What is the concept of God philosophically?

[ThinkOfOne]

Sorry ThinkOfOne! Missed this. Tho' I fired off a few shots at you downstream. Can never resist a target of opportunity.

I believe none of the mythology of the NT, including in Jesus' words. But I grant the best of will to him, in his delusion, that he propagated to the Church. I understand Jesus words just fine thank you. And to re-use ammunition from below the post to which I'm replying, it's grandiose of you to question that, with some implicit gnosticism; esoteric 'knowledge'. That you could possibly know something I don't. I take him at his word. I don't believe any claim by or about him. Utterly sincere tho' I grant, in all best possible will.

His claims are inadequate for Love. His suicide mission is inadequate for Love. They worked for enough people at the time and still do. I will not settle for less than Love. Competent, transcendent Love. Of which there is no trace.

C'mon Martin. There's a distinction that needs to be made between what Jesus said about Himself and what Christianity says about Him. You keep referring to "[Jesus'] claims" whilst referring to Christianity's claims about Jesus. They are NOT one and the same. Try going through my earlier posts with that in mind. Hopefully the penny will drop for you.

It has nothing to do with "some implicit gnosticism; esoteric 'knowledge'". It has to do with reading comprehension skills.

I've made that distinction transparently clear, but it can't be made so for you in your grandiose trollery. I have a reading age of about 200. And I read you clear.

Let's try this.

Rather than the gospel preached by Jesus, Christianity chose to adopt the "gospel" taught by Paul as its foundation. There's a wide gulf between the two. As but one example, Jesus never claimed to be on a "suicide mission" as you seem to imply.

So once again:
By all means, make your best case using the words attributed to Jesus while He preached His Gospel. Jesus preached His Gospel from the beginning of His ministry through the crucifixion. Let's see if you can back up your assertions.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

C'mon Martin. There's a distinction that needs to be made between what Jesus said about Himself and what Christianity says about Him. You keep referring to "[Jesus'] claims" whilst referring to Christianity's claims about Jesus. They are NOT one and the same. Try going through my earlier posts with that in mind. Hopefully the penny will drop for you.

It has nothing to do with "some implicit gnosticism; esoteric 'knowledge'". It has to do with reading comprehension skills.

I've made that distinction transparently clear, but it can't be made so for you in your grandiose trollery. I have a reading age of about 200. And I read you clear.

Let's try this.

Rather than the gospel preached by Jesus, Christianity chose to adopt the "gospel" taught by Paul as its foundation. There's a wide gulf between the two. As but one example, Jesus never claimed to be on a "suicide mission" as you seem to imply.

So once again:
By all means, make your best case using the words attributed to Jesus while He preached His Gospel. Jesus preached His Gospel from the beginning of His ministry through the crucifixion. Let's see if you can back up your assertions.

I knew you were targeting Paul. Who, of course, has more credibility than any of the gospel writers, especially 'John', by up to 50 years.

I don't imply Jesus' suicide mission. I state it as he did. It's plain in his alleged words. Which for some inaccessible reason you won't see. And giving fullest good will, I choose to believe them. I choose to believe the character's glaringly obvious clinical, sincere (as it always is, including here) grandiosity. He was the most remarkable, influential human being of his time and any. Made so by history. The ultimate 'great man'. All according to 'Mark', whoever he was, and Quelle (great book by Michener), with a couple of embellishers. At least Paul was real.

[Belinda]

I've made that distinction transparently clear, but it can't be made so for you in your grandiose trollery. I have a reading age of about 200. And I read you clear.

Let's try this.

Rather than the gospel preached by Jesus, Christianity chose to adopt the "gospel" taught by Paul as its foundation. There's a wide gulf between the two. As but one example, Jesus never claimed to be on a "suicide mission" as you seem to imply.

So once again:
By all means, make your best case using the words attributed to Jesus while He preached His Gospel. Jesus preached His Gospel from the beginning of His ministry through the crucifixion. Let's see if you can back up your assertions.

I knew you were targeting Paul. Who, of course, has more credibility than any of the gospel writers, especially 'John', by up to 50 years.

