Subject:
|
Re: Mercy? (Was Re: My Prayer on this National Day of Prayer)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 16 Sep 2001 23:40:25 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1420 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ian Warfield writes:
> I'll try to address both Adam's and Ross's posts at the same time.
>
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Adam Murtha writes:
> > Hi Ross.
> >
> > I would have thought if there was any conclusive evidence for the existence
> > of god that the christian belief wouldn't crumble, but be elevated to new
> > heights of wisdom and logic.
>
> Exactly. I believe that too. As I mentioned in my other post, I can put my
> hands on a huge amount of evidence for the existence of God - all
> circumstantial, and none of it 100% conclusive, but incredibly convincing
> nonetheless.
>
> > The statement that if god exists he, is beyond our understanding, is good
> > for those who have faith, but to me sounds like another excuse. I've heard
> > the arguments that evolution is the tool of god etc. but again, an excuse.
> > And until it is proven otherwise, I will continue to believe what extensive
> > scientific studies have shown.
>
> As I said before, faith is necessary to any religion. In Christianity, we
> have a reason why we need faith (postulate 2, so that we can maintain our
> free will of choice). Science does "prove" the existence of God. Not
> conclusively, or else there would be no room left for faith, but still to
> satisfy nearly anyone.
>
> The very *study of science* itself presupposes the existence of God to for
> it to work! Why?
> -Rationality: Science assumes that there is a rational explanation for
> everything.
> -Logic: Science assumes that by studying details and making observations
> about an unknown phenomenon, that phenomenon can be described. The whole
> follows logically and naturally from the part.
> -Coherence: Science requires evidence for proof. If evidence contradicts
> existing explanations, they must be thrown out, because the explanation must
> be coherent with all explanations.
>
> These all presuppose that the universe is inherently ordered. If the
> universe had haphazardly sprung into existence by itself, there would be no
> outside governing force to make it behave logically, rationally, or
> coherently. Right and wrong would have no meaning, and there would be no
> guarantee that a phenomenon would have an intelligible order to it. Science
> cannot function in a chaotic universe.
>
> Point by point, here is the support for the above:
> -Rationality: God is by definition rational - there is a reason for
> everything. He is a God of Order, not Chaos.
> -Logic: God makes His nature known in what He creates. Each of His
> creations reflect Himself, for He cannot create something totally and
> absolutely without relation or relevance to His nature. Thus, every detail
> observed about God must reflect and describe God.
> -Coherence: God is by definition coherent. He cannot contradict Himself or
> do anything foreign or contrary to His nature. He is internally consistent.
>
> >
> > Adam
> >
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Ross Crawford writes:
> > > Hi Adam, and greetings from Australia!
> > >
> > > I don't believe in god.
>
> I hope that you change your mind!
>
> > >
> > > But for many years I thought I did, and came to realise that following god
> > > *must* be based on faith.
>
> Exactly. While doubts remain, faith must provide the impetus for a belief
> in God.
>
> > > As soon as any conclusive eveidence for his existence shows up, the whole
> > > christian belief will crumble. And simply put, those who believe in such a
> > > god must explain everything in terms of that faith.
> > >
> > > Thus god cannot intervene in any way that makes it obvious to everyone that
> > > it's god intervening, or he instantly loses all his followers.
>
> Adam and I disagree; see above.
Yes, I re-read that and realised it wasn't a good description of my belief.
Perhaps closer: "...he instantly loses all his followers, *from his point of
view*, because they no longer have to make any choice to follow him."
> > > As to the creationist thing, well that's been debated here (and many other
> > > places) before, and will be again, but I'm happy with the possibility that:
> > >
> > > 1. god, if he exists, is an entity beyond our understanding, so may in fact
> > > be consistent with "proof" that no being (as per our knowledge of beings)
> > > could have created the universe;
>
> He *Himself* is beyond our understanding, but His infiniteness can manifest
> itself in finite ways that we can understand.
I agree with this - I don't think it contradicts my point 1.
> > > 2. evolution may be the tool that god devised to create the universe
> > > (including the world & man).
>
> Possibly. But I doubt God wasted His time by fiddling around with the laws
> of chance and engineering evolution; that would have introduced a middleman.
> I think He did it Himself.
Well I disagree that it necessarily introduces a "middleman" - the tools of
evolution & chance may have already been "available" to him - they may be
things he uses every day, so were the obvious choice when creating his
masterpiece.
Note that this doesn't necessarly contradict your assertion that he's a god of
order, either - to him, what we call evolution & chance may be the perfect
order. His "thoughts" are beyond our understanding.
> > >
> > > Dunno if this all makes sense or not...
>
> Debate brings out the truth. Keep debating until it makes sense :).
Well, it certainly brings out a lot of differing points of view, anyway...
ROSCO
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
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
|
|
|
|
