nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 290:
Line 290: + + + + + + + + +
→Social effects of Creationist ideas: Try getting your facts right
::::::::::Furthermore, your reference to the universality of natural laws as Christian invention is quite interesting. First, having a deity is not only not a guarantee that laws are uniform, it is the opposite of it. A deity could change the laws at will, but without a deity, there would be no reason to assume that laws change, unless there is a higher level law at work. Unless your deity doesn't have what we call free will, but has to behave predictable. But the funny thing is that while you frame the idea that naturals are universal as the essence of a the Christian world view, this same world view was expressively banned by John Paul XXI in the 13th century. Some people say that this ban marks the early beginning of modern science, because it had as an unintended side effect that scientist had to work around the provisions of this ban. But again, you had Christians on both side of the aisle. By the way this view of yours is rooted in Aristotle's teachings, which made it to Europe through the Arabs. Not exactly Christian roots either.
::::::::::Furthermore, your reference to the universality of natural laws as Christian invention is quite interesting. First, having a deity is not only not a guarantee that laws are uniform, it is the opposite of it. A deity could change the laws at will, but without a deity, there would be no reason to assume that laws change, unless there is a higher level law at work. Unless your deity doesn't have what we call free will, but has to behave predictable. But the funny thing is that while you frame the idea that naturals are universal as the essence of a the Christian world view, this same world view was expressively banned by John Paul XXI in the 13th century. Some people say that this ban marks the early beginning of modern science, because it had as an unintended side effect that scientist had to work around the provisions of this ban. But again, you had Christians on both side of the aisle. By the way this view of yours is rooted in Aristotle's teachings, which made it to Europe through the Arabs. Not exactly Christian roots either.
::::::::::The whole idea of irreducible complexity, for example, is an exercise to come to a point where you take "recourse to the heavens". Or who did create the irreducible complex? [[User:Order|Order]] 18:20, 3 February 2008 (EST)
::::::::::The whole idea of irreducible complexity, for example, is an exercise to come to a point where you take "recourse to the heavens". Or who did create the irreducible complex? [[User:Order|Order]] 18:20, 3 February 2008 (EST)
::::::::::: "''Christianity is a a very poor predictor as to what a person did back in that time.''": What do you mean by that?
::::::::::: "''But what is striking that those opposed to scientific finding typically pointed at the bible, while the scientists pointed at their observations.''": Yeah? I think that's just unsubstantiated rhetoric.
::::::::::: "''Opponents pointed at various quotes from the bible, while Galileo pointed at his telescope.''": On the contrary, it seems that Galileo didn't think that experimental proof was necessary, and refused to explain his evidence to others. See [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1625/ here].
::::::::::: "''Furthermore, your reference to the universality of natural laws as Christian invention ...''": ''Principle'', not ''invention''.
::::::::::: "''First, having a deity is not only not a guarantee that laws are uniform, it is the opposite of it.''": You again commit the fallacy of conflating the Creator God with "a deity". I never said that it was because of "a deity", but because of God. To elaborate, it was because of the Christian understanding of the nature of God, not simply because of "a deity". This was the reason that Greek science didn't take off: they thought that the gods might change the laws of nature on a whim, so there was no point in studying them. But Christianity, because of it's understanding of God, saw things differently, which is ''acknowledged by the experts'' as being one of the main reasons why Christianity gave rise to science.
::::::::::: "''...without a deity, there would be no reason to assume that laws change...''": And neither would there be any reason to assume that they ''don't'' change.
::::::::::: "''But the funny thing is that while you frame the idea that naturals are universal as the essence of a the Christian world view, this same world view was expressively banned by John Paul XXI in the 13th century.''": Wrong. That is, you are wrong to say that this is the way I frame the idea. This is the documented reason that science started in a Christian worldview. Despite all the comments that I've made to the contrary, and despite your own acknowledgements, you still seem to be acting as though this is something that I and I alone believe and promote, whereas all I'm doing is relating the conclusions and evidence of others. I don't know what you're talking about with John Paul XXI, but given your inability to grasp other ideas, I'll take that with a grain of salt.
::::::::::: "''The whole idea of irreducible complexity, for example, is an exercise to come to a point where you take "recourse to the heavens". Or who did create the irreducible complex?''": The idea of irreducible complexity is that some things could not have arisen by chance, and this is based on ''evidence''. That it happens to be compatible with the idea of a creator may be an uncomfortable fact for your point of view, but it's not the basis of the argument.
::::::::::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 20:13, 3 February 2008 (EST)