Sujet : Re: Paradoxes
De : me22over7 (at) *nospam* gmail.com (MarkE)
Groupes : talk.originsDate : 14. Feb 2025, 07:08:34
Autres entêtes
Organisation : A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID : <vomml4$3bgjo$2@dont-email.me>
References : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
User-Agent : Mozilla Thunderbird
On 14/02/2025 3:50 pm, Mark Isaak wrote:
On 2/2/25 10:45 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?
Mostly because it implies that God stopped working after he god creation wound up and, for all practical purposes, does not exist now.
Deism? Not my intention. However, your comment prompted me to balance my statement here with a statement on the place on natural theology was valid, thanks.
Paradoxes
Re: Paradoxes