[_ Old Earth _] "God and Natural Law"

[Sparkey]

I'm still becoming familiar with a new Christian resource that continues to delight me. Why delight? Well, I'm glad you asked. It's because the Word of God is given due respect and the contributors don't condescend when they answer the "tough questions" from a Biblical perspective.

One example is found in the article by Doctor Jason Lisle, Ph.D. entitled, "God and Natural Law".

• [list:2w3s47el]"The universe obeys certain rulesâ€â€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 principlesâ€â€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)

[/list:u:2w3s47el]

Even the subtitles in the article are interesting to me:

• [list:2w3s47el][*]The Word of God
  [*]The Law of Life (Biogenesis)[/*:m:2w3s47el]
  [*]The Laws of Chemistry[/*:m:2w3s47el]
  [*]The Laws of Planetary Motion[/*:m:2w3s47el]
  [*]The Laws of Physics[/*:m:2w3s47el]
  [*]The Laws of Mathematics[/*:m:2w3s47el]
  [*]The Laws of Logic[/*:m:2w3s47el]
  [*]The Uniformity of Nature[/*:m:2w3s47el]

[/*:m:2w3s47el][/list:u:2w3s47el]

Read the full article here: -------> "God & Natural Law" <-------

It is my sincere hope that the reader enjoy the article as well as the website found here: http://www.answersingenesis.org

~Sparrow

 

[lordkalvan]

This just seems to be the anthropic principle given a slightly different set of clothes. It doesn't make it any less logically shaky.

 

[Sparkey]

I'd be interested in hearing your opinion on that website if you'd care to debate Dr. Lisle. He's no slouch when it comes to logic. Be sure to let me (us) know if you choose to take up the challenge.

Cordially,
~Sparrowhawke

 

[lordkalvan]

I'd be interested in hearing your opinion on that website if you'd care to debate Dr. Lisle. He's no slouch when it comes to logic. Be sure to let me (us) know if you choose to take up the challenge.

Well, I'd be quite interested in seeing your opinion of how this isn't the anthropic principle restated. Perhaps Dr Lisle would like to come here and discuss the matter in an open forum?

 

[Sparkey]

I'd be interested in hearing your opinion on that website if you'd care to debate Dr. Lisle. He's no slouch when it comes to logic. Be sure to let me (us) know if you choose to take up the challenge.

Well, I'd be quite interested in seeing your opinion of how this isn't the anthropic principle restated. Perhaps Dr Lisle would like to come here and discuss the matter in an open forum?

So you would decline the challenge. I don't blame ya.

Before we (you and I, sir) discuss the anthropic principle might I not ask you to defend your statement about the author being on "logically shaky" grounds? Is there such a thing as "logically shaky"? Perhaps you meant he is guilty of fallacious reasoning? If this was indeed your meaning you will need more than your mere assertion to establish the claim.

~Sparrow

 

[lordkalvan]

So you would decline the challenge. I don't blame ya.

I am quite happy to discuss the matter with Dr lisle in a public forum where others are free to comment, such as this one. As Dr Lisle has not issued me with a challenge, then I can scarcely be expected to take it up.

Before we (you and I, sir) discuss the anthropic principle might I not ask you to defend your statement about the author being on "logically shaky" grounds? Is there such a thing as "logically shaky"? Perhaps you meant he is guilty of fallacious reasoning?

You seem to be spltting hairs. Perhaps you would care to elaborate?

If this was indeed your meaning you will need more than your mere assertion to establish the claim.

The anthropic principle as used here is a shaky principle on which to base an argument, if only because it assumes its conclusion: the 'laws' of the Universe are such that they have to be 'just right' for the Universe to exist, yet it exists, therefore they must have been designed otherwise they could not possibly have come out 'just right'. This also begs the question of what constitutes 'just right' as most of the Universe is fatally inimical to life as we know, as indeed was Earth for much of its history. The paragraph you quoted was a farrago of fallacious reasoning, not least in its assumption that the 'just rightness' could not possibly have come about as a result of naturally-occurring processes.

 

[Sparkey]

Before we (you and I, sir) discuss the anthropic principle might I not ask you to defend your statement about the author being on "logically shaky" grounds? Is there such a thing as "logically shaky"? Perhaps you meant he is guilty of fallacious reasoning?

You seem to be spltting hairs. Perhaps you would care to elaborate?
[quote:1bwha0gk]If this was indeed your meaning you will need more than your mere assertion to establish the claim.

[/quote:1bwha0gk]
I'm not splitting hairs at all. You made the statement, I challenge. You are incorrect when you say that there is any logical basis for your criticism of the author who is not here to defend himself. "Logically shaky" indeed. Harrumph!

 

[Barbarian]

"Natural Law" in the theological sense, means that law which is innately understood by all humans, as opposed to the truths revealed by Christianity. Men who are not aware of or able to realize those truths are still held accountable to natural law.

