Is changing a physical law like changing a speed limit sign?

[Neatras]

Changing some laws on earth is more like changing a speed limit sign.

Is the above true? If so, how does one demonstrate this to be the case?

If not, what are some physical consequences of changing a physical law outside of what one might expect?

My debate position is this: It is extremely uneducated and willfully ignorant to believe that changing a physical law only affects a limited domain of physical phenomena. For example, changing the speed of light to be faster doesn't just affect how quickly light reaches us; it also affects how quickly particles interact, the energy required for all physical interactions, and other sundry details that would, in essence, be very telling if they suddenly altered in an instant.

However, I am aware that both dad and Kent Hovind maintain that God is some sort of master engineer, complete with a box and dials that he can play with, turning some physical laws on and off while the rest remains unaffected. This is a position maintained by and expressed via ignorance and incredulity, with no physical basis or rationale behind it besides "God is awesome enough to get away with it."

So, any creationists wanna try and put it across that changing a physical law is like changing a speed limit sign?

[Divine Insight]

However, I am aware that both dad and Kent Hovind maintain that God is some sort of master engineer, complete with a box and dials that he can play with, turning some physical laws on and off while the rest remains unaffected. This is a position maintained by and expressed via ignorance and incredulity, with no physical basis or rationale behind it besides "God is awesome enough to get away with it."

I would just like to point out that the above is an extremely problematic theological argument. This type of argument requires a God who is desperately seeking to confuse mankind by manipulating the universe in such a way as to purposefully deceive men into coming to incorrect conclusions.

So these types of theological apologies don't help a theology at all. All they do is require that their God is devious and untrustworthy. And all of this is done to try to save the Biblical fables from being obviously false in the face of known scientific knowledge.

These are clearly nothing more than extremely desperate attempts to save an obviously failed mythology. Attempts that are so desperate the apologists would rather embrace the idea of a deceitful God than to confess that the original stories are simply nonsense.

A person needs to have an extreme motivation to go to this much trouble.

Not only this, but we should all realize that this kind of apologetic tactic could be used to save myths of other Gods as well. Thor, Odin, Zeus, Apollo, Athena, you name the God myth. If we are willing to allow that those God can simply alter our reality for everything in those mythologies that don't makes sense, then we can justify those mythologies too.

So this apologetic tactic doesn't give any specific God mythology any support since it can be used to support any God mythology, including The Flying Spaghetti Monster.

This is just apologists trying to scrape the bottom of a barrel of theology that has no bottom to scrape.

If they had a theological dogma that actually made sense they wouldn't need to be going down the path in the first place.

Also, attacking science is a common tactic among theists who know that their own theology has no merit. Thus attacking science distracts attention away from their failed religious dogma.

If their religious dogma had any credibility on its own they could just stick with that.

Clearly it doesn't. And this is why they desperately need to try to discredit science.

[Kenisaw]

However, I am aware that both dad and Kent Hovind maintain that God is some sort of master engineer, complete with a box and dials that he can play with, turning some physical laws on and off while the rest remains unaffected. This is a position maintained by and expressed via ignorance and incredulity, with no physical basis or rationale behind it besides "God is awesome enough to get away with it."

I would just like to point out that the above is an extremely problematic theological argument. This type of argument requires a God who is desperately seeking to confuse mankind by manipulating the universe in such a way as to purposefully deceive men into coming to incorrect conclusions.

So these types of theological apologies don't help a theology at all. All they do is require that their God is devious and untrustworthy. And all of this is done to try to save the Biblical fables from being obviously false in the face of known scientific knowledge.

These are clearly nothing more than extremely desperate attempts to save an obviously failed mythology. Attempts that are so desperate the apologists would rather embrace the idea of a deceitful God than to confess that the original stories are simply nonsense.

A person needs to have an extreme motivation to go to this much trouble.

Not only this, but we should all realize that this kind of apologetic tactic could be used to save myths of other Gods as well. Thor, Odin, Zeus, Apollo, Athena, you name the God myth. If we are willing to allow that those God can simply alter our reality for everything in those mythologies that don't makes sense, then we can justify those mythologies too.

