Sujet : Re: Paradoxes
De : me22over7 (at) *nospam* gmail.com (MarkE)
Groupes : talk.originsDate : 03. Feb 2025, 07:45:19
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <vnpolv$14ogp$3@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 3/02/2025 4:23 am, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 1/26/25 9:29 PM, MarkE wrote:
[...]
An atheistic worldview may preference naturalistic options, and a theistic worldview may preference the God option. We may give more weight and consideration to a particular explanation based, in part, on our belief.
>
Moreover, science itself can tell us nothing about this postulated agent. That is the task of other epistemological domains (philosophy, theology, personal experience, etc). Nevertheless, science can provide an evidential pointer to God as a possible explanation.
>
What do you think?
If I believed in the god you believe in, I would be an atheist.
How so?
Just to clarify, I believe that the material world and the study and understanding of it reveals much about its creator, e.g. "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands." (Psalm 19:1). This is so-called "natural theology". But science has no access to the things of God available only through "special revelation".
Paradoxes
Re: Paradoxes