@unexist001 - Yes the natural laws are explanations but they also are the direct cause of reality itself. Natural laws are quantum wave structures that direct the forces of nature, in string physics they are made of tiny sub atomic vibrating strings. The equations that science uses to explain things are our representation of the behavior of the quantum wave structure AKA the natural laws that direct the forces of nature AKA the real God.
The unified laws of nature calibrate and control the fundamental forces that created the universe with the big bang & evolution and realize everything there is and all truth. The unity of natural laws & powers compose God, the creator & ruller of the universe. God does not give the laws but God IS the natural laws & the powers. You say at 2:50 the laws of nature are impossible to break, they simply are, " yea simply are the real God. The Bozo with a beard that most define as God is just wrong.
@Censeo "C: Something doesn't have to have been created, just because it has laws. And things having natural laws doesn't give evidence to God
Natural Laws & Powers compose God, (Natural Laws AKA God), they are the same thing. It is like saying just because Automobiles exist is no proof that cars exist. OMG they are the same thing.
@ungertron I am sorry, but God is not a good word to use as a synonym to natural laws. There is a lot of baggage with this word, and most people will think of some kind of agent with very high powers which they pray to. Besides, "natural laws" works perfectly fine, cause when we phrase it that way, people usually grasp what you are referring to instantly, and you don't need to explain what you mean with the words.
@Censeo - No calling God that stupid bearded idiot, of the moronic bible, that has the sun going around a ridiculous earth that is less than 10,000 year old - That takes much more explaining, if you have a brain that is, See God is the REAL creator & ruler of the universe, as in the natural laws & powers AKA the real God. The big bang and evolution are the ways that that God does things, not the words of a biblical goof ball, who gets everything wrong, what's wrong with you?
@ungertron and if you're saying that God is natural laws AND some alfa-omega agent at the same time, then that is an assertion and a premise that I can't agree with, since I think it could very well be that this assertion isn't the case, so it would need some justification and an argument behind it that is convincing me it must be true.
@Censeo - People are composed of organic matter directed by their DNA. God is composed of natural laws that mathematically control and calibrate, the powers of the gravitational, electromagnetic, and the strong & weak nuclear force fields. There is no “alfa-omega agent” and to define God as the biblical jerk who made man “in his own image” shows you to be delusional. There is the delusional non-God of the bible and the real God AKA the natural laws & powers.
@ungertron well, there are a lot of people who would think of agency when they hear the word God, so I'll be using the synonymous word "nature" instead.
@Censeo - Using nature as a word for God is the pantheist view that everything is God, which is even a worse mistake than confusing the moron in the bible with God. A tree does not get together with a moose to set the gravitational fields strength, the natural laws AKA the mind of God, does that. A turtle and a frog are not responsible for holding the earth in orbit. Nature is not God, the natural laws and powers compose God and the rest of nature is created by the big bang and evolution.
@ungertron First you said God was the natural laws. Now you say he is responsible for them. You're speaking of an agent when you speak of a mind of someone. Here you speak of an alfa-omega agent (an agent throughout all time) but before you said you do not speak of such a God. Well, you've seen my response regarding that God already, and you speak too much against things you've stated earlier for me to find this worth while continuing.
@Censeo - I said that the natural laws AKA the mind of God are what calibrates and directs the powers or force fields. God is composed of laws & powers. Natural laws like e=mc^2; calibrate the sun’s thermonuclear reaction. E=mc^2 is NOT some Alfa-Omega “he”, your confusing the dick head man God with the natural laws that contain the calibrations for the force fields that hold your atoms together , ignite the sun and maintain the earth in orbit. Natural laws & powers are what compose God.
@Censeo -Natural laws are the equations that calibrate & control the force fields. If there were natural laws with no force fields nothing would work. If there were force fields with no laws, nothing would work. The natural laws are to God what your brain is to you. The force fields are to God what your body is to you. The laws & forces AKA God are one existence with two functions, just like the e=mc^2 formula is not the same thing as an A-Bomb, but without the calibration nothing works.
If a God did not exist, then the Universe would exist for eternity. Even with the Big Bang, the densely compact matter would have to be sitting for eternity before it "decided" to "explode". If the universe existed for eternity, how would we get to this point in time? For if eternity went backwards forever, then we never would have gotten to NOW. Is there an argument against this? And if so what is it?
You misunderstood. I wasn't talking about eternity, but the difference between given and perceived law. Creationists assume that if there is a law there had to be a lawgiver. I said that what we call law is only the observation of what in fact IS. When we say theory, you (they?) like to slam us with "it's JUST a theory. Both in science refer to observation, not to authoritarian fiat.
If I sent you a message could you reply? I just cannot refute this fact concluding the falsity of this theory. You seemed to be a wise man. I thought you may be able to do so.
I don't know whether the universe is eternal (infinite) or not. There appears to have been a beginning for the universe we see, but who can say that it isn't a cycle that has repeated over and over forever? You want a finite mind to answer for the infinite. I conceive a condition of infinity, not an infinite being. Sorry, but my brain is as linear as yours when it comes to time.
The cycling theory brings a peace of mind if you are an atheist. However, if complete submission is given to theology, it is quite simple to understand that even if the Universe had been cycling over and over, it would have to have a beginning to the cycle...for without a beginning...this point in time could not be reached. It is impossible. If you have a switch that goes on off on off on off, then you can not get to the third on if there is not a first on. It equally ignorant as evo
If you must have a deity outside of time, that's okay. But for purposes of this argument, let's agree that the universe had a beginning and will have an end. But each of our brains may want to peek around the edge on each side of that parameter. It's only natural. It's like the kid hearing Daddy say "...and they lived happily ever after," insisting, "And THEN what happened. Infinity is outside our scope except as an abstraction. Why not leave it at that?
That is exactly where I have left it. For infinite can only be experienced by something that has existed for an infinite amount of time, which is God. We can not grasp this, for we have not experienced this in our oh so carnal bodies...nor can we experience it without life after death. I just wanted to see where your opinion lies. Thanks. If you ever would like to read some theology I have written on Christianity and such I will send it. I would like to know you opinion? If not, thats fine.