So this apologetic tactic doesn't give any specific God mythology any support since it can be used to support any God mythology, including The Flying Spaghetti Monster.

This is just apologists trying to scrape the bottom of a barrel of theology that has no bottom to scrape.

If they had a theological dogma that actually made sense they wouldn't need to be going down the path in the first place.

Also, attacking science is a common tactic among theists who know that their own theology has no merit. Thus attacking science distracts attention away from their failed religious dogma.

If their religious dogma had any credibility on its own they could just stick with that.

Clearly it doesn't. And this is why they desperately need to try to discredit science.

The god of Abraham, let's not forget, is all loving and perfect as stated in the literature. It also doesn't deceive. Yet cultists ignore these characteristics when telling us their god being deceives us (a rather unloving act) because it needs to tweak a universe that it created while being a perfect creature.

[dad]

Changing some laws on earth is more like changing a speed limit sign.

Is the above true? If so, how does one demonstrate this to be the case?

If not, what are some physical consequences of changing a physical law outside of what one might expect?

My debate position is this: It is extremely uneducated and willfully ignorant to believe that changing a physical law only affects a limited domain of physical phenomena. For example, changing the speed of light to be faster doesn't just affect how quickly light reaches us; it also affects how quickly particles interact, the energy required for all physical interactions, and other sundry details that would, in essence, be very telling if they suddenly altered in an instant.

However, I am aware that both dad and Kent Hovind maintain that God is some sort of master engineer, complete with a box and dials that he can play with, turning some physical laws on and off while the rest remains unaffected. This is a position maintained by and expressed via ignorance and incredulity, with no physical basis or rationale behind it besides "God is awesome enough to get away with it."

So, any creationists wanna try and put it across that changing a physical law is like changing a speed limit sign?

Your point is mooted something fierce when we look at all nature changing, rather than some random feature of nature.

If the forces that govern how atoms work changed, then we would expect to then see all atoms obeying the new laws.

As for light speed, that doesn't really matter, since speeds are only known for the present time and near or in the solar system! How light moves in time here now doesn't matter to the past--or indeed even to the far universe.

[Kenisaw]

Changing some laws on earth is more like changing a speed limit sign.

Is the above true? If so, how does one demonstrate this to be the case?

If not, what are some physical consequences of changing a physical law outside of what one might expect?

My debate position is this: It is extremely uneducated and willfully ignorant to believe that changing a physical law only affects a limited domain of physical phenomena. For example, changing the speed of light to be faster doesn't just affect how quickly light reaches us; it also affects how quickly particles interact, the energy required for all physical interactions, and other sundry details that would, in essence, be very telling if they suddenly altered in an instant.

However, I am aware that both dad and Kent Hovind maintain that God is some sort of master engineer, complete with a box and dials that he can play with, turning some physical laws on and off while the rest remains unaffected. This is a position maintained by and expressed via ignorance and incredulity, with no physical basis or rationale behind it besides "God is awesome enough to get away with it."

So, any creationists wanna try and put it across that changing a physical law is like changing a speed limit sign?

Your point is mooted something fierce when we look at all nature changing, rather than some random feature of nature.

If the forces that govern how atoms work changed, then we would expect to then see all atoms obeying the new laws.

As for light speed, that doesn't really matter, since speeds are only known for the present time and near or in the solar system! How light moves in time here now doesn't matter to the past--or indeed even to the far universe.

It is literally impossible for the speed of light (and let's be precise here and say in a vacuum) to have been different in the past, or to be different any other place in the universe. The speed of light does not rely on any other value or force, which means that if you changed every other law in the universe, the speed of light would STILL be the same because those things don't affect it.

[dad]

It is literally impossible for the speed of light (and let's be precise here and say in a vacuum) to have been different in the past, or to be different any other place in the universe.

No. It is not. Only under earth time and space as it now is.

The speed of light does not rely on any other value or force, which means that if you changed every other law in the universe, the speed of light would STILL be the same because those things don't affect it.

Wrong. All speeds of anything involve time. Unless time existed and existed the same as here in the solar system area, we could not say 'how much' time anything took! Elementary.

[Kenisaw]

It is literally impossible for the speed of light (and let's be precise here and say in a vacuum) to have been different in the past, or to be different any other place in the universe.

