I don't personally see the belief in an eternal creator as contradictory. What I see as contradictory is the argument generally presented that says the evolutionist's perspective can't be true because it defies the laws of physics, yet at the same time a thing without beginning or end also defies the laws of physics. The belief isn't what's contradictory. The denouncement is.
Whether you believe in pantheism or not is completely irrelevent. You claim a standard whereby an origin theory must be allowable by the laws of physics in order to be deemed valid, yet follow an origin theory which is not allowable by physical laws. You attempt to create an unfalsifiable argument, though, by inventing a law that doesn't really exist, saying that it doesn't defy physical law because it isn't part of the physical universe. Unfalsifiable. Invalid.
Perhaps not, but neither is that the analogy I was making. What God created the universe from has nothing to do with what I was saying. Creatio ex nihilo is not a description of God but of God's mechanism.
This is where you err. You make the mistake of assuming that only the material is subject to natural law. Nature is subject to natural law, and nature is more than the material world or the external world. Even the dictionary doesn't limit the definition of "nature" as much as the Christian apparently does. To the Christian, nature is purely material and external, it seems. That application of the term "nature" falls rather low on the list of common usage. Webster's defines nature as 1. the inherent character or basic constitution of a person or thing (essence, temperament, disposition). Defintion 2 is more applicable to nature as we are discussing it: creative and controlling force in the universe. That would be God, by the way, unless of course you believe that God is not in the universe, which is not only unfalsifiable and completely invalid on any scale, but also denies one of the most basic attributes of God (omnipresence). God is nature, then, and since nature is subject to natural laws (actually being the very embodiment of natural laws), then God, by default is also subject to natural laws (being the very embodiment of natural laws). As such, the "supernatural" does not exist, except as mere verbage, as there is nothing that supercedes nature, being that God is nature.
There is no law to govern that which does not exist, I'll agree.
In part. The laws govern nature. Actually, laws don't really govern anything. They merely reflect probability, as opposed to imposing possibility. God is nature, according to the most common usage of the word "nature," in the existential sense (as opposed to dispositional). The much narrower view of nature as Christians use it falls as low as #6 on the list, meaning it is not nearly as commonly used or agreed upon as the higher numbered definitions.
You're assuming the laws exist because God established them. The laws established themselves as a reflection of probabilities.
I say it is exactly the opposite. Scientific method is not only useful for testing material hypotheses. It governs the testing of any hypothesis. Any standard for testing must give way to scientific method, otherwise it is nothing but words. You say that scientific method is good for nothing for examining philosophical arguments. I say that without its standard for validity, a philosophical argument is, in fact, bueno por nada. At best, it's good for killing a few hours of intense conversation, but good for nothing when it comes to arriving at any real truths.
The most humorous issue regarding the Christian worldview is that Christians actually think they have the slightest clue what God is and what its true attributes are, based on a bunch of dusty pages written by men of limited knowledge and experience several thousand years ago. You said last time you checked ... well, if you were to check again you'd probably find you don't have any idea at all what God really is, does or knows. I'm not saying that to be offensive, but merely to illustrate that man is extremely, extremely, extremely limited in his understanding of God, the universe and our place within it. All of our dogma, doctrine and philosophy is based on that very limited understanding. Thus, all of our dogma, doctrine and philosophy is extremely fallible and far from conclusive on any measure. It is simple human arrogance that assumes any one philosophy to be correct.Originally posted by Charismata
The most humorous issue regarding pantheism is the idea that we are all part of god and that we have to "realize" it. Last I checked God already knew that He was God (omniscience) and He was definite that the job was already filled.
Basically, the fact that even the dictionary acknowledges that my definition of nature is by far the more widely used. That, and the undeniable tendency among Christians (others too) to redefine terms as necessary, demonstrating near complete irreverence for purity of language.
Without a standard of testibility and validation, the "Rule of Logic" is nothing but a bunch of ideas that cannot, even of themselves, be validated.
What would be your definition of macroevolution?
Man trying to get an answer out of you is like pulling teeth. I really thought you might have want to have an intelligent debate but I’m beginning to wonder. But I’ll try one more time. Do you think the comparison of genetics between animals is a satisfactory way of determining the relationship of animals? If so, is there a number that you would accept for a “kind” such as 1% or 2%, etc. divergence?
I don’t believe in unicorns. But I could give you a definition of one so we could discuss it so we could agree what one was if we saw it.
Well eating the stock would account for a few weeks of food at the most. What happened after that?
You’re saying sloths walked across Russia, Alaska, Canada, US, Mexico, Central America, and South America in 2000 years or less and all the while produced and raised offspring. And the freezing cold didn’t bother them a bit?
If you don’t have any idea, why do you disagree with 2000 years? What number would you be comfortable with?
Okay I won’t argue with you about Dingoes being introduced into Australia after marsupials were established. But why are there so few placenta animals in Australia and so many marsupials? That didn’t happen anywhere else.
Then again, how did they get there?
Are you saying there were no wolves or foxes right after the flood since they came from a common ancestor?
So why didn’t it change before the flood and change so rapidly after the flood?
