Total Posts:5|Showing Posts:1-5
Jump to topic:

Self-consistency argument

cbrhawk1
Posts: 588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2012 11:17:00 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Video by Dr. Dennis Polis

To sum up the video, Dennis Polis argues the question about the laws of conservation not conserving themselves. There is nothing written that says why these laws do so, and unless the laws are edited and shown to conserve themselves, such conservation requires an infinite regress of laws that conserve other laws.
"All science is 'wrong.'" ~ drafterman
Nur-Ab-Sal
Posts: 1,637
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2012 9:15:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/19/2012 11:17:00 AM, cbrhawk1 wrote:
Video by Dr. Dennis Polis



To sum up the video, Dennis Polis argues the question about the laws of conservation not conserving themselves. There is nothing written that says why these laws do so, and unless the laws are edited and shown to conserve themselves, such conservation requires an infinite regress of laws that conserve other laws.

Interesting video.
Genesis I. And God created man to his own image: to the image of God he created him: male and female he created them.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2012 10:00:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/19/2012 11:17:00 AM, cbrhawk1 wrote:
Video by Dr. Dennis Polis



To sum up the video, Dennis Polis argues the question about the laws of conservation not conserving themselves. There is nothing written that says why these laws do so, and unless the laws are edited and shown to conserve themselves, such conservation requires an infinite regress of laws that conserve other laws.

Sorry, but what does it mean for those laws to "conserve themselves?" That makes no sense to me.

Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance.
cbrhawk1
Posts: 588
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2012 3:01:10 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Sorry, but what does it mean for those laws to "conserve themselves?" That makes no sense to me.

It means that a conservation law conserves something, and not itself. Therefore, in order for a concurrent reality to exist, we must, by definition, have God, as he says toward the end of his video.

Because, someone has to hold the laws up so they act concurrently, and that something is God, by dictionary definition. Now, whether that God is intelligent or not is shown here, but this is a proof that the dictionary definition of God exists.

Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance.

This is simply using the laws of logic to arrive at a proof of God. That's all this is. This isn't a "god of gaps" argument. This is a proof of the dictionary definition of God according to Dr. Polis.
"All science is 'wrong.'" ~ drafterman
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/22/2012 3:37:09 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/19/2012 10:00:14 PM, drafterman wrote:


Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance.

Oh I am so stealing that one......oh ok I'll qoute ya.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12