What is a human creation? Gods Word or the Trinity?
No, it means the earth is moving outward with the rest of the universe.
I am not saying the writer fully understood it at the time, but the Bible plainly teaches that there are two sources of Gods revelation, tbe Bible and nature. So nature can help us interpret His Bible more accurately, the more we learn about it.
Both.
Really? It doesn't sound like that. Moving outward from where?
Learning more about nature actually undermines a literalist view of the Bible.
Yes but remember that the Koran was written 1500 years after the OT of the Bible, who do you think borrowed from who?
Yes, but it is more rational to believe that our reasoning ability came from a pre-existing form of logic in the mind of our cause rather than non-rational subatomic particles.
Reasoning requires utilizing the laws of logic, not the laws of chemistry which is all that exists in the brain unless there is a non-physically based mind in there as well.
You have a job, you think to yourself that "I like this job" and "I hate this job". What have you thought about? Nothing. By violating the law of contradiction, your thoughts mean nothing to yourself. Now do you understand?
Yes, but there is no evidence they exist. There is evidence the mind exists.
No it isn't, because you are assuming far more.
No it doesn't, there is no causal connection between the laws of logic and thought, and people think illogically all the time.
This makes no sense to me.
There is poor evidence this mind exists, and you certainly haven't given any. All you've given is arguments.
No, see my previous post where I demonstrate that the results are the same whether the brain controls the mind or the mind uses the brain.
If the events are part of naturalists' fantasy world, I dont deny it. But in the real world it is not possible.
You are just entirely ignoring what makes your comment so absurd: your refusal to acknowledge how the word "if" functions.
Yes, though it is not necessarily always danger.
Because as I stated chemicals operate according to the laws of chemistry or physics (this has been empirically observed for at least 500 years, minds operate according to the laws of logic.
Yes, but math is bound to inevitability. Math is not open ended. Again it is similar to a flow chart like computers. Math cannot go outside the basic principles of math. The human mind can because it is not bound by anything, which is what free will is.
We know that somewhere there are two rocks under a tree with the quality of twoness irrespective of the human mind or human belief.
I guess music was a bad example. I have heard that music especially complex music is similar to math, so it has the same problems that math does as I demonstrated above. The other arts are more open ended and therefore can produce more original works, thereby demonstrating free will.
Because culture requires making choices, animals cannot make choices.
That article basically just says that because animals can mimic and learn behavior that they have culture. While those things are part of culture, is far more than that. Humans can reject aspects of their culture, but animals cant do that. Also read the section of your own article about some of the problems in the Controversies and Criticisms section.
The human will.
Actually most biologists believe that genetic influence is much greater than environmental influence. And yet we can overcome many of our genetic influences unlike animals.
What do you mean, minds operate according to the laws of logic?
A computer is nothing more than chemicals and electricity, like a brain is, but it can operate according to laws other than chemistry or physics, like the laws of mathematics. However, we need to distinguish between two different levels (for lack of a better word) of laws that are operating. Computers operate according to electrical and chemical laws, like brains do, but they can instantiate or represent mathematical laws when they are arranged in certain ways, just like brains can, too.
Of course our minds are bound by certain things. Our minds can't grasp huge numbers, or the enormity of the universe, nor 4 or more spatial dimensions, for example.
When you say "we know," that means that two-ness is instantiated in a mind.
Exactly how are other arts more open-ended than music? Are you aware of the incredible variety of music throughout the ages and throughout the world? Heck, even within a single genre - jazz - there is an amazing panoply of every different, creative music.
Not only are you not being specific enough in your wording, because animals clearly make choices in one sense of the phrase "make choices," but you've just asserted this (again?) without evidence.
That's all that's needed.
Do you have evidence for this assertion about animals? Look, it's clear that you have some ideas about animals, humans, free will, etc., that you haven't examined beyond your intuitions. That's why you're making these assertions that I easily show you are wrong (animals have no culture).
Which issue in that do you think is relevant here?