I don't imply Jesus' suicide mission. I state it as he did. It's plain in his alleged words. Which for some inaccessible reason you won't see. And giving fullest good will, I choose to believe them. I choose to believe the character's glaringly obvious clinical, sincere (as it always is, including here) grandiosity. He was the most remarkable, influential human being of his time and any. Made so by history. The ultimate 'great man'. All according to 'Mark', whoever he was, and Quelle (great book by Michener), with a couple of embellishers. At least Paul was real.

The Christian canon:

https://www.google.com/search?q=the+chr ... wgAEAAYgAQ

The historicity of Jesus of Nazareth is based on the writings of some Romans notably Josephus. There is also circumstantial evidence about the life and times of the Roman occupation of Palestine.
In recent years (1940s I think?)there is archaeological evidence from a body which had obviously been crucified so we know crucifixion was done.
The historicity of Jesus' intentions:

https://www.google.com/search?q=what+is ... &sourceid=

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Let's try this.

Rather than the gospel preached by Jesus, Christianity chose to adopt the "gospel" taught by Paul as its foundation. There's a wide gulf between the two. As but one example, Jesus never claimed to be on a "suicide mission" as you seem to imply.

So once again:
By all means, make your best case using the words attributed to Jesus while He preached His Gospel. Jesus preached His Gospel from the beginning of His ministry through the crucifixion. Let's see if you can back up your assertions.

I knew you were targeting Paul. Who, of course, has more credibility than any of the gospel writers, especially 'John', by up to 50 years.

I don't imply Jesus' suicide mission. I state it as he did. It's plain in his alleged words. Which for some inaccessible reason you won't see. And giving fullest good will, I choose to believe them. I choose to believe the character's glaringly obvious clinical, sincere (as it always is, including here) grandiosity. He was the most remarkable, influential human being of his time and any. Made so by history. The ultimate 'great man'. All according to 'Mark', whoever he was, and Quelle (great book by Michener), with a couple of embellishers. At least Paul was real.

The Christian canon:

https://www.google.com/search?q=the+chr ... wgAEAAYgAQ

The historicity of Jesus of Nazareth is based on the writings of some Romans notably Josephus. There is also circumstantial evidence about the life and times of the Roman occupation of Palestine.
In recent years (1940s I think?)there is archaeological evidence from a body which had obviously been crucified so we know crucifixion was done.
The historicity of Jesus' intentions:

https://www.google.com/search?q=what+is ... &sourceid=

I'm fully aware of all the second and third hand, second and third order accounts. I fully accept the historicity of Jesus' intentions purely out of good will, and what he is accounted to have said.

What is your point?

Sorry, but again, why would you assume, grandiosely, otherwise?

[Belinda]

I knew you were targeting Paul. Who, of course, has more credibility than any of the gospel writers, especially 'John', by up to 50 years.

I don't imply Jesus' suicide mission. I state it as he did. It's plain in his alleged words. Which for some inaccessible reason you won't see. And giving fullest good will, I choose to believe them. I choose to believe the character's glaringly obvious clinical, sincere (as it always is, including here) grandiosity. He was the most remarkable, influential human being of his time and any. Made so by history. The ultimate 'great man'. All according to 'Mark', whoever he was, and Quelle (great book by Michener), with a couple of embellishers. At least Paul was real.

The Christian canon:

https://www.google.com/search?q=the+chr ... wgAEAAYgAQ

The historicity of Jesus of Nazareth is based on the writings of some Romans notably Josephus. There is also circumstantial evidence about the life and times of the Roman occupation of Palestine.
In recent years (1940s I think?)there is archaeological evidence from a body which had obviously been crucified so we know crucifixion was done.
The historicity of Jesus' intentions:

https://www.google.com/search?q=what+is ... &sourceid=

I'm fully aware of all the second and third hand, second and third order accounts. I fully accept the historicity of Jesus' intentions purely out of good will, and what he is accounted to have said.

What is your point?

Sorry, but again, why would you assume, grandiosely, otherwise?

Your stance is subjective.
I presume that people who do philosophy take the objectives stance.
My point is the objective stance is the better stance because reason is available to everyone.

You wrote subjectively :

I fully accept the historicity of Jesus' intentions purely out of good will, and what he is accounted to have said.

"Good will" is not explicit enough . Reason is universal and completely reliable as a compass by which to steer one's way though life. N.B. reason includes empathy.

[ThinkOfOne]

I've made that distinction transparently clear, but it can't be made so for you in your grandiose trollery. I have a reading age of about 200. And I read you clear.

