bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 34,300
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
I am not quite sure how to get across to you that ignoring the fact that physicists at CERN and elsewhere have demonstrated something, and demanding that a private individual with neither the resources, the time, nor the inclination to repeat their work do so for your private benefit, is not the same thing as saying 'it has not been demonstrated'.I am not quite sure how to get across to you that insisting something is so is not the same thing as demonstrating it.That there are exactly four possible interactions between humans and the rest of reality.On the basis of what information?He is saying that
1. There are only a limited number of ways in which a god can intervene in human affairs. Four to be exact.
No shit. This has nothing particularly to do with gods. It's about the physics of humans and their environment.This isn't how gods are normally discussed,
My budget won't stand it. But those who have particle accelerators have tested it experimentally.and I presume he didn't test this experimentally.
Nope, quite the reverse. I am saying that humans cannot be interacted with by gods that are not existent within the observed universe. That's because humans ARE existent within the observed universe.Are you positing that God is some sort of physical organism existing within the observed universe and subject to its laws? Like, a giant space lion or something?
It's not. But humans are. And a god that can't interact with reality is indistinguishable from nonexistent.Why would a god be confined to the types of natural interactions you describe, if it is indeed a god?
The information is all in the public domain. Your failure to learn physics is neither a denial of its existence, nor my responsibility to correct.