Many years ago I went to a college that taught theology. I've had more than enough of it. Thanks just the same. I understand that to you, and probably a majority of others, the gap in what the finite mind is capable of understanding you fill with God. I call it the god of the gaps, which term, of course, I did not originate. I am satisfied to leave the gap unfilled, realizing, as I do, that abstractions like infinity are beyond my ken.
Largo has given us a lot of practical information in these videos. Yes, you god-peoples, you set the rules of the games you play and then fill in the blanks with your made-in-China gods. Key-Largo is asking you people to jump back, take another look, put away the childish things.
@BDenman1 zeno paradox. lol constant cycle. even if there is a beginning, you have to cover half the distance to the end. then half the distance of the second half. then half of THAT distance, and so on. therefore, you never truely get where you are going. thats why they say, wherever you go, there you are. same with time, i would have to assume. but thenyou do get to where youre going. so thats why its a paradox. something you dont understand, but its law anyways. why should god be different.
@BDenman1 im not religious, just using logical rational thinking to show that there are things far beyond our grasp at this point of evolution. but if we are all part of god, then that explains the god is everywhere and everytime theory. god cant die, so then if he lives outside of time, then that could also explain memory too. crazy stuff.
Yikes! I hope you don't get marked off. I gave an opinion of natural law, but it may not jibe with what you teacher will say. If there is a scientific definition I'd go with that.
Sorry Largo it just all came out! Could you be more specific? Do you mean pertaining to human/society or gravity laws? What is natural law? My answer at the moment is...
In nature there is a natural violence that occurs...animals maim and kill each other when mateing season is about...they fight for power also 'heirarchy' etc...So does that mean humans have become....Unnatural...because we dont kill each other and try to reason first? Oh but we do kill each other...well some do...Its not very nice though...What is natural law?....cont..
....to want to improve conditons for people and to lessen there struggles.. Its natural for flowers to bloom in the sun and for mushrooms to grow in the dark.....interesting largo...what IS natural law....Is it relative?
What comes natural to a bug does not come natural to me or does it......cont....
It is natural for a human being to protect and nurture and love and it is also natural for humans to become violent in the course of protecting itself when reason fails. It is natural that apples will fall from trees and it seems to be very natural for humans to squabble about who is right and who is wrong. Its natural to progress for the better in society......cont...
What is natural law?? I dunno... It is natural for dogs to chase and kill rabbits, it is natural for cats to chase and kiil mice etc it is natural that mice run away from cats etc its natural for a bird to fly and for a fish to swim.....cont....
C.S. Lewis, among others, has argued that the existence of natural law suggests a lawgiver. It may not be an airtight argument, but it is worth pondering.
Sorry. I find this very confusing. You seem to mix the laws of nature with natural law. The first is a scientific issue, the latter a moral issue. A natural law is a moral standard that is universally accepted. For example: "All men are created equal..." or "Murder is wrong." There is an intersection between the two, however. It is at the point where we ask the question: Where did they come from? You seem to shrug that off, but to me it seems a fair question.
I can't say that I agree with your position that "natural law" and "law of nature" are two separate things. I didn't refine it in that way, but suggested that "law" is a perception in the case of nature and not a behest. We see how things do, in fact, behave, and call it a law. But nobody necessarily told things to behave as they do.
How do you know no one "told things to behave as they do?" In the case of the laws of nature they are so fine-tuned that random chance does not seem to be a viable explanation for their existence. Even a multiverse doesn't doesn't provide a solution, in my mind, because the statistical probability of any universe with the fine-tuned characteristics of this universe still falls beyond the realm of possibility.
I don't "know" no one told things to behave as they do any more than you "know" that someone (some god) did. What I spoke about was observation. The conclusions people draw are their own.
As a Catholic we define Natural law not as an observance of nature, but more in terms as a natural/universal guide within our human reasoning. E.g. stealing goes against reason as it will sow social discord and disrupt harmony, as does murder, adultery, etc. The last five commandments can be seen an articulation of the natural law.
Yes that was the example given to us in theology. That through reason man can come to the understanding that certain acts like stealing,murder,adultery are wrong because of the discord they sow and other reasons. Dr Charles Rice of Notre Dame does a very in depth study of natural law and how it is connected to our reasoning powers.
Well the natural law is a reflection of the Divine law, the bible gives us a deeper level of truth or more filled out truth through Revelation, gradual at first through the OT and complete in the NT. The typologies of the OT is a very interesting study and brings to life and makes sense of the many "apparent" contradictions many people never get past or never really try.
It is said in the RCC that Christ came in the fullness of time, some 500 BC we had many great thinkers positing the meaning of existence and matter, primer the stage so to speak. A great tie in with human reason is when the Greeks shifted from talking about a prime matter to being/existence itself, which ties in to the I am (Yahweh) of the OT.
Reason can't but help to discover reality, but can only take us so far, i.e. Trinity concept hard to come to on reason alone.
You are confusing me now. Pregnancy has to do with physics. This is the most common def. for physics ""The study of the natural or material world and phenomena; natural philosophy." and then it goes deeper...to which brings up twhere I mention the baby...the baby has to do with physics because The science of matter and energy and of interactions between the two (mother and child) so it is with physics...if you state the def. for physics and natural law it can be broken...
therefore the natural law (with physics) can be broken and I showed you that the natural law was broken with (bad) ethics (abortion)..i don't understand why you do not see them in here...what is it that you are trying to avoid to see? I answered logically that physics does with the child and can be broken...the natural law of a child in the genoma can be broken with radiation..you have a different def. for natural law..you are referring to a very specific one but that it's just part
It's no use talking to you any more about this. You confuse physiology with physics, and you won't be talked out of it. If you want to redefine natural law in your own way, be my guest. As I defined it in the video, it doesn't jibe with anything you have said here.
Ethics is a behavioral science and physics a physical one. They are not related in any way. Physics is not the same thing as physiology. I think the problem we are having here is at least partly a difference in native language. If I am mistaken about that, then you clearly are unschooled in the sciences.
this natural law is broken everyday...all men are created equal..that is a damn straight natural law...and you see slaves...that law is broken...again...i can prove you that a natural law is broken...right>?
