• Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
    If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
    Donations can be made via here

Today we will be discussing the evidence for a Loving, Logical, Lawgiver God. His name is Jesus.

mrbatman

New Member
arg-fallbackName="mrbatman"/>
Today we're talking about science. Science can only be done because of a loving logical Living lawgiver God who doesn't change over time.

This is why we have laws like laws of gravity, magnetism, thermodynamics that do not change over time. Because they come from a lawgiver that doesn't change over time.

Not to mention the laws of logic such as the law of identity, noncontradiction, and the law of the excluded middle. If these laws did not exist we would not be here to complain about it. If these laws ever changed over time we would not be here to complain about it.

Why do these laws exist where do they come from? What causes them not to change over time? And what's going to cause them to be here tomorrow? That is the question for my atheist and non-believing Friends.

This is my first post from Mr Batman of www.MrBatman.com
 
arg-fallbackName="he_who_is_nobody"/>
Science can only be done because of a loving logical Living lawgiver God who doesn't change over time.

Non-sequitur.

Why do these laws exist where do they come from?

I do not know, and nor do you.

What causes them not to change over time?

I do not know, and nor do you.

And what's going to cause them to be here tomorrow?

I do not know, and nor do you.

The funny thing is, you believe in a being that can change reality at will, so why would you expect any of those things to be the same tomorrow?
 
arg-fallbackName="BrachioPEP"/>
Hi Mr Batman.

So, because (for example) laws

therefore Jesus is Creator/Lord.


Point of note:

I don’t want to seem overly technical, awkward, philosophical, argumentative or doubtful of your claim, but there might be people here who may want you to fill in a slight gap between these parts. The terms, leap of faith/stretch of the imagination springs to mind, but I don’t want to underestimate what you are going to present or jump to the conclusion that the post is provocative.

It is a hard enough task to even infer a being/God, but you have jumped straight to Jesus. This seems a monumental task that no other theologian, philosopher or scientist has ever done yet to my knowledge. Are you coming from a cosmological and/or teleological perspective?

Question 1/how it comes across:

Are you here to learn, preach, educate or what? You seem to be starting at the end, pre-conceived conclusion and filling in data to try to support your view point.

A less provocative or more interactive/modest introduction might have been to ask where laws come from or if they can be explained or what the best explanations might be. But I am not you and you are free to present whatever you like. If there are responses, I hope you will respond to any criticisms and not move the goalposts or appeal to fallacies etc.

Question 2/3.

To determine if you are open minded, may I ask if you could be wrong and what could bring you to this position?

Question 4.

Will you actually be presenting any scientific evidence for Jesus, as the post implies?

Welcome!
 
arg-fallbackName="*SD*"/>
I should probably clarify in fairness, I invited MrBatman to the forum from Discord, he pops in one of my servers semi frequently and he also had a...err.... discussion? With @AronRa not so long ago, link below. I thought maybe it would be more productive if they discussed in writing, or MrBatman could discuss with other people here if Aron declines to respond. Here is the video of the last interaction I'm aware of -

 
arg-fallbackName="We are Borg"/>
I have been thinking for a few weeks about this IF there was a God how could you scientifically prove it. What ever test you come up with math or whatever you can’t because how a supernatural entity interacts. Aron said it best in a video that when God would save people like 911 no one would doubt God existed. But i would never trust that entity at all.

So how do you want to prove God scientifically?
 
arg-fallbackName="BrachioPEP"/>
There are many ways in which most gods interact and are therefore testable by scientific means, but one has to demonstrate it is from such a specific source and not an unknown or other source.

