Sujet : Re: Paradoxes
De : specimenNOSPAM (at) *nospam* curioustaxon.omy.net (Mark Isaak)
Groupes : talk.originsDate : 14. Feb 2025, 05:48:08
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <vomhu9$3au97$1@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 2/8/25 11:56 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 9/02/2025 4:30 am, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 2/3/25 1:26 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 3/02/2025 5:45 pm, 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".
>
>
"By examining the structure and function of a snapdragon bloom, I might reasonably conclude that the God who created the snapdragon is powerful and wise—that is natural theology. By examining the context and meaning of John 3:16, I might reasonably conclude that God is loving and generous—that is revealed theology."
>
https://www.gotquestions.org/natural-theology.html
>
You have to engage with the criticisms of natural theology if you want to espouse it. Can you do that? Do you even know what they are?
>
To clarify, my mention of natural theology was only to acknowledge its connection to the discussion. Not implying any particular endorsement or criticism of it.
When you said, "I believe that the material world and the study and understanding of it reveals much about its creator. . .", you endorsed natural theology. Would you care, now, to engage with the criticisms of natural theology? Do you even know what they are?
-- Mark Isaak"Wisdom begins when you discover the difference between 'Thatdoesn't make sense' and 'I don't understand.'" - Mary Doria Russell
Paradoxes
Re: Paradoxes