From the article:

Notice that molecules-to-man evolution violates the law of biogenesis.

The people who run Answers in Genesis are well aware that evolutionary theory is not about the origin of life. But given that these folks have altered the statements of scientists to make it seem they meant something they did not, before, I'm not surprised that they do it again.

It's wise to check a second, reputable source before you believe anything you read on AiG.

 

[Sparkey]

Dr. Jason Lisle states that "an important element in scientific study and the drawing of conclusions was this: that scientists usually are not aware of their presuppositions (i.e. they interpret scientific evidence in light of their existing worldview). It thus made it easier for him to see that intelligent scientists, many who were his professors, can disagree on what the evidence really means, for they have different starting points."

As an astrophysicist, with a Ph.D. from the University of Colorado at Boulder, he is only one of the contributors. Barbarian, you've stated, "It's wise to check a second, reputable source before you believe anything you read on AiG." What specific "reputable sources" did you check before adding your "Amen" to those amateurs who contribute at Wiki? Do you remember your recent post: Evidence for an Old Earth. You spoke of another members quoted wiki article, and in the same sentence, mentioned "overwhelming evidence".

Good advice well tested is appreciated. If in fact your advice boils down to "any source that disagrees with me is wrong," we would do well to take that under consideration as well. I'm pretty sure you would agree with me when I say that Wiki isn't the most reputable source of scientific information on the planet. What if I started quoting that VenomTubeX guy as a "reputable source"? No, not gonna happen. At least not on my part. Just by the way, Barbarian - I don't actually believe that you base your opinions on wiki articles and know you've worked hard for your credentials and certifications.

~Sparrowhawke


PS - For those interested, the bibliographies and credentials of those contributors of http://www.AnswersInGenesis.org can be found ---------> HERE <------------

 

[Barbarian]

As an astrophysicist, with a Ph.D. from the University of Colorado at Boulder, he is only one of the contributors. Barbarian, you've stated, "It's wise to check a second, reputable source before you believe anything you read on AiG." What specific "reputable sources" did you check before adding your "Amen" to those amateurs who contribute at Wiki?

I don't trust people who lie to me, which is why I recommended extreme skepticism when reading AiG.

While a PhD in astrophysics is impressive, a junior in biology at a decent university would be more qualified than an astrophysicist about the theory of evolution. The fact that this gentleman doesn't even know what the theory is about is sufficient evidence to be skeptical of anything he says about it.

Do you remember your recent post: Evidence for an Old Earth. You spoke of another members quoted wiki article, and in the same sentence, mentioned "overwhelming evidence".

There is, indeed overwhelming evidence, from many independent sources of information. A nice summary of them, in a not too technical work is Dalrymple's The Age of the Earth.
http://www.amazon.com/Age-Earth-G-Dalry ... 0804723311

Good advice well tested is appreciated. If in fact your advice boils down to "any source that disagrees with me is wrong," we would do well to take that under consideration as well.

My advice is to be very skeptical of people who have proven to be dishonest. AiG has earned that distinction. Would you like to know the details?

I'm pretty sure you would agree with me when I say that Wiki isn't the most reputable source of scientific information on the planet.

For the AiG assertion that astronomers Clark and Caswell thought the number of supernova remnants was "a mystery", you can check a reputable source:
Clark and Caswell, 1979, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 174:267.

 

[lordkalvan]

I'm not splitting hairs at all. You made the statement, I challenge. You are incorrect when you say that there is any logical basis for your criticism of the author who is not here to defend himself. "Logically shaky" indeed. Harrumph!

This is neither an elaboration nor a response to the points I made. Many writers are critiqued without being there to defend themselves, so I do not understand the argument you are trying to make.

 

[Sparkey]

I'm not splitting hairs at all. You made the statement, I challenge. You are incorrect when you say that there is any logical basis for your criticism of the author who is not here to defend himself. "Logically shaky" indeed. Harrumph!

This is neither an elaboration nor a response to the points I made. Many writers are critiqued without being there to defend themselves, so I do not understand the argument you are trying to make.

We might be in agreement if we stick to the "we don't understand each other" part. Especially when you say, "The paragraph you quoted was a farrago of fallacious reasoning, not least in its assumption that the 'just rightness' could not possibly have come about as a result of naturally-occurring processes."

Huh?

I've never heard of a farrago of fallacious anything. It will take me a bit to get out my lexicon and try to understand your meaning. Did you mean to say that what Dr. Lisle stated was logically unsound? That's what I thought you said. Maybe I was wrong. I'll see if I can look up the fallacy of farrago and try to understand better but it might take me a moment or two. Do you have a quote or source handy? Is this a formal logical farrago? Like if you mean there are several different fallacies you are in reference to, like he committed so many errors in logic that you had to invent a new term to express your exasperation?

