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:
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.
No, we have a pretty solid agreement at c/Christianity that's never varied, that Christianity is defined by the Apostles', Nicene, and Athanasian creeds, which reflect the core teachings of Scripture. I just indicated that there is vast agreement on this core and that disagreements from it weed themselves out naturally, and Scored has proven that for four years. I believe in theology just fine, but why would I present theology to an atheist who doesn't believe in it?
At least thank you for agreeing that the Big Bang Theory is equally unscientific because untestable. Of course, once again, your theory that only testable propositions are true is also untestable. That's why I encourage you to work on that first. Sooner or later you get to realize that all the truth you seek is a reflection in your mind of the truth of reality, and thus truth is external and can be pursued and apprehended, and this is done by accepting it as axiomatic rather than deriving it from other, unrealized, imagined axioms.