Faith-Based Reasoning

[QED]

God is involved in the execution of all natural laws every moment the universe exists (i.e., God sustains the universe).

You mean like this? http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512

Nah, that's what you are basically saying when you say there are no laws (i.e., on the odd days, on the even days you say there are laws). Instead of an "intelligent falling" theory your world without laws translates into a "random mutating falling" theory. It just happens for no reason at all.

Traditional scientists admit that they cannot explain how gravitation is supposed to work," Carson said. "What the gravity-agenda scientists need to realize is that 'gravity waves' and 'gravitons' are just secular words for 'God can do whatever He wants.

I've started this topic to continue the debate in which I would like Harvey to explain how his argument differs from that of the ECFBR quoted above. It seems very similar to me and I want to know all the evidence that Harvey thinks there is for the Laws of nature being a product of some divine consciousness rather than them arising from an unbending mechanical process. Here might be a good place to collect and examine the arguments.

[Grumpy]

harvey1

But there are laws, they exist in your head, they just don't have any influence upon reality because they are just mental constructs which model the properties of nature so we can manipulate them in our minds. Your fallacy is in taking those laws and saying they determine or influence nature, they do not. The reason you say I am changing back and forth is because I recognize their nonreality, you do not. The failure of logic is yours, not mine.

Grumpy

[harvey1]

But there are laws, they exist in your head, they just don't have any influence upon reality because they are just mental constructs which model the properties of nature so we can manipulate them in our minds.

You already said that there are no laws. So, I correctly characterized your position.

[Grumpy]

harvey1

You already said that there are no laws. So, I correctly characterized your position.

No, you did not, you are purposely mischaracterizing my position for purposes of your own. It's an old, dishonest debating technique, my position has been clearly stated many times now so you continue to misunderstand due to a lack of wit or you are mischaracterizing it due to an overabundence of appreciation for the wit you do have.

Grumpy

[harvey1]

No, you did not, you are purposely mischaracterizing my position for purposes of your own. It's an old, dishonest debating technique, my position has been clearly stated many times now so you continue to misunderstand due to a lack of wit or you are mischaracterizing it due to an overabundence of appreciation for the wit you do have.

<sigh> Did you or did you not say this: "The laws are based on our observation of the properties of nature, they have no physical existence of their own"? And did I not say: "I'm not advocating something that says that there are no laws (unlike you, Bugmaster, and Grumpy)"?

I really don't know how simple I can make these replies. I realize two long sentences are too much for you, but can't you compare two simple statements?

[Grumpy]

harvey1

<sigh> Did you or did you not say this: "The laws are based on our observation of the properties of nature, they have no physical existence of their own"?

Do ideas exist??? Of course they do!!! But can you hold them in your hand??? No!!! Ideas(thoughts) exist only in the mind!!! You can write them down symbolicly on paper(or try to communicate them verbally) but do you know that the person reading those symbols(or hearing those words) have exactly the same idea (thought) as you had??? No!!! So do ideas have physical existence OF THEIR OWN??? No!!!

So ideas exist, but they have no physical existence of their own. This is what is called a construct of the mind. Laws are a construct of the mind, based on the properties of nature, but having no physical existance or influence of their own.

Does anyone on these forums not understand what I have said, other than Harvey???

Grumpy

[harvey1]

Laws are a construct of the mind... having no physical existance or influence of their own.

Perhaps I've been too patient with you, Grumpy. Do you really believe that when someone says that you do not believe such and such exists that they are accusing you of lacking the concept of that thing? If I said that you do not believe that there are white tigers native to Kenya, do you think I'm saying that you lack a concept of a white tiger?

[Grumpy]

harvey1

But ideas do have existence, not just as a concept, but as the idea itself. But they do not have a PHYSICAL existence or influence. Laws are an idea, based on observation of the behavior of nature, which help us reason and predict what nature will do next. But our idea of what laws say nature will do next cannot be the CAUSE of what nature will do next. If nature fails to do what our laws say it will, it is our laws which are faulty, not nature,which can do nothing other than what it's properties dictate.

I will patiently keep hammering on this nail until it penitrates your understanding, it reminds me of the days when I spent 8 hours a day doing that for my physics students, I'm actually enjoying this more since they were children and you, I assume, are not.

Grumpy

[harvey1]

If I said that you do not believe that there are native white tigers from Kenya, would you say that I mischaracterized your view?

[Grumpy]

harvey1

I am thinking about pink tigers with green stripes(I know, even mentally you have to squint). I have not only the concept of tigers but the idea that I would like to see a pink/green tiger.

Does that cause a pink/green tiger to actually exist??? Will my construct of the mind cause tigers to become pink/green??? I am convinced that it is a law that all tigers must be pink/green(I am not entirely sane), does that have ANY influence on the color of tigers???

Grumpy