Healing miracles for example. One can test the bewfore/after. They are two a penny, even huge ones (if many Christian’s testimony are to go by) but all seem to have escaped testing or evidence. But even if such a healing were to be confirmed (e.g. one of my lists of such healings that would be suitably acceptable – but see my caveats in other posts) replacement eyes, amputation, genetic or chromosomal abnormality like Down’s syndrome, dwarfism etc. And even if it were in response to prayer to a particular God, one still has to demonstrably link them and remove other explanations or an unknown factor. It is not easy to prove a God, ‘in this way’. But God could easily prove Her/Him/I/Their-self/selves in many ways. A word spelled out in the stars perhaps? ‘The day the earth stood still’? In fact I would be more accommodating than most might. Anything, no matter how simple, but enough to remove fraud and alternatives. Many have been deceived, so one has to be able to rule out deception or alternatives. I am open to a mutually agreeable test or method or evidence that may already be out there. Hopefully it would be on a suitable level for my understanding. I don’t want to be found baffled by bullshit.
 
arg-fallbackName="AronRa"/>
Today we're talking about science. Science can only be done because of a loving logical Living lawgiver God who doesn't change over time.
Your very first sentence is already a lie.
Having a magic imaginary friend IMPEDES science.
Science is done exactly the opposite of faith.

This is why we have laws like laws of gravity, magnetism, thermodynamics that do not change over time. Because they come from a lawgiver that doesn't change over time.

Not to mention the laws of logic such as the law of identity, noncontradiction, and the law of the excluded middle. If these laws did not exist we would not be here to complain about it. If these laws ever changed over time we would not be here to complain about it.

Why do these laws exist where do they come from? What causes them not to change over time? And what's going to cause them to be here tomorrow? That is the question for my atheist and non-believing Friends.
In a universe where material energy and universal wave function are both eternal, then some of these properties could be emergent from the asymptote of time as the universe inflates, in the event of a singularity. In which case, they did not "come from" anywhere. What you're describing as laws are properties necessary to exist at all. If they did not exist, then neither would we, and neither could your god.

In order for a thing to exist, it must have properties.
If it doesn't have properties, it doesn't exist.
God doesn't have properties. God doesn't exist.

Properties HAVE to exist or else nothing else can.
If those properties are not constant, they are not properties.
What could cause properties to change over time?

Natural laws are when people identify one of these properties
and describe it in a summary statement or an algebraic equation.
Our discovery of these properties does not create them.

Not all of the laws we've devised are necessarily correct.
Sometimes they're wrong or the property isn't even real.
For example, both of the laws of biogenesis proved false.
 
Last edited:
arg-fallbackName="he_who_is_nobody"/>


Mrbatman appears to be a two-trick pony, interrupting and JAQing off. A written forum is the only place that mrbatman should be engaged with because neither of those tricks works on a written medium.

Also, has anyone else noticed that most Christian Apologists adopt the same cadence when speaking?
 
arg-fallbackName="*SD*"/>
This is why im trying to encourage written discussion on this here forumses :) It's far more difficult to wiggly wiggly worm in writing ;)
 
arg-fallbackName="Led Zeppelin"/>
Oh Jesus Christ another Aron Ra debate. Is it almost exactly the same as the 100 other debates everyone has seen before?

Please stop wasting your talents and do something new for a change. Everyone knows you think Christians are dumb. I though you were supposed to be writting a book or something..
 
arg-fallbackName="BrachioPEP"/>
Hey LZ, easy tiger. What was that little rant/attack about? Mr Batman began the post and another member happened to post a video link regarding the post topic of Mr Batman by the very same Mr Batman. And your unhappiness seems to be entirely and unrelatedly with another member, Aron Ra. (?)

Your perception or experience of, ‘everyone’ and, ‘the same’ may be somewhat subjective or more linked to his opposition. It would have been better to have mentioned that (e.g. using, ‘I’ instead of. ‘we’). If he is confronted with the, ‘same old’, then why would he respond differently to it all?

What does writing a book or not have to do with the price of fish? One presumes he is allowed to do more than one thing?

A little odd, LZ. You can do better. Words don’t always need to be said.

Here’s Mr Batman, again on the same topic, Gish Galloping and missing most points being made by Tom Jump, but not accepting them, as only the answers he wants will suffice.

Notice the (barely passive) aggressive nature of the Christian and the patience of the atheist.



Do you have, in conformity to the post, any scientific evidence for Jesus being God?
 
arg-fallbackName="AronRa"/>
Please stop wasting your talents and do something new for a change. Everyone knows you think Christians are dumb.
Everyone knows what isn't true? That's interesting. The reality is that all the best advocates of reason over superstition have all once been believers, and those former believers now say that they didn't get any smarter when they lost their faith. Instead they just learned to question their beliefs analytically and think more logically.
 
arg-fallbackName="BrachioPEP"/>
Batman said:

“Science can only be done because of a loving logical Living lawgiver God who doesn't change over time.

