[In response to the claim "law implies a lawmaker" begs the question just as badly as Kirk Cameron's "Creation implies a Creator"]
"What testable evidence do you have to contradict that laws have lawmakers? None. Thus, it is logical that the laws of nature had a lawmaker making Kirk Cameron a genius and you still have nothing but blind atheism :)"
23 comments
Laws, as human institutions, can be reached by a consensus of human beings and by trial and error. That's in fact, how we have reached our current state.
dimwit, mistaking how the word "law" is used in a scientific context.
In case you didn't know, what it means is a form of words to describe a phenomenon, not a statement that created it.
And the word "creation" again is just a word to describe the universe - allocated post hoc by superstitionists.
Now go away
Laws can also be broken by an effort of human will, for example if I will to steal, solicit a prostitute or drive the wrong way on a one way street I can with very little effort. There's a possibility of repercussion afterwards, but actually breaking the laws is easy.
So by equalsexes logic...
*creates energy from nothing*
ZOMG! s/he was right! You really got to try this guys!
The laws of nature are "deduced", "discovered" or "uncovered” they are not made, they need no maker, they need no reason, they exist. You, on the other hand; weak of mind and personality, seek a reason for your petty existence because you know that YOU have to value of intrinsic worth so YOU create, manufacture, makeup, imagine, wish, conjure a reason for YOUR existence, and after all that mental effort, the only reason you can come up with to justify your existence is to be a subservient sycophant to an imaginary bland, vengeful, petty deity. How sad to need a justification for existence and how very sad is that justification.
How many times must it be said? There is a difference between a prescriptive law and a descriptive law.
Also, learn something about burden of proof.
Maknig Kirk Cameron a genius.
I guess I can cross that combo off of my list of things I never thought I'd hear.
I guess I'm just waiting for people to refer to Pauly Shore as an Oscar Winner, or to Kato Kalin's career.
Laws most certainly do imply lawmakers. For example, Kepler's laws of planetary motion were written by Kepler (natch), and the law of conservation of energy dates back as far as Thales of Miletus. What does that have to do with God?
The so-called "laws of nature" are human descriptions of observed phenomena. They exist only as descriptions. You can't equate them with "No Jaywalking." Well, you can, but you have to be a dullard to do so.
Repeat after me: physical laws are descriptive, societal laws are prescriptive.
If you do not understand these words, get a dictionary.
You know, just because something, as of yet, cannot be explained doesn't mean that it is automatically correct.
Ex) I have never seen a 12 legged tiger, no one I know has seen a 12 legged tiger, I believe you have never seen a 12 legged tiger, thus by your own reasoning, a 12 legged tiger must exist.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
