@pettytalk saidWhy must it be a "who"?
The question? Who in hell created the circle, in the first place? The root cause!
@pettytalk said"God's laws"?
God's laws have constants and are absolutes. But like any law, because man was made in the image of God, we have the capacity, and the inclination, to look for loopholes in God's laws too.
In using this terminology, are you simply referring to the observable nature of the universe?
@pettytalk saidI don't see how the fact that some things are invisible is evidence of supernatural phenomena.
Why is it that gravity, like the rest of the forces of nature/God, are themselves invisible? Nature is very visible, but the nature of God is invisible, and just as invisible to us are his forces which govern the visible physical universe.
@pettytalk saidFor 'perceiving divinity' could also be read 'imagining divinity.'
Obviously!
Broccoli we can see, but the smell is a matter for the nose. Without looking, I can tell the difference between broccoli and cauliflower, as they are being cooked up.
Divine invisibility is not a matter of sight only, because all that's divine cannot be perceived by any of the five physical senses. At least that's what I have heard with my mind's ear. The ...[text shortened]... d remains active, and dwells in it's own invisible world of pure imagination, where all is possible.
1 edit
@ghost-of-a-duke saidYea, the beginning sets the stage for all that follows. I asked about how you deal with heat death due entropy as things degrade.
According to you. - To me, the universe itself is the uncaused elephant in the room.
Why do you get to set the definition of the prime reality? Your Bible isn't a dictionary we all adhere to.
It’s one of those certainties in life.
@kellyjay saidthe beginning sets the stage for all that follows
Yea, the beginning sets the stage for all that follows. I asked about how you deal with heat death due entropy as things degrade.
It’s one of those certainties in life.
We can but speculate about the beginning. Does your speculation about the beginning lend any credibility to what you say about all that follows?
- Joined
- 14 Jan 19
- Moves
- 4282
@fmf saidThere you go again. God's laws are not observable. I believe that's a fact, or will you speak for science and dispute this fact of visual invisibility. I think of it as the invisible man who moves objects but we cannot see him, and to an ignorant person who has not been told about the invisible man, the objects seem to move on their own, naturally.
"God's laws"?
In using this terminology, are you simply referring to the observable nature of the universe?
Now, these laws quietly, themselves unaffected and unchanging, govern the observable universe of physical matter in motion. The laws remain constant, they waver not, nor deviate nor relent, nor diminish, nor increase.
On the other hand, nature, which is the whole of physical matter, is always changing, evolving, forming, breaking up, etc.
@pettytalk saidIf you don't want to address my question, I'm OK with that.
Who are you to question my who? Must is a mandate. Pose it as a questionable question of choice.
Why not an it, instead of a who? That would be more like it.
1 edit
@pettytalk saidI think, by using the terminology "God's laws", you are simply referring to the observable nature of the universe, and anthropomorphizing its "origin" because you are, for cultural reasons, in thrall to the folklore and narrative of the Abrahamic religions.
There you go again. God's laws are not observable. I believe that's a fact, or will you speak for science and dispute this fact of visual invisibility. I think of it as the invisible man who moves objects but we cannot see him, and to an ignorant person who has not been told about the invisible man, the objects seem to move on their own, naturally.
@pettytalk saidThe laws remain constant, they waver not, nor deviate nor relent, nor diminish, nor increase.
Now, these laws quietly, themselves unaffected and unchanging, govern the observable universe of physical matter in motion. The laws remain constant, they waver not, nor deviate nor relent, nor diminish, nor increase.
But this is not evidence of the existence of some kind of invisible superhuman creator.
@pettytalk saidI disagree. Nature can be observed as conforming to phenomena that are "...constant, they waver not, nor deviate nor relent, nor diminish, nor increase".
On the other hand, nature, which is the whole of physical matter, is always changing, evolving, forming, breaking up, etc.
When we see that physical matter is changing, evolving, forming, and breaking up, it does so in ways that are observable and understandable because the mechanisms are "constant" and interrelated.
If there is a creator entity or force or logic of some kind, perhaps its nature is synonymous with these mechanisms and processes that explain the universe [and about which we know only so much to date].
What's with the portrayal of this nature as that of a kind of supernatural human with human emotions and human purpose?
The notion that 'man was made in the image of God' [and therefore the creator is similar in certain ways to man] strikes me as a red flag indicating an understandable blend of ignorance, a lack of imagination, navel-gazing, and mundanity.
@ghost-of-a-duke saidWe are born with consciousness you have nothing to connect our self-awareness to the beginning of the material world alone, without that there is no way to move to get a conscience. As children learn as they grow up in the material world their awareness of right and wrong is warped, they have no trouble saying things like "mine" or "no" when their desires run their mindset. Consciousness transcends the material world, even as part of our nature it clearly shows we are more than just the material stuff we are made of, the image that gives us rises above the material world into something a little more divine.
By nature, not so much. It is more the result of nurture and the things we have learnt and experienced in out given upbringing and society. We are not born with a conscience. A baby doesn't know right from wrong.