Subject:
|
Re: Problems with Christianity
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 22 Dec 2000 18:30:12 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1041 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Steve Chapple writes:
> > It's not simply a matter of refusing The Bible; what Tom is (and others
> > are) asking is that The Bible not be taken as proof of God, since The Bible
> > is only valid as such proof if one accepts it as the Word of God, which is
> > circular.
>
> _Somewhat_ circular, yes, but the Bible isn't the sole "proof of God".
> The most obvious evidence of the Creator being His creation.
It is *entirely* circular to say that The Bible is proof of God at all.
Now we're just sound-byting each other, but asserting that "creation" at
large is proof of Christianity's God is circular again and hardly
conclusive. I am willing to assume that the Universe exists, but the nature
of its "creation" is not sufficient proof of any single deity. Why not
Uranus and Gaea? Why not The Cosmic Egg? How can the Universe be claimed
in itself to "prove" one God and not another (without resorting to The Bible)?
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Problems with Christianity
|
| (...) Correct me if I'm wrong Steve, but I think the argument goes something like: 'God will show Himself to you if you are faithful/willing to listen. You, posessing free will may not be open to His presentation of Himself, and even if you are (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
298 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- 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
|
|
|
|
