Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Tom
Avoid questions I can't answer
|
No. We are straying off into different but related subjects and using arguments for one subject against the other. We are discussing God, religion and morality as far as I can see.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flake
My responce to god being scientifically impossible debate.
For religion to be correct it would mean our understanding of even the most basic science is incorrect
|
To illustrate, Flake, you start with God, and then discuss religion, I presume Christianity?
Also, the word religion is understood differently depending on your paradigm or intended meaning, organised religion, a belief system, personal religion.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Tom
Surely that's a massive point?
|
Yes but no, again it depends on your paradigm, my belief set is an ideal to work to, to aim for. I’m just honest enough to acknowledge where I fall short.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blanca
I ask you this question. Do you consider god part of the natural world? If he is, and is thus able to intervene in the natural world, he must, by definition, obey the laws of nature (or "science") which he, by the admission of every faith going, does not.
So he must be supernatural, able to disobey the laws of science. Surely such a being could not operate on the natural plain. Without wanting to get too philosophical (that's the K Dawg's job!), how can a supernatural being intervene on natural events? In order to do so he would, at least in part, have to obey the laws of science.
|
Gosh - a very theological question and needs unravelling to understand.
If we ask the question – if God exists then where is he? If God exists in a place, then he is limited to its dimensions therefore not infinite etc.. Theologians have traditionally answered this question by concluding that space and time are creations of God and he is not restricted by his creation. The ultimate nature of God is beyond our capability to comprehend but the attribution of power and will are commonly shared by belief systems.
To come back to your question, the laws of nature, are understood to be Gods will in motion. Therefore a disruption in the laws of nature wouldn’t be a separate event from their daily operation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blanca
On to atheism. Yes, it is a hopeless point of view. But does that make it wrong? Should we turn to religion simply because we cannot contemplate the truth?
|
I hear you, but that is not what I am saying. If we stick to a logical thought process, starting with – is there a God, then depending on your conclusion you then move forward into a belief, agnosticism or atheism.
The point I am making is – logically starting with – this part of a religion seem silly and therefore scientifically I’ve proved there isn’t a God, is, as K Dawg would say, non sequitur.