RE: The meaninglessness of the Christian god concept
November 15, 2011 at 7:35 pm
(This post was last modified: November 15, 2011 at 7:37 pm by Norfolk And Chance.)
(November 15, 2011 at 6:41 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: I don't know how you work that out M. God does do miracles. None of them conclusively prove God, only through faith.
Which doesn't prove god. So what we know is that god is unproven, and some believe in him despite this.
(November 15, 2011 at 11:20 am)Captain Scarlet Wrote:(November 14, 2011 at 3:29 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: Would I be correct in concluding that an implication of Fr0d0's including 'not susceptible to empirical detection' as an essential element in the definition of the Christian God is that for any God for which there is empirical evidence, it is not evidence of the Christian God, by definition? For example, we could be assured that a miracle that withstands scientific scrutiny is not the work of the Christian God.If the actions of a god sp. the xtian concept are not felt in the natural world then there is no such things as miracles. If these actions are felt in the natural world then they can be measured and observed using empiricism. I don't see the middle ground here. How can an action be both felt in the natural world, but not available to empiricism? For example the miracle of turning water into wine would have been certainly testable and enjoyably so by the folks at that wedding.
Exactly. All he has to do is turn something into something else, which could be recorded for posterity, and job done. Easy.
