IC please clarify for us

[Immanuel Can]

This idea of God is not scientific,

You keep saying it. But you haven't shown it.

IC, what empirical evidence do you suggest would show either the existence of a deity or the n0n-existence of a deity? If there isn't any, if empirical evidence has nothing to do with belief in deity, then not scientific (by the definition of science).

Oh, the evidence isn't at all hard to find. Open your eyes to what's around you, and you see it every day. This world, this universe is an ongoing miracle, that by every mathematical and scientific calculation should simply not exist...and yet does. And a second miracle is yourself; look at your intellect, your consciousness, your awareness, your soul...how has such a being as you even come into presence? There is no explanation in "randomness" or "chance" adequate to such a production as you and I are.

But evidence is often more a matter of judgment than of substance. That is, we can see all the evidence in the world, and simply refuse to accept or see it as evidence. And that, I find, is the state of the Atheist -- he's a man surrounded by the evidence, who refuses utterly to regard any of it as evidence. He works tirelessly, instead, to invent "solutions" that don't require the implication of intelligence or design in his own existence. He tells us he is the product of nothing but time and chance; and then demands that we believe the pronouncements of a mind designed purely in those ways.

But why should we? If the configuration of his own mind is merely a matter of time and chance, what's the reason we should trust such a mind or its judgments? If we believe him about our origins, then we shouldn't believe him about his pronouncements. We have no reason to. He's denied we can have any such reason.

So Atheism is not merely "unscientific": if we take it seriously, it's totally anti-scientific. It means that we ought to think human minds cannot be reliable. So then, what about science? Human minds discovered it, and human minds demand we believe it; but why should we trust human minds, if they're nothing but the accidental collocation of random atoms?

[Immanuel Can]

This idea of God is not scientific,

You keep saying it. But you haven't shown it.

Anything that contradicts the law of nature is unscientific.

Which law?

[Janoah]

You keep saying it. But you haven't shown it.

Anything that contradicts the law of nature is unscientific.

Which law?

The law by which everything happens in nature.
The wording of the law may change, or its wording may not be known at all.
But the principle of science is that everything happens according to a law, although perhaps an unknown one, otherwise it is not science, but a fairy tale

[Immanuel Can]

Anything that contradicts the law of nature is unscientific.

Which law?

The law by which everything happens in nature.

What law is that?

[promethean75]

We've observed no 'laws' in nature, you guys. What we observe is uniformity and repetition in events 'up til now'. Please remember your Hume, gentlemen.

There are 'rules' of reasoning, though. They aren't empirical, and we know they exist a priori because we would employ them in trying to refute the claim 'there are rules of reasoning'. A statement has to abide by the law in order to be meaningful, in other words. This law stands in any context in which the statement is made, at any time and in any part of the universe. I'm told by many prominent colleagues that Frege is the guy we want.

[Immanuel Can]

We've observed no 'laws' in nature, you guys. What we observe is uniformity and repetition in events 'up til now'. Please remember your Hume, gentlemen.

I'm not unmindful of the problem of positing "laws" of nature. I'm questioning, to see what Janoah means.

[Janoah]

Which law?

The law by which everything happens in nature.

What law is that?

Try using Your definition, please.

[FlashDangerpants]

The law by which everything happens in nature.

What law is that?

Try using Your definition, please.

If it helps at all, mister Can there recently did an entire whole heap of bullshit predicated on entropy, here's a little quote from that erm... well that thing...

Sustainability is incompatible with consumerism.

Sustainability is also incompatible with life.

Everything uses energy. Everything is subject to entropy. The same is true for animals, for plants, and for the lowest life forms.

If you want a completely "sustainable" world, it can only be a dead one.

Meanwhile, all our "sustainablility" strategies -- recycling, windmills, electric cars, cloth diapers, batteries, solar panels -- also pollute, and often in even more serious and unsustainable ways than our previous measures. So we're killing the planet faster, in the name of "sustainability."

It's all very ironic.

So at the very least, you can rest assured that he has the most insane commitment possible to the 3rd law of thermodynamics.

[Immanuel Can]

The law by which everything happens in nature.

What law is that?

Try using Your definition, please.

I know of many things that are proposed to be "laws." I don't know which one you think applies to this question. So you're going to have to tell me.

[Janoah]

What law is that?

Try using Your definition, please.

I know of many things that are proposed to be "laws." I don't know which one you think applies to this question. So you're going to have to tell me.

Please use the definitions given in encyclopedias.

[phyllo]

So at the very least, you can rest assured that he has the most insane commitment possible to the 3rd law of thermodynamics.

Who knows if that's what he actually thinks or if he's just talking for others, again.

[Immanuel Can]

Try using Your definition, please.

I know of many things that are proposed to be "laws." I don't know which one you think applies to this question. So you're going to have to tell me.

Please use the definitions given in encyclopedias.

The definition of which "law"?

[Janoah]

I know of many things that are proposed to be "laws." I don't know which one you think applies to this question. So you're going to have to tell me.

Please use the definitions given in encyclopedias.

The definition of which "law"?

I already said that scientists study the laws of nature,
"law of nature, in the philosophy of science, a stated regularity in the relations or order of phenomena in the world that holds, under a stipulated set of conditions, either universally or in a stated proportion of instances."
(Britannica)

And I already said that in my opinion,
Scientists formulate "laws of nature" as approximate, limited scientific models that are refined over time.
But in reality, these formulated laws do not exist independently of one another, but in essence they are “views” of the One Law of Nature.

[promethean75]

That's Feyerabendianism.

[Gary Childress]

That's Feyerabendianism.

What is "Feyerabendianism"? Is it the definition of a "law of nature" from the Encyclopedia Britannica?