note: this discussion has turned for the better;read pgs/Where do the laws come from?

Maybe it was wrong of me to use this as an example.Is it true all we have seen is but the shadow of an atom?Can we say atoms do or do not have a definite shape?

quote:

---

a consequence of the structure of nature itself.

---

An inherent structure of nature itself...Surely this structure had a genesis?

This is part of what Aquinas spoke of.Eventually there will be an infinite causal circle.Fairly absurd.

Sure, I agree with that.I guess I didn't explain my point all that well. The actual distances from the sun at aphelion and perihelion are not all that important. The earth could move into an even more eliptical orbit without much affect. It's the average distance that is mainly important (ignoring, for the moment, the effect of greenhouse gases). And therefore crashfrog's reasoning that used aphelion and perihelion is a bit of a red herring.

---

Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber

My thanks. I couldn't remember and I didn't have the time to look it up. On Earth, aphelion occurs around the beginning of July, when half the planet is experiencing summer. Would it really get that cold? I don't see it. Like, atmospheric temperatures would surely be at a lower average, but would it trigger an ice age or something? I don't see that a circular orbit at current aphelion is going to turn Earth into the icy planet Hoth. But I could be wrong.All I was suggesting to NJ was that if he's going to fly by the seat of his pants and make up numbers to support his arguments, the least he could do would be some basic sanity checks. In regards to the claim that the Earth has to be at a fine-tuned distance from the sun, and can't vary more than a certain amount, the basic sanity check for that certain amount is obviously that it has to be a lot more than the amount the Earth's distance from the sun actually does vary. Right?

A quick 'n' dirty calculation from the inverse square law shows that you could change the radius of the Earth's orbit by about 2% either way and that would change the mean global temperature by about 10C either way.We may note that life is capable of existing even in boiling water, so the habitable zone is much broader than this.Add to this the large number of solar systems in the Universe, and the odds that no planet would fall in the habitable zone of its sun are ... astronomical.Where on earth did you get your figure from?

The radius already varies by over 3% annually.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Gravitational mass is different from weight, but the two are inextricably linked..The weight is just the gravitational force acting on the mass - which is proportional to the quantity of mass. Which is why weight varies where mass does not.

I think you mean Teilhard de Chardin - his Omega Point idea of God could be said to involve a causal loop.But no, my point does not involve any sort of causal circle, just an infinite regress of argument which is arbitrarily ended by fiat at the preferred answer. It is an invalid form of argument since it is more parsimonious to simply stop with things we know to exist.

Why do you ppl avoid my question in this way?It must frustrating to realize that there is none in reason and a God is actually a quite sufficient reason.Edited by -messenjah of one, : none in reason

LOLWhy do you think there is no reason? Reason for what? Where do you see frustration? How does God explain anything more than asserting magic?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

quote:

---

is an invalid form of argument since it is more parsimonious to simply stop with things we know to exist.

---

But it is not invalid in the slightest! Yes it is absurd for the nature of things but to call this argument invalid because there is no answer for it except an answer that involves a God, and a God you do not believe in.What a chasm to be stuck in!

The sentence that you quoted needed a couple more letters

I was referring to the conclusion I came to after discussing and musing over the points of Aquinas.

I'm not avoiding your question. I am confronting the deeper issues it raises. Why do you want to keep thigns at a superficial level rather than dealing with the more important issues ?