It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The laws of physics dont mind that man behind the curtain

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Nov, 1 2017 @ 01:13 AM

originally posted by: dragonridr
...The universe doesn't ask why humans were created they just were. The universe doesn't ask why energy works the way it does it just does. There is no why only how something occurs. In say physics you answer the when the how but there is no why it happened it just did because it could happen [by chance and necessity?].

It seems that you are referring to the 'chance and necessity' argument often made regarding the universe and the life in it. Which is basically another '(Mother) Nature did it'-type of argument (i.e. Gaia did it, as the old Pagan Greek philosophers argued for the same philosophical naturalism before it was stripped of all its theism in this particular form of Pantheism).

Problem with nature or the universe given enough time anything and everything possible will happen.

The problem with the chance and necessity argument regarding both the universe and the life in it (both subjects intrinsically connected regarding the 'why is it the way it is' question) is that you have a lot of finite factors that are important to consider regarding the origin of life. The universe is estimated to be only approx. 13.8 billion years old, is that enough time for life to emerge by chance and necessity affected exclusively by the forces of nature acting on what's available? There are a finite number of planets in the universe and there are a finite number of molecules that can interact on the earth for "just a few hundred million years after the formation of the Earth itself" (quotation from regarding "the first living things on earth"). This video seperates the 'by chance' argument from the 'by necessity' argument (the latter being related to what dfnj2015 referred to as "repeatable patterns" and "invisible pipelines"; but they are often also used in conjunction with eachother, or as supplements to eachother)

So if you truly want to understand the universe stop looking for the why and learn about the how or your stuck wondering about questions where no answer will ever exist.

No need to shy away from the why question just because the 'by chance and necessity' (or either) argument doesn't work logically regarding a reasonable answer. The only reasonable conclusion so far reached by those who have not shied away from the subject doesn't bite and it won't kill ye for considering it.

“We have a prior commitment . . . to materialism,” wrote evolutionist Richard C. Lewontin. “That materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”
Which View Fits All the Facts?

With regard to the origin of the complex molecules that make up living organisms, some evolutionists believe the following:

1. Key elements somehow combined to form basic molecules.

2. Those molecules then linked together in the exact sequences required to form DNA, RNA, or protein with the capacity to store the information needed to carry out tasks essential to life.

3. The molecules somehow formed the specific sequences required to replicate themselves. Without replication, there can be neither evolutionary development nor, indeed, life itself.

How did the molecules of life form and acquire their amazing abilities without an intelligent designer? Evolutionary research fails to provide adequate explanations or satisfying answers to questions about the origin of life. In effect, those who deny the purposeful intervention of a Creator attribute godlike powers to mindless molecules and natural forces.

What, though, do the facts indicate? The available evidence shows that instead of molecules developing into complex life-forms, the opposite is true: Physical laws dictate that complex things—machines, houses, and even living cells—in time break down.* Yet, evolutionists say the opposite can happen. For example, the book Evolution for Dummies says that evolution occurred because the earth “gets loads of energy from the sun, and that energy is what powers the increase in complexity.”

To be sure, energy is needed to turn disorder into order—for example, to assemble bricks, wood, and nails into a house. That energy, however, has to be carefully controlled and precisely directed because uncontrolled energy is more likely to speed up decay, just as the energy from the sun and the weather can hasten the deterioration of a building.* Those who believe in evolution cannot satisfactorily explain how energy is creatively directed.

On the other hand, when we view life and the universe as the work of a wise Creator who possesses an “abundance of dynamic energy,” we can explain not only the complexity of life’s information systems but also the finely tuned forces that govern matter itself, from vast galaxies to tiny atoms.*—Isaiah 40:26.

Belief in a Creator also harmonizes with the now generally accepted view that the physical universe had a beginning. “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth,” says Genesis 1:1.

Invariably, new discoveries tend to make the philosophy of materialism increasingly hard to defend, a fact that has moved some atheists to revise their views.* Yes, some former atheists have come to the conclusion that the wonders of the universe are visible evidence of the “invisible qualities” and “eternal power” of our Creator, Jehovah God. (Romans 1:20) Would you consider giving the matter further thought? No subject could be more important or of greater consequence.*

[1st footnote:] Such decay is a result of what scientists call the second law of thermodynamics. Put simply, this law states that the natural tendency is for order to degenerate into disorder.