Cordially,
~Sparrow

 

[lordkalvan]

We might be in agreement if we stick to the "we don't understand each other" part. Especially when you say, "The paragraph you quoted was a farrago of fallacious reasoning, not least in its assumption that the 'just rightness' could not possibly have come about as a result of naturally-occurring processes."

Huh?

I've never heard of a farrago of fallacious anything.

Farrago is a plural noun; it means a confused mixture. Would you be less confused if I had said 'a confused mixture of fallacious reasoning'? You are welcome to take issue with my assertion, but your complaint seems otherwise largely irrelevant to the arguments I made. I don't know why you are fussing over it so. Even if your point was well made and well taken, the substance of my post is obvious and if you don't want to take issue with that I can only wonder why.

It will take me a bit to get out my lexicon and try to understand your meaning. Did you mean to say that what Dr. Lisle stated was logically unsound? That's what I thought you said. Maybe I was wrong.

See, you understood all along.

I'll see if I can look up the fallacy of farrago and try to understand better but it might take me a moment or two.

Now you're the one who's confusing me. Either that or you're not paying attention. You are inverting the structure of the sentence to no purpose that I can understand.

Do you have a quote or source handy? Is this a formal logical farrago? Like if you mean there are several different fallacies you are in reference to, like he committed so many errors in logic that you had to invent a new term to express your exasperation?

I think the argument in my post is clear, whether you want to take issue with the grammar and vocabulary or not. Perhaps you should try addressing the argument rather than the structure of the language.

 

[Sparkey]

There have been a lot of words have been exchanged but if you wish to define my position as the antithesis of your statement about the anthropic principle, I'd just simply pass. As the OP said, I found the article interesting. When you said that Dr. Lisle was on "shaky logical" grounds I said "prove it".

You haven't. Neither have you retracted your unfounded statement. If you would like to discuss something about the article, okay. I'm still unclear what your purpose is?
____________________________________________________

I'm still becoming familiar with a new Christian resource that continues to delight me. Why delight? Well, I'm glad you asked. It's because the Word of God is given due respect and the contributors don't condescend when they answer the "tough questions" from a Biblical perspective.

One example is found in the article by Doctor Jason Lisle, Ph.D. entitled, "God and Natural Law".

• [list:3ckmosnd]"The universe obeys certain rulesâ€â€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 principlesâ€â€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)

[/list:u:3ckmosnd]

Even the subtitles in the article are interesting to me:

• [list:3ckmosnd][*]The Word of God
  [*]The Law of Life (Biogenesis)[/*:m:3ckmosnd]
  [*]The Laws of Chemistry[/*:m:3ckmosnd]
  [*]The Laws of Planetary Motion[/*:m:3ckmosnd]
  [*]The Laws of Physics[/*:m:3ckmosnd]
  [*]The Laws of Mathematics[/*:m:3ckmosnd]
  [*]The Laws of Logic[/*:m:3ckmosnd]
  [*]The Uniformity of Nature[/*:m:3ckmosnd]

[/*:m:3ckmosnd][/list:u:3ckmosnd]

Read the full article here: -------> "God & Natural Law" <-------

It is my sincere hope that the reader enjoy the article as well as the website found here: http://www.answersingenesis.org

~Sparrow

 

[lordkalvan]

There have been a lot of words have been exchanged but if you wish to define my position as the antithesis of your statement about the anthropic principle, I'd just simply pass.

I don't define your position at all; you can define it yourself. I was referring to what Dr Lisle seemed to be arguing.

As the OP said, I found the article interesting.

As you are entitled to.

When you said that Dr. Lisle was on "shaky logical" grounds I said "prove it".

I explained why I believed the anthropic principle to be shaky grounds on which to base an argument for the supernatural origins and design of the Universe. I doubt that this is a matter susceptible of absolute proof, so your demand was one that could not be fulfilled.

You haven't.

No, I haven't 'proved' Lisle is wrong, but I have given you my reasons as to why I regard his logic in this instance to be shaky.

Neither have you retracted your unfounded statement.

Why should I retract a statement that is neither unfounded nor subsequently not supported with argument?

If you would like to discuss something about the article, okay.

I have stated my opinion that its fundamental premises are flawed.

I'm still unclear what your purpose is?

This is a public forum inviting comment on posts within the rules of the forum. My purpose is to engage in a discussion around posts that I find interesting or thought-provoking for whatever reason. You made a post and I commented on it, subsequently doing my best to clarify my original comment. I am sorry that you have found my comments so unsatisfactory. If you ask specific questions relating to the content of my posts, I will do my best to clarify my thinking.

 

[Barbarian]

BTW, Lisle is also wrong about Christian belief. He makes this remarkable claim:

According to Genesis 1, God supernaturally created the first diverse kinds of life on earth and made them to reproduce after their kind.

