It is wrong that the laws of physics explain everyhing

[Seasanctuary]

laws of physics may explain the physical realm but you have to explain the laws of physics.

Unless you have to explain God, no we don't.

[Metacrock]

Unless you have to explain God, no we don't.

I've explained God. Being itself

[Metacrock]

I've explained God. Being itself

that's analogs because atheists put a premium on explanation even though don't know why. But religious bleief is not an attempt to explain the world. So it's not as important to explain God as it is to explain the laws of physics.

[shunyadragon]

I've explained God. Being itself

From the naturalist perspective, nature is being itself.

[shunyadragon]

laws of physics may explain the physical realm but you have to explain the laws of physics.

The theist could not more explain God(s) any more than the materialist could explaining the absolute Laws of Nature that our laws of nature reflect in our universe.

[Metacrock]

From the naturalist perspective, nature is being itself.

No that's wrong. Heidegger did not believe Nature was being itself. Nature is nothing but a collection of things in the natural realm. nature is a collection of beings, not being itself.

Being itself can only be the basis of what makes everything be. Nature is not an er zots creator it's always a creation of whatever makes things be.

[shunyadragon]

No that's wrong. Heidegger did not believe Nature was being itself. Nature is nothing but a collection of things in the natural realm. nature is a collection of beings, not being itself.

Being itself can only be the basis of what makes everything be. Nature is not an er zots creator it's always a creation of whatever makes things be.

I do not agree with Heidegger. He has no higher authority.

Nature from the perspective of the available evidence has the ability to make things be. We have no evidence for any other 'Source' to make things be.

[Seasanctuary]

I do not agree with Heidegger. He has no higher authority.

Right. It would be like me finding an apologist's statement and acting like it constrains all Christian thought.

[YourMaster]

laws of physics may explain the physical realm but you have to explain the laws of physics.

First, how do you prove a "non-physical" realm? Secondly, who's version of this alleged non-physical realm do we buy into? Where is this non-physical thing .... and why did it only talk to ancient desert people? If you say you have proof, then by all means enlighten us. What will this proof be, is it your gut feeling, that emotional tingle you get when you think about Jesus, Deepak's "quantum consciousness" .... what is it exactly?

Where do you suggest scientists look for this non-physical thing?

If you ask me the contention that we should believe in a "non-physical" realm at all, gives those who would like to enumerate a description of this thing writ to invent potentially endless power for themselves.

[Metacrock]

I do not agree with Heidegger. He has no higher authority.

you don't know what he said.

Nature from the perspective of the available evidence has the ability to make things be. We have no evidence for any other 'Source' to make things be.

No! nature is not the ground of being. period. nature is in being. you don't even understand the basic concept "ground of being." you are not listening, you are not willing to think about it. you are just pulling out any crap you can to fake an answer because you know you are beaten.

[Metacrock]

First, how do you prove a "non-physical" realm?

as string theory guys. scinece tells us that. Both in string theory and in the standard model there are at least two realms, one beyond our observation.

Secondly, who's version of this alleged non-physical realm do we buy into? Where is this non-physical thing .... and why did it only talk to ancient desert people? If you say you have proof, then by all means enlighten us. What will this proof be, is it your gut feeling, that emotional tingle you get when you think about Jesus, Deepak's "quantum consciousness" .... what is it exactly?

you are working upon a HUGE MISTAKEN ASSUMPTION you are assuming being itself is kind of other realm. I never said that. it's not. It's just the concrete existence of things. It's not even abstract.

Where do you suggest scientists look for this non-physical thing?

where did I say it was non physical? how do you come off assuming all reality has to be physical? you have no proof of that. Nevertheless I did not say that it is.

I see where you got it, you are thrown off by the fact of me talking about nature as "the natural realm."

If you ask me the contention that we should believe in a "non-physical" realm at all, gives those who would like to enumerate a description of this thing writ to invent potentially endless power for themselves.

So primitiveness. we can't believe something we can feel or touch. why do you believe in string membranes (if you do) science believes in them. they are in another realm that we can't touch or know.

do you bleieve in the big bang singalong? then that mans a priori there is another realm beyond space/time.

atheists will just clutch at any kind of straw not to believe.

To clarify: there are realms within realms right here right now in front of our faces. they are abstract. one such realm is "the realm of politics." "the realm of sports." see what I mean?

when I refer to nature as "the realm of the natural" that doesn't mean that I'm postulating a physical realm in another dimension, but I'm talking bout being that is not the result of life from life, or the ecological sphere that maintains it. God is in all things, but in a concrete way.


but you are trying to turn a subtle and concrete concept into something simplicity and physical.

My position is maybe there is a realm removed from the phsyical maybe not. But while you are carping on the idea just remember your precious litlte psudo god scindece sanctions the idea.

(1) strings'
(2) space/time
(3) but also multiverse.

[lilpixieofterror]

It is wrong that the laws of physics explain everything ,so that there is no need for God.

So the laws of physics explains why people do illogical things or what evil is? Humm... I never heard that in my science classes, guess this was a new development?

[Seasanctuary]

No! nature is not the ground of being. period. nature is in being.

Question begging.

[Metacrock]

Question begging.

learn what that phrase means. there's no way it applies to the statement I made that GOB is not nature. that' snot question begging. learn what it means man! learn some logic.

The GOB is a concept that i believe in. Someone made a wrong statement about what that concept entails. straightening them out on what the concept entails (not nature) cannot possibly be begging the question.

Question begging is used by atheists all the time, it's asserting the point under dispute to disprove the argument agaisnt one's position.

I did not evoke my belief in GOB as proof of the GOB I explain what's wrong with his grasp of the concept.

but you begging the question when you assume that "God doesn't exist" is an answer to God argument.

[Seasanctuary]

Metacrock, you're equivocating between defining "ground of being" in such a way that it fits a naturalist conception of nature...and simply equating the phrase to God.