Subject:
|
Re: Why not Both?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 23 Jan 2001 21:44:25 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
461 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jon Kozan writes:
> Philosphically - what would your logic say if it were shown that science does
> not contradict the Bible - not prove it necessarily, but supported a literal
> interpretation of it?
I'd hold creationism as plausible, as I do now anyway. I just don't happen
to think it *likely*. As for the rest of the Bible, that goes beyond
science, as it's been my philosophical preferences that have led me astray
from it.
> What if science supported that the earth is young and not billions of years
> old?
Then I'd hold creationism to be all the more likely.
> What if science could prove that we could not have come into existance without
> another causal force - a creator?
Science could not prove so. Otherwise it's not science. But if it were shown
to be LIKELY, then I'd put faith in a creator. But again, not the Christian
God, because, as said, other reasons apart from science have driven me from
the Bible...
DaveE
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Why not Both?
|
| (...) Philosphically - what would your logic say if it were shown that science does not contradict the Bible - not prove it necessarily, but supported a literal interpretation of it? What if science supported that the earth is young and not billions (...) (24 years ago, 23-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
88 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