Let's try this.

Rather than the gospel preached by Jesus, Christianity chose to adopt the "gospel" taught by Paul as its foundation. There's a wide gulf between the two. As but one example, Jesus never claimed to be on a "suicide mission" as you seem to imply.

So once again:
By all means, make your best case using the words attributed to Jesus while He preached His Gospel. Jesus preached His Gospel from the beginning of His ministry through the crucifixion. Let's see if you can back up your assertions.

I knew you were targeting Paul. Who, of course, has more credibility than any of the gospel writers, especially 'John', by up to 50 years.

I don't imply Jesus' suicide mission. I state it as he did. It's plain in his alleged words. Which for some inaccessible reason you won't see. And giving fullest good will, I choose to believe them. I choose to believe the character's glaringly obvious clinical, sincere (as it always is, including here) grandiosity. He was the most remarkable, influential human being of his time and any. Made so by history. The ultimate 'great man'. All according to 'Mark', whoever he was, and Quelle (great book by Michener), with a couple of embellishers. At least Paul was real.

I don't imply Jesus' suicide mission. I state it as he did. It's plain in his alleged words. Which for some inaccessible reason you won't see. And giving fullest good will, I choose to believe them.


Yet you've continually refused to back up your assertions.

Despite the fact that I've repeatedly posted the following:
By all means, make your best case using the words attributed to Jesus while He preached His Gospel. Jesus preached His Gospel from the beginning of His ministry through the crucifixion. Let's see if you can back up your assertions.

If it were "plain in his alleged words", you'd cite all the passages where you believe Jesus made the claims that you have asserted. You'd make your best case. Why have you repeatedly failed to do so?

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Let's try this.

Rather than the gospel preached by Jesus, Christianity chose to adopt the "gospel" taught by Paul as its foundation. There's a wide gulf between the two. As but one example, Jesus never claimed to be on a "suicide mission" as you seem to imply.

So once again:
By all means, make your best case using the words attributed to Jesus while He preached His Gospel. Jesus preached His Gospel from the beginning of His ministry through the crucifixion. Let's see if you can back up your assertions.

I knew you were targeting Paul. Who, of course, has more credibility than any of the gospel writers, especially 'John', by up to 50 years.

I don't imply Jesus' suicide mission. I state it as he did. It's plain in his alleged words. Which for some inaccessible reason you won't see. And giving fullest good will, I choose to believe them. I choose to believe the character's glaringly obvious clinical, sincere (as it always is, including here) grandiosity. He was the most remarkable, influential human being of his time and any. Made so by history. The ultimate 'great man'. All according to 'Mark', whoever he was, and Quelle (great book by Michener), with a couple of embellishers. At least Paul was real.

I don't imply Jesus' suicide mission. I state it as he did. It's plain in his alleged words. Which for some inaccessible reason you won't see. And giving fullest good will, I choose to believe them.


Yet you've continually refused to back up your assertions.

Despite the fact that I've repeatedly posted the following:
By all means, make your best case using the words attributed to Jesus while He preached His Gospel. Jesus preached His Gospel from the beginning of His ministry through the crucifixion. Let's see if you can back up your assertions.

If it were "plain in his alleged words", you'd cite all the passages where you believe Jesus made the claims that you have asserted. You'd make your best case. Why have you repeatedly failed to do so?

It's not in the slightest bit necessary, as everyone has read it in clear for themselves. You cannot. Will not. You are trapped in trollery.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

The Christian canon:

https://www.google.com/search?q=the+chr ... wgAEAAYgAQ

The historicity of Jesus of Nazareth is based on the writings of some Romans notably Josephus. There is also circumstantial evidence about the life and times of the Roman occupation of Palestine.
In recent years (1940s I think?)there is archaeological evidence from a body which had obviously been crucified so we know crucifixion was done.
The historicity of Jesus' intentions:

https://www.google.com/search?q=what+is ... &sourceid=

I'm fully aware of all the second and third hand, second and third order accounts. I fully accept the historicity of Jesus' intentions purely out of good will, and what he is accounted to have said.

What is your point?

Sorry, but again, why would you assume, grandiosely, otherwise?

Your stance is subjective.
I presume that people who do philosophy take the objectives stance.
My point is the objective stance is the better stance because reason is available to everyone.