This is why we have laws like laws of gravity, magnetism, thermodynamics that do not change over time. Because they come from a lawgiver that doesn't change over time.”




A light hearted response:



Science can only be done due to Quangaman who changes not. How do we know this – based on what evidence? Because without him, science could not be done.



A far superior proposal, based on evidence and not circular reasoning:



BELL LAB PROVES EXISTENCE OF DARK SUCKERS!




For years it has been believed that electric bulbs emitted light. However,

recent information from Bell Labs has proven otherwise. Electric bulbs

don't emit light; they suck dark. Thus they now call these bulbs dark

suckers. The dark sucker theory, according to a spokesman from the Labs,

proves the existence of dark, that dark has mass heavier than that of

light, and that dark is faster than light.



The basis of the dark sucker theory is that electric bulbs suck dark. Take

for example the dark suckers in the room where you are. There is less dark

right next to them than there is elsewhere. The larger the dark sucker,

the greater its capacity to suck dark. Dark suckers in a parking lot have

a much greater capacity than the ones in this room.



As with all things, dark suckers don't last forever. Once they are full of

dark, they can no longer suck. This is proven by the black spot on a full

dark sucker. A new candle has a white wick. You will notice that after the

first use, the wick turns black, representing all the dark which has been

sucked into it. If you hold a pencil next to the wick of an operating

candle, the tip will turn black because it got in the path of the dark

flowing into the candle. Unfortunately, these primitive dark suckers have

a very limited range.



There are also portable dark suckers. The bulbs in these can't handle all

of the dark by themselves, and must be aided by a dark storage unit. When

the dark storage unit is full, it must be either emptied or replaced

before the portable dark sucker can operate again.



Dark has mass. When dark goes into a dark sucker, friction from this mass

generates heat. Thus it is not wise to touch an operating dark sucker.

Candles present a special problem, as the dark must travel in the solid

wick instead of through glass. This generates a great amount of heat. Thus

it can be very dangerous to touch an operating candle.



Dark is also heavier than light. If you swim deeper and deeper, you notice

it gets darker and darker. When you reach a depth of approximately fifty

feet, you are in total darkness. This is because the heavier dark sinks to

the bottom of the lake and the ligher light floats to the top.



The immense power of dark can be utilized to a man's advantage. We can

collect the dark that has settled to the bottom of lakes and push it

through turbines, which generates electricity and helps push it to the

ocean where it may be safely stored. Prior to turbines, it was much more

difficult to get dark from rivers and lakes to the ocean. The Indians

recognized this problem and tried to solve it. When on a river in a canoe

traveling in the same direction as the flow of dark, they paddled slowly,

so as not to stop the flow of dark, but when they traveled against the

flow of dark, they paddled quickly so as to help push the dark along its

way.



Finally, we must prove that dark is faster than light. If you stand in an

illuminated room in front of a closed, dark closet, then slowly open the

door, you would see the light slowly enter the closet, but since the dark

is so fast, you would not be able to see the dark leave the closet.



In conclusion, Bell Labs stated that dark suckers make all our lives much

easier. So the next time you look at an electric light bulb, remember that

it is indeed a dark sucker.
 
arg-fallbackName="Glossophile"/>
Today we're talking about science. Science can only be done because of a loving logical Living lawgiver God who doesn't change over time.

This is why we have laws like laws of gravity, magnetism, thermodynamics that do not change over time. Because they come from a lawgiver that doesn't change over time.

This seems to rest on an equivocation fallacy, namely between two distinct yet equally valid senses of the word "law." Implicit in your argument is the assumption that laws require at least one lawgiver. This is definitely true of legal/political laws, but whether or not the same is true of scientific laws depends on whether you're talking about the statements themselves or the physical patterns/relationships to which they refer. This is not a trivial distinction, and yet it seems to be one that apologists often want to gloss over in arguments like this.

