Thanks for your post Mark. Haven't we covered this? Seemingly from your points we haven't.
I didn't concede or suggest that God couldn't intervene in this world at all. I said if he did intervene that it wouldn't be provable, ..following precedent. So you seem to have completely misunderstood me there. This is an important point. I need you to understand where I'm coming from here.
So, then you're second point, that I assert that miracles written in the bible didn't occur... no I do not. Necessarily those miracles are not provable, because, as is the theme of this thread, that would invalidate faith. Again, another important point.
I think that God is a God of natural laws. God created everything meaning the natural laws as we know them, and as we are discovering. I agree with you that to science, the consideration of God's existence cannot be a valid pursuit. From that point of view, I agree with Dawkins. But then that is to miss the point of religion, which to me, doesn't ever deal with scientific type explanation of the world. If you think it does then I fail to see your case.
Interesting yes, that this is a limit of God's ability, that he cannot intervene in this reality and also leave provable evidence. This though is a logical aspect of God. If that were to be the case, that God was a known entity, testable etc., then this existence would be totally different.. the natural laws we live by would be thrown on their head and this would be a different reality. All this is pie in the sky of conjecture of course. We're talking about something we know not to be true so far. So why bother? Why not think about this reality and what concerns us now, than all this talk of fairies, dragons, pink unicorns, spaghetti monsters and spatula wielding monsters. Why not debate the guts of the matter which can be a real topic for serious debate?
I'd be interested to hear your reply.
Regards
I didn't concede or suggest that God couldn't intervene in this world at all. I said if he did intervene that it wouldn't be provable, ..following precedent. So you seem to have completely misunderstood me there. This is an important point. I need you to understand where I'm coming from here.
So, then you're second point, that I assert that miracles written in the bible didn't occur... no I do not. Necessarily those miracles are not provable, because, as is the theme of this thread, that would invalidate faith. Again, another important point.
I think that God is a God of natural laws. God created everything meaning the natural laws as we know them, and as we are discovering. I agree with you that to science, the consideration of God's existence cannot be a valid pursuit. From that point of view, I agree with Dawkins. But then that is to miss the point of religion, which to me, doesn't ever deal with scientific type explanation of the world. If you think it does then I fail to see your case.
Interesting yes, that this is a limit of God's ability, that he cannot intervene in this reality and also leave provable evidence. This though is a logical aspect of God. If that were to be the case, that God was a known entity, testable etc., then this existence would be totally different.. the natural laws we live by would be thrown on their head and this would be a different reality. All this is pie in the sky of conjecture of course. We're talking about something we know not to be true so far. So why bother? Why not think about this reality and what concerns us now, than all this talk of fairies, dragons, pink unicorns, spaghetti monsters and spatula wielding monsters. Why not debate the guts of the matter which can be a real topic for serious debate?
I'd be interested to hear your reply.
Regards
