Let me start with your last question.
What do you think is meant by God ‘being so into the inherent worth of the individual’? What do you think constitutes the ‘inherent worth of the individual’? How about if we start with the concept of ‘Dignity’. Are you able to accept the notion that all people should be afforded the opportunity to lead a dignified life? The preservation of one’s personal dignity is something which can be applied to anyone, of any shape, size, colour, sexual persuasion, gender, ability, or whatever. I’m sure you have come across many philosophers, politicians, churchmen, even Popes, who have spoken, or written on the notion of human dignity. Dignity can be hard to define, but just about all of us know what dignity represents and we can recognise the lack of it when we see it. You agree? So maybe we will just let the concept of God being ‘so into the inherent worth of the individual’ rest there for the moment.
You then ask “why is individual interpretation so threatening”? I have to ask you, “individual interpretation of what” and “threatening in what sense”? Without waiting for an explicit answer from you (none of us will live that long!) I will say that there are some things in this world that are not open to interpretation. They are facts, independent of any particular mind and discernable through reason whenever any individual cares to exercise it. If it can be said that individual interpretation is “threatening”, maybe it is because there are a good many people who do not exercise their reasoning powers and so distort, even deny, the existence of things which cannot be denied. Some people even do it deliberately and perhaps threaten the good commonsense of others.
I will now move onto your explanation of gravity as a “law”, even though you are attempting to show that it is not properly understood. You said “these work for large bodies but fail at the quantum level”. By “these” I take it ou mean the various theories regarding gravity? Is that correct? No matter. The theories which attempt to describe and define it might fail, but the existence of gravity does not, does it john? Now, harking back to my previous paragraph, we now have one thing which cannot be denied, no matter how anyone attempts to play at semantics. True john?
You have seen this coming for a while and you know that I know that you knew this was coming. True? That is why you have performed all sorts of intellectual acrobatics to avoid answering my questions directly and you do the same to others.
Basically, your insistence that there is nothing objective in the world is indefensible. If it were the case, all of science would be false and a good many scientists would have your guts for garters. If there were no objective laws governing the universe, the internal combustion engine would not work and the tyres on your car would fail to take you around a corner. Even making that hypothetical metal cooking pot of yours must be done according to a set of objective principles, or else there would be no cooking pot. And as for that fire under it, well, nuff said…Even your pedantic arguments over poor granny’s chair can not deny the existence of that chair, regardless of its shape, size, or anything else.
I’m actually wondering if you aren’t a dissembler.
