Talking to the Big Guy

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
If God is definitively ineffable, they do nothing of the sort. They do allow us to familiarise God and so create idols.

Indeed, but as you said, the designer leaves an imprint in his/her design, ergo if God was effable (to whatever degree necessary), then His imprint would be discernable in nature.

Originally posted by Halitose
[b]He also bound himself to his own rules.

This is the part I contest. [/b]

Well...Here's how I see it. Creation took place--God in the kitchen, cooking up a storm, followin his own unique recipe, a recipe being a set of rules in itself--"and it was good", no further tinkering required.

Good chatting to you today.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Well...Here's how I see it. Creation took place--God in the kitchen, cooking up a storm, followin his own unique recipe, a recipe being a set of rules in itself--"and it was good", no further tinkering required.

Good chatting to you today.

I concur.

Good chatting to you today.

Likewise.

I have to off. Duty calls.

Originally posted by Halitose
Something happens without a first cause, quite simple. University level math allows for calculating in 4D (an abstract concept), but since no one can see 4D this doesn't mean the concept is impossible.

I see. All well and good if you are using this line to justify a belief in the Christian God as Supreme Being, but not so well or good if you wish to use the argument for things like the Big Bang or 'abiogenesis'. Any particular reason?

Originally posted by David C
I see. All well and good if you are using this line to justify a belief in the Christian God as Supreme Being, but not so well or good if you wish to use the argument for things like the Big Bang or 'abiogenesis'. Any particular reason?

The one is theology (philosophy), the other is science -- there's meant to be a difference.

Originally posted by Halitose
The one is theology (philosophy), the other is science -- there's meant to be a difference.

Where does the philosophy of science fit into your scheme?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Where does the philosophy of science fit into your scheme?

Somewhere in between, I guess. 😀

Originally posted by Halitose
Somewhere in between, I guess. 😀

Like them transitional fossils eh?

You're mistaken if you think that philosophy and science are necessarily distinct.

Originally posted by Halitose
Indeed, but as you said, the designer leaves an imprint in his/her design, ergo if God was effable (to whatever degree necessary), then His imprint would be discernable in nature.

Are you saying his imprint is not discernible in nature?

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Like them transitional fossils eh?

You're mistaken if you think that philosophy and science are necessarily distinct.

Like them transitional fossils eh?

Just not as elusive.

You're mistaken if you think that philosophy and science are necessarily distinct.

Explain... I guess this revolves around "necessarily"...

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Are you saying his imprint is not discernible in nature?

To the contrary, I find nature indelibly marked with it.