You wrote subjectively :

I fully accept the historicity of Jesus' intentions purely out of good will, and what he is accounted to have said.

"Good will" is not explicit enough . Reason is universal and completely reliable as a compass by which to steer one's way though life. N.B. reason includes empathy.

My reason is perfect, so I add good will to it, and behold, belief is still painfully inadequate.

[ThinkOfOne]

I knew you were targeting Paul. Who, of course, has more credibility than any of the gospel writers, especially 'John', by up to 50 years.

I don't imply Jesus' suicide mission. I state it as he did. It's plain in his alleged words. Which for some inaccessible reason you won't see. And giving fullest good will, I choose to believe them. I choose to believe the character's glaringly obvious clinical, sincere (as it always is, including here) grandiosity. He was the most remarkable, influential human being of his time and any. Made so by history. The ultimate 'great man'. All according to 'Mark', whoever he was, and Quelle (great book by Michener), with a couple of embellishers. At least Paul was real.

I don't imply Jesus' suicide mission. I state it as he did. It's plain in his alleged words. Which for some inaccessible reason you won't see. And giving fullest good will, I choose to believe them.


Yet you've continually refused to back up your assertions.

Despite the fact that I've repeatedly posted the following:
By all means, make your best case using the words attributed to Jesus while He preached His Gospel. Jesus preached His Gospel from the beginning of His ministry through the crucifixion. Let's see if you can back up your assertions.

If it were "plain in his alleged words", you'd cite all the passages where you believe Jesus made the claims that you have asserted. You'd make your best case. Why have you repeatedly failed to do so?

It's not in the slightest bit necessary, as everyone has read it in clear for themselves. You cannot. Will not. Your are trapped in trollery.

C'mon Martin. If anyone is "trapped in trollery", it's you. As you've repeatedly made assertions and refused to back them up. Even worse, instead of doing so, you've repeatedly and falsely accused me of "trollery".

[Belinda]

I'm fully aware of all the second and third hand, second and third order accounts. I fully accept the historicity of Jesus' intentions purely out of good will, and what he is accounted to have said.

What is your point?

Sorry, but again, why would you assume, grandiosely, otherwise?

Your stance is subjective.
I presume that people who do philosophy take the objectives stance.
My point is the objective stance is the better stance because reason is available to everyone.

You wrote subjectively :

I fully accept the historicity of Jesus' intentions purely out of good will, and what he is accounted to have said.

"Good will" is not explicit enough . Reason is universal and completely reliable as a compass by which to steer one's way though life. N.B. reason includes empathy.

My reason is perfect, so I add good will to it, and behold, belief is still painfully inadequate.

Good will is not enough unless the good will is compounded with reason . Reason itself as a Platonic Form is unattainable and we have to make do with the human version. Good intentions are not enough without humility.

Humility: " I am no the thing I should be. I am no even the thing I could be." (sort of quoted)

[Martin Peter Clarke]

I don't imply Jesus' suicide mission. I state it as he did. It's plain in his alleged words. Which for some inaccessible reason you won't see. And giving fullest good will, I choose to believe them.


Yet you've continually refused to back up your assertions.

Despite the fact that I've repeatedly posted the following:
By all means, make your best case using the words attributed to Jesus while He preached His Gospel. Jesus preached His Gospel from the beginning of His ministry through the crucifixion. Let's see if you can back up your assertions.

If it were "plain in his alleged words", you'd cite all the passages where you believe Jesus made the claims that you have asserted. You'd make your best case. Why have you repeatedly failed to do so?

It's not in the slightest bit necessary, as everyone has read it in clear for themselves. You cannot. Will not. Your are trapped in trollery.

C'mon Martin. If anyone is "trapped in trollery", it's you. As you've repeatedly made assertions and refused to back them up. Even worse, instead of doing so, you've repeatedly and falsely accused me of "trollery".

The assertions speak for themselves. Only a troll can question them, endlessly, in the affliction of evasion.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Your stance is subjective.
I presume that people who do philosophy take the objectives stance.
My point is the objective stance is the better stance because reason is available to everyone.

You wrote subjectively :

"Good will" is not explicit enough . Reason is universal and completely reliable as a compass by which to steer one's way though life. N.B. reason includes empathy.

My reason is perfect, so I add good will to it, and behold, belief is still painfully inadequate.