Here's another case of an intuition you have - or a position you must take if your larger position is true - that falls apart on a moment's examination. It's not a matter of free will that I am a heterosexual; I didn't decide that, it's just how I'm put together, by my genes (the Y chromosome, to be precise). That's what makes me sexually attracted to women, largely if not completely. I can't will myself to be attracted to men. There's a case of genetics overwhelming free will in an absolutely crucial and central part of an organism (sexual 8i
1. Do you have evidence that animals cannot overcome any genetic influences?
No, this whole discussion was about the institution of academic science, I was not referring to just individuals policing themselves, that would be absurd. You appear to have misunderstood me.
See above.
Not the honor system I was referring to, I was referring to a group honor system.
There are not, as I stated it is a group honor system.
Many people including scientists believe that intuition can be a type of evidence. From Wikipedia: In more recent psychology, intuition can encompass the ability to know valid solutions to problems and decision making. For example, the recognition-primed decision (RPD) model explains how people can make relatively fast decisions without having to compare options. Gary Klein found that under time pressure, high stakes, and changing parameters, experts used their base of experience to identify similar situations and intuitively choose feasible solutions. Thus, the RPD model is a blend of intuition and analysis. The intuition is the pattern-matching process that quickly suggests feasible courses of action. The analysis is the mental simulation, a conscious and deliberate review of the courses of action.[11]
You said *you* as an individual, without any reference to some supposed group honor system, wouldn't lie about your claim. That is not a group honor system (whatever that is), that is an honor system that relies on the individual, no group is needed. If you want me to show you again where you said that, I'm happy to. And don't switch the issue, either. That is exactly where this started.
This is incoherent. There's no police, there's a group honor system, and individuals wouldn't lie, and that's how science works?!
There's nothing about the validity of intuition in that link. The word "intuition" only appears once, and it is not validated as a means of distinguishing what is true from what is not.
There's nothing in that like that validates intuition as a means of distinguishing what is true from what is not.
But it's not the intuition of experts that is the thing that distinguishes what is true from what is not, it's the prior non-intuitive work that experts do and which they then internalize and call upon through intuition.
I just said that all of empirical science has shown that I am probably right. Did you even read my post?
No it hasn't. This is your interpretation of science that has in itself no science to support it.
Some things are created by natural law, this is recognized by being able to empirically observe the laws in action. Things created by law are relatively simple and show no evidence of direct design.
God creates two ways. He created natural laws that create relatively simple things like stars and galaxies. For things with specified complexity that cannot be created by natural law, He intervenes with direct design like living things and humans.
Archaeologists make the determination between a rock that looks like a spearhead (produced by natural law) and an actual spearhead (created by a designer) everyday. So we can also detect design of the universe in the same way. One way is purposes. We can see how the spearhead shows signs of having a purpose imputed on it unlike a spear shaped rock. So also the universe contains purposes as well.
Yes, but those laws are well known and have been empirically proven through experimentation and real time observation. But No law has ever been discovered that can change one kind of animal into another.
Yes, but you cant do that with historical events on the earth.
No, those are all extrapolations into the past, none have been empirically observed except carbon decay, which I dont have a problem with.
Space travel has allowed us to directly observe the earth orbiting the sun.
Rocks that look like spearheads have been found. Archaeologists can differentiate real spearheads from rocks that just look like spearheads without observing their creation everyday. How do you think they do that?
See post 751 where I respond to your article.
Because those are the only things animals do with their young.
Watch some nature videos of animal parents and their young being attacked by a predator. If the predator starts inflicting serious damage to the parent they abandon their young. Only humans will die for their children.
There is no evidence that animals do any preparations for death or even understand the passage of time or old age or the seriousness of injuries.
Animals will defend their young of course, but that is just instinctual (programmed) and once the risk for death outweighs the gain, then they stop defending their young as I mentioned about the videos.
Because all these things that are basic to survival have to be taught to humans, it is not programmed, if it was then such teaching would not be necessary.
See above. All the basic skills for humans to survive have to be taught to us. Without a free will all of these things would have been programmed in, like animals.
Yes, see above.
It seems pretty clear to me, Reread my statements above. What is unclear about it?