Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post
why couldn't you do this on the 1x1 board?

Why does it have to be a debate?
you kept insisting you 'beat' my argument and came out swinging when I was busy and told I was. So you set up the idea that you wanted a contest, then you run away when time comes to for it.

Obviously there's some reality there because no scientist is ever willing to blow explaining causes. they don't say "we don't need a theory of orig because theres' no origin to explain we are just imposing order because that's what we do."

People are naturally curious.
that's not an answer to my argument. It doesn't answer what I said. It's a reason to think about it, not a reason to dismiss it.

actually it contradicts scinece itself. Why bother to make systemic observations about he way things work if there's no order, we are just imposing it from within ourselves? Not only that but it contradicts the idea of a descriptive law of phscis, why bother to describe if it's just us imposing order instead of a real description?

I see you are using the term order without actually defining it.
I see you are playing your tricks of language again.I did define it. don't you know an operational definition when you see one?

You are incorrectly making the assumption that the reason why scientists measure, they make observations and perform experiments and from their results they see that the universe consistently behaviours according to some fixed rules, so far we have not observed anything different.
the same observation Whtiehead made, the same one Newton made, the basis of kicking God out of Science that LaPlace made. you are using the ideological prlaform of the cop out period after atheism abandoned LaPLace because it could no longer justify observations without assumptino of physical laws, brought on QM theory.

As the laws of physics are just man made descriptions, the constancy of the way that nature are inbuilt into the equations.
which also means it's a cultural construct, it's relative, it's not truth and it can be argued with.

I think I do. I say why don't things fall up? why aren't thing repelled by mass? why don't universe pop into my tea cup. I think we get an idea what I mean.

Actually you don't. I want a precise definition from you on the matter. It wastes times if we are using different notions of the word. Matt Slick accused me of this, but he really didn't understand the importance of it.
those are very simple questions why don't you answer them. The way I'm using "order is obvious I've explained it two oar three times. I've explained it in terms of the very things I"m asking you to explain.

when we argue about the resurrection Hans say "we don't see people getting up from being dead." that's a from of order. why don't see that? because apparently it never happens. you want to just leave it there it's just a coincidence that it never happens, but there has to be some kind of principle that prevents it. Otherwise we would see it. Since you admitted that's a human observation it can also be wrong. there can be other observations that you are just ignoring where in rare cases some people do get up from being dead.

when it comes to what you don't want to happen you assert it never does, when it comes to what you don't want then you assert a rule of some implication of a rule.

no it doesn't. I can assuming without necessarily having an idea of deity. you are rather balking at the conclusion not at the premise.

It does but you just can't see it.

you didn't read very carefully. I was talking about early modern scinece when LaPlace used perspective laws to take God out of scinece.

I did read it as a matter of fact. Laplace never invoked the notion of a deity because he didn't need to. He modelled the observations as he saw them.
Of cousre Laplace didn't evoke a deity, to the contrary, he kicked one out! that's what he's infamous for! you don't get it? He's is my all time candidate for fink of the ages becasue he took God out merely for a stupid reason like "I have psychical laws instead." Of course he took out the reason for having them.

I never said he appealed to deity, try reading the words next time.