Mat Hunt says:
As you may be aware, metacrock and I have been to-ing and fro-ing about his argument about fire in the equations, which essentially states: The laws of physics remain constant and don't change therefore god basically. I answered all his objections despite his bogus claims that I didn't answer any of them, he changed his argument and I answered that one as well and I think that the people on this board understood what was going on and agreed that Meta had indeed lost the challenge to show that his fire in the equations argument works. I still have unreplied to posts explaining why the laws of physics don't change.This statement is so full of lies.I can't understand how it is that a Ph.D. candidate and grown man can't read what people say and reflect it accurately or honestly. The things he's claiming I have said I have denied saying many time. He's dogmatically pretending like he got it right and he's full lying. I've always observed that have very reading compression, this is really basically lying.
However Meta will still crow that although he is a theologian, his knowledge of science is superior to mine, a working scientist. So I don't think much of his argument and I personally don't think he's honest at all in his arguments.
(1) My argument has never been "the laws of phsyics remain stable therefore God" that is a totally dishonest and stupid lie. the reason he says that is because he's basically not capable intellectually of understanding the real argument. It's totally different.
nowhere have I never stupid enough to say "laws of phsyics therefore God." I also have backed off the original position stating that perhaps Mat does know more about it than I do. that's not good enough for him or maybe he just doesn't get what it means. The original position was that laws of phsyics determine what happens, not that they change. Assuming that laws of physics are necessary to make things happen, then I ask where are the laws of phsyics? What makes them work, where are they kept. they can't be laws floating about apart form any structure and theorized that's a good reason (I didn't claim it as a proof) to think that a mind houses the laws as ideas in a mind.
Hunt is such a poor thinker that the transmutes that into "physical laws therefore God." I also admitted that my understanding of the laws of phsyics was not as good as his since he studies in Graduate and perhaps I overstated the extent to which they are laws. I reformulated the argument with a totally different focus, which something else he conveniently leaves out.
(2) "I answered that one as well and I think that the people on this board understood what was going on and agreed that Meta had indeed lost the challenge to show that his fire in the equations argument works."
O yea I lost that so bad. here's what really happened:
..........(a) he never listed to my arugment, he couldn't understand what it was about. he said a bunc h of things that didn't apply. He got everyone on his side (the majority of hte board) to back him up and say "O he's winning' He kicking Meta's ass" even though hone of them could say what the major issues were. When asked to recite what issues beat my argument none of hem had any answer! Like hte typical little liars they are they can't face truth.
mmm(b) I quoted several physicist who backed up exact what I was saying. Mat never quoted any authority or source. all he said was things like "I'm a scientist you must believe me" that constituted about 90% of the arguments he made.
..........(c) the rest of the argument he made said things like "the laws are in the sub atomic particles that's why they act like they do." which is not an answer of any kind becuase it just asserts a meaningless statement, what do you mean to "the laws are in the particles?" again what's makes them laws, how did they get into the particles? he could never say.
...........(d) I quote Martian Rees who he admitted he admires, and I quoted him saying exactly hwat I was saying. I quoted it about five times. every time mat refused to admit that I quoted it and he never answered. O yea they beat it so soundly!
,,,,,,,,,,,,,(e) he never mentions the fact hat I re-wrote the argument. What did he say to the re-write? he said "I'm a scientist you must believe me."
(3) "However Meta will still crow that although he is a theologian, his knowledge of science is superior to mine, a working scientist."
This is another distortion, I think probably becuase he doesn't understand my response. I never said my knowledge of science is supirior to his. This is after many times that he kept saying "I know more about science than you do so you must believe me" and that as substitute for real argument. I said I understand the history and philsophy of science better than he does. and I do. I will stick by it and prove it.
here's where one can find my re-booted argument "fire in the equations."
here's the new abstract to the re-boot version:
There's a contradiction in the framework scinece takes to physical law as purely descriptive, the fact that the description is our perceptions, and the order and regularity we see in nature. Obviously the description is that of something ordered and organized at a certain level, but also something that contains elements of random event and uncertainty. That suggests an ordering principle but one that is of a mind.
That's ok, I still stand behind every statement. The problem is it's always met by atheist claims that laws of physics are no longer seen as perspective, they don't 'make thing happen. They are just descriptive so they are not even laws at all in any way they are just descriptions.
That's really the reason I said "organizing principle" instead "laws f phsyics." I knew that but I didn't realize how fastidious they would be in insisting on their terminology and their way of framing things. you can't say organizing principle beuase it's not scientific. We don't dare use our minds if scinece doesn't tell us we can then only in exactly the way it says to.
I have been arguing that there had to be some kind of structure or soemthing to make the regularity that brought the universe into being. But no it's just popped up for no reason, its' all just pure description and anything can happen,. there's no regularity, no reason for it. It's just what we observe. So I then I would go the other way. If it's just observation then your observation can be incomplete, there could be miracles, nothing to stop them. O no they never happen because "we" don't see it. I say "I do." they say "no I don't' so that means 'we ' don't."
In the final analysis they are just arguing form authority. Science says "you didn't say 'science may I' so you can't believe this." This is why I feel the need present the argument in a new way.
Atheist is in a dilemma.
Either:
I. The has to be a principle of ordering or organizing to account for the regularity we observe in the universe.A. Can't exist apart from universe it describesB. where is it located? Mind is the best candidate
or, if we accept that laws are only descriptive
II. The field is wide open, anything can happen, they open the door to God in scinece:A. Change naturalistic paradigmThe paradigm of natural was based upon the idea of perspective laws of phsyics that told everything in the universe how to behave, and thus replaced God as the major explanations for the way things are.
(1). Materialism based upon cause and effect
Dictionary of Philosophy Anthony Flew, article on "Materialism"
"...the belief that everything that exists is either matter or entirely dependent upon matter for its existence." Center For Theology and the Natural Sciences Contributed by: Dr. Christopher Southgate: God, Humanity and the Cosmos (T&T Clark, 1999) http://www.ctns.org/Information/information.html Is the Big Bang a Moment of Creation?(this source is already linked above)
"...Beyond the Christian community there was even greater unease. One of the fundamental assumptions of modern science is that every physical event can be sufficiently explained solely in terms of preceding physical causes. Quite apart from its possible status as the moment of creation, the Big Bang singularity is an offense to this basic assumption. Thus some philosophers of science have opposed the very idea of the Big Bang as irrational and untestable."
No comments:
Post a Comment