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:
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.
What is Christianity? I had a feeling you'd start telling me what Christianity is as if that's been experimentally tested, so you didn't let me down. If you want to make up your own rules by which you judge me, it's only natural that you accuse me of doing the same. That's why I emphasized you start with pursuing truth. Truth pursuers recognize how to distinguish and qualify propositions like "I believe Christianity teaches X due to evidence Y" and "These two propositions look contradictory to me but the evidence that billions believe them should also be considered".
Personal/impersonal: Yes, God is also a Person, while at the same time he is expressed in impersonal terms such as Law and Light and Love. Christians do believe God is a "Law unto Himself" (autonomous). Any part of this law can become known, which is what we call laws of nature.
Question 1 again: Now if you find certain complex propositions stupid ("magic man"), I encourage you to go back to simple propositions as the best path for learning how not to judge the complex ones rashly. Perhaps you don't believe the Big Bang Theory in its supernatural first instant? Either BBT is supernatural and "fairytale" and "stupid" just like special creation, or (more likely) there are epistemological evidentiary criteria to judge the best explanation.
Interpretation: Yes, my first answer, when applied, shows that e.g. leftist interpretation belies itself as separated from the common-sense Constitution. Now we just need to agree how to interpret evidence by common sense ....
Direct question: Which frame of reference do you want? The one where everything follows partly-unknown laws of nature and thus no theory of reality is supernatural? Or the one where no theory follows all known laws of nature and thus every theory of reality is supernatural? Pick one.