God does not supersede the laws of nature and reality, as I just implied.
And this right here is why I started off by asking about if it's okay to personalize your religious beliefs to fit whatever you want.
Because what you just said is in total disagreement with 2,000+ years of theologians from all various sects of Christianity, who all read the same book and don't agree with your interpretation.
God is defined as being one with the laws of nature and reality.
Then guess what... You're not a Christian!
Nobody believes the laws of nature came to earth in human form to die on a cross and relieve you of your sins, came back to life, and then floated into the sky. Nobody believes the laws of nature crafted a woman from a mans rib in some primoradial garden. Nobody believes the laws of nature have angels in heaven fighting for it's throne.
Nope that was all the supernatural magic man!
If it sounds stupid, it's because it is stupid. The more you try and change it to sound less stupid, the less right you have to call yourself a Christian.
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.
According to you it's whatever you want it to be, because you can interpret it any way you please, and redefine any of the words to mean anything you want.
Ohh and you also get to cherry pick which version of the bible you're reading from too!
And on that note, I don't see the point in engaging in a theological debate with someone who doesn't believe in theology in the first place, because I don't believe in it either, just for different reasons.
Perhaps you don't believe the Big Bang Theory in its supernatural first instant?
I don't recall ever professing belief in the big bang theory.... Which is not actually a scientific theory because there's no way to test it.
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.
Bro, I don't know what you talk about in your subreddit. But I'll tell you this... Of the sects we explicitly mentioned (Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Mormon, and Jeohova's Witness) all of them can agree on one thing. Someone who's beliefs match with yours is not a true Christian.
And frankly I don't care to argue about who is a true Christian and who isn't. Because in my opinion Christianity isn't true at all, and so none of you are true Christians.
your theory that only testable propositions are true is also untestable
I never said only testable propositions are true.... What I said is that only testable propositions are knowable.
If you can't test it or demonstrate it, you can't know it.
You are making claims about untestable things you can't possibly know, and I'm right to point out that you have no valid basis on which to claim this knowledge.
Person 1: "Here's a proposition claiming to know the true origin of the universe. I can't test it, have no way of verifying if it's true, and it presupposes the existence of a supernatural being. I know that I myself am not privy to such information, but yet somehow middle eastern goat herders 4,000 years ago were. And since they didn't leave us any way to test their claims, I'll just take their word for it and accept the claim at face value because obviously the magic man told them the truth."
Person 2: "I know that ancient goat herders had no way of knowing what they were claiming.... And so that means it probably wasn't true. But I still don't want to risk getting punished by the supernatural magic man they told me about, So I'm gonna tweak their claims a little bit to try and sound less stupid, and fit better with things we've since discovered. And hopefully the magic man will accept my partial agreement with goat herder ideology and forgo punishing me, because I'm sure even he knows just how stupid the original claim was."
As dumb as both of those people are person 2 is dumber because he realizes he's being fed bullshit, but still picks around it and tries to eat off the same plate despite knowing that. Someone who accidentally eats shit is not as stupid as someone who intentionally eats it.
And this right here is why I started off by asking about if it's okay to personalize your religious beliefs to fit whatever you want.
Because what you just said is in total disagreement with 2,000+ years of theologians from all various sects of Christianity, who all read the same book and don't agree with your interpretation.
Then guess what... You're not a Christian!
Nobody believes the laws of nature came to earth in human form to die on a cross and relieve you of your sins, came back to life, and then floated into the sky. Nobody believes the laws of nature crafted a woman from a mans rib in some primoradial garden. Nobody believes the laws of nature have angels in heaven fighting for it's throne.
Nope that was all the supernatural magic man!
If it sounds stupid, it's because it is stupid. The more you try and change it to sound less stupid, the less right you have to call yourself a Christian.
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.
According to you it's whatever you want it to be, because you can interpret it any way you please, and redefine any of the words to mean anything you want.
Ohh and you also get to cherry pick which version of the bible you're reading from too!
And on that note, I don't see the point in engaging in a theological debate with someone who doesn't believe in theology in the first place, because I don't believe in it either, just for different reasons.
I don't recall ever professing belief in the big bang theory.... Which is not actually a scientific theory because there's no way to test it.
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.
Bro, I don't know what you talk about in your subreddit. But I'll tell you this... Of the sects we explicitly mentioned (Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Mormon, and Jeohova's Witness) all of them can agree on one thing. Someone who's beliefs match with yours is not a true Christian.
And frankly I don't care to argue about who is a true Christian and who isn't. Because in my opinion Christianity isn't true at all, and so none of you are true Christians.
I never said only testable propositions are true.... What I said is that only testable propositions are knowable.
If you can't test it or demonstrate it, you can't know it.
You are making claims about untestable things you can't possibly know, and I'm right to point out that you have no valid basis on which to claim this knowledge.
As dumb as both of those people are person 2 is dumber because he realizes he's being fed bullshit, but still picks around it and tries to eat off the same plate despite knowing that. Someone who accidentally eats shit is not as stupid as someone who intentionally eats it.