All human beings have the equal right to be safe, secure and to share in the opportunities of life. The idea that all men (people) were created equal is a platitude which is utterly false. Equal rights do not confer equal intelligence, or strength or ability. Again, a natural law is a law of physics which states how the universe works. Not how it should work, but how it does work. Laws of behavior are not laws of nature, but of people. Pregnancy is a process, not a law.
You even clear it out in 1:21...they seem to be the same everywhere "natural law) and it can be changed....the law of nature states that a child will be stright..but some hormones in there and it turns gay...
Many laws, many can be broken. (Natural laws which you are talking about) "Nature" (our body) many laws can be borken. Steroids can brake the law of the production of muscle mass. And broke the law of nature. You mention only gravity. Think about all the natural laws..as a matter of fact..you can post them (all of them you know) and you will see that some of them can be borken...
I pointed out the "law" of gravity, which cannot be broken. It can be resisted by such things as flight, which uses other physical laws to balance or counteract it. But gravity still exists. Your statement that laws of nature can be broken as if they were the same as man made laws is simply wrong and ignorant.
You said, "Your statement that laws of nature can be broken as if they were the same as man made laws is simply wrong and ignorant. " I did not say that. I am saying that natural laws can be broken. And i said not all of them. Law of nature is a law that governs the behavior of natural phenomena and it can be broken since we manupulate that phenomena. What if a use drugs to brake the phenomena of the brain. I interrupt with the natural behavior of the brain and the law was broken.
Natural laws as I defined them in the video cannot be broken. What you are talking about is completely different. If you use drugs you create a chemical reaction in the brain, you do not nullify a natural law. A natural law is not brain activity. I referred to the laws of physics which are everywhere the same. It is possible, as in flight, to use one law to counteract another, but the laws themselves are not "breakable," as say a law against jaywalking.
Gravity is subject to the development of new theory. Laws of gravity as you call them are laws made by men. Newton created one which was insufficient to describe the orbit of Mercury. It was improved upon by Einstein, but there is still no theory of gravitational force. Furthermore Einstein once proposed a cosmological constant that was in effect anti-gravity, and because of measurement of universal expansion there are efforts to reinvestigate his idea.
You are missing the point. Gravity doesn't behave as it does because Newton (or Einstein) told it to. The "laws" of gravity are just the descriptions of how gravity works to the best of the ability of the observer. The whole point of this video was the common misunderstanding of the word "law" as applied to science. If you jump off a building, you may think you've broken the way your favorite scientist STATED the law. But you will still break something else if you jumped from high enough.
The word law is seldom used in science, and it is always used in a scientific sense. You have not done that. If you should jump off a building, science can be used to predict what is the likely result, but it can only give you probable outcomes.
You said 'gravity is law', meaning that gravity is real. The reality of gravity is a question of metaphysics. It is a philosophical problem not scientific problem. Empirical science does not provide theories of reality. That again is philosophy.
And you say "natural laws" cannot be broken! Of course they can! Fertilization is natural law but with a pill that law can be broken! And it is natural (fertilization) You see how I disproved your argument. I totally did it. And please, do not be arrogant in the process. Just accept it. Do not add anything so that you do not look bad. It is wiser to accept it but you will try..try very hard just to add something to justify but, what can you say if I already disproved you.
Fertilization also is a bad example. This requires a combination of two elements, the absence of one of which prevents, not breaks the occurrence of a natural event. Don't call me arrogant when you simply do not understand what I said.
Natural law can be used synonymously with natural justice or natural right (Latin ius naturale), although most contemporary political and legal theorists separate the two. And you are the one of them. Natural law theories have exercised a profound influence on the development and natural laws have to with with Ethics! (Not all of them! Okay! Listen! Not all of them! But a great proportion! And you are saying none!
No, natural law is not the consequence of legislation. It has nothing to do with justice or ethics. It is only an expression of what exists in nature.
The natural law of a baby to stay inside of a womb and coming out in 9 months has to do with Ethics. See why-- The natural law states that a woman keeps the child for 9 months and abortion (ethics) comes into play. You see here? It is perfectly applied in this situation. A natural law of the human is to give birth to a child in 9 months but sometimes abortion comes into play. Injustice has to do with this since an injust parent would abort a child. Perfectly applied.
Pregnancy is a natural process which usually occurs over a similar period in most women. It is vulnerable to everything from disease to injury along the way. The interruption of a pregnancy even by abortion is not the breaking of a natural law. It is the interruption of a process. By your reasoning, shooting someone in the head wold be breaking a natural law that they should go on living. That's just wrong.
Watch the video again. I defined natural law as merely an observation of how things in nature do behave, It is not a response to legislation. Again, it's an observation. Therefore it has nothing to do with ethics.
1)The law states that everything in the world naturally serves a purpose. This implies that it is morally wrong to use ears for holding up your glasses instead of hearing.
2)The world doesn't exist for humans; the world will persist regardless of human existence or not.
3)The law's use of reasoning is not consistent with the theory - ethics is about doing the right thing that has the best reasons on its side, not on what one believes or feels.
1) Laws and purposes as you posit them here are unrelated. If ears are positioned to gather sound waves there is no "moral" implication in that. That's like saying that eyes were created so we could see food and avoid predators, therefore it is immoral to watch television. That's just absurd
2). Eventually the world, and humans, will cease to exist when the sun goes nova. You're right, though, that it will persist until then, with or without humans.
There's a whole school of catholic/christian thought that describes "The Natural Law". It's based on Thomism (Thomas Aquinas) which is in turn based on Aristotle's Metaphysics. Aristotle's view is in contrast to Plato's. To Aristotle things are what they are. They're not reflections of some perfect "supernatural" world. Interestingly enough, Supreme Court Justice, Clarence Thomas, is a firm believer in the natural law.
"Natural Law" is just a metaphor. Things happen regular in nature AS IF they follow a law.
Metaphors just highlight some similarities while other aspects are dissimilar.
Objects in nature do not have a will, although they follow "laws". There is no legislation in nature, though there are "laws". There is no jurisdiction suing deviations from "laws".
And btw: Using semantics to prove the existence of anything is just silly.
In your video you mention that Natural Laws are NOT "given". We atheists are great at identifying what is "NOT". I think it would be fair to round off your statement in this manner, "Natural Laws are not 'given', they are 'discovered'!" [or 'observed']
I agree with you on the improper use of the word "law".
