Re: Paradoxes

On Mon, 3 Feb 2025 17:29:37 +0000, Ernest Major
<{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On 03/02/2025 06:45, MarkE wrote:

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".
 

>
To put it in a few words, a god of the gaps is no god at all.

I disagree with that statement as I believe God can fill the gaps that
science can't fill. The problem is that it's not enough to say "Oh,
there's a  gap, it must be God"; anyone wanting to use God to fill a
gap has to offer some sort of explanation as to *how* God fills it.
Mark follows a long and well stablished path trodden by previous
Cre3ationists and Iders by making no attempt to deal with that *how*
issue.