Conservation of energy

[The Tanager]

I don't know if this should go here, because I'm not making a religious point off of this here, but it could possibly clear up some confusion in another thread.

Which of these would you say is the law of conservation of energy? Or how would you tighten the law up more?

(1) Matter/energy/mass are eternal

(2) In a closed system, the total amount of mass/energy/matter is constant or conserved. That the system does not gain or lose any energy when transformations take place within it.

[For_The_Kingdom]

You don't need to conclude that something is non-existent because that is the default position. Something is claimed to exist when there is compelling evidence to demonstrate its existence. The failure on the part of theists is their inability to produce a set of criteria and a method of applying them that clearly distinguishes between what actually exists and what is a product of the imagination. All they have is rhetoric.

Well, I guess I'd like to know what criteria/method would be acceptable to you.

[benchwarmer]

Since no statement of fact was made, this is jumping to illogical conclusions.

Nonsense. "The term supernatural applies to things which are as good as non-existent."

Statement of fact^

You keep missing these words -> "as good as".

I don't know what you think those extra words mean, but those of us who use that phrase are trying to impart the concept that while we can't disprove imagined entities, we also don't assume they exist. i.e. the are 'as good as' non existent. That is not the same as claiming they are non existent.

Numerous people, including myself, have already granted that some god/gods may exist. However, until someone has any observational evidence whatsoever, there's no point in ascribing anything to unobserved imaginings.

I don't claim pixies created the universe, but they might have.
I don't claim a god created the universe, but it might have.
etc.

For something we don't know, those of us living in reality prefer to say "I don't know", not imagine up an invisible thing and claim it must be responsible.

God of the gaps arguments are fun, but in the end are useless as they don't do anything other than potentially prematurely stop the search for the real answer.

[brunumb]

You don't need to conclude that something is non-existent because that is the default position. Something is claimed to exist when there is compelling evidence to demonstrate its existence. The failure on the part of theists is their inability to produce a set of criteria and a method of applying them that clearly distinguishes between what actually exists and what is a product of the imagination. All they have is rhetoric.

Well, I guess I'd like to know what criteria/method would be acceptable to you.

That's not the issue. Your response is nothing more than a dodge or an attempt to get someone else to do the work you can't do for yourself. It is the inability of theists to produce the criteria that is particularly telling. Until then it is quite reasonable to dismiss those unsupported claims pertaining to their religious beliefs as nothing more than imaginary constructs and wishful thinking.

[For_The_Kingdom]

You keep missing these words -> "as good as".

I don't know what you think those extra words mean, but those of us who use that phrase are trying to impart the concept that while we can't disprove imagined entities, we also don't assume they exist. i.e. the are 'as good as' non existent. That is not the same as claiming they are non existent.

I aint buying it...from what I gather, it is the same as claiming "they are non existent".

Numerous people, including myself, have already granted that some god/gods may exist.

Yeah, the "pretend" agnostic approach.

However, until someone has any observational evidence whatsoever, there's no point in ascribing anything to unobserved imaginings.

Which is the same thing I say as it relates to macroevolution.

I don't claim pixies created the universe, but they might have.
I don't claim a god created the universe, but it might have.
etc.

I just don't get that vibe from you people.

For something we don't know, those of us living in reality prefer to say "I don't know", not imagine up an invisible thing and claim it must be responsible.

More like "We don't know...but lets wait on the verdict from science, shall we?"

Your "I don't know" doesn't mean "Maybe God did it, maybe he didn't"...it is more like "I don't know, science hasn't figured it out yet...but give it time, and it will."

Supernatural explanations aren't even considered.

God of the gaps arguments are fun

So are Nature of the gaps arguments.

, but in the end are useless as they don't do anything other than potentially prematurely stop the search for the real answer.

Nature of the gaps are also useless, as naturalistic claims not backed up by science is an act of blind faith.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 164 by For_The_Kingdom]

I don't think you understand the term macroevolution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevol ... oevolution

The difference is only time-scale.

Evolution has been observed... and is no longer a theory, but fact.

This post is about conservation of energy...

[For_The_Kingdom]

That's not the issue.

Nonsense. You said..

"The failure on the part of theists is their inability to produce a set of criteria and a method of applying them that clearly distinguishes between what actually exists and what is a product of the imagination."

And obviously, the dozens upon dozens of Christian Apologists over the past few centuries believe that we do have a set of criteria and method of applying them that clearly distinguishes between what actually exists and what is a product of the imagination.

Since you apparently feel differently, I just simply asked what is YOUR criteria and method in this regard.

And for you to make it seem like my question is irrelevant to the discussion, when it clearly is..strikes me as either disingenuous or you are simply not comprehending what you read.

Your response is nothing more than a dodge or an attempt to get someone else to do the work you can't do for yourself.

Dude, what are you talking about; me attempting to get someone to do the work for me? What work?

How is ME asking YOU for YOUR criteria/method an attempt for YOU to do the work for ME?

What kind of sense does that make? SMH. It doesn't matter, anyway..because whatever answer you gave was going to get destroyed anyway.

