You say you are not insisting on anything, and then in your next paragraph you insist.This contains no content.
You say you are not insisting on anything, and then in your next paragraph you insist.This contains no content.
What exactly am I insisting?You say you are not insisting on anything, and then in your next paragraph you insist.
That the existence of physical laws negate any sentience since, ya know, we can't enact physical laws.What exactly am I insisting?
I am not insisting that at all.That the existence of physical laws negate any sentience since, ya know, we can't enact physical laws.
Then why point to the existence of physical laws as an argument that negates a sentient precursor?I am not insisting that at all.
I don't.Then why point to the existence of physical laws as an argument that negates a sentient precursor?
You doOK, to be clear, you're saying that our laws of physics are misunderstandings?
That the Moon does not follow an elliptical orbit around the Earth because the Moon and Earth both have mass, and, dependent on their distance from each other, this ellipse is the path followed - you're saying God is actively, consciously moving the Moon around the Earth, and that if he stopped, the Moon would stop?
That oxygen and hydrogen atoms don't stick together because of known chemical physics - but because God is actively sticking each one together?
I know what I wrote. Nothing of what you said follows from what I said.You do
Maybe you think you wrote something else, but for the rest of us mere mortals, we have no option other than to go by what you post. Presenting physics/divine sentience as mutually exclusive is a pretty clear dichotomy.I know what I wrote. Nothing of what you said follows from what I said.
Make a point already, or step aside.
It is Bowser's assertion that God is actively manipulating planets and atoms today.Maybe you think you wrote something else, but for the rest of us mere mortals, we have no option other than to go by what you post.
So God has no other means of exhibiting being "active" other than to do it in the all too familiar manner of "fumbling around".It is Bowser's assertion that God is actively manipulating planets and atoms today.
Our understanding of science says that planets are operated by gravity, which we understand to have been in existence and unchanging since the dawn of time. Same with atoms.
So, if Bowser's assertion were true (that God is actively moving things today - not that he say, set them up 13 billion years ago and let them run on their own) then our understanding the universe could not be right.
I'm simply asking Bowser if he is aware of the implications of his assertion.
Again, don't put words in my mouth.So God has no other means of exhibiting being "active" other than to do it in the all too familiar manner of "fumbling around".
Bowser replied "He is that and more."Again, don't put words in my mouth.
Go back and read Bowser's assertion - post 474. I simply presented some examples as questions. He said he thinks those are God.
I didn't miss it. "More" just makes the assertion worse.Bowser replied "He is that and more."
I guess you missed the "more" bit,
Still missing the point here. You are over-interpreting my words.and gave us your run down on being active according to the limits of physics ....
If you interpret "more" as an invitation to do a roll call of physical laws, you certainly did miss it.I didn't miss it. "More" just makes the assertion worse.
I think you need to step back and read a little more of the thread. I think you've jumped in at my post, without bothering to look at the context.If you interpret "more" as an invitation to do a roll call of physical laws, you certainly did miss it.
On the contrary, I don't think you understand the nature of the question being asked, much less what is being offered as an answer.I think you need to step back and read a little more of the thread. I think you've jumped in at my post, without bothering to look at the context.