Source: Which Approach Is More Reasonable? Awake!—2011

Oh btw, before someone starts nagging about '(the theory of) evolution doesn't address the origin of life', the type of "evolution" spoken about above is both called "abiogenesis" and "chemical evolution", also "the chemical evolution theory of life" and 'chemical evolution followed by biological evolution'. Concerning the universe there are also discussions and articles about "cosmic evolution". So no need to waste your time to go through the usual routine that's played so often on the Origins and Creationism forum.
Abiogenesis - Wikipedia

... these theories are based on the framework laid out by Alexander Oparin (in 1924) and by J. B. S. Haldane (in 1925), who postulated the molecular or chemical evolution theory of life.
The chemical processes that took place on the early Earth are called chemical evolution. Both Manfred Eigen and Sol Spiegelman [argued] that evolution, including replication, variation, and natural selection, can occur in populations of molecules as well as in organisms.
Following on from chemical evolution came the initiation of biological evolution, which led to the first cells.

Whoever came up with the last line I quoted apparently feels that biological evolution is already occurring before the appearance of the first cells (by saying "which led to the first cells"; consider point 3 mentioned earlier in relation to this: "Without replication, there can be neither evolutionary development nor, indeed, life itself." Regarding the word I changed to "argued", just calling it "replication" doesn't make it so).
edit on 1-11-2017 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 1 2017 @ 01:22 AM
a reply to: whereislogic

Are you a Jehovah's witness ?

posted on Nov, 1 2017 @ 02:54 AM

originally posted by: whereislogic
No need to shy away from the why question just because the 'by chance and necessity' (or either) argument doesn't work logically regarding a reasonable answer. The only* reasonable conclusion so far reached by those who have not shied away from the subject doesn't bite and it won't kill ye for considering it.

*: as in the only one I see available that is a more reasonable way of considering the subject than the alternatives I see being put forward as a way of thinking about it:

- 'we don't know yet, it is not yet fully understood, maybe this*, maybe that*' (*: sophisticated beguiling abiogenesis storyline nr.4; panspermia storyline nr.6; whatever the evidence is pointing towards, 'nature found a way' when it wasn't even looking for a way, fill in the rest of the storyline as you like even if that includes presenting sophisticated research into soapbubbles and calling them "protocells", quoting Mr. Jack Szostak)

- you shouldn't ask the 'why' question, change the subject please

- (the theory of) evolution(ary teachings, theory) doesn't (don't) address the origin of life, change the subject please

Remember, philosophical naturalism (or materialism) involves a continuing storyline from the big bang (exclusively caused by the forces of nature, by chance and sometimes claimed or so-called "necessity"), followed by cosmic evolution (exclusively affected by the forces of nature, by chance and claimed or so-called "necessity" when that simply isn't true which one can discover given the facts as explained in the video I shared earlier regarding other types of universes with other parameters for the forces of nature*), followed by chemical evolution (again, same causal factors suggested, the forces of nature did it, by chance and nowadays it's often claimed that it was "by necessity" as well, even when based on nothing else but wishful and biased thinking), followed by biological evolution (and the storyline as to the causal factors hasn't changed, 'nature still found a way' as some like to say).

*: since I wasn't entirely happy with what I was trying to point towards regarding the 'by necessity' argument and claim, this is another way of putting it:

Another argument is that it will someday be proved that only one possible set of numbers can work in the equations that express the fundamental laws of nature. That is, the dials mentioned above had to be turned to the right settings for the universe to exist at all. Some say, ‘It’s that way because it had to be that way!’ Even if this circular reasoning were true, it would still not provide an ultimate explanation for our existence. In short, is it just a coincidence that the universe exists and that it is life-supporting?

Source: Purposeful Design or Mindless Process? Awake!—2009
The person in the video below has yet another way of phrasing the 'by necessity' (the word "inevitable" has also been used) argument and a response to it (somewhere after 5:48):

And again below somewhere after 1:00:

Another usage of the phrase "the dialogue of chance and necessity" as used by philosophical naturalists (some of whom also like the confusing phrase "nature leaves nothing to chance", to obscure how they play around with those 2 words "chance" and "necessity") can be seen below in the quotation from the philosophical naturalist Franklin M. Harold, in his book The Way of the Cell published by Oxford University Press. Starting at 30:09 (just to be as clear as possible to avoid anyone from having to be confused as to whose and what arguments and ways of thinking about this subject I'm talking about in case someone feels it doesn't apply to them cause they don't use the words "chance" and "necessity"):

edit on 1-11-2017 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 1 2017 @ 03:12 AM
The signals and waveforms that we see in 'real life' have a beginning and a end, however, each of these signals and waveforms can be thought of as the combination of an infite number of sine waves, and each sine wave has no beginning and no ending. It is just that all these sine waves exactly cancel each other out at all times, except during the time that the signal is present.. Therefore all signals that we see in 'real life' can be thought of as the combination of an infinite number of sine waves that have always existed since the beginning of time, and will continue to exist through all eternity.

