I already answered and you're impressing no one repeating your false dichotomy. You're no Socrates and can't play act one.
I'd rather back up my own statements than your silly strawmen. I already asked you to stop trying to put words into my mouth, as it is as dishonest as it is easy to notice. There are many ways to worship and they're certainly not limited to how people think of Christ.
I see you missed the posts by
@jgarner. He obviously thinks it's magic and that his faith in it is all that is required for everything he believes to become true.
No, I'd prefer them to be honest.
I'm fully aware that you're not my companions. You have faith in what you know is entirely man made and imperfect at best. I don't.
Right. The problem with your assertion that metaphysics doesn't concern itself with how the world and everything in it works.
It doesn't.
I marvel your skill at pointing out irrelevancies like you think you're making a point.
The sort of wishful thinking that could easily be interpreted as prayer exists in abundance and is quite ubiquitous even on this forum. It manifests itself, among other ways, in statements like
"Science informs metaphysics".
You claimed I support "a scientific theory" because it supports my worldview and I simply noted that while the premise of an uncaused cause is impossible in the physical realm and thus evidence of outside interference is a logical one, it can't be tested and as such isn't scientific. I have literally never mentioned BGV in any way, shape or form.
You corrected nothing. You
agreed to my point and then spouted an irrelevance beside it.
All the evidence science points to is that everything that happens has a cause or a bunch of them, depending on the perspective. There is absolutely zero evidence of any kind for anything else.
Yep, that.
No, the fact that everything that happens in the physical world happens because something else happened prior to it isn't a particularly novel idea and certainly not one I've coined.
Your interpretation was
"you probably meant to say 'natural' explanation rather than 'materialist' explanation" and I noted that you understood me correctly. It's odd to backtrack now.
You get the gist of what I mean by the term by reading what you claim
here. That's what I mean by materialism.
Here it is, for the second time:
That's the Christian hypothesis, but it does not directly result from there having been a beginning. One could also attribute it to, say, multiverse in which some programmers make a highly elaborate game called our universe and put it together in a group effort. The impossible first cause suggests an answer from the outside, but it doesn't limit that answer to just one. Causality renders a materialist explanation impossible, but makes no claims about the nature of the supernatural or extraplanar involved. I'd appreciate if you didn't try to get me to defend claims you make up. It's as annoying as it is dishonest. You should try reading all of it and think about it until you understand what was written.
Your expression of faux mirth isn't much of an argument. To be precise, I claimed Christianity was the father of science. Christianity itself is not a science, it is a faith.
I'm not interested in your opinions or speculations about me.
Not only that: I also say that the premises that directly led to the invention of science were and are not shared by any other culture or faith in the world.
Obviously.
Do you get off on making claims that expose you a liar beyond any doubt?
You did nothing even remotely to that effect.
And again you keep projecting and pretend there is no question to answer. Who do you think you're fooling?
You'd do well to stop projecting your behavioral patterns onto me. We're nothing alike; we do not share the fundamentals, thought patterns or motivations. Trying to paint me up as a caricature of yourself goes reliably wrong and while it was funny for a while, repeating it
ad infinitum is really tedious.
