For natural theologians, proving God was beside the point
1–10 of 136 posts
Re: For natural theologians, proving God was beside the point
#2No post body was provided.
Re: For natural theologians, proving God was beside the point
#3Quoted post unavailable.
This kind of thing really doesn't belong on Hackernews.
Re: For natural theologians, proving God was beside the point
#4Well, of course we focus on natural theologians' arguments for the existence of God, because God's existence is logically prior to any other arguments you could have about Him. It doesn't matter what God as revealed in nature can teach us about predestination if God doesn't exist to predestine anyone.
Re: For natural theologians, proving God was beside the point
#5Well, of course we focus on natural theologians' arguments for the existence of God, because God's existence is logically prior to any other arguments you could have about Him. It doesn't matter what God as revealed in nature can teach us about predestination if God doesn't exist to predestine anyone.
> exist
He may existed, or will appear under certain circumstances. Or he may have quantum nature: doesn't exist, but manifests himself.
Re: For natural theologians, proving God was beside the point
#6I'm not sure about all religions, but a Christian's belief that nature proves God's existence is taught in the bible:
"Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse" - Romans 1:19 & 1:20
Re: For natural theologians, proving God was beside the point
#7> such as the ‘New Atheists’ – to assert that the disproofs of God
None of the atheists I know try to disprove all gods because they're generally collections of unfalsifiable claims. Specific gods as claimed to exist by specific groups, yes, but generally no.
> [to assert that] the secular science that they claim to be doing are value-neutral, apolitical and objective
How strange that science can't be neutral because someone's introduced a god. It couldn't be that person's god making the science non-neutral and political now, could it? I dare say (tongue in cheek) that the proof of that is obvious through mere observation.
Re: For natural theologians, proving God was beside the point
#8I'm not sure about all religions, but a Christian's belief that nature proves God's existence is taught in the bible: "Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse" - Romans 1:…
Kind of off-topic but, why does the angloworld keep using a translation of the bible that's written in an almost "archaic" English (yes I know, I'm exaggerating, but I can't think of a better description from the top of my head).
Coming from someone that was born and raised in a Portuguese speaking country, their version of the bible seems much more "accessible", But I acknowledge the fact that it might come at the cost of the accuracy of the translation.
Re: For natural theologians, proving God was beside the point
#9Two things to ask anybody who claims to have some information, or even just some personal beliefs, about something they call "God" :
1. What are the statements about what you call "God" that you believe in?
2. Why do you believe just that set of statements and not some other set of statements?
I believe that the answer to 2., if they are honest, would most often be: They believe the set of statements they believe because they WANT to believe just those statements. And why do they want to believe just such a set of statements? Because believing what they believe makes them feel good.
They want to believe those statements, and here's the minor miracle: Just because they want to believe those statements, they also all of a sudden do believe them. At least they claim they do.
Re: For natural theologians, proving God was beside the point
#10Two things to ask anybody who claims to have some information, or even just some personal beliefs, about something they call "God" : 1. What are the statements about what you call "God" that you believe in? 2. Why do you believe just that set of statements and not some other set of statements? I believe that the answer to 2., if they are honest, would most often be: They believe the set of statements they believe bec…
Many, many people who've had near death experiences, e.g. Howard Storm, Dean Braxton, Randy Kay, Bryan Melvin, etc... do not believe simply because they want to believe: their entire operating system (heart, mind, soul) has been updated with the ineffable and there's no going back.