Absolutes or relativism

@fmf said
Your speculation and my speculation are both part of the discourse on this topic.

That a perspective you disagree with "means nothing" to you is neither here nor there, ultimately, in a marketplace of ideas and opinions.

Having said that, your perspective ~ which I disagree with ~ does not "mean nothing" to me. Nor would I characterize your view as "BS analysis".

A creator can do whatever a creator wants to do.

End of story!!!

@chaney3 said
A creator can do whatever a creator wants to do.

Your belief is duly noted.

@kellyjay said
Why in the universe would the Creator be bound by those laws?

Because those laws would define him and his creation. There is no other evidence or information about him.

@fmf said
Because those laws would define him and his creation.

Your opinion.
You are wrong.

@chaney3 said
Your opinion.
You are wrong.

Yes, my opinion. And your opinion. All anyone is doing here is sharing their opinions.

@fmf said
Yes, my opinion. And your opinion. All anyone is doing here is sharing their opinions.

What is an agnostic atheist?

@chaney3 said
What is an agnostic atheist?

I suggest you Google it.

@fmf said
I suggest you Google it.

Ha ha.

I was asking because you seem to put FMF limitations onto a creator.

It shows your small mind.

@chaney3 said
Your opinion.
You are wrong.

Strange how defining absolutes seem to the answer for relativist when push comes to shove.

@kellyjay said
Strange how defining absolutes seem to the answer for relativist when push comes to shove.

What "absolutes" do you think I have proposed?

Your thread has invited people to share their perspectives, has it not?

Do you really believe that I think my speculation creates an "absolute"?

If so, in which post did I do this?

@chaney3 said
Ha ha.

I was asking because you seem to put FMF limitations onto a creator.

It shows your small mind.

There is no limitation to what you or anyone can attribute to a creator being. You are free to assert whatever you want. I've always contended that the universe ~ the nature of the universe, its physical laws ~ is the best evidence that theists have for a creator being.

@fmf said
There is no limitation to what you or anyone can attribute to a creator being. You are free to assert whatever you want. I've always contended that the universe ~ the nature of the universe, its physical laws ~ is the best evidence that theists have for a creator being.

Agreed, but the creator can change the laws of physics.

@chaney3 said
It shows your small mind.

"Small mind"? I don't subscribe to the notion that believing ~ however sincerely and certainly ~ in a "God" who is omnipresent and omniscient and omnipotent is the sign of having a 'big' mind or having a 'bigger' mind than those who do not share that belief. Merely characterizing dissenters as having "small minds", however, does not seem very 'big-minded' to me.

@chaney3 said
Agreed, but the creator can change the laws of physics.

My speculation on this matter leads me to believe that, if there is a creator being, then "the laws of physics" and the creator are one in the same. I'd speculate that "the laws of physics" represent the nature of the creator being and they provide us with the only credible means of perceiving him and they represent the only information we have about him and what he has created.

@fmf said
My speculation on this matter leads me to believe that, if there is a creator being, then "the laws of physics" and the creator are one in the same. I'd speculate that "the laws of physics" represent the nature of the creator being and they provide us with the only credible means of perceiving him and they represent the only information we have about him and what he has created.

You are incorrect in many ways.

You are putting human limitations where they don't belong.