Oof... Salty loser... Spamming is not cool, mkay
(media.conspiracies.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (111)
sorted by:
If I'm being totally honest, nothing you have said so far has been interesting enough for me to even pretended to read that giant wall of text. If you wanna take out like 80% of the fluff and repost that comment at a reasonable length I'll be happy to continue this discussion.
But you need to be respectful of my time and attention, and a comment like that is not.
You ask a lot of questions. I often include TLDR summaries. In this case the last paragraph was the summary but I didn't flag it as such.
Do you understand "that all scientific theory and progress in history involves a recognition that certain phenomena remain unexplained, and that this recognition is likely to continue even as more is explained"? That was accompanied by my giving Stephen Hawking's relatively atheistic position.
What do you wish to gain from a conversation where you ask questions but demur at the answers? Asking for a friend. Without my being snarky about it, that doesn't strike me as the most edifying conversational norm.
If we are to have a conversation, it would be fruitful to move it to c/Atheist, but I don't know what proposition(s) you'd want to work from.
I reject your claim that "supernatural" only refers to things that are not understood.
The true definition of supernatural is something that is not bound by the laws of nature. And it's pretty damn transparent you are afraid to talk about that definition of "supernatural".
Your religion teaches that god literally crafted the entire universe according to his will, and exists outside of space and time. That is an appeal to the supernatural, not an appeal to the unknown.
I asked you how to settle disagreements on biblical interpretations and you spent like 5 comments changing the subject to talk about things where people already agree.
I asked you about Mormons, Catholics, and Jehovah's Witnesses and you changed the subject to talk about Eastern Orthodox Christians.
I asked you about the claim that your god exists beyond nature, space and time, and you changed the subject to "the unexplained".
You've spent the entire conversation changing the subject and avoiding every point I've made. And I'm honestly done with it.
Now if you want to continue this conversation at all you must answer this question directly with no more games. If your reply doesn't contain a direct answer this is the last you will hear from me.
Is your god bound by the laws of nature? Yes or no?
Oh, I'm fine talking about that. Do you mean the laws of nature as understood in the present, the past, or the future? Our understanding keeps changing, which is why the definition of "supernatural" changes with time.
Question 1 is asking you whether you recognize that all cosmological theories contain the supernatural as you define it. For instance, Big Bang Theory is not bound by the (known) laws of nature for its first Planck instant, I thought you knew that. OTOH you might argue that BBT is indeed bound by the (unknown, knowable) laws of nature but we don't know how yet. Since all theories have something existing beyond (known) laws of nature, it's irrelevant which something we choose, unless and until we have more (observational) evidence to bear on the question. So:
DIRECT ANSWER
No, the Christian God, like any other proposed origin, is not bound by the totality of the laws of nature as we know them (because new laws can be discovered); yes, the Christian God is, like any other proposed origin, bound by any particular law of nature as it can be known (because known laws are trustworthy in their scopes). Your frame of reference (unknown or known law) determines which answer applies.
Question 2: If you didn't like my first answer as to how disagreements are resolved, e.g. because you don't think I gave enough credit to the (temporary) condition where disagreements stand for a long time, you could have been more specific. You apparently didn't like the part of my answer about Catholics (Christians) and Mormons and JWs (not) either, if you read it. When you start with indirect questions you get indirect answers.
You still don't seem to understand the core of my argument....
If something is beyond our ability to know it, then there is no process by which that information can end up in a book without being completely made up.