It is not that physical constraints are placed on natural phenomena. It is our understanding of phenomena that has trouble with conformance to natures way ;-)
Yes but why do you assume it is a complex emotional being? A God that plans and designs things and listens to millions of prayers at once and comprehends them must be extremely complex.
Isn't it more likely that the first cause to the first event is something simple yet extremely powerful like gravity or something even more fundamental?
Evolution is the only cogent explanation. We came from simple beginnings, so did the universe most likely.
The "laws of nature" are descriptive and not prescriptive except in the sense that we can make predictions based upon the regularities in nature (If I drop this pencil then it will fall to the floor). Once, in conversation with a co-worker theist who had earlier used the "law/lawgiver" line, he inadvertently said that without the Bible then the world would be in chaos and said with derision that it would be like "the law of the jungle." "Can't have law without a lawgiver, dude," I reminded him.
The laws of nature are definitely unbreakable, but there are always variations which can change the result of the law in action. Things are circumstantial, as with cosmic and natural evolution. That theme is omnipresent in books like On the Origin of Species and The Blind Watchmaker.
I understand that some things are unknowable, but you won't get a true answer by inserting God into the gap. You have to choose which place along the line of infinite regress satisfies you.
Interesting input on how you cannot break "laws" of physics. It is amazing how creationists will continuously trip over scientific words like "law" and "theory." Nonetheless, these laws are interpretations of how the universe acts around us by man, not concrete things clearly written into the universe.
As Largo64 explains in the video. Theists speak of them as if they are like the government laws made for people to live by. And they do that in order to then say that there must have been a Creator who made them.
i came to think of this:..have you seen "lucaslabrador"?..he must be the absolute negative or inverse of you largo..if you havent come across him, check him out! he is everything you are not ..a fundamentalist christian judgmental prick. :)
The difference between us. You thought long and hard, then wrote a few words. I didn't reflect more than a minute and began rambling. We got to the same place, but you were not worn out when you got there! A lesson I should (but probably won't) learn.
"The difference between us. You thought long and hard, then wrote a few words. I didn't reflect more than a minute and began rambling. We got to the same place, but you were not worn out when you got there! A lesson I should (but probably won't) learn"
I think me talking to creationists that often is a clear sign of insanity to be honest, please don't let me infect you, you're way too sane for that ;)
I think it shouldn't be called laws. I think it's more like explanations, it would make more sense to me they weren't named laws.
unexist001 8 months ago
@unexist001 - Yes the natural laws are explanations but they also are the direct cause of reality itself. Natural laws are quantum wave structures that direct the forces of nature, in string physics they are made of tiny sub atomic vibrating strings. The equations that science uses to explain things are our representation of the behavior of the quantum wave structure AKA the natural laws that direct the forces of nature AKA the real God.
ungertron 6 months ago
Ok i don't understand the scratching of your head when you talk about god
for in the begining their was olny the word and the was monifested unto flesh
and every thing you see to,and the law of god is written on The heart of ever man to Know right or wrong
nuhchatt 1 year ago
@nuhchatt I scratch because I itch. I have very dry skin. That itch is a bitch!
Largo64 1 year ago
The unified laws of nature calibrate and control the fundamental forces that created the universe with the big bang & evolution and realize everything there is and all truth. The unity of natural laws & powers compose God, the creator & ruller of the universe. God does not give the laws but God IS the natural laws & the powers. You say at 2:50 the laws of nature are impossible to break, they simply are, " yea simply are the real God. The Bozo with a beard that most define as God is just wrong.
ungertron 2 years ago
@ungertron
P1 If something exist, it is something in particular (has a nature)
P2 If something is something in particular (has a nature) then it has laws.
P3 An agent is something in particular (and has a nature)
P3 Not all things that exist could have been created by an agent (something with a nature prior to nature itself can't exist even if supernatural).
C: Something doesn't have to have been created, just because it has laws. And things having natural laws doesn't give evidence to God
Censeo 1 year ago
@Censeo "C: Something doesn't have to have been created, just because it has laws. And things having natural laws doesn't give evidence to God
Natural Laws & Powers compose God, (Natural Laws AKA God), they are the same thing. It is like saying just because Automobiles exist is no proof that cars exist. OMG they are the same thing.
ungertron 1 year ago
@ungertron I am sorry, but God is not a good word to use as a synonym to natural laws. There is a lot of baggage with this word, and most people will think of some kind of agent with very high powers which they pray to. Besides, "natural laws" works perfectly fine, cause when we phrase it that way, people usually grasp what you are referring to instantly, and you don't need to explain what you mean with the words.
Censeo 1 year ago
@Censeo - No calling God that stupid bearded idiot, of the moronic bible, that has the sun going around a ridiculous earth that is less than 10,000 year old - That takes much more explaining, if you have a brain that is, See God is the REAL creator & ruler of the universe, as in the natural laws & powers AKA the real God. The big bang and evolution are the ways that that God does things, not the words of a biblical goof ball, who gets everything wrong, what's wrong with you?
ungertron 1 year ago
@ungertron and if you're saying that God is natural laws AND some alfa-omega agent at the same time, then that is an assertion and a premise that I can't agree with, since I think it could very well be that this assertion isn't the case, so it would need some justification and an argument behind it that is convincing me it must be true.
Censeo 1 year ago
@Censeo - People are composed of organic matter directed by their DNA. God is composed of natural laws that mathematically control and calibrate, the powers of the gravitational, electromagnetic, and the strong & weak nuclear force fields. There is no “alfa-omega agent” and to define God as the biblical jerk who made man “in his own image” shows you to be delusional. There is the delusional non-God of the bible and the real God AKA the natural laws & powers.
ungertron 1 year ago
@ungertron well, there are a lot of people who would think of agency when they hear the word God, so I'll be using the synonymous word "nature" instead.