Good will is not enough unless the good will is compounded with reason . Reason itself as a Platonic Form is unattainable and we have to make do with the human version. Good intentions are not enough without humility.

Humility: " I am no the thing I should be. I am no even the thing I could be." (sort of quoted)

Reason first, goodwill after. The opposite is useless, as is the compound. It's belief before reason.

PS Yes, my good will is totally subjectively given. It cannot be given objectively. It is a thought experiment in which the fundamentalist God of the Bible still fails to be Love, even if the good will were founded. Humility is irrelevant to the objective failure of any fundamentalist God, i.e. one limited to the text, to be Love.

[ThinkOfOne]

It's not in the slightest bit necessary, as everyone has read it in clear for themselves. You cannot. Will not. Your are trapped in trollery.

C'mon Martin. If anyone is "trapped in trollery", it's you. As you've repeatedly made assertions and refused to back them up. Even worse, instead of doing so, you've repeatedly and falsely accused me of "trollery".

The assertions speak for themselves. Only a troll can question them, endlessly, in the affliction of evasion.

C'mon Martin. You've repeatedly failed to back up your assertions. Even worse, you keep falsely accusing me of the very things of which you are guilty: grandiosity, evasion, trollery.

Your behavior on this thread and others brings the following quote to mind:
“One of the great challenges in this world is knowing enough about a subject to think you're right, but not enough about the subject to know you're wrong.”
― Neil deGrasse Tyson

In other words, you know enough to think that you are right, however the reality is that you don't even know enough to understand that you are wrong.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Jesus' grandiosity. Jesus assertions about Jesus.

The Jesus character claimed, asserted,
to forgive sins, Mark 2:1-12, John 8:1-11,
he asserted that the ultimate purpose of his life was to “give his life as a ransom for many”, Mark 10:45, (i.e. his suicide mission),
authority over the sabbath, Mark 2:27, Matthew 12:8-24,
and the Law in general, Matthew 23:23-24,
to grant eternal life, John 5:21-22, 6:40, 11:25-26, 14:6,
unity with God the Father, John John 8:58-59, 10:30-31,
divine attributes, John 8:58, John 21:17, Matthew 28:18, Matthew 28:20,
sinless perfection John 8:46,
divine miraculousness John 10:38,
worship Matthew 8:2, 14:33, 15:25, 28:17, John 9:38.

Paraphrased from What Did Jesus Say About Himself? A Complete Overview https://www.christianwebsite.com/what-d ... e_vignette

Over half being claimed multiple generations after their setting by the school of 'John', whoever they were.

Other grandiose claims were made on his behalf by Paul and 'John' at least.

No devout Christian is ignorant of any of this.

I asked Faithfind 'Chat with the Word' on +27 65 802 1982 on WhatsApp, via https://www.faithfind.org/

What supernatural claims are made by Jesus in the gospels?

