Subject:
|
Re: Why not Both?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 27 Jan 2001 01:05:07 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
517 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> But I have to admit I'm baffled. Christians who defend literal creationism
> as scientifically plausible (more probable than alternative explanations)
> seem to be in a small minority. Members of splinter sects, even. Most
> christians instead say that god, creation, and everything are fundamentally
> unexplainable and that we should take things on faith.
(just picking a nit)
I disagree... in my experience most christians only hold that God is
fundamentally unexplainable. Creation and everything are currently
unexplained, and may well be unexplainable, but that's not going to stop us
from trying. :)
James
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Why not Both?
|
| (...) Point taken but to continue splitting this particular hair, I agree with "everything" but not "creation" except inasmuch as the explanation is "god created (the starting point of) the universe", which is fine, since it's no better or worse an (...) (23 years ago, 27-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Why not Both?
|
| (...) Why? So you could avoid this point? "If you fault my system for not explaining the origin of the universe, why then, I fault yours for not explaining the origin of your god. No better no worse, explanation wise. A draw." I'd rather see you (...) (23 years ago, 27-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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
