theory:
If you knew what you are writing about your answers would make more sense. It is clear that you are just a cut and paste artist.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
kallend 2,143
QuoteQuoteOne of the members of "Queen" has a PhD in astrophysics too.
Maybe your god has a rock band.
So your physics background also doesn't mean shit because Queen has an intelligent/credentialed bandmember?
I didn't bring up my physics background.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
winsor 236
Dr. Jason Lisle holds a Ph.D. in astrophysics from the University of Colorado at Boulder. Dr. Lisle is a popular author and researcher for Answers in Genesis and also uses his knowledge of the heavens to proclaim the handiwork of God in DVDs, such as Distant Starlight and Creation Astronomy.
I have watched people who I knew to be entirely clueless get Ph.D.s. In one case, the dissertation focused on disproving the claims made in a dissertation submitted recently in the same lab. Both of these guys are now Ph.D.s.
Having said that, the article you posted is gibberish. His rationale demonstrate convincingly that religious conviction has nothing to do with intellectual capacity, but is a symptom of mental/emotional illness.
BSBD,
Winsor
jaybird18c 24
QuoteIf you knew what you are writing about your answers would make more sense. It is clear that you are just a cut and paste artist.
I am not an astrophysicist or a scientist of any kind. Nevertheless, huge problems still exist for your naturalistic worldview (based on presuppositions just like mine). The issues exist...posed by some very intelligent people.
jaybird18c 24
QuoteI didn't bring up my physics background.
No....but you attacked his.
kallend 2,143
QuoteQuoteIf you knew what you are writing about your answers would make more sense. It is clear that you are just a cut and paste artist.
I am not an astrophysicist or a scientist of any kind. Nevertheless, huge problems still exist for your naturalistic worldview (based on presuppositions just like mine). The issues exist...posed by some very intelligent people.
You argument boils down to saying that your god is a totally clueless designer because the laws it needed to make everything work require frequent killer earthquakes, tornadoes, volcanic eruptions, plagues, famines, meteor strikes, etc.
Maybe 6 days just wasn't enough time to do a decent job.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
kallend 2,143
QuoteQuoteI didn't bring up my physics background.
No....but you attacked his.
Because YOU brought it up in an appeal to authority fallacy.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
winsor 236
QuoteQuoteIf you knew what you are writing about your answers would make more sense. It is clear that you are just a cut and paste artist.
I am not an astrophysicist or a scientist of any kind. Nevertheless, huge problems still exist for your naturalistic worldview (based on presuppositions just like mine). The issues exist...posed by some very intelligent people.
Someone who is not particularly intelligent is unlikely to have a clear grasp of how a brilliant mind functions. It is kind of like someone from the U.S. of A. trying to envision what life was like for people in the Mideast some 3,000 years ago - they might screw up and get some parts right, but the general picture has nothing to do with the reality.
The greatest difference I have witnessed between the truly brilliant and those who are not is one of mental dexterity. Right, wrong or indifferent, the unwashed masses tend to lock on to some oversimplified version of "the truth," and have a hard time updating their concept of reality to include supplementary data.
Thus, when people "believe" things, what is or is not the truth (as opposed to The Truth (tm)) no longer matters.
If one says "I believe that...," great. The fact that one believes this or that is entirely accurate. Whether the thing that they believe is, in fact, accurate is another issue entirely.
As far as educational credentials go, I never finished High School. So much for Argumentum ad Vericundiam...
BSBD,
Winsor
normiss 886
"Will" of an invisible being doesn't answer "huge problems" that you feel exist.
I do not crush my fish in earthquakes or simulate killer tornados in their tank. None of them starve. You, however, have NOT A SINGLE SHRED of evidence to support your god's existence, and a lot of evidence that in the unlikely event it does exist, it is a nasty, cruel, mean, jealous, vindictive piece of work unworthy of worship by any decent human.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites