Are the Laws of Nature Immutable? Or does God get a Pass?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Your present understanding of science is so vastly limited, even if you have a far greater understanding on the particular subject than the average person. What I'm saying is that you are so far from possessing a prfect knowledge on the subject that a being who had perfect knowledge would likely be able to pull your arguments to pieces, just like you have been able to point out error in some of my own points, due to my lesser understanding on the subject.

Aaaaaand your proposal is what then? Because you ain't givin' any answers except wild conjecture and bah humbugging.

How about you answer the OP then? Are the Laws of Nature Immutable? Or does God get a Pass?

- Doc C

[_Bhodi]

This is actually a fantastic analogy for rationalism vs irrationalism. Captain Ahab, the rationalist...

Ahab a rationalist? Have you read Moby Dick?

[_Bhodi]

Aaaaaand your proposal is what then? Because you ain't givin' any answers except wild conjecture and bah humbugging.

How about you answer the OP then? Are the Laws of Nature Immutable? Or does God get a Pass?

- Doc C

But this is the beauty and purpose of the religious experience, the search and development of thought related to the divine. It is a science of conjecture, thought, and exercised faith. Ned was correct that your knowledge is vastly limited, this is easily recognized, and what we once thought were laws have been found to be flawed, and adjusted, just as our understanding of God is flawed and will be adjusted.

The search for divine law and natural law are the same, just based on different phases of the human experience. If you do not like or want to participate in this search, you have every right to opt out. Just as some people do not want to go to the symphony or ballet. What is so odd is the fervor in opposing something you do not believe in. It reminds me of the quote from "As Good As It Gets"...

"What makes it so hard is not that you had it bad, but that you're that pissed that so many others had it good."

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

This is actually a fantastic analogy for rationalism vs irrationalism. Captain Ahab, the rationalist...

Ahab a rationalist? Have you read Moby Dick?

Whoops. Metaphor. Captain Ahab could be construed as the rabid rationalist trying to kill the white whale of irrationalism/religion. The lost leg being a symbol of the rationalist's psychological wound suffered at the hands of irrationalism/religion. The rationalist then pursues this white from Internet forum to Internet forum cursing it, chasing, and ultimately succumbing to it... His own hatred tying to the very thing he despises, having become as irrational as the whale her perceives and attempts to kill.

Look, man. I have to find a way to pass time. It's too cold to be outside. Cut me some slack. ;)

- Doc.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

But this is the beauty and purpose of the religious experience, the search and development of thought related to the divine. It is a science of conjecture, thought, and exercised faith. Ned was correct that your knowledge is vastly limited, this is easily recognized, and what we once thought were laws have been found to be flawed, and adjusted, just as our understanding of God is flawed and will be adjusted.

After having read that statement, I think you should watch this film:



My favorite As Good As It Gets quote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7N2zO8I8ob4

It's a terrifying and immoral question to pose to the psychologically fragile, no?

- Doc

[_Bhodi]

After having read that statement, I think you should watch this film:

I'm aware of the film, saw the trailer a while back, it never really interested me. The Indian guru scene has always been too insubstantial for my tastes. I preferred "The Nature of Existence"

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1196672/

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

After having read that statement, I think you should watch this film:

I'm aware of the film, saw the trailer a while back, it never really interested me. The Indian guru scene has always been too insubstantial for my tastes. I preferred "The Nature of Existence"

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1196672/

Hrm. Looks interesting. I'll have to take a look. Thanks for the recommend...

- Doc

[_Bhodi]

Hrm. Looks interesting. I'll have to take a look. Thanks for the recommend...

- Doc

It ultimately takes the position that we are looking for something, and it is an individual quest that means something individually. We are to "continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling" and this varies depending on the individual. I preferred Irvin Kershner's position that the point of life was sex and chocolate, but to each their own.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Oddly enough the point of Kumare was the same minus the sex and chocolate, but if that works... Not bad.

- Doc

[_Nedloh_Deraj]

Your present understanding of science is so vastly limited, even if you have a far greater understanding on the particular subject than the average person. What I'm saying is that you are so far from possessing a prfect knowledge on the subject that a being who had perfect knowledge would likely be able to pull your arguments to pieces, just like you have been able to point out error in some of my own points, due to my lesser understanding on the subject.

Aaaaaand your proposal is what then? Because you ain't givin' any answers except wild conjecture and bah humbugging.

How about you answer the OP then? Are the Laws of Nature Immutable? Or does God get a Pass?

- Doc C

Bah humbug!

Just kidding

I believe I answered your question in my first and second posts on this thread... The second post was a clarification of the first. However, it seems you want the answer not to be in terms of whether or not God is omnipotent or subject to the laws of nature, which is how I answered it in those posts. I believe you would like the answer now to be in terms of whether or not the Laws of Nature are Immutable and whether or not God gets a pass.

Taking the first, whether or not the Laws of Nature are Immutable, I reckon you could interpret the question in two ways, so I'll give two answers:

- No, because we see that the Laws of Nature change all the time as far as human understanding goes. The laws of nature as they are in human understanding, are imperfect and incomplete and so they in this form are not immutable.

- No, even the laws of nature in perfect form (the actual laws of nature, not the human understanding of them), are not immutable, because knowledge is power or intelligence is power and there exists no law that is capable of restricting a being who has unlimited knowledge. I'll accept that I wouldn't know how to prove that as a fact. I wouldn't know where to start really, but can you prove the opposite?

The second question is whether or not God gets a pass. There is just one correct answer to this as far as I'm concerned:

- Yes, in that he obtains a pass through use of knowledge to be capable of doing anything despite nature.

I will add that the only thing God cannot do, is not because of the laws of nature, but because He does not possess a split personality. Therefore, He is not both good and evil concurrently, though if He wills it, He can change to be evil, but He wouldn't. Referring back to my second post, I said this:

God chooses to live according to law and order, but this does not mean He is therefore unable to choose anything other than this if he wills it. The consequences of this however, would be a change in the order of absolutely everything to say the least. According to the Testaments, and my personal testimony of their divine source and my experiences in dealing with God, I can tell you with certainty that He never wills to break a law and it is not in His nature, so although there is no outside force and nothing within Him lacking that restricts Him in doing anything, He just would not, or else He would cease to be God.

What do you say then?