27 Mar '06 10:16>1 edit
This post is unavailable.
Please refer to our posting guidelines.
Originally posted by HalitoseOne small contention with the assertion of "an enquiring mind" comes to mind. While I agree with a healthy interest in the natural world, its causes and principles of operation, such interest must be tempered with a clear understanding of the natural world's inherent revelatory limits.
Yes, I know both assertions (“God sayeth”, etc) cannot be verified empirically, however the one is philosophically shallower than the other -- an enquiring mind should search for the deepest possible reason/cause.[/b]
Originally posted by FreakyKBHKBH: However, the revelation of God's character and promises found in the Bible yield lasting, spiritual results of intrinsic value. While the study of creation reveals a limited amount of the nature of God (consistency, faithfulness, genius, etc.), the study of the God of creation fills the being so absorbed to overflowing.
One small contention with the assertion of "an enquiring mind" comes to mind. While I agree with a healthy interest in the natural world, its causes and principles of operation, such interest must be tempered with a clear understanding of the natural world's inherent revelatory limits.
After determining the cause of the natural world, to continue going ius, etc.), the study of the God of creation fills the being so absorbed to overflowing.
Originally posted by HalitosePlease. Humour me. Of course you'll cite the Papua New Guinean atheist who has no concept of science. My assertion was directed at the smug western type who claims that science has failed to provide any evidence for God ergo he doesn’t exist
[b]This is generally false (many possible counter-examples).
Please. Humour me. Of course you'll cite the Papua New Guinean atheist who has no concept of science. My assertion was directed at the smug western type who claims that science has failed to provide any evidence for God ergo he doesn’t exist -- as you well know, this is the a syllogistic fa ...[text shortened]... possible reason/cause. Holding my breath for the ad hominems and straw men to follow.[/b]
Originally posted by no1marauderThe wind, unseen but felt, has impact on things visible. The theist calls that wind God, whereas the atheist either denies things are moving at all, or insists they are moving on their own accord.
I personally do not agree with the contention made by atheists here that "weak atheism" = agnosticism. Rwingett (who argues this position) has stated that a weak atheist still puts the "burden of proof" on the theist. I think a true agnostic (as I am) looks at the evidence free from any such presumptions or burden placing.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYes, mythical beings can be "fully developed at the onset" if the creators of the myth chose them to be so.
The wind, unseen but felt, has impact on things visible. The theist calls that wind God, whereas the atheist either denies things are moving at all, or insists they are moving on their own accord.
While the weak counter-argument to naming the wind God is the absurd FSM, the God described in the Bible enters the scene fully developed at the onset.