The universe at the end of this sentence.

[pgp_protector]

Often when you view the answer as silly when it was meant to be serious.

"God did it" is a serious answer to many questions, but is often mocked.

Not when the question is How, not Who.

 

[Selmak]

Reminds me of an episode of Spongebob!

Oh dang, AirPo! I didn't know the atheists were going to bring out reinforcements. I think I'll back out of this thread before Nathan Poe arrives...

 

[Selmak]

Not when the question is How, not Who.

I see. So you know 'how' God does things? Please elucidate.

 

[selfinflikted]

Enough talking about him like he's not here. I see you over there in the corner, AV.

Ah, so you're saying The Bible and modern science CAN be reconciled. Excellent!

Anyway, yes. That's absolutely what I'm saying. Millions (if not billions?) of people have no problem reconciling things like the ToE with their religion. It's only the Biblical literalists who run into trouble with science.

 

[pgp_protector]

Often when you view the answer as silly when it was meant to be serious.

"God did it" is a serious answer to many questions, but is often mocked.

Not when the question is How, not Who.

I see. So you know 'how' God does things? Please elucidate.

Reading Comprehension failure ?

I'll see If I can make it easier for you to Understand.

Q: How did xyz happen ?
C.A: God Did it.

Note That Answers WHO, Not HOW.
That's What I'm pointing out People throw out God Did it as An Answer to a HOW Question, Not A Who Question.

 

[Selmak]

Enough talking about him like he's not here. I see you over there in the corner, AV.



Anyway, yes. That's absolutely what I'm saying. Millions (if not billions?) of people have no problem reconciling things like the ToE with their religion. It's only the Biblical literalists who run into trouble with science.

Ah, good to know. The Bible is not to be taken literally. The words aren't actually true. So which parts do we leave in, and which do we discard? And who decides?

 

[AV1611VET]

Enough talking about him like he's not here. I see you over there in the corner, AV.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Ah, good to know. The Bible is not to be taken literally. So which parts do we leave in, and which do we discard? And who decides?

Are you often in the habit of discarding things you don't take literally? Are the Bible's lessons so utterly worthless to you without them being concrete?

This is the problem with religion in America today -- no transcendence. Religious people have mired themsleves so much in influencing this world, they drag what's left of their "faith" down into it.

And who decides? Why, the Church, of course -- the same people who set you on this myopic path.

 

[selfinflikted]

Ah, good to know. The Bible is not to be taken literally. The words aren't actually true. So which parts do we leave in, and which do we discard? And who decides?

That's you guys' problem, not mine.

 

[AV1611VET]

You obviously haven't read many of AV's posts. Half of what he comes up with isn't in the Bible at all.

There are two things about me that need clarification:

1. I only come across as "trashing science" because I address those parts of science that oppose the Bible. If you've known me for any length of time, you'll know that I actually hold science up to a Higher Standard than you guys do; and even claim scientists are gifted to us from God.
2. Half of what I come up with -- I have to. As I have said before, you guys don't ask me what's in the Bible; rather, you gear your questions as to what's not in the Bible, trying to pry a constant chain of "I don't know" answers from us; and I don't go that route. I won't think twice about speculating, to avoid being forced to say, "I don't know." Questions like, 'Where did the waters of the Flood go?' will bring out my artistic side. I think it's disingenuous to ask me such questions, then say that 'half of what I come up with isn't in the Bible at all.' If you can't make me look bad one way, you'll make me look bad another; and believe me, I don't need you guys to look bad; I can do it on my own just fine.

 

[Selmak]

Reading Comprehension failure ?

I'll see If I can make it easier for you to Understand.

Q: How did xyz happen ?
C.A: God Did it.

Note That Answers WHO, Not HOW.
That's What I'm pointing out People throw out God Did it as An Answer to a HOW Question, Not A Who Question.

Interesting. If I can provide an analogy:

PGP: Hey, the toilet flushes, how did that happen?

Me: The plumber fixed it.

PGP: You answered 'who' not 'how'! Your answer is invalid!

Edit: And the 'reading comprehension failure' thingy was kinda snarky. You didn't use to do that sort of thing back when we hung out in ASA Buddies.

 

[Skaloop]

Interesting. If I can provide an analogy:

PGP: Hey, the toilet flushes, how did that happen?

Me: The plumber fixed it.

PGP: You answered 'who' not 'how'! Your answer is invalid!

Edit: And the 'reading comprehension failure' thing was kinda snarky. You didn't use to do that sort of back when we hung out ASA Buddies.

It's not invalid, it just doesn't adequately address the question of how. Now, if you can explain how the plumber did it, that would be akin to explaining how god did it, beyond just "god did it".

 

[Selmak]

That's you guys' problem, not mine.

I'll go with all of them, thanks.

 

[Selmak]

It's not invalid, it just doesn't adequately address the question of how. Now, if you can explain how the plumber did it, that would be akin to explaining how god did it, beyond just "god did it".

Nobody claims to know how God does what He does, other than 'God wills it'. This thread is descending into the ridiculous.

 

[Skaloop]

Nobody claims to know how God does what He does, other than 'God wills it'.

Right. Which is why it is not an adequate answer to a "how" question. Even if you accept that the "who" was god, the appropriate response to "how" is not "god did it" but rather "I don't know."

 

[Selmak]

Right. Which is why it is not an adequate answer to a "how" question. Even if you accept that the "who" was god, the appropriate response to "how" is not "god did it" but rather "I don't know."

How's this? God did it, but I don't know how God did it.

Seems kind of clunky, but if it will achieve detente...

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

Who is this "god" guy people keep referring to?

 

[Selmak]

Who is this "god" guy people keep referring to?

I think you need to start another thread.

 

[Skaloop]

How's this? God did it, but I don't know how God did it.

Seems kind of clunky, but if it will achieve detente...

That's fine. But it's not a good argument against it being done through naturalistic processes such as, say, the big bang or evolution. Because if you don't know how he did it, you can't say that he didn't do it that way. Since god could do it any way he chose, it doesn't bring us any closer to understanding how he did it. It's an unnecessary step in the explanatory process to include it. In the words of Laplace, "Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là."

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

I think you need to start another thread.

Sharing is caring.