Do you think musical laws and geometry have the same origins?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Do You Believe In God, Why? Don't You Believe In God, Why?
- Thread starter frbnsn
- Start date
Do you think musical laws and geometry have the same origins?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
We know that you do not think that you were wrong. So what? You were demonstrated to be wrong. You may not like that fact but that is the way that things are in the real world. My use of your test was more valid than yours. Your so called "test" failed.
And one of the reasons that your test fails is that the test itself is all but worthless. It was not a real test since you never gave a clear response of what you would expect to see if you were wrong. A confirming test is not worth a hill of beans. A test can confirm almost all sides if it is poorly designed. As yours was. The much more impressive tests are those that have a clear well defined example of what a failure would be. Your test was improper since there was no clear definition of what a failure would be. As a result you still have no reliable evidence.
And no, that claim was not "unsubstantiated". That was an obvious observation based on your post. You demonstrated a clear lack of understanding of the concept of evidence and I offered to go over that post with you and explain how you were wrong. You ran away from that offer. That makes your claim of being "unsubstantiated" invalid.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
What do you mean by "order"? And why must it be behind those laws? It appears that you are trying to handwave a god into existence.
They describe the orderly ways in which things work.
order does not imply intelligence or that they are created.
The origins of the language we used to describe things is not self existing. It has an order.
janesix
Active Member
Yes, God.
I don't.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'self-existing'. Language changes over time to accommodate the needs of those using it.
Two thousand years ago, there was no English language. Today there is. It originated gradually, over many generations, because people needed to communicate.
Everything God creates has order. God is not the author of confusion. Every law has a lawmaker behind it. The Bible says the heaven declares the glory of God. How is that handwaving?
The order of a computer or a car has a creation that requires intelligence to create it.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You are assuming that a God exists. This is a circular argument and therefore is clearly handwaving.
What evidence do you have for your God?
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
So what?
The order of a snowflake does not. Nor does the order that we see in life. Ask yourself how we know that a car requires an intelligence to create it. By the way, the answer is clearly not "complexity".
Why do you think God created musical laws and geometry? I think they are an automatic result of God creating everything with a design and a purpose.
Where do musical laws and math laws come from, without a self existing God who made everything with order and purpose? It takes more faith to believe that everything just exists than to believe that God created everything.
Self existing means not coming from God. Where did the original language come from before it changed? English changing gradually means it had gray areas and intermediates. Where do the origins of those sub languages come from? People needing to communicate doesn't explain away a God.
It is begging the question. First, you are *assuming* what is said in the Bible is the basis of a valid argument. Unless you can independently support the validity of the Bible, this is bad logic.
But, you are getting the *claim* that God creates order and the claim that order proves the existence of a God confused. The two propositions have little to do with each other. It may well be that order is *also* produced in other ways. And, it is possible it exists even if a God does not.
Your claim that every law has a lawmaker is true for *human* laws, which are prescriptive. It is NOT true of the 'laws' of nature, which are *descriptive*. This is a combination of the error of equivocation (claiming different types of things have common properties) and a false generalization (human laws have human lawmakers--that doesn't imply ALL laws have a lawmaker).
So, yes, that is hand waving. It is waving the arms so that people ignore all of the logical gaps your argument has.
Creation shows that there is a God of love. We don't need taste buds to eat food but we have them anyway.
The order of snowflake comes from nature, which I believe had a creator. A car requires intelligence to create it because those different parts could never come together on their own.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
It only takes faith if one refuses to learn. You will notice that quite often atheists try to use educational sources so that creationists can understand why faith is not needed for the sciences. Very very rarely do creationists avail themselves of those sources. It seems at times that the best defense of creationism is avoiding understanding the evidence that demonstrates them to be wrong at all costs.
Really? I would bet you claim that God 'just exists'. How is that any easier to believe than that the universe 'just exists'? At least we know the universe actually does exist.
The 'laws' of music have to do with what is pleasing to humans. And they differ from culture to culture.
So they are NOT fundamental laws at all, but rather are most psychological.
The 'laws' of mathematics were created by humans to help us describe the world around us. We found patterns in the world and used those patterns to create an abstraction that mimics those patterns.
Why either of these would need a deity to create them is beyond me. They seem to be perfectly well justified by human behavior.