Subject:
|
Re: Support for Creationism (was Re: Macro-Evolution - "Impossible!")
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 27 Jan 2001 15:24:07 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
747 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> > ...but I
> > concede that it is possible that a malicious god could have set things up
> > (faked the data) to make macroevolution seem likely while actually having
> > done things completely differently.
> >
> > Highly unlikely, but possible. Any god who would do that to his creations
> > isn't worthy of my worship, but I digress.
>
> I have to admit, I find this a rather curious point. I know of no religion
> where there god must prove its/his/her self worthy of the worship of the
> individual.
You're right. *Now* I know what I dislike about all of them! Thanks!
I have the overweening pride to prefer eternal damnation to groveling to a
god that is not worthy of me.
> Further, I believe that if an entity, whatever it is, were able
> to create the whole substance of my reality without me knowing - I think it
> would also command my respect.
>
> In short, if god does exist, we exist because it/she/he does – not in spite
> of his/her/its existence. Is that an irrefutable point?
It's indeed irrefutable for an all powerful/creator of the universe sort of
god (the kind we're talking about here) but not for the Roman "household
gods" which aren't that powerful. See Fred Saberhagen's Sword Books for some
interesting fictional twists on this idea.
so, ya.
++Lar
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
78 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