1. *Son of God*: Jesus claimed to be the Son of God, affirming His divine nature (John 10:36).
2. *Forgiveness of Sins*: He declared the authority to forgive sins, which was considered a divine prerogative (Mark 2:5-7).
3. *Resurrection*: Jesus foretold His own resurrection from the dead (Matthew 16:21).
4. *Eternal Life*: He promised eternal life to those who believe in Him (John 3:16).
5. *Miracles*: Jesus performed numerous miracles, like turning water into wine (John 2:1-11) and feeding the 5,000 (Matthew 14:13-21).
6. *Walking on Water*: He walked on water, demonstrating His mastery over nature (Matthew 14:25).
7. *Authority over Demons*: Jesus cast out demons, showing His power over spiritual forces (Mark 1:34).
8. *Judgment*: He claimed the authority to judge humanity (John 5:22).
9. *Healing the Sick*: Jesus healed countless people from various diseases and disabilities (Matthew 4:23).
10. *Raising the Dead*: He raised people from the dead, including Lazarus (John 11:43-44).
11. *Transfiguration*: Jesus was transfigured, revealing His divine glory to His disciples (Matthew 17:1-2).
12. *Ascension*: After His resurrection, Jesus ascended into heaven (Acts 1:9-11).
13. *Omniscience*: Jesus demonstrated knowledge of people's thoughts and pasts, such as with the Samaritan woman at the well (John 4:17-19).
14. *Claim to Preexistence*: He claimed to exist before Abraham, indicating His eternal nature (John 8:58).
15. *Control over Nature*: Jesus calmed a storm with His command, showing His authority over the elements (Mark 4:39).
16. *Prophecy Fulfillment*: Jesus fulfilled numerous Old Testament prophecies about the Messiah, such as being born of a virgin (Isaiah 7:14, Matthew 1:22-23).
17. *Unity with the Father*: Jesus claimed a unique unity with God the Father (John 10:30).
18. *Ultimate Sacrifice*: He predicted His sacrificial death and resurrection for the salvation of humanity (Mark 10:33-34).
19. *Authority to Give Life*: Jesus claimed the authority to give eternal life to those who believe in Him (John 10:28).
20. *Promise of the Holy Spirit*: He promised to send the Holy Spirit to guide and comfort believers (John 14:16-17).
21. *His Return*: Jesus foretold His second coming in glory to establish God's kingdom (Matthew 24:30).
22. *Transcendence Over Time*: Jesus spoke of His return and the end times, indicating His authority over history (Matthew 24:36-44).
23. *Spiritual Insight*: He possessed deep spiritual insight, understanding the hearts and motives of people (John 2:24-25).
24. *Authority to Interpret the Law*: Jesus reinterpreted the Law with divine authority, emphasizing its true spirit (Matthew 5:17-48).
25. *Promise of Rest*: Jesus offered rest for the weary, highlighting His ability to provide spiritual peace (Matthew 11:28-30).
26. *Power over Sin*: He lived a sinless life, demonstrating His holiness and divine nature (1 Peter 2:22).
27. *Unity with Believers*: Jesus prayed for unity among His followers, reflecting His desire for a spiritual bond (John 17:20-23).
...

I can keep asking.

I then asked, 'What supernatural claims are made for Jesus in the epistles?'

1. *Preexistence and Creation*: Jesus is described as existing before all things and being the agent of creation (Colossians 1:16-17).
2. *Divine Nature*: He is affirmed as the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of His being (Hebrews 1:3).
3. *Sustainer of the Universe*: Jesus is said to uphold all things by His powerful word (Hebrews 1:3).
4. *Head of the Church*: He is the head of the Church, His body (Ephesians 1:22-23).
5. *Reconciler*: Through Jesus, God reconciles all things to Himself, making peace through His blood (Colossians 1:20).

Trolls will ask why, what, how, can you be more specific, what do you mean, yeah but.

As Jesus was just a man at most, if all of this was said by him and his followers, it could not be more grandiose.

To question that, even more so.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The law of nature existed, naturally, before the appearance of life on Earth.
The law of gravity existed before the apple fell on Newton's head, without the law of gravity the Earth would not exist.
Scientists discover laws that exist independently of these scientists

You're right that, in the conventional scientific framework, laws like gravity are treated as existing independently and "discovered" by scientists. That's how empirical science works—and it's extremely effective.
However, there are nuanced deep philosophical views to the above common sense, convention and philosophical realist views.
You have to widen your thinking vista.

I would not waste any more time disputing the fact that the real law of nature is immutable and therefore does not depend on anything.

I like Kant's statement,
"Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe, the more often and steadily we reflect upon them: the starry heavens above me [the law of nature] and the moral law within me."

Can't you see the point,
"1. starry heavens above me[/i] [the law of nature]
2. the moral law
within me"

Both laws [1 & 2] are within him 'as a human'
and this is reflected in Kant's famous 'Copernican Revolution'.

For Kant there are no laws of nature and morality that are absolutely independent of the human conditions.

That you sense there are absolutely independent laws of nature and morality outside the collective human conditions is based on common sense and primal reasons which are both crude.

Reality is all there is.
Humans are part and parcel of reality.
Laws of nature and morality, are also part and parcel of reality.
Fundamentally, there is no way, Laws of Nature and Morality can be absolutely independent from one another.
Both Law of nature & morality and the collective human conditions are both part of the same unified whole, thus cannot be absolutely independent.

You are the sort, who upon seeing a large iceberg floating in the middle of the Antarctica Ocean, insist the iceberg is absolutely independent from the ocean; fundamentally both are merely different concentration of H20.

It is the same with the nuance between Law of Nature and the human conditions, from the nuanced perspective they are both part of the same unity which is ultimately grounded on the human conditions from another perspective.