Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Yes, I see clearly that you're making unsupportable claims. Just because you have an old book doesn't make it any more true.
All right then, hit me up when you're interested in having an adult convo.
Adios.
So...would a "supernatural" cosmic mind be some thing
You said reality is immutable...The Creator is immutable...so...you're both right.
Well, if predictability is a metaphysical statement then I’ll have to retract all that, but my point was that all of science and knowledge don’t necessarily get swallowed up in a void of subjectivity unless objective idealism is true, as presuppositionalists argue.
That’s a fine way to restate it, thank you. That line of argumentation was an effort to nip presuppositionalism in the bud, since I was seeing signs that that’s where it was headed. It’s not something I would advance on its own.I would say predictability implicates metaphysics, and yes, science and knowledge oughtn't be swallowed up by forms of subjectivism. I too am not yet convinced by Apologetic_Warrior's arguments. Granted, he would have to say more about his position than he has done in this thread.
Perhaps you would do better to argue that there is a certain minimal subset of metaphysics that all of science works from, a subset which is relatively uncontroversial. I wouldn't make that argument per se, but it is more tenable than the claim that science has no metaphysical positions or makes no metaphysical statements.
That’s a fine way to restate it, thank you. That line of argumentation was an effort to nip presuppositionalism in the bud, since I was seeing signs that that’s where it was headed. It’s not something I would advance on its own.
I don't know. You'd have to first positively and coherently define 'supernatural'.
If reality derives from a 'creator', then it's not immutable. It's contingent.
We can start with the idea that what is called "natural" by scientists, is actually unnatural. So, what people call "supernatural" is actually what was natural...and still is, though hard for unnatural man to tap into.
If you say that it is immutable, then it is the Creator...or you just keep going back and back...ad infinitum...it's like the whole "big bang" thing...well, where did that come from?
Would you explain this? I fail to see how observing physics requires a metaphysical necessity? What am I missing here?
I don't know if it's all that concrete, we tend to think that we are more rational than we actually are, whatever it is that we believe. We take a few things that seem fairly certain for one reason or another and then make narratives that connect those few things together, and call that rational thinking.
We can call a banana a stapler, if we really want to, but speaking gibberish doesn't serve to illuminate anything.
I don't think it 'came from' anywhere. Just like you don't think Yahweh 'came from' anywhere.
But, I thought the "Big Bang" involved material substance; so you believe substance always was, is, and will be?
Is it conscious?
The Big Bang describes the earliest known conditions, initial expansion, and early evolution of the universe. It says nothing at all about pre-Planck time conditions, because our current physics are incapable of addressing it.
I personally suspect there has always been 'something'. Perhaps that 'something' was matter, in some as yet unknown form, perhaps not. No one knows.
It’s common in discussions between theists and atheists for the subject of “evidence” to come up. Atheists will often state that the evidence for God is not sufficient to warrant belief, and the theist will either agree and appeal to faith, or they will disagree and provide what they think to be good evidence. The problem is, either way the theist chooses to defend their belief in God, the two parties hardly ever end up talking about the same thing, as it’s rare to see them take the time to agree on definitions for evidence, faith, and God.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?