Censeo 1 year ago
@Censeo - Using nature as a word for God is the pantheist view that everything is God, which is even a worse mistake than confusing the moron in the bible with God. A tree does not get together with a moose to set the gravitational fields strength, the natural laws AKA the mind of God, does that. A turtle and a frog are not responsible for holding the earth in orbit. Nature is not God, the natural laws and powers compose God and the rest of nature is created by the big bang and evolution.
ungertron 1 year ago
@ungertron First you said God was the natural laws. Now you say he is responsible for them. You're speaking of an agent when you speak of a mind of someone. Here you speak of an alfa-omega agent (an agent throughout all time) but before you said you do not speak of such a God. Well, you've seen my response regarding that God already, and you speak too much against things you've stated earlier for me to find this worth while continuing.
Censeo 1 year ago
@Censeo - I said that the natural laws AKA the mind of God are what calibrates and directs the powers or force fields. God is composed of laws & powers. Natural laws like e=mc^2; calibrate the sun’s thermonuclear reaction. E=mc^2 is NOT some Alfa-Omega “he”, your confusing the dick head man God with the natural laws that contain the calibrations for the force fields that hold your atoms together , ignite the sun and maintain the earth in orbit. Natural laws & powers are what compose God.
ungertron 1 year ago
@Censeo -Natural laws are the equations that calibrate & control the force fields. If there were natural laws with no force fields nothing would work. If there were force fields with no laws, nothing would work. The natural laws are to God what your brain is to you. The force fields are to God what your body is to you. The laws & forces AKA God are one existence with two functions, just like the e=mc^2 formula is not the same thing as an A-Bomb, but without the calibration nothing works.
ungertron 1 year ago
although you didnt go into detail, this really helped me! Thanks. Wish me luck on my test today =]
CassiRaye1 2 years ago
JS Mill wrote a great article destroying the 'natural moral law' theory.
unassumption 2 years ago
What is your advice on this argument?
If a God did not exist, then the Universe would exist for eternity. Even with the Big Bang, the densely compact matter would have to be sitting for eternity before it "decided" to "explode". If the universe existed for eternity, how would we get to this point in time? For if eternity went backwards forever, then we never would have gotten to NOW. Is there an argument against this? And if so what is it?
BDenman1 3 years ago
You misunderstood. I wasn't talking about eternity, but the difference between given and perceived law. Creationists assume that if there is a law there had to be a lawgiver. I said that what we call law is only the observation of what in fact IS. When we say theory, you (they?) like to slam us with "it's JUST a theory. Both in science refer to observation, not to authoritarian fiat.
Largo64 3 years ago
I did not misunderstand. I was just asking separate advice. It has nothing to do with this video.
BDenman1 3 years ago
The idea is to comment on the video. Please try to stay on topic.
Largo64 3 years ago
If I sent you a message could you reply? I just cannot refute this fact concluding the falsity of this theory. You seemed to be a wise man. I thought you may be able to do so.
BDenman1 3 years ago
I'll try to reply. But don't be disappointed to discover that rather than wise, I'm just old.
Largo64 3 years ago
haha. ok. I feel the desire to be old. You seem to get more respect.
BDenman1 3 years ago
I don't know whether the universe is eternal (infinite) or not. There appears to have been a beginning for the universe we see, but who can say that it isn't a cycle that has repeated over and over forever? You want a finite mind to answer for the infinite. I conceive a condition of infinity, not an infinite being. Sorry, but my brain is as linear as yours when it comes to time.
Largo64 3 years ago
Well said.
The cycling theory brings a peace of mind if you are an atheist. However, if complete submission is given to theology, it is quite simple to understand that even if the Universe had been cycling over and over, it would have to have a beginning to the cycle...for without a beginning...this point in time could not be reached. It is impossible. If you have a switch that goes on off on off on off, then you can not get to the third on if there is not a first on. It equally ignorant as evo
BDenman1 3 years ago
If you must have a deity outside of time, that's okay. But for purposes of this argument, let's agree that the universe had a beginning and will have an end. But each of our brains may want to peek around the edge on each side of that parameter. It's only natural. It's like the kid hearing Daddy say "...and they lived happily ever after," insisting, "And THEN what happened. Infinity is outside our scope except as an abstraction. Why not leave it at that?
Largo64 3 years ago
That is exactly where I have left it. For infinite can only be experienced by something that has existed for an infinite amount of time, which is God. We can not grasp this, for we have not experienced this in our oh so carnal bodies...nor can we experience it without life after death. I just wanted to see where your opinion lies. Thanks. If you ever would like to read some theology I have written on Christianity and such I will send it. I would like to know you opinion? If not, thats fine.
BDenman1 3 years ago
Many years ago I went to a college that taught theology. I've had more than enough of it. Thanks just the same. I understand that to you, and probably a majority of others, the gap in what the finite mind is capable of understanding you fill with God. I call it the god of the gaps, which term, of course, I did not originate. I am satisfied to leave the gap unfilled, realizing, as I do, that abstractions like infinity are beyond my ken.
Largo64 3 years ago
A good theological education should begin at home.
PrideisaTrinket 2 years ago
You mean brainwashing?
Atheistjeremy 2 years ago
Largo has given us a lot of practical information in these videos. Yes, you god-peoples, you set the rules of the games you play and then fill in the blanks with your made-in-China gods. Key-Largo is asking you people to jump back, take another look, put away the childish things.
Good work, Key-Largo.
lumpagogo 2 years ago
@BDenman1 zeno paradox. lol constant cycle. even if there is a beginning, you have to cover half the distance to the end. then half the distance of the second half. then half of THAT distance, and so on. therefore, you never truely get where you are going. thats why they say, wherever you go, there you are. same with time, i would have to assume. but thenyou do get to where youre going. so thats why its a paradox. something you dont understand, but its law anyways. why should god be different.
thered702 1 year ago
@BDenman1 im not religious, just using logical rational thinking to show that there are things far beyond our grasp at this point of evolution. but if we are all part of god, then that explains the god is everywhere and everytime theory. god cant die, so then if he lives outside of time, then that could also explain memory too. crazy stuff.
thered702 1 year ago
@BDenman1 lol dont ponder too much. youll give youself and others a headache
thered702 1 year ago
Thanks. I have an exam tommorow and one of the essay question is "What is natural law"
This helped me man. Thanks
GoldAK47 3 years ago
Yikes! I hope you don't get marked off. I gave an opinion of natural law, but it may not jibe with what you teacher will say. If there is a scientific definition I'd go with that.