It is the inability of theists to produce the criteria that is particularly telling.

And in scientific circles, there is an inability for naturalists to conduct experiments to corroborate their naturalistic theories...which is also particularly telling.

Until then it is quite reasonable to dismiss those unsupported claims pertaining to their religious beliefs as nothing more than imaginary constructs and wishful thinking.

Until naturalists can conduct an experiment to corroborate their naturalistic theories, it is quite reasonable to dismiss those unsupported scientific claims pertaining to macroevolution and abiogenesis...so it strikes me as such beliefs are nothing more than imaginary voodoo science and wishful thinking.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 166 by For_The_Kingdom]

And obviously, the dozens upon dozens of Christian Apologists over the past few centuries believe that we do have a set of criteria and method of applying them that clearly distinguishes between what actually exists and what is a product of the imagination.

In that case you should have no problem outlining those criteria and how they are applied. Just to let you know, I have never seen a believer meet that request yet.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 166 by For_The_Kingdom]

Dude, what are you talking about; me attempting to get someone to do the work for me? What work?

How is ME asking YOU for YOUR criteria/method an attempt for YOU to do the work for ME?

It's obvious. You are unable to supply the criteria and expect me to do it instead. Your tactics are completely transparent. I have encountered the same dodges for well over a decade now.

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 166 by For_The_Kingdom]

Until naturalists can conduct an experiment to corroborate their naturalistic theories, it is quite reasonable to dismiss those unsupported scientific claims pertaining to macroevolution and abiogenesis...so it strikes me as such beliefs are nothing more than imaginary voodoo science and wishful thinking.

Let's try to summarise what appears to be your position. You don't accept the theory of evolution despite the mountain of empirical evidence across numerous fields of science that support it. You have not seen reptiles evolve into birds so you don't believe it can happen. You accept the theory of the existence of God in spite of a complete lack of empirical evidence in its favour. You have not seen a mutilated corpse come back to life as good as new after three days but you believe that it did actually happen. Hmmm.

[benchwarmer]

You keep missing these words -> "as good as".

I don't know what you think those extra words mean, but those of us who use that phrase are trying to impart the concept that while we can't disprove imagined entities, we also don't assume they exist. i.e. the are 'as good as' non existent. That is not the same as claiming they are non existent.

I aint buying it...from what I gather, it is the same as claiming "they are non existent".

Well, you gathered wrong. In English, these words make a difference. Your failing to 'buy it' has nothing to do with the actual meaning conveyed. It simply shows you are unwilling to listen to what is actually being said.

Numerous people, including myself, have already granted that some god/gods may exist.

Yeah, the "pretend" agnostic approach.

Please explain to us what a "pretend" agnostic approach is. It seems the only way you can debate is to make up your own terms and run with that.

However, until someone has any observational evidence whatsoever, there's no point in ascribing anything to unobserved imaginings.

Which is the same thing I say as it relates to macroevolution.

Well, given your definition of macro evolution (which is your own made up term again) then yes, you likely won't ever observe it. Neither will anyone else. Congratulations, you've defeated yourself. Again.

I don't claim pixies created the universe, but they might have.
I don't claim a god created the universe, but it might have.
etc.

I just don't get that vibe from you people.

You mean when we tell you that we don't outright claim there are no gods you simply choose to ignore us and pretend you know what we actually believe? More debating with yourself then.

For something we don't know, those of us living in reality prefer to say "I don't know", not imagine up an invisible thing and claim it must be responsible.

More like "We don't know...but lets wait on the verdict from science, shall we?"

If by science you mean something that is observable, then yes. Given you like to redefine words, one has to be precise here.

Your "I don't know" doesn't mean "Maybe God did it, maybe he didn't"...it is more like "I don't know, science hasn't figured it out yet...but give it time, and it will."

More putting your words in other people's mouths. These tactics are pointless.

I don't know, simply means just that. We wait for some actual evidence before jumping to conclusions. You seem happy to claim an invisible entity from ancient writings did it. You are welcome to your beliefs.

Supernatural explanations aren't even considered.

They are considered only so far as they are imaginings with no evidence. Interesting possibilities that can't be outright dismissed, but have no useful explanatory power until such a thing can be shown to exist.

Pixies are a supernatural explanation, yet I doubt you leave the possibility open for them do you? You just happen to have a favorite supernatural explanation and cling to it. The rest of us await evidence.

God of the gaps arguments are fun

So are Nature of the gaps arguments.

More making up terms. I think maybe you don't even know what 'god of the gaps' means....

, but in the end are useless as they don't do anything other than potentially prematurely stop the search for the real answer.

Nature of the gaps are also useless, as naturalistic claims not backed up by science is an act of blind faith.

Well, it's a good thing no one is making those types of claims about the ToE then. Just because you haven't bothered to spend the time actually checking out peer reviewed science is not our problem. You prefer scripture over observation. You prefer defining your own terms rather than understanding the actual terms used by science. At this point you are only really debating yourself. My involvement at this point is simply to call out your tactics for those reading along, though I imagine they already clearly see what's going on.