For example, if you're talking about the equation "E = mc^2," then it does arguably require a lawgiver (in this case, Einstein). If, on the other hand, you're referring to the testable fact that the amount of energy held within any object is equal to the product of its mass and the speed of light squared, then the conclusion that it requires a lawgiver becomes hasty at best and just plain false at worst. The relationship between mass and energy described by the equation was true for eons before Einstein discovered it, and it will remain true for eons after.

If by "laws" you mean the descriptive expressions, then you're on solid ground for arguing that they require a lawgiver. After all, they could never exist without any sufficiently intelligent being(s) to conceive them. At the same time, however, the lawgiver in each case is already known. He/she is at least the first person to discover and publish the law, if not also every scientist who continues to use and teach it.

If by "laws" you man the underlying physical patterns and relationships, then no known lawgivers present themselves. However, at the same time, the presupposition that any lawgiver is even necessary now rests on much shakier ground. It becomes essentially an argument from ignorance, specifically of the "God of the gaps" variety.

The possibility of a multiverse, for instance, renders it possible that a myriad of universes exist, each instantiating its own set of physical patterns and relationships, With multiple dice rolls, it becomes significantly less remarkable that we happened to roll a six. It is also possible that there is some as yet unknown meta-cosmic constraint that renders our set of patterns and relationships the only possible one (or maybe one of a very few).

Of course, you can view this as merely passing the buck and ask where such a meta-cosmic constraint itself would come from, but here again, you'd be arguing from ignorance. At the very least, it rests on a fundamental assumption that utter incoherence and nothingness is the default state of reality, and intuitive though that may seem, intuition is not good enough for a conclusion as firm as you want to claim.

A deity is certainly a sufficient explanation for the consistent and coherent behavior of the cosmos, but we are far from knowing enough about the cosmos to suggest with any confidence that it's a necessary explanation.

Not to mention the laws of logic such as the law of identity, noncontradiction, and the law of the excluded middle. If these laws did not exist we would not be here to complain about it. If these laws ever changed over time we would not be here to complain about it.

So? You seem to be operating under the presupposition that our existence was inevitable. You're sounding like Douglas Adams' famous sentient puddle. And that's assuming that you were referring to the cosmic patterns of behavior that the laws describe rather than the descriptions themselves. If you instead meant to invoke the latter, then you've got the causality bass-ackwards. The cosmos does not behave as it does because it's following some sort of Platonic marching orders. Rather, the laws of logic are as they are simply because the cosmos behaves as it does.

Why do these laws exist where do they come from? What causes them not to change over time? And what's going to cause them to be here tomorrow? That is the question for my atheist and non-believing Friends.

The most succinct response to this has already been posted, so I'll just repeat it with some added emphasis on the part that may be news to you, just in case it wasn't already clear. I don't know, and neither do you.
 
Last edited:
arg-fallbackName="Led Zeppelin"/>
I have been thinking for a few weeks about this IF there was a God how could you scientifically prove it. What ever test you come up with math or whatever you can’t because how a supernatural entity interacts. Aron said it best in a video that when God would save people like 911 no one would doubt God existed. But i would never trust that entity at all.

So how do you want to prove God scientifically?
God doesn't require us to scientifically prove his existence. God says he has already given us the evidence of himself and even his invisible attributes, in ourselves and in his creation, so that anyone who denies the truth about him is without excuse.
 
arg-fallbackName="Jason Boreu"/>
God doesn't require us to scientifically prove his existence. God says he has already given us the evidence of himself and even his invisible attributes, in ourselves and in his creation, so that anyone who denies the truth about him is without excuse.
This is nothing but a bald assertion.
 
arg-fallbackName="We are Borg"/>
God doesn't require us to scientifically prove his existence. God says he has already given us the evidence of himself and even his invisible attributes, in ourselves and in his creation, so that anyone who denies the truth about him is without excuse.

The issue is that the Bible is man made so anything in it needs to be taken with a grain of salt. You can’t say God whispered in the ear of people who wrote the Bible because there are so much inconsistencies in it and stuff that makes no sense at all like the dome.
 
Back
Top