No. It is not. Only under earth time and space as it now is.

Daddy-o, My statement is factual and accurate given all the data. It is factual and accurate given the reality of light. Don't take my word for it, read up on it. The speed of light can't have been different in the past because there is nothing in the universe that affects it, so there is no mechanism that could have changed it.

There isn't even any thing as "Earth time" for that matter. Time on the top of Mt Everest moves faster than time at sea level. It's been proven with actual measurements. Relativity is a real phenomena. Yet the speed of light in both those places is exactly the same. Like I said, nothing else in the universe can affect the speed of light. It's always the same...

The speed of light does not rely on any other value or force, which means that if you changed every other law in the universe, the speed of light would STILL be the same because those things don't affect it.

Wrong. All speeds of anything involve time. Unless time existed and existed the same as here in the solar system area, we could not say 'how much' time anything took! Elementary.

Albert Einstein says you are wrong. The math of relativity says you are wrong. I bet you didn't know that photons do not experience either time or distance...

[imhereforyou]

Changing some laws on earth is more like changing a speed limit sign.

Is the above true? If so, how does one demonstrate this to be the case?

If not, what are some physical consequences of changing a physical law outside of what one might expect?

My debate position is this: It is extremely uneducated and willfully ignorant to believe that changing a physical law only affects a limited domain of physical phenomena. For example, changing the speed of light to be faster doesn't just affect how quickly light reaches us; it also affects how quickly particles interact, the energy required for all physical interactions, and other sundry details that would, in essence, be very telling if they suddenly altered in an instant.

However, I am aware that both dad and Kent Hovind maintain that God is some sort of master engineer, complete with a box and dials that he can play with, turning some physical laws on and off while the rest remains unaffected. This is a position maintained by and expressed via ignorance and incredulity, with no physical basis or rationale behind it besides "God is awesome enough to get away with it."

So, any creationists wanna try and put it across that changing a physical law is like changing a speed limit sign?

I would think changing a physical law is not like changing a speed limit sign and anyone saying so would be delusional or have a great sense of humor.
Or both.
I do know a lot of people like to make grand claims about things with little to no knowledge of one iota of the thing they're speaking about, much less how this 'thing' interacts with other 'things'.
I've found those that KNOW this or that are weak in knowledge in general, but great in belief.
They don't seem to know the difference in the words. Or don't care.
Or both.

[dad]

Daddy-o, My statement is factual and accurate given all the data. It is factual and accurate given the reality of light. Don't take my word for it, read up on it. The speed of light can't have been different in the past because there is nothing in the universe that affects it, so there is no mechanism that could have changed it.

Wrong. Time is involved in speed. They say light moves through so much space per given time. That has only been observed in and near the solar system, as far as being able to measure it.

There isn't even any thing as "Earth time" for that matter.

Yes there is.

Time on the top of Mt Everest moves faster than time at sea level. It's been proven with actual measurements. Relativity is a real phenomena. Yet the speed of light in both those places is exactly the same. Like I said, nothing else in the universe can affect the speed of light. It's always the same...

It has been measured on earth. Eve the top of a cereal box is different time than the bottom. It has not been measured in stars. If you claim it was show the support.
The fact that small variations IN time does not change that there is time here. Now is there time in deep space...and if you can show that is the time the same, and how would you know?

Albert Einstein says you are wrong.

No he doesn't he's dead. Relativity does not deal with what time is. Show us how it does if you claim otherwise.

The math of relativity says you are wrong. I bet you didn't know that photons do not experience either time or distance...

The photons of light moving in space do so at a speed, and that means time. Whatever you think they may 'experience' on the way doesn't matter. They claim a speed for light in the universe.

[dad]

I would think changing a physical law is not like changing a speed limit sign and anyone saying so would be delusional or have a great sense of humor.
Or both.

Science doesn't so much as know what the forces actually are or what causes them. The idea was not that some force in our world or nature could be changed by us. The idea was asking if the One who created it all could change all nature on earth.

I've found those that KNOW this or that are weak in knowledge in general, but great in belief.
They don't seem to know the difference in the words. Or don't care.
Or both.

Was that leading to some actual point by any chance?