Religion

Phillip McCleod

(1,837 posts)

20. the distinction isn't that stark.

Fri Jun 14, 2013, 07:34 PM

Jun 2013

science is the modeling of laws that exist in nature. either the model is predictive and sticks, or it's luminiferous aether. not even in the dictionary anymore. the laws of 'physics' are the object in nature being modeled.. what actually happens regardless of the accuracy of any model.

at this point, there's a tiny corner of what happens nature that can't be almost perfectly explained by physical theory. biology is a different.. messier, squishier, more taxonomic question.. but the laws of physics?

regardless, the question was about belief.. whether anyone *believes* god can suspend the laws of physics.. that hard objective reality that leads to the deaths of 100% of people who think they can fly from the Gorge Bridge on the wings of angels.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

49 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Is the belief that the laws of physics were/can be suspended by a supernatural force... [View all] cleanhippie Jun 2013 OP

Not necessarily Turbineguy Jun 2013 #1

Yes, I'm referring to people of today. cleanhippie Jun 2013 #5

Nah. nt rrneck Jun 2013 #2

Why not? cleanhippie Jun 2013 #6

Such beliefs, rrneck Jun 2013 #9

I'm afraid that the temporary, willing suspension of disbelief — MrModerate Jun 2013 #37

I'm on a phone right now but rrneck Jun 2013 #39

Sure I believe in the scientific method . . . MrModerate Jun 2013 #44

Fiction vs. fictitious rrneck Jun 2013 #46

If you believe in fiction, you can do anything. immoderate Jun 2013 #3

Not if you make it part of your belief system that the natural laws of the universe... trotsky Jun 2013 #4

So any belief in any god would require one to willfully suspend durbin Jun 2013 #7

Well, yeah. Iggo Jun 2013 #30

No. rug Jun 2013 #8

+1 hrmjustin Jun 2013 #10

+2 okasha Jun 2013 #11

-3 Phillip McCleod Jun 2013 #18

+4 rug Jun 2013 #19

shucks i was hoping for the fibonacci sequence. Phillip McCleod Jun 2013 #21

btw if you're grasping for a comeback.. Phillip McCleod Jun 2013 #22

Gimme a sec rug Jun 2013 #23

take 2 Phillip McCleod Jun 2013 #24

It's positively ethereal. rug Jun 2013 #25

luminiferous even. beautiful. Phillip McCleod Jun 2013 #26

That was cool. Thanks. nt rrneck Jun 2013 #29

+1.6 goldent Jun 2013 #28

Yep... MellowDem Jun 2013 #12

The notion that the laws of physics could be suspended by a supernatural force struggle4progress Jun 2013 #13

I view this as an exception. ZombieHorde Jun 2013 #14

Three (maybe four) posters seem to say "no" to the question. durbin Jun 2013 #15

With those posters you mention, they are demonstrating their hatred of me. cleanhippie Jun 2013 #34

In what respect, Charlie? eomer Jun 2013 #16

the distinction isn't that stark. Phillip McCleod Jun 2013 #20

It's a distinction of definition, which is the starkest kind. eomer Jun 2013 #31

it's not a useful distinction and historically inaccurate to boot.. Phillip McCleod Jun 2013 #33

It's an essential distinction for the OP's question. eomer Jun 2013 #38

Exactly...the very concept of the "supernatural" skepticscott Jun 2013 #36

i just wish folks were as eager to pay $10+ to.. Phillip McCleod Jun 2013 #17

Not if believers can prove it actually happens. Deep13 Jun 2013 #27

a few thousand years and still counting durbin Jun 2013 #32

Right WovenGems Jun 2013 #35

Oh, there have been stories of miracles since then. Deep13 Jun 2013 #40

Seperation WovenGems Jun 2013 #41

Except the sociologist brings her own cultural constructs to whatever the project is. Deep13 Jun 2013 #42

Medieval WovenGems Jun 2013 #43

No, now is decidedly not medieval. Deep13 Jun 2013 #48

I'd say such a belief goldent Jun 2013 #45

The usual argument is that the really good miracles happened before the laws of physics were passed, dimbear Jun 2013 #47

Practically: yes. "Supernatural" anything is a rejection of science. Hume covered that. enki23 Jun 2013 #49