Largo64 3 years ago
Sorry Largo it just all came out! Could you be more specific? Do you mean pertaining to human/society or gravity laws? What is natural law? My answer at the moment is...
It depends.
sarah1ooo1 3 years ago
Its natural law to cry when your upset and laugh at something funny also to pick your nose if you have something stuck up it!..lol
What am I talking about? What do you mean?
When it comes to species its all realtive but when it comes to gravity etc..It just is..there is no law...cont..
sarah1ooo1 3 years ago
In nature there is a natural violence that occurs...animals maim and kill each other when mateing season is about...they fight for power also 'heirarchy' etc...So does that mean humans have become....Unnatural...because we dont kill each other and try to reason first? Oh but we do kill each other...well some do...Its not very nice though...What is natural law?....cont..
sarah1ooo1 3 years ago
....to want to improve conditons for people and to lessen there struggles.. Its natural for flowers to bloom in the sun and for mushrooms to grow in the dark.....interesting largo...what IS natural law....Is it relative?
What comes natural to a bug does not come natural to me or does it......cont....
sarah1ooo1 3 years ago
It is natural for a human being to protect and nurture and love and it is also natural for humans to become violent in the course of protecting itself when reason fails. It is natural that apples will fall from trees and it seems to be very natural for humans to squabble about who is right and who is wrong. Its natural to progress for the better in society......cont...
sarah1ooo1 3 years ago
What is natural law?? I dunno... It is natural for dogs to chase and kill rabbits, it is natural for cats to chase and kiil mice etc it is natural that mice run away from cats etc its natural for a bird to fly and for a fish to swim.....cont....
sarah1ooo1 3 years ago
C.S. Lewis, among others, has argued that the existence of natural law suggests a lawgiver. It may not be an airtight argument, but it is worth pondering.
campdon 3 years ago
Sorry. I find this very confusing. You seem to mix the laws of nature with natural law. The first is a scientific issue, the latter a moral issue. A natural law is a moral standard that is universally accepted. For example: "All men are created equal..." or "Murder is wrong." There is an intersection between the two, however. It is at the point where we ask the question: Where did they come from? You seem to shrug that off, but to me it seems a fair question.
campdon 3 years ago
I can't say that I agree with your position that "natural law" and "law of nature" are two separate things. I didn't refine it in that way, but suggested that "law" is a perception in the case of nature and not a behest. We see how things do, in fact, behave, and call it a law. But nobody necessarily told things to behave as they do.
Largo64 3 years ago
How do you know no one "told things to behave as they do?" In the case of the laws of nature they are so fine-tuned that random chance does not seem to be a viable explanation for their existence. Even a multiverse doesn't doesn't provide a solution, in my mind, because the statistical probability of any universe with the fine-tuned characteristics of this universe still falls beyond the realm of possibility.
campdon 3 years ago
I don't "know" no one told things to behave as they do any more than you "know" that someone (some god) did. What I spoke about was observation. The conclusions people draw are their own.
Largo64 3 years ago
As a Catholic we define Natural law not as an observance of nature, but more in terms as a natural/universal guide within our human reasoning. E.g. stealing goes against reason as it will sow social discord and disrupt harmony, as does murder, adultery, etc. The last five commandments can be seen an articulation of the natural law.
PAX
teton99 3 years ago
so natural law is law as written in the last five commandments.
alanaldasucks 3 years ago
alan...
Yes that was the example given to us in theology. That through reason man can come to the understanding that certain acts like stealing,murder,adultery are wrong because of the discord they sow and other reasons. Dr Charles Rice of Notre Dame does a very in depth study of natural law and how it is connected to our reasoning powers.
PAX
teton99 3 years ago
but if man can understand and abide by these laws without following a book with a bunch of other crap in it, then why do we need the bible?
alanaldasucks 3 years ago
alan...
Well the natural law is a reflection of the Divine law, the bible gives us a deeper level of truth or more filled out truth through Revelation, gradual at first through the OT and complete in the NT. The typologies of the OT is a very interesting study and brings to life and makes sense of the many "apparent" contradictions many people never get past or never really try.
Pax
teton99 3 years ago
the bible is bullshit, calling it a deeper level of truth is like calling crime a deeper level of law abidance.
alanaldasucks 3 years ago
alan...
It is said in the RCC that Christ came in the fullness of time, some 500 BC we had many great thinkers positing the meaning of existence and matter, primer the stage so to speak. A great tie in with human reason is when the Greeks shifted from talking about a prime matter to being/existence itself, which ties in to the I am (Yahweh) of the OT.
Reason can't but help to discover reality, but can only take us so far, i.e. Trinity concept hard to come to on reason alone.
PAX
teton99 3 years ago
You are confusing me now. Pregnancy has to do with physics. This is the most common def. for physics ""The study of the natural or material world and phenomena; natural philosophy." and then it goes deeper...to which brings up twhere I mention the baby...the baby has to do with physics because The science of matter and energy and of interactions between the two (mother and child) so it is with physics...if you state the def. for physics and natural law it can be broken...
cjla1987 4 years ago
therefore the natural law (with physics) can be broken and I showed you that the natural law was broken with (bad) ethics (abortion)..i don't understand why you do not see them in here...what is it that you are trying to avoid to see? I answered logically that physics does with the child and can be broken...the natural law of a child in the genoma can be broken with radiation..you have a different def. for natural law..you are referring to a very specific one but that it's just part
cjla1987 4 years ago
just part of the natural law but you do not fulfill it (ur definition)
cjla1987 4 years ago
It's no use talking to you any more about this. You confuse physiology with physics, and you won't be talked out of it. If you want to redefine natural law in your own way, be my guest. As I defined it in the video, it doesn't jibe with anything you have said here.
Largo64 4 years ago
Ethics is a behavioral science and physics a physical one. They are not related in any way. Physics is not the same thing as physiology. I think the problem we are having here is at least partly a difference in native language. If I am mistaken about that, then you clearly are unschooled in the sciences.
