(May 23, 2011 at 5:55 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote:Cool. So do IQuote:Why God? Why not leave it at science?We do.
(May 23, 2011 at 5:55 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote:So "closer too" makes no sense then?Quote:Is God understood from the material?God is not understood at present.
DeistPaladin Wrote:Science is what brings us closer to understanding God.
(May 23, 2011 at 5:55 pm)DeistPaladin Wrote:Ah - so you're saying that God is entirely physical.Quote:How do you explain the connection of metaphysical and physical in the creation?There is no such thing as the "metaphysical" or "the supernatural". I believe all things can potentially be understood.
So... why do you need God for beginnings? Why not just call them beginnings, and adopt the latest scientific theory?
I love what you said here:
"Studying creation is a way to better know the creator. Science is what brings us closer to understanding God."
There seems to be a lot of truth in it. I just feel you then flush it down the toilet from there on in.
![Sad Sad](https://atheistforums.org/images/smilies/sad.gif)