It all depends on your idea of the creation.
timberlandko wrote:yitwail wrote: i wouldn't mind taking a shot.
Open table, yitwail - feel free to chalk your stick and have at it.
thanks. i follow your reasoning, but i'd like some clarification about your conclusion:
Quote:If on the other hand, logic be independent of deistic creation, not subject to but rather determinative of the nature or condition of being of that deity, the concept of an omnipotent, all-causal deity implodes.
leaving us with either a creator of limited power, or a universe that arises spontaneously ex nihilo, or a universe that has always existed. in the second case, is it your contention that logic precedes the existence of the universe, or they both come into being in the same instant?
A local newspaper in Michigan recently described the anti-evolution movement in this way:
"The approach taken in Kansas is the new darling of the Creationist movement. There is no mention of Intelligent Design, whose image was badly tarnished in a Pennsylvania courtroom. Instead, they chose a different tack. Mention the holes in evolution, allude to supernatural answers. It's a more subtle way to insinuate Christian philosophy into public school classrooms."
yitwail, the contradiction arises in that an eternal, all-causal diety by defintion would not be subject to any external thing, state or condition - nothing could cause an eternal, all-causal deity to do or be anything, nothing could be prior to or determinative of the state or nature of being of an eternal, all-causal deity. My contention is that any deity, particularly one on the order of the deity central to the Abrahamic Mythopaeia, is an illogical concept.
Neither science nor I make any assertion or offer any assumption regarding the state or condition of being of things prior to or causal of the beginning of the observable universe - that is and well may forever remain unknown. Cosmology indicates that to an extremely high level of probability it appears that some billions of years ago a singularity erupted, from which occurrence came about the observable universe. The math works.
Why that happened, what caused that to happen, how that happened, what was before that happened, what is or was or will or may be, before, after, or apart from, the observable universe are considerations beyond the scope of observability, hence by definition beyond the scope of science, the discipline of examining and developing conclusions from the observable.
It is my contention that while there may or may not be a diety or deities, a diety most particularly on the order of the deity central to the Abrahamic Mythopaeia entails a concept too riddled with contradictions, too dependent upon whole-cloth assumptions, to have any significant probability of being. The math works, and works convincingly against the Abrahamic deity concept.
The God of the Bible is an exceedingly improbable, highly unlikely, strongly contraindicated thing, condition, or state of being. Any proposition proceeding from or dependent upon the postulate starts out at the bottom of a very, very, very deep hole and goes nowhere but in circles. The God of The Bible may be, of course, but is not very bloody likely. The God of the Bible is no answer, but rather itself is a question without an answer.
timber, i suspected you were going to say that, but i had to ask just in case you had a cosmological ace in the hole.
Timber,
Uh, that would be your opinion, right?
It is not opinion but fact that the math works. Draw whatever conclusion you find satisfactory.
No logical, forensically valid, scientifically sound, academically honest case may be made for the Abrahamic deity, nor, for that matter, any other deity or deities. Conversely, while there is no vidence to support any deistic concept, a great deal of evidence argues against the validity of any suh concept. It just plain ain't very bloody likely.
Math? So, now math proves God of the Bible is "unlikely" as you say?
I disagree.
By what criteria do you disagree?
The God of the bible, apart from the nebulous concept of 'Abrahamic Mythopaeia', whose name, Jehovah, means 'he who causes to become' is not dependant on anything.
He created us according to his image, meaning we posess his attributes, including wisdom, which we may apply within our limitations.
To say that wisdom (or logic) could not have existed ex nihilo is to presuppose that we have an understanding of time and causality that is not within our prerogative.
That is so, Neo - and supports my contention. By Occam's Razor, the hypothesis least at odds with observation and requiring the fewest assumptions has the highest probability of being correct. Entering a deistic concept into any naturalist concept introduces a needless complication - by definition, the paranormal is distinct from, other than, and counter to the normal. Bringing a deist concept to a logical proposition is sorta like bringing a piano to the dentists office.
Many things defy logic and nature but that does not mean they do not exist.
The God of the Bible over time has evolved trough the eyes and ears of the humans spirit..
As the human spirit has developed it has enabled us to see a more clear picture of the true God.
The OT GOD was not pure.. but mixed with another God (devil) who became God by usurping spiritual power and counterfeiting the light.
The NT God is however revealed through Christ...
So it is not God who changed but it was the human spirit that changed and became energized enough to discern that certain OT acts were not "caused" "only" by the "true" God as the Bible "says"... They were cause none the less by "a" God... But a God of darkness.
Until you atheist, aggies and Christians etc..., realize that this "is" the message... revealed, you will never even begin to understand (and love) the "true" God until you see the two "Gods" of the OT...
Also, God is not just plain logic but God is action. God is the positive energy behind good logic...
Hoo, boy, I think we can just sit back on this one and watch Rex get blasted by the true believers in inerrancy. Talk about heterodoxy.
Just set your piano down over there, have a seat, and open wide. The dentist will be with you shortly.
username wrote:Hoo, boy, I think we can just sit back on this one and watch Rex get blasted by the true believers in inerrancy. Talk about heterodoxy.
True believers meaning? They believe truly in something or they believe in the truth?
Ok, Rex. Gotta ask you a question. Do you follow the teachings of Dr. Ki (I think that's who I mean).
timberlandko wrote:Just set your piano down over there, have a seat, and open wide. The dentist will be with you shortly.
I might as well bring it along... I am quite adept at playing piano, yet dentists usually have such strange musical tastes.
Music being such a pure science of sound and acoustic energy I am curious that you do not think that it would relate to creation and the way a God relates to his creation.
How that ties into a dentist I am not sure. God is a doctor of sorts I guess too.
We see God both outside and within creation...
We see God internally within the atom and it's quantum characteristics and we see evidence externally of God in our every day lives as a power energizing our thoughts and inspirations.
Frankly, Rex, I see no reason for there to be a diety - I don't maintain either that there is or is not, but see no reason for there to be such a thing.
Some find it satisfactory, even predicate, to assume there must be such a thing, a leap beyond my abilities.
timberlandko wrote:Frankly, Rex, I see no reason for there to be a diety - I don't maintain either that there is or is not, but see no reason for there to be such a thing.
Some find it satisfactory, even predicate, to assume there must be such a thing, a leap beyond my abilities.
You need to put on your spiritual eyes to see spiritual things...
There is no need to leap into anything... at best a moderate sense of right and wrong and fair judgment.
If you listen you will hear the call...
