Wake up to reality. — Agustino

Ha!

Laws of nature are an incoherent concept, as was adequately proved through the course of this thread already. — Agustino

You've got to be kidding me. My reply was based on your own opening post which depended on that very concept in order to define miracles. I haven't read the entire discussion - not all eight pages of it. We haven't all got the time or the inclination to drudge through all of that, especially not on a topic such as this. If you've abandoned this concept and you want to avoid replies like this, then you should update your opening post.

I'm actually sceptical, along Humean lines, of one common way of understanding what laws of nature are.

'm actually sceptical, along Humean lines, of one common way of understanding what laws of nature are. — Sapientia

Yeah, Hume's position is what was discredited in this thread. When you contribute, you should at least make an effort to read what has gone before, or if you haven't at least state so openly.

My reply was based on your own opening post which depended on that very concept in order to define miracles. — Sapientia

Yep, and just a few posts afterwards, I claim that the definitions are inadequate and I'm not interested in definitions.

Yeah, Hume's position is what was discredited in this thread. — Agustino

So you say...

When you contribute, you should at least make an effort to read what has gone before, or if you haven't at least state so openly. — Agustino

No, I'm going to stand my ground here. The opening post is what's central. I did read through some of the discussion, but if you expect everyone to read the whole darn thing then you should lower your expectations or accept the consequences. If you're going to abandon your initial position, then do us a favour and let us know by updating the opening post.

Yep, and just a few posts afterwards, I claim that the definitions are inadequate and I'm not interested in definitions. — Agustino

Well, I must have missed that. What a waste of time. The mods should just delete this sorry thread.

Yep, and just a few posts afterwards, I claim that the definitions are inadequate and I'm not interested in definitions. — Agustino

If definitions are inadequate, how the fuck are we supposed to figure out what miracles are?

Bro: "Do you like cheese?"
Dude: "I'm not sure, what is cheese?"
Bro: "I can't tell you, and there's no point in telling you what cheese is."
Dude: ".............."

Yeah, and then you have some people who like "cheese", and some people who don't, even though one might be thinking of crayfish and the other might be thinking of celery, and they have an argument online spanning eight pages, and the whole time, they're talking past one another.

A recipe for disaster.

Definition of creation: the actionor process of bringing something into existence.

You sure about that? If a meteor hits a planet, does the impact not create a lot of energy?

When a star implodes under its own weight, does that not create a black hole? — Mr Phil O'Sophy

What you're getting at here is creation within creation. TBBT doesn't, and can't, account for creation's creator, which is why astrophysicists have either tried to build upon TBBT or conclude that, somehow, existence becomes from nothing. Perhaps charle's point is that creation isn't itself the creator, so suggesting that TBBT is creative in and of itself would be a grave mix-up.

Yeah, and then you have some people who like "cheese", and some people who don't, even though one might be thinking of crayfish and the other might be thinking of celery, and they have an argument online spanning eight pages, and the whole time, they're talking past one another.

A recipe for disaster. — Sapientia

Exactly. And the funny thing is, Agustino prolly doesn't even realize that he's employing a deconstructionist defense here, which as we all know is an integral part of conservative and theistic apologetics....wait....... :brow:

When you say that TBB created the universe, you are immediately saying that the TBB is the creator of the universe. The creator creates the created, thus the created is created by the creator. The issue, once again, is where one places TBB. If I understand what you've been arguing, it is that you have placed TBB outside of itself, which is a mistake. Rather, TBB ought to be placed within itself, as creation. As I see it, this leaves the door open for a creator much more so than if were to believe that TBB created the universe.

I think I understand where the confusion is coming from now. I never said TBB created the universe, I said 'the universe was created as a result of the big bang.' Not that the big bang was the sole and only causal factor in the creation process. — Mr Phil O'Sophy

I see, and I had a sense that this is how we've talked past each other. However, my intention here has just been to distinguish between creator > TBB > creation, and not to conflate TBB with the creator.

I'm not sure I know what you mean by this? can you explain a little more? — Mr Phil O'Sophy

"Just" that TBBT is understood in relation to creation and not the creator. If you attempt to place TBBT in a metaphysical territory that is more grounded in notions of a creator than the created, then you've in essence made the instance of TBB outside of the creation it helps, as vehicle, to create. Instead of creator > TBB > creation, the series follows more like creator ≥ TBB > creation. I'm unsure if I've made myself clear, and I apologize if I haven't. I just wanted to reemphasize the struggle many intellectuals have with TBBT when the idea of a creator is thrown into the mix. I think most astrophysicists realize that there's more to creation than just the TBB, but science cannot go beyond the confines of creation in its quest to understand creation. This limitation has obviously bothered many popularizers of science who hate how they can't touch theology and much of philosophy, but it remains true that science can only answer so much - TBBT can only answer so much.

To that end, and to actually answer the OP, I still don't believe in miracles. I suppose that I must allow for them being possible, but that doesn't mean I'm willing to throw out what conclusive science already exists and say I believe in them. I don't, and I won't until I'm convinced that they do.

Which I think is false if you take into account that the universe was created — Mr Phil O'Sophy

Creation is what god did, init? The Big Bang was a spontaneous natural event.

Definition...
The action or process of bringing something into existence.
"creation of a coalition government"
synonyms: design, formation, forming, modelling, putting together, setting up, making, construction, constructing, fabrication, fabricating, fashioning, building, erection, erecting; More
2.
the creating of the universe, especially when regarded as an act of God.
"the big bang was the moment of the Creation, and therefore the work of God"

The Universe was not "BROUGHT" in to existence.
There was no one to bring it.

is a false statement. — Mr Phil O'Sophy

Is a false statement.

Your arguments are poorly executed and emotionally fueled. — Mr Phil O'Sophy

This is a false statement.