Uber, in answering this desire, you'll find this to be a really interesting read.

_________________

Altren wrote:

I agree with Keyser, and that's what I'm planning to implement actually.

|| The Rise of the DCC | Plasmatium Netherious | Tastes Like Chicken | The Astridian Conspiracy ||

Guild -> | Platypus Rising|

Although generally subtle as I said, I believe the Prime Mover does interact with the universe directly and sometimes very clearly. I believe the subtle interactions of that Prime Mover with the universe include keeping the very substance of the universe following the natural laws it put in place in the beginning, but a rational being is not just a force, but a person.

It makes sense to me that a rational Prime Mover who created a universe that includes beings also capable of rational thought would seek to communicate with them...and I believe it does and has.

AHhh!! Book.

I fear spending my free time away from the internet. Jk Im gonna get it. I do however have a collection of books I dont read I just keep for decoration. Im living proof you can judge a book by its cover where as I will buy a book I dont intend to read for the right price.

I've always thought of natural laws working not because someone is constantly enforcing and maintaining them, but rather because it is the very nature of things to follow them. For example, gravity works because matter, by nature, is attracted to other matter. We're not going to start flying if the Prime Mover's attention lapses...

I think the Prime Mover hypothesis becomes interesting when you posit that the Prime Mover can (and does) make exceptions to natural law. If the laws are always followed, you don't need the Mover, you can make do with just the laws. To use your force/person dichotomy: for just enforcing laws, all you need is a force. A Prime Mover who is a person is distinguished by its ability to exert free will - i.e., break the laws.



Could you mention two or three examples of what you consider to be clear instances of such interaction?

Lol, God is a rebel. ^^^^^^^^^(above)^^^^^^

Can we just say god? Its really a very general term and if your polytheistic say gods. No big.


@Keyser

Is there a counter argument to that book you know of. Im sure there is but Im not sure if Ill ever find it without help.

The Big Bang itself defies all known natural laws for matter. Based on our known natural laws, if all the matter in the universe was in one place it would simply continue to compress on itself. It would quite literally be the black hole to end all black holes.

We know gravity works, but what keeps gravity (and for that matter strong and weak nuclear forces) working and why did it not in that particular instance? It can make sense that the very nature of things is such that they continue to follow the natural laws that are in place...and it makes sense for God (Prime Mover) to set things up that way, but it seems to me there is something more keeping things together. Natural laws hold due to the continued working of the Prime Mover (God).

I said before I believe a Prime Mover (God) would seek to communicate with sentient beings that were part of creation. Sentient beings seem to instinctively attempt to communicate with something greater than themselves...and set up belief systems based on their observations of the things around them. While much of that is mere superstition, I believe some of it is due to communcation from God.

Your average high school biology teacher/evolution proponent/big bang theory propagandist would be the argument against it.

Most scientist take the assumption that macro-evolution happens, that the big bang happened, and make the evidence match that assumption. The book takes the other approach: it sees if the evidence can and does support the creation theory.

Read it and make your own conclusion.

_________________

Altren wrote:

I agree with Keyser, and that's what I'm planning to implement actually.

|| The Rise of the DCC | Plasmatium Netherious | Tastes Like Chicken | The Astridian Conspiracy ||

Guild -> | Platypus Rising|

I think you have it backwards, any respected scientist will follow the scientific method, state a hypothesis and then create and perform an experiment to test that hypothesis. The theories that are generally believed to be true were not always that way, At some point the evidence did not support the current beliefs so new theories were created to fit the evidence. Scientists do not make evidence support their theories, they make evidence and see if it supports their theories.

From what I understand, proponents of a prime mover/creationist view take an existing theory and then look for existing evidence that supports the theory and discredit or ignore contradictory evidence. This approach seems like they are making the evidence match the assumption.

(I looked an an exert of the book and had difficultly finding a paragraph without some logical fallacies, misinterpretations or errors. I also didn't come across any hard evidence, only quotes from a few people.)

_________________
ȁ̎̉̈̂̎͋̈́̍n͂͑̿ͥͣ́̓ġͤ͑ͯe͌̓̊ͩ͗̅l̽̓ͬͬͥ̊͗aͣ̔̃ͧ̓̾̾t͊̑̆hͤ͆̓̉̌ͣ̚e̋ͩ͒̈́ĭ̌̒̎ͧ̓̋ͪs̋ͤͧ̅̇̋̎ͫ̂̾ͨ̽̄ͫͯt͒͐̌ͭ̂̃ͪ̽ͣ͗̒ͣ

Which belief systems would you say are based on actual divine communication, and which are mere superstition? What set of criteria can I use to tell them apart?

You are correct, sir, scientist *should* make the theories match the facts. The sad truth is that is all to often not the case.

I'll ask you a simple question. Please, in your own words, explain how the fossil record, specifically the varying layers and the fossils found in them, support the theory of evolution.

_________________

Altren wrote:

I agree with Keyser, and that's what I'm planning to implement actually.

|| The Rise of the DCC | Plasmatium Netherious | Tastes Like Chicken | The Astridian Conspiracy ||

Guild -> | Platypus Rising|