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:
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.
If you don't want to listen to those four groups all agreeing that Catholic and Orthodox are the mainstream Christian church, and JWs and Mormons regard only themselves as real Christians, that's fine. But if you can't tell the difference between the Catholic-Orthodox history and the 19th-century origin of the JWs and Mormons who believe there was no church between the 1st century and themselves, that's a bit of studious ignorance. The tests I gave in my first answer suffice to demonstrate that the Catholic-Orthodox-Protestant unity has significant truth and the cults don't.
You haven't cited any Christian statement that contradicts me. You seem to be judging just on my offhand comment that God is a Law unto Himself as well as a Person.
But if none of us are true, how do you know anything? The argument still applies: the proposition "only testable propositions are knowable" is untestable, so if true it's unknowable and nothing can be known.
I linked you 50 propositions that can be tested and falsified, you haven't admitted seeing I did. Scroll back. When investigating all the major truth claims people make, including atheists, I realized that the core truths have always been accessed by humanity in a sufficient form, and so I found them in texts both ancient and modern. It's not necessary for me to defend the Bible as "inspired" when I merely ask that people start from a foundation of recognizing how truth claims are made.
TLDR: You still have no answer how you know truth: you've affirmed as your core a proposition that defeats itself. The scientific method would work better: affirm reality exists as the core, and that propositions merely reflect it, better or worse. Don't dismiss propositions you believe untestable, test those propositions that you can and more will arise. If you believe a body of laws exists, but it is beyond our current knowing them completely, that would be a much better core because it admits that reality is always greater than our model of it.