That's not what I was referring to -- Ben's Message Board

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

Monday, April 28, 06:30:42am

[ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, [5], 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

Subject: That's not what I was referring to

Author:
Wade A. Tisthammer

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 09/12/04 11:51pm
In reply to: Damoclese 's message, "here's why" on 08/15/04 7:21pm

>>
>>There are a number of problems with that view. One,
>>why think that God and nature are in competition with
>>each other?
>
>Because what nature indicates to us by observation is
>in contradiction to what any loving thing would ever
>allow.
>
>Anything that's worse than Stalin AND Hitler together
>can not be loving.

I was referring to the operation and natural laws of the universe, not the problem of evil. Remember what you said before:

>God (or some creative
>force, whatever) has always lived in the places where
>science has not yet reached.

This is what I was responding to. (Philosophical problems of evil in theism are another matter.)

God (in theism) created physical laws. So why think he is in competition with those laws to cause phenomena? It doesn't make much sense. "We've proved physical laws are behind this, therefore we've killed God" doesn't quite logically follow. It isn't even theologically accurate.

BTW, there were always be some things science cannot reach but theism (or some other branch of philosophy) can explain, e.g. the metaphysical basis for objective ethics, or ultimate origins (another philosophical issue). The notion that science can eventually explain everything is not possible even in principle.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]