Magnetic waves are the only signals that are normally dynamic. All current wave function must stem from a pre-current waveform.

posted on Nov, 1 2017 @ 05:07 AM
a reply to: whereislogic
And in case anyone still has trouble seeing the connection between the terminologies "invisible pipelines...repeatable patterns" and "chance and necessity" perhaps what's mentioned below from 2:30 - 5:17 might help:

edit regarding my first comment to dragonridr: with "referring to" I actually meant "thinking about or along the lines of" (opening sentence). "Referring" was a poor choice.

There's another video that explains the concepts and possible causal factors of going from order to disorder or from disorder to order quite decently but it's a bit long and at times a bit all over the place interjecting stuff coming from the young earth creationism camp that isn't particularly useful. I think the first hour or so is still doable:

edit on 1-11-2017 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 3 2017 @ 12:52 AM
a reply to: dfnj2015

When the electron is going around atoms- how come it does not 'hit' the atom, and stay glued?

Why does it just continue to spin, why is the law working how it is

posted on Nov, 3 2017 @ 01:58 AM
a reply to: whereislogic

You are making a common error,Your use of gaps in scientific explanation as indicators, or even proof, of God’s action and therefore of God’s existence. We attributed many things to god,rising sun or lightening the moon. But as we gained knowledge these fallacies fell away and gods like apollo,helios,ra and zues disappeared. Lack of evidence doesnt prove god did it,if that were the case hed be up on murder charges.

Now even scientist fall for this if they cant explain something its human nature. For example Isaac Newton used it when he couldnt explain Newton suspected that these gravitational perturbations would accumulate and slowly disrupt the magnificent order of the solar system. To counteract these and other disruptive forces, Newton suggested that God must necessarily intervene occasionally to tune up the solar system and restore the order. Then a man named Albert Einstein came along and showed that wasnt the case. Such episodes in the history of science are not unusual. In fact they are so common that the phrase God-of-the-gaps has been coined to label the process of invoking God to account for natural phenomena that is not explained by science.

God is just our way of explaining thing we dont understand. But today its evenworse because people are choosing to be ignorant of the world around the. Our ancestors have an excuse no one had evidence to explain the universe around us. People like you have no excuse you are denying knowledge. Im going to leave you with some quotes to think about.

“No one infers a god from the simple, from the known, from what is understood, but from the complex, from the unknown, and incomprehensible. Our ignorance is God; what we know is science.”
― Robert G. Ingersoll

“The God excuse, the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument.”
― George Carlin

“After all, is our idea of God anything more than personified incomprehensibility?

[Said in a letter to Voltaire]”
― Georg Christoph Lichtenberg

“[When asked by a student if he believes in any gods]

Oh, no. Absolutely not... The biggest advantage to believing in God is you don't have to understand anything, no physics, no biology. I wanted to understand.”
― James D. Watson

posted on Nov, 3 2017 @ 02:44 AM

originally posted by: makalit
a reply to: dfnj2015

When the electron is going around atoms- how come it does not 'hit' the atom, and stay glued?

Why does it just continue to spin, why is the law working how it is

Now at this point, many people go on to say something about the uncertainty principal forbidding an electron to have definite position and momentum which forbids the electron from ever being so localized so as to be right at the site of the nucleus. As far as I can tell these arguments are wrong.Electron captures proves this wrong since that is exactly what hapens.

The force that keeps the electrons near the nucleus is the electrostatic attraction between t

he electron and the nucleus. This prevents it from flying off unless we apply more energy and break the bond. So now what stops are electrons (most. Of the time) from slamming in to the nucleus? Well the answer is the shape and extent of an orbital depends on the square of the magnitude of the wave function. So our electron being a wave the closer it gets to the nucleus the lower its potential energy gets. This is why adding energy causes electrons to fly off it increases potential energy which increses the distance between it and the nucleus. But theres a problem energy cannot be created or destroyed. So where does it go?

