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:
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.
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.
Yes, God, like all proposed origins, is bound by all natural laws known or unknown. Who says we "can't" know any natural law? Science says we can. Science says natural laws are real (gravity), even though "law" represents an external concept.
Some questions presuppose contradictions. A "God" that "breaks rules" is a contradiction, since God is defined as not breaking rules but making them, so the question does not refer to reality and does not propose a testable (falsifiable) theory.
There is no attempt not to address issues, but that's enough answer for your brevity standards, and more can be forthcoming.
God does not supersede the laws of nature and reality, as I just implied. God is defined as being one with the laws of nature and reality. If you believe in the laws of nature and reality, welcome.
I'm seeking to address. You may have something more specific in mind to ask.