Largo64 4 years ago
this natural law is broken everyday...all men are created equal..that is a damn straight natural law...and you see slaves...that law is broken...again...i can prove you that a natural law is broken...right>?
cjla1987 4 years ago
All human beings have the equal right to be safe, secure and to share in the opportunities of life. The idea that all men (people) were created equal is a platitude which is utterly false. Equal rights do not confer equal intelligence, or strength or ability. Again, a natural law is a law of physics which states how the universe works. Not how it should work, but how it does work. Laws of behavior are not laws of nature, but of people. Pregnancy is a process, not a law.
Largo64 4 years ago
You even clear it out in 1:21...they seem to be the same everywhere "natural law) and it can be changed....the law of nature states that a child will be stright..but some hormones in there and it turns gay...
cjla1987 4 years ago
I'm trying very hard not to attack your intelligence personally, but you are making it very difficult for me.
Largo64 4 years ago
Many laws, many can be broken. (Natural laws which you are talking about) "Nature" (our body) many laws can be borken. Steroids can brake the law of the production of muscle mass. And broke the law of nature. You mention only gravity. Think about all the natural laws..as a matter of fact..you can post them (all of them you know) and you will see that some of them can be borken...
cjla1987 4 years ago
I pointed out the "law" of gravity, which cannot be broken. It can be resisted by such things as flight, which uses other physical laws to balance or counteract it. But gravity still exists. Your statement that laws of nature can be broken as if they were the same as man made laws is simply wrong and ignorant.
Largo64 4 years ago
You said, "Your statement that laws of nature can be broken as if they were the same as man made laws is simply wrong and ignorant. " I did not say that. I am saying that natural laws can be broken. And i said not all of them. Law of nature is a law that governs the behavior of natural phenomena and it can be broken since we manupulate that phenomena. What if a use drugs to brake the phenomena of the brain. I interrupt with the natural behavior of the brain and the law was broken.
cjla1987 4 years ago
Natural laws as I defined them in the video cannot be broken. What you are talking about is completely different. If you use drugs you create a chemical reaction in the brain, you do not nullify a natural law. A natural law is not brain activity. I referred to the laws of physics which are everywhere the same. It is possible, as in flight, to use one law to counteract another, but the laws themselves are not "breakable," as say a law against jaywalking.
Largo64 4 years ago
Gravity is subject to the development of new theory. Laws of gravity as you call them are laws made by men. Newton created one which was insufficient to describe the orbit of Mercury. It was improved upon by Einstein, but there is still no theory of gravitational force. Furthermore Einstein once proposed a cosmological constant that was in effect anti-gravity, and because of measurement of universal expansion there are efforts to reinvestigate his idea.
You can not prove the laws unbreakable
theosophers 3 years ago
You are missing the point. Gravity doesn't behave as it does because Newton (or Einstein) told it to. The "laws" of gravity are just the descriptions of how gravity works to the best of the ability of the observer. The whole point of this video was the common misunderstanding of the word "law" as applied to science. If you jump off a building, you may think you've broken the way your favorite scientist STATED the law. But you will still break something else if you jumped from high enough.
Largo64 3 years ago
The word law is seldom used in science, and it is always used in a scientific sense. You have not done that. If you should jump off a building, science can be used to predict what is the likely result, but it can only give you probable outcomes.
You said 'gravity is law', meaning that gravity is real. The reality of gravity is a question of metaphysics. It is a philosophical problem not scientific problem. Empirical science does not provide theories of reality. That again is philosophy.
theosophers 3 years ago
And you say "natural laws" cannot be broken! Of course they can! Fertilization is natural law but with a pill that law can be broken! And it is natural (fertilization) You see how I disproved your argument. I totally did it. And please, do not be arrogant in the process. Just accept it. Do not add anything so that you do not look bad. It is wiser to accept it but you will try..try very hard just to add something to justify but, what can you say if I already disproved you.
cjla1987 4 years ago
Fertilization also is a bad example. This requires a combination of two elements, the absence of one of which prevents, not breaks the occurrence of a natural event. Don't call me arrogant when you simply do not understand what I said.
Largo64 4 years ago
Natural law can be used synonymously with natural justice or natural right (Latin ius naturale), although most contemporary political and legal theorists separate the two. And you are the one of them. Natural law theories have exercised a profound influence on the development and natural laws have to with with Ethics! (Not all of them! Okay! Listen! Not all of them! But a great proportion! And you are saying none!
cjla1987 4 years ago
No, natural law is not the consequence of legislation. It has nothing to do with justice or ethics. It is only an expression of what exists in nature.
Largo64 4 years ago
The natural law of a baby to stay inside of a womb and coming out in 9 months has to do with Ethics. See why-- The natural law states that a woman keeps the child for 9 months and abortion (ethics) comes into play. You see here? It is perfectly applied in this situation. A natural law of the human is to give birth to a child in 9 months but sometimes abortion comes into play. Injustice has to do with this since an injust parent would abort a child. Perfectly applied.
cjla1987 4 years ago
Pregnancy is a natural process which usually occurs over a similar period in most women. It is vulnerable to everything from disease to injury along the way. The interruption of a pregnancy even by abortion is not the breaking of a natural law. It is the interruption of a process. By your reasoning, shooting someone in the head wold be breaking a natural law that they should go on living. That's just wrong.
Largo64 4 years ago
Hey, you said, "Natural law has nothing to do with ethics. " What the heel? Or course it has to do with it. What are your arguments?
cjla1987 4 years ago
Watch the video again. I defined natural law as merely an observation of how things in nature do behave, It is not a response to legislation. Again, it's an observation. Therefore it has nothing to do with ethics.
Largo64 4 years ago
As a Theist, the Natural Law theory is unsound:
1)The law states that everything in the world naturally serves a purpose. This implies that it is morally wrong to use ears for holding up your glasses instead of hearing.
2)The world doesn't exist for humans; the world will persist regardless of human existence or not.
3)The law's use of reasoning is not consistent with the theory - ethics is about doing the right thing that has the best reasons on its side, not on what one believes or feels.
Cypherus21 4 years ago
1) Laws and purposes as you posit them here are unrelated. If ears are positioned to gather sound waves there is no "moral" implication in that. That's like saying that eyes were created so we could see food and avoid predators, therefore it is immoral to watch television. That's just absurd
2). Eventually the world, and humans, will cease to exist when the sun goes nova. You're right, though, that it will persist until then, with or without humans.