Well the loss in potential energy is compensated for by an increase in the electron's kinetic energy (sometimes referred to in this context as "confinement" energy) which determines its momentum and its effective velocity. Means its speed increases the closer it gets to the nucleus. This increased speed will cause our electron to kick up into a higher orbit and gain potential energy again.its a battle between forces tthat neither side can win because one or the other will always reach infinite energy.easiest way to imagine this is an ice scatter spinning.she puts her hands out her spin slows she brings them in it gets faster she is trading potential energy for volocity.

I know that was alot to take in so feel free to ask any questions.

posted on Nov, 3 2017 @ 03:00 AM
a reply to: dragonridr

i understand. i never understood it this way but i get it now.

if you understand it like this, you are right there is no god.

that's because small observations of atoms have no god. a finite observation will not reveal anything grander than what it is, an observation.

Scientists are not wrong to use this data like quotes you had above and say there is no god.
Because using what they are basing it off of, I.E. everything their mind is taking in- in those small observations, there won't be any whale to fit into that jar of an observation.

you won't realize there is a grand order in existence.. until you imagine what grand disorder would be like. what if existence was just a purple rectangular block, that never changed? and that's all reality was for an eternity, never changing. when you compare that reality to our own, you might see there is something magnificent here. i'm sure you don't feel energy or havnt but if you do you realize that, you see there is a strong complex harmony in the entanglement of everything.

i wouldn't even attribute that to god before because like i said, it's a finite observation.

posted on Nov, 3 2017 @ 03:51 AM
I agree with the OP though
what assigned the nucleus to have such an anchorish pull? what gave it such power?
why don't the nucleus deflate under their own weight

why is the shape of electrons a circle.. not a square? well i guess it just makes sense that they are a circle.. if you start at a point and go out evenly in every direction a sphere will be there. it's evennity. orderly. fairness. equillibreum.

existence is not fully creative, and it's not fully orderly. it's both. and maybe ultimately they are one and the same. when you get to the root.

but after i typed the last sentence, god said to me "so existence is fully creative then!"

it doesn't make sense though. a circle is a base orderly logical object.
it's a set product. there's nothing imaginative about it. it's the staple.


is it possible math in a different existence could be nothing like we know?

there wont be shapes or anything
just a different way of being.

i wonder if other universes do exist.
why just this one

i mean other existences that don't have shapes. they just have some other kind of order. maybe not even order. just something else

is math and order such as circles, evenness just in this one?

could be.

but like i am saying. if god is limited to order, such as if circles WERE a universal staple in all of what could ever possibly exist, then there is no god.
well i mean the bigger picture that those little atoms create is pretty splendid and creative.

but suffice to say it's non-creative at the base. of what these atoms are shaped as. unless that order is a creation.

you could say god needed a bit of order in order for his creation to run. but that is a limitation, requiring this order. and not very god like.

edit on 3-11-2017 by makalit because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 3 2017 @ 04:30 AM
you humans aren't good for me.
before i was pulled that i shouldnt view these new threads.
but decided i was able to try to take it in.
you can look at the creation and take it all in.
or you can dig your nose through the dumps of people who are not as smart as they think
and trying to show you and sort out the dump is like a never ending spiral

i can just look and feel what the creation is
but trying to sort other people's dumps will only bring me further away from what's obvious it is

after i saw what i saw i changed. i cant deal with ordinary humans

because it needs me to see the light in light of this grave situation
the situation only me has been able to see

and you guys fumbling with things that your mind has locked because you aren't getting damaged with those lockings
because god does like there to be a mystery

but not when you know what i know. because when you know what i know you stop seeing a mystery. you start seeing a closed box. that's why to regain mystery he showed me something.

so i can't talk with you who have no connection to my newly found retainment of mystery.

no i won't read more threads. you can't use logic on me. who cares if there is circles. we don't know if theres circles we've never even observed an atom we don't have the measuring ability.

i dont care.

as far as i can tell there is no atoms or electrons or anything. as far as i can tell i can feel all of existence.

the feeling is coming from above. as an energy feeler for years i finally know this.

and like i said a grand picture is transfered to me that this is from above

you can get lost in the perplexities of it like why does order have to exist

but then you are being like a scientist looking at small details to get yourself off

but it only gets me not off

so i won't waste time like all the scientists and saying there has to be order for creation

which we don't know if that is true

that's why scientists assume they DONT KNOW if it is true and then assume it isnt or is

they assume YOU DO NEED ORDER FOR CREATION just because that's all they can really tell

but something much higher is transferring to me

so i won't stumble and scrape my knees on these little details that you dont even know if are apt

