Subject:
|
Re: Mercy? (Was Re: My Prayer on this National Day of Prayer)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 16 Sep 2001 22:51:48 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1417 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Adam Murtha writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ian Warfield writes:
> > > A wise man once said "If 'ifs' and 'buts' were candy and nuts we'd all have
> > > a merry christmas."
> >
> > LOL. Who said that?
>
> Colby from Survivor 2.
Ack! No, don't tell me that Reality TV has provided *anything*
pithy!
> > I didn't apply the term "technicality" to God. I meant that man's goodness
> > derives from God, since God is the source of all goodness. If you
> > presuppose the nonexistence of God, this is nearly impossible to prove.
> > That's why I referred to it as a technicality.
>
> Mark said: The Kindness Of Man. Please, give credit where credit is due,
> and don't shortchange the good people.
>
> You said: All goodness derives from God, but this is a technicality in this
> instance :).
And, remember, if God created all and is omnipotent, God
also created evil and possesses the power to destroy it at
any time. Evil is not merely the absence of good.
> > I would disagree - in fact, there's a huge amount of evidence - both
> > philosophical and scientific - that a Creator exists, and a further huge
> > amount that this Creator is the God defined in the Bible. If you'd
> > reconsider, I could go into that further. (I pray you reconsider this, too :).)
>
> You do?!? Well lay it on me then brother! Finally, scientific evidence
> that a creator exists!
Yeah, I'd like to hear this. If you have real scientific
evidence--not Creationist chestnuts, but real bonafide evidence,
that points to the existence of the Christian God and *could not
point to anything else*, that would be the greatest find
in recorded history.
Unfortunately, most of the scientific and philosophical
"evidence" ends up being anti-logic (i.e., "It's not X so
it MUST be Y", which ignores the possibility of Z).
> > This is the point I tried to address before. If He had, people might accuse
> > Him because *they wouldn't have known what He was intervening to prevent*.
> > People can't see into the future and they don't know future potential
> > sequences of events. They would be unfairly accusing Him of inconveniencing
> > them by interfering, because they wouldn't be able to see that He was in
> > fact *protecting* them by His interference.
>
> Here we disagree once more, or still, whatever. I understand your point you
> make, sort of. Obviously people can't see the future, and yes, if god
> prevented the events without making that known, no one would have known what
> he did. I doubt anyone would accuse him of being inconvienient if he would
> explain what he did and why, thus not an inconvienience and also a protector
> and saviour etc. But there is no evidence that there was any involvement of
> god, in any way.
Religion operates within a faith paradigm. For example,
if a miracle occurred that sufficiently defied natural laws
(e.g., the planes stopping just inches from the WTC walls)
then I think your postulate about people not understanding
would be moot. When science tries to make statements about
the existence of God, or when religion tries to make statements
about the conclusions of science (note: I'm not saying the
*practice* here, because religion does come into bioethics
quite strongly), they're on really really really shaky ground
that I'd argue is really quite indefensible. You can't
prove the unprovable, and you can't deny the provable (though
people can, and do, try to challenge the proof).
I'm in the blind-watchmaker camp, myself. Religion comes
from humanity, not from God. Only the human spirit or soul
comes from there. Nothing divine can be articulated, but
rather lives within us and between us. No dogma can circum-
scribe that.
best
LFB
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
98 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