3) Natural law has nothing to do with ethics.
Largo64 4 years ago
There's a whole school of catholic/christian thought that describes "The Natural Law". It's based on Thomism (Thomas Aquinas) which is in turn based on Aristotle's Metaphysics. Aristotle's view is in contrast to Plato's. To Aristotle things are what they are. They're not reflections of some perfect "supernatural" world. Interestingly enough, Supreme Court Justice, Clarence Thomas, is a firm believer in the natural law.
tonygem 4 years ago
Hi Larry, happy new year! My two cents:
"Natural Law" is just a metaphor. Things happen regular in nature AS IF they follow a law.
Metaphors just highlight some similarities while other aspects are dissimilar.
Objects in nature do not have a will, although they follow "laws". There is no legislation in nature, though there are "laws". There is no jurisdiction suing deviations from "laws".
And btw: Using semantics to prove the existence of anything is just silly.
Jeremias1111 4 years ago
Thank you. You said it better, and quicker, than I did.
Largo64 4 years ago
In your video you mention that Natural Laws are NOT "given". We atheists are great at identifying what is "NOT". I think it would be fair to round off your statement in this manner, "Natural Laws are not 'given', they are 'discovered'!" [or 'observed']
ewhiteside 4 years ago
Yes but the question applies to you as a Christian. You do agree with his statement, correct?
ReligionIsACrutch 4 years ago
I agree with you on the improper use of the word "law".
It is not that physical constraints are placed on natural phenomena. It is our understanding of phenomena that has trouble with conformance to natures way ;-)
bpabbott1st 4 years ago
Largo,
I do not see any contradiction between Laws of Nature as being made by God and Laws of Nature that we observe. Why one should exclude the other?
We are just looking at the same thing from two points of view. Laws were created by God and as such we can observe and understand some of them.
Gambaronee 4 years ago
"something outside of the physical world"
Yes but why do you assume it is a complex emotional being? A God that plans and designs things and listens to millions of prayers at once and comprehends them must be extremely complex.
Isn't it more likely that the first cause to the first event is something simple yet extremely powerful like gravity or something even more fundamental?
Evolution is the only cogent explanation. We came from simple beginnings, so did the universe most likely.
ReligionIsACrutch 4 years ago
Black on black is a great "talking head" effect.
mwest1234 4 years ago
The "laws of nature" are descriptive and not prescriptive except in the sense that we can make predictions based upon the regularities in nature (If I drop this pencil then it will fall to the floor). Once, in conversation with a co-worker theist who had earlier used the "law/lawgiver" line, he inadvertently said that without the Bible then the world would be in chaos and said with derision that it would be like "the law of the jungle." "Can't have law without a lawgiver, dude," I reminded him.
TheGiggler1 4 years ago
The laws of nature are definitely unbreakable, but there are always variations which can change the result of the law in action. Things are circumstantial, as with cosmic and natural evolution. That theme is omnipresent in books like On the Origin of Species and The Blind Watchmaker.
Josephdorf03 4 years ago
I understand that some things are unknowable, but you won't get a true answer by inserting God into the gap. You have to choose which place along the line of infinite regress satisfies you.
Largo64 4 years ago
simply put then: natural law is not man made. It dosn't take any manipulation for it to happen.
lindasue1954 4 years ago
You cannot go against nature
Because when you do
Go against nature
It's part of nature too
=)
Kaszely 4 years ago
Interesting input on how you cannot break "laws" of physics. It is amazing how creationists will continuously trip over scientific words like "law" and "theory." Nonetheless, these laws are interpretations of how the universe acts around us by man, not concrete things clearly written into the universe.
pyromania152 4 years ago
When you come in looking like the wizard of oz, I know I better pay attention! Love 'ya Largo.
8journey8 4 years ago
Good argument there largo, made my day that much brighter thinking about it
cellaphone 4 years ago
Very good, sir. Thank you for doing this. I have noticed theists using their incorrect notion of the laws of the universe more and more lately.
Antichrist4Life 4 years ago
like what?
just curious..really
what is the incorrect notion?
TheStoicAgnostic 4 years ago
As Largo64 explains in the video. Theists speak of them as if they are like the government laws made for people to live by. And they do that in order to then say that there must have been a Creator who made them.
Antichrist4Life 4 years ago
i came to think of this:..have you seen "lucaslabrador"?..he must be the absolute negative or inverse of you largo..if you havent come across him, check him out! he is everything you are not ..a fundamentalist christian judgmental prick. :)
pornoopel 4 years ago
hahaha
good call, i was thinking the same thing
i could never get a comment posted on there
but even if you don't believe in religion you may believe he is satan, haha
TheStoicAgnostic 4 years ago
Nice video, I usually explain it like this:
Natural laws are descriptive, not prescriptive. They describe observations, they're man-made abstract concepts.
deBeuk 4 years ago
More succinct, thus better than my poor definition.
Largo64 4 years ago
"More succinct, thus better than my poor definition"
Talking to creationists here on youtube made me think long and hard about how I should formulate this ;)
deBeuk 4 years ago
The difference between us. You thought long and hard, then wrote a few words. I didn't reflect more than a minute and began rambling. We got to the same place, but you were not worn out when you got there! A lesson I should (but probably won't) learn.
Largo64 4 years ago
"The difference between us. You thought long and hard, then wrote a few words. I didn't reflect more than a minute and began rambling. We got to the same place, but you were not worn out when you got there! A lesson I should (but probably won't) learn"
I think me talking to creationists that often is a clear sign of insanity to be honest, please don't let me infect you, you're way too sane for that ;)
deBeuk 4 years ago
I wouldn't count on that! ;<)
Largo64 4 years ago
Interesting as usual. Love it.
pypermarru1 4 years ago
zomg floatin hed!
CheeezMaster 4 years ago
Floating head mode, and your hair is growing back. You've gone old school.
EleoChan 4 years ago
No Prop. Love your vids keep em comin.
lifja 4 years ago
you may want to wear a new shirt, you look like a floating head! nice video.
Nightbane12 4 years ago
LARGO LARGO LARGO YOUR THE BEST
lifja 4 years ago
Extravagant, perhaps, but nice to hear! Thank you.
Largo64 4 years ago