That is not in the Bible; it's a common revision of YE creationists, but that doesn't justify changing God's word. It says nothing at all about "reproducing after their kinds."

Lisle is bi-ignorant. He doesn't know what evolutionary theory is, and he doesn't know what the Bible says.

 

[Sparkey]

Greetings, Barbarian!

We're getting to know each other better here, you and I. I hope you never think that what I'm saying is part of the "I'm right and I know it all" side of Christianity or Science. The fact is, I don't know and like to peer intently into the Bible as well as listen to what men who are smarter than me say.

There does seem to be some conflict between what God did and what men see though. When I look at the Bible there are things that are never changing and deeper study reveals more and more. Obviously I believe (as I suspect you do also) that the Holy Spirit inspired men of God to write the Sacred Word of God so many thousands and thousands of years ago for reason and that reason is "us".

As far as how one man whom I've never met goes and with whom I can not hope to achieve 1000% agreement? It's okay to me to think about what he says. Further I do like and appreciate the deeper thoughts that are presented at the AnswersInGenesis site because they come to conclusions by giving priority to the Word of Truth and although they don't ignore the observations of the Scientific community they also don't consider the respect of other scholars or men to be greater than the commitment to Jesus and the Word.

God has declared that He "delights" in showing men who consider themselves to be established in their own selves, who do not consider his "ways", to be ignorant. He further declares that those who follow Him will never be ashamed. That doesn't mean what many Christians who are deeply embroiled in the "battle" between evolution and religion think it does. Why fight? <---- that's the better question, right? Too many times (and sad to say this is for Christians) we ignore the real command in the Word: to love each other as we love ourselves. For me to say that you're free to believe what you want is almost presumptuous on my part, isn't it? Of course you are free. That is why Jesus died for you. We will also know the truth and that truth (about love between the saints, not about the "battle" between some about knowledge itself) <---- that truth is what sets us free. The "truth" about why Jesus was sent to us, the truth about why he came to live with us in the flesh. That truth.

Just my way of trying to say that I do appreciate you and your opinion.

*Sparrow stuffs his fingers in his ears*
*Sparrow, confused starts to run in circles while screaming, "I can't hear you, I can't hear you"
*Sparrow prays.
*Sparrow listens.

Sadly that's the truth of the "battle report" between Christians and those whom they define as "others" or "opponents" of their beliefs. So, even though I do have thoughts that I like to consider on a deep basis, thoughts about the very words of God Himself, I must always strive to keep perspective and would apologize to you personally for those times when the Love of God for you, Barbarian, was not held in the deepest form of respect.

Cordially yours,
~Sparrow

 

[Barbarian]

There does seem to be some conflict between what God did and what men see though. When I look at the Bible there are things that are never changing and deeper study reveals more and more. Obviously I believe (as I suspect you do also) that the Holy Spirit inspired men of God to write the Sacred Word of God so many thousands and thousands of years ago for reason and that reason is "us".

Yes. That is why it doesn't work as a science book. It's about God and man and our relationship.

As far as how one man whom I've never met goes and with whom I can not hope to achieve 1000% agreement? It's okay to me to think about what he says. Further I do like and appreciate the deeper thoughts that are presented at the AnswersInGenesis site because they come to conclusions by giving priority to the Word of Truth and although they don't ignore the observations of the Scientific community they also don't consider the respect of other scholars or men to be greater than the commitment to Jesus and the Word.

I'm concerned about their willingness to bend the truth when they think it's safe. And I wish that they would not tout people who are ignorant of science and faith.

God has declared that He "delights" in showing men who consider themselves to be established in their own selves, who do not consider his "ways", to be ignorant. He further declares that those who follow Him will never be ashamed.

I am ashamed whenever I do what is wrong. And I do my level best to follow him. I would be very wary of someone who is never ashamed; they are called sociopaths. Perhaps that verse is about something else.

Just my way of trying to say that I do appreciate you and your opinion.

And I, you and your opinion. My fault is a regrettable bluntness.

Being a Catholic, whose faith teaches that anyone who loves God and sincerely tries to do His will is one of us, I feel a deep responsibility to respect the beliefs of others, even those who seem to be seriously wrong. The love of God is what counts, as is the love of one's fellow man. That's what the law is about.

 

[Sparkey]

There does seem to be some conflict between what God did and what men see though. When I look at the Bible there are things that are never changing and deeper study reveals more and more. Obviously I believe (as I suspect you do also) that the Holy Spirit inspired men of God to write the Sacred Word of God so many thousands and thousands of years ago for reason and that reason is "us".

The love of God is what counts, as is the love of one's fellow man. That's what the law is about.

Yep, that's the law. And yours is probably the most appropriate statement that can be made in this thread entitled, "God and Natural Law". Thank you, sir.

Cordially yours,
~Sparrow