|
Author
|
Topic: taiji2's complaint
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10085 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 5.1
|
|
Message 39 of 85 (737323)
09-22-2014 12:59 PM
|
Reply to: Message 15 by taiji2
09-21-2014 1:18 PM
|
|
Re: opening remark
Your tips are well-intended and taken as so. thanks. But this is their game, their rules. If I played their game as they do, it might change me in ways I wouldn't like. The problem is that if we use your rules, then anything made up at the drop of the hat will be equally true as scientific theories backed by mountains of evidence. Pink Fairies causing gravity will be on level ground with Relativity, and with no way of saying that one is better than the other. What you are asking for is that everything be true by the mere act of speaking it. We happen to think that such an epistemology is not only worthless, but dangerous as well.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 15 by taiji2, posted 09-21-2014 1:18 PM | | taiji2 has not replied |
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10085 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 5.1
|
|
|
Message 41 of 85 (737336)
09-22-2014 2:58 PM
|
Reply to: Message 40 by taiji2
09-22-2014 2:34 PM
|
|
Re: tired worn pratts
The question you people here need to chew on is that if the natural laws in fact are a creation of god (or what ever term you wish to use), where does that leave your arguments? If clouds are really made by invisible pink fairies, where does that leave meteorologists?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 40 by taiji2, posted 09-22-2014 2:34 PM | | taiji2 has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 44 by taiji2, posted 09-22-2014 3:39 PM | | Taq has replied |
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10085 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 5.1
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 46 of 85 (737342)
09-22-2014 3:53 PM
|
Reply to: Message 44 by taiji2
09-22-2014 3:39 PM
|
|
Re: tired worn pratts
are you presenting a hypothesis?
you didn't answer my implied question.
I didn't answer it for the same reason you didn't answer mine. First, you need to produce evidence that god created the natural laws. Until then, the question is a waste of time.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 44 by taiji2, posted 09-22-2014 3:39 PM | | taiji2 has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 47 by taiji2, posted 09-22-2014 4:12 PM | | Taq has replied |
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10085 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 5.1
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 48 of 85 (737345)
09-22-2014 4:16 PM
|
Reply to: Message 47 by taiji2
09-22-2014 4:12 PM
|
|
Re: tired worn pratts
The truth is that god creating the natural laws is logically implied from the idea that creation came from nothing. No, it isn't. That is something you made up.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 47 by taiji2, posted 09-22-2014 4:12 PM | | taiji2 has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 49 by taiji2, posted 09-22-2014 4:27 PM | | Taq has replied |
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10085 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 5.1
|
|
|
Message 50 of 85 (737350)
09-22-2014 4:36 PM
|
Reply to: Message 49 by taiji2
09-22-2014 4:27 PM
|
|
Re: tired worn pratts
We will see. It is what logically came to my mind, considering what creation implies and what nothingness is understood to be. That's not how logic works.
You have not answered my now specific question. You have to establish that god did create the natural laws before you can ask such a question. You might as well ask what we are going to do when people claim that rainbows are dragon farts.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 49 by taiji2, posted 09-22-2014 4:27 PM | | taiji2 has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 51 by taiji2, posted 09-22-2014 4:46 PM | | Taq has replied |
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10085 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 5.1
|
|
|
Message 53 of 85 (737354)
09-22-2014 5:01 PM
|
Reply to: Message 51 by taiji2
09-22-2014 4:46 PM
|
|
Re: tired worn pratts
don't want to answer a direct question, huh? Waiting for you to back the claims made in the question.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 51 by taiji2, posted 09-22-2014 4:46 PM | | taiji2 has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 55 by taiji2, posted 09-22-2014 5:13 PM | | Taq has replied |
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10085 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 5.1
|
|
|
Message 56 of 85 (737359)
09-22-2014 5:15 PM
|
Reply to: Message 55 by taiji2
09-22-2014 5:13 PM
|
|
Re: tired worn pratts
Your honor, will you please instruct the witness to answer the question as directed? Objection, leading the witness. Judge: Objection upheld. "In common law systems that rely on testimony by witnesses, a leading question or suggestive interrogation[1] is a question that suggests the particular answer or contains the information the examiner is looking to have confirmed." Leading question - Wikipedia Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 55 by taiji2, posted 09-22-2014 5:13 PM | | taiji2 has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 57 by taiji2, posted 09-22-2014 5:18 PM | | Taq has replied |
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10085 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 5.1
|
|
|
Message 59 of 85 (737362)
09-22-2014 5:34 PM
|
Reply to: Message 57 by taiji2
09-22-2014 5:18 PM
|
|
Re: tired worn pratts
Interestingly, I know a judge. I went to school with him and he is in town. I doubt he would have said that. The game is fun though, by all means continue ..... take all the rope you want. You are leading the witness, as already shown. You need to establish that god created the natural laws first. You don't get to throw your unproven conclusion into a question and act like it is already fact. That's not how it works. How would I answer the question "What are you going to do when creationists claim natural laws as part of gods' creation."? I would ask the person for the evidence that God created the natural laws. That is what I would do. Each and every time creationists have been asked to back up this claim, we are met with nothing but silence.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 57 by taiji2, posted 09-22-2014 5:18 PM | | taiji2 has not replied |
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10085 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 5.1
|
|
|
Message 74 of 85 (737428)
09-23-2014 8:19 PM
|
Reply to: Message 67 by taiji2
09-23-2014 6:27 AM
|
|
Re: The Plan
There we can both admit we don't have evidence and go forward. How do you go forward without any evidence?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 67 by taiji2, posted 09-23-2014 6:27 AM | | taiji2 has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 75 by Coyote, posted 09-23-2014 8:39 PM | | Taq has not replied |
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10085 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 5.1
|
|
|
Message 82 of 85 (737452)
09-24-2014 4:46 PM
|
Reply to: Message 79 by taiji2
09-24-2014 10:53 AM
|
|
Re: The Plan
This is a debate on creation. Creation speaks of something coming from nothing. Debate on that nothingness and how something came from it is on-topic in my opinion. We have no evidence for a nothingness, so how can we debate it? Also, the creation of lightning is something from something. The creation of planets and stars is something from something. Creation, as a word, in no way implies something from nothing.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 79 by taiji2, posted 09-24-2014 10:53 AM | | taiji2 has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 83 by NoNukes, posted 09-24-2014 8:04 PM | | Taq has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2