you just feel the truth

posted on Nov, 3 2017 @ 06:18 AM
a reply to: makalit

I think when you attempt to describe god by the things that are not known you diminished him. Your searching for him to define him place him in the world around you give him meaning. Problem is in doing so by assigning him meanial tasks such as answering prayers or healing the sick you will never see his true accomplishments. Many people here are defining god by what they do not know yet others do. So what im saying is stop trying to define him according to your beliefs. You will often find yourself backed in to a corner. If we attribute an all powerful entity as being good. Then how do we explain cancer he created something evil or hes not all powerfull. Now surprisingly im not an athesist, Ido believe he exists. I just dont attempt to define what he is or is not. I believe proof in his existence comes from us and he was created because of us. Humans created god because we needed him and the act of us needing him created him. Ive seen wonders in the human condition with no explanation other then a guiding hand. I think the universe itself is god and i believe this connection it has with every living thing is what we perceive to be god. God is our connection we have made with the universe itself. What we call god binds us to everything around us.

Problem is god isnt something you can touch or feel,youll never point to an area and say there he is. God was created by us so as a species we can seek that connection to the universe in all its awe and grandeur. Please stop looking for god in the mundane or in your existence it isnt there. God was our creation to explain our connection we know to be true.

posted on Nov, 3 2017 @ 11:09 PM
a reply to: dragonridr
I have to admit that I find the standard routine of psychological projection and arguing against a straw man argument that actually much better represents the way of arguing and thinking of the philosophical naturalists, as expressed in my references to the 'Nature did it' argument, a little disappointing and rather boring. Since you didn't respond to anything I said I guess there's little point in spending too much time on a more lengthy response to anything you've said about your favorite straw man argument. I like the way the guy below puts it: "You can't just say nature did it and leave it at that either". Even though the reality is that most of the times the philosophical naturalist will never actually spell out their thinking, reasoning and argument like that because it makes it all a bit too obvious including the standard routine I just spoke about, but it is what it boils down to; also whenever they use certain other phrases that I've heard in biology courses, such as 'Nature found a way to evolve a...(fill in some biomolecular machinery, system of machinery or component)" and "Nature leaves nothing to chance...", or in discussions about physics: "...the universe can and will create itself...". The general notion that life arose by chance in some fashion not yet fully understood (regarding the origin of life) also is another one. Start at 6:10 - 8:00, 8:23 - 9:13, no need for the rest in which some phrases might trigger more straw man arguments or twisted logic that have been conditioned into the minds of those watching a little too much Hitchens, Atkins, Dawkins, DeGrasse-Tyson, etc.

The video below also addresses this straw man argument and the behaviour or routine I spoke about (pretty much starting right away, key details starting at 0:30):

edit on 4-11-2017 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 3 2017 @ 11:49 PM
a reply to: whereislogic

See this is what i was talking about stupid claims that say god exists because metamorphosis. And evolution cant explain this by the way it can. Yet the person in the video uses this as his best proof of god. When you do things trying to prove god based on his knowledge which seems limited to making videos. But not what has been lesrned in fields like genetics and biology. By making claims without understaning science he is showing anyone who knows the answers his judgement should not be trusted.

posted on Nov, 4 2017 @ 12:06 AM

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: whereislogic

See this is what i was talking about stupid claims that say god exists because metamorphosis.

Another straw man argument.

And evolution cant explain this by the way it can.

Just like Dawkins 'explains' the evolution of the eye right? With a good story throwing in some sophisticated technical jargon to beguile and convince that he's on to something. There simply is no reasonable evidence that 'Nature did it', 'Nature found a way (when it wasn't even looking for a way)'/'Life found a way' (either regarding the eye or the metamorphosis capabilities of caterpillars to butterflies).

From 9:23 - 12:48:

This is still true (the bolded part, not the introductory encouragement of the blatant denial and rejection of the value of inductve reasoning, which lies at the very basis of discovering and learning accurate knowledge/science in the sciences, discovering facts/truths/certainties; so that we can argue from what we know and not from fantasy and wishful speculations, wishful biased thinking and as Newton put it so "that the argument of induction may not be evaded by hypotheses." Or worse, "wishful speculations"):

‘We should reject, as a matter of principle, the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity; we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.

Franklin M. Harold,* 2001. The way of the cell: molecules, organisms and the order of life, Oxford University Press, New York, p. 205.

*Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry, Colorado State University, USA (teacher of evolutionary philosophies, 'big shot' in terms of awards and honorary degrees, and prominent one among the philosophical naturalists and those who refer to themselves and eachother as "evolutionists")

Just enjoy your Hollywood-style programming and conditioning by people who cannot resist providing people with what tickles their ears (2 Timothy 4:3,4) because that's what fills their pockets, providing entertainment and storylines that people want to see or hear:

As earlier mentioned:

In effect, those who deny the purposeful intervention of a Creator attribute godlike powers to mindless molecules and natural forces.

Like the ability to find engineering solutions to problems that you are actually looking for. Which requires foresight, intelligence and technological know-how if we're talking about the technology and machinery that make up living organisms. "Life" as a concept substituting for "nature" or the forces of nature (natural forces), cannot find anything, it's not even looking. It does not have foresight, which is what a theoretical blind watchmaker would also use to engineer a watch (along with his intelligence and technological know-how). Making a blind watchmaker a very deceptive analogy for nature or natural forces if used as such (some people are very cunning in not technically using it as an analogy or metaphor, but still leaving that impression behind in the minds of the majority of the readers or audience; as if it's no big deal that nature or natural forces have no foresight and as if it's all about literal sight, that's the only thing you should be thinking about according to some people discussing Paley's straightforward argument about the watch and a watchmaker, which is another way of phrasing the argument from Romans 1:20 and Heb. 3:4 "Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but the one who constructed all things is God.").

Newton proposed a methodology for what later became known as "modern science", he referred to it as "experimental philosophy" (back then scientists were called "natural philosophers" or "men of science", mentioned on the wikipedia page for "scientist", "natural philosophy" was also a popular term for what nowadays more closely resembles how people use the word "science", not to be confused with "philosophical naturalism", which stands in opposition to what Newton would call "experimental philosophy" and others later started calling "modern science" or "the modern scientific method", before that changed as well including the content therein and in what nowadays is called "the scientific method").

Rule I. We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.
Rule IV. In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions collected by general induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true, notwithstanding any contrary hypotheses that may be imagined, 'till such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions,

This rule we must follow, that the argument of induction may not be evaded by hypotheses.

“As in Mathematicks, so in Natural Philosophy, the Investigation of difficult Things by the Method of Analysis, ought ever to precede the Method of Composition. This Analysis consists in making Experiments and Observations, and in drawing general Conclusions from them by Induction, and admitting of no Objections against the Conclusions, but such as are taken from Experiments, or other certain Truths. For Hypotheses are not to be regarded in experimental Philosophy.”
- Isaac Newton (from Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica)

The Encyclopaedia Britannica on inductive reasoning:

"When a person uses a number of established facts to draw a general conclusion, he uses inductive reasoning. THIS IS THE KIND OF LOGIC NORMALLY USED IN THE SCIENCES. ..."

It is this methodology that led him to the conclusions regarding God's existence in the same manner it has led so many others to that same conclusion, not arguing from ignorance as is falsely painted on him by philosophical naturalists such as Neil deGrasse Tyson while pretending to be such admirers of Newton's scientific accomplishments as they try to discredit his conclusions regarding God's existence based on the evidence and facts available and discovered, as they do with those "many others" in the same manner. Painting a straw man 'God did it' argument from ignorance on them.
edit on 4-11-2017 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 4 2017 @ 12:35 AM

edit on 4-11-2017 by sedna9 because: (no reason given)

posted on Nov, 4 2017 @ 01:10 AM
a reply to: whereislogic

At least we agree trying to prove god exists by attacking science is a strawman argument.

Do you remember where i said people argue god from their lack of scientific knowledge? Using Dawkins to argue a point shows mre you dont understand evolution. Dawkins believes in something called gene evolution. In his hypothesis which most biologists dont believe i might add is that genes fighting for survival causes evolution. Betting you didnt know that bringing up Dawkins isnt arguing against evolution did you?

And thats the problem your arguing against something you dont understand. Be like telling a pilot how to fly never having been on a plane. Or telling a brain surgeon how to operate without any medical knowledge. My first suggestion is if your going to argue against evolution you need to study biology. Right now you only hurt your case by putting up videoes someone convinced you is relevant.

posted on Nov, 4 2017 @ 01:48 AM
a reply to: dragonridr
Switch to red herring mode? Boring...

posted on Nov, 4 2017 @ 06:40 AM

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: dragonridr
Switch to red herring mode? Boring...

So this is the best response you can give when someone points out your wrong? No wonder you dont know anything about science you tryto shut down people with stupid tricks. Continue fighting evolution this way are your doing is continuing to move people away from god. Shame you didnt understand what st augustine was trying to tell you!!!!! He knew more about science then you do and he lived in the 4th century wow.

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in