Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Why in Physics we have proofs, but in Theology - arguments?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Freodin" data-source="post: 71386039" data-attributes="member: 1363"><p>Are there <em>currently</em> any such means? Not that I am aware of... but I am just an amateur, and "high" physics have never been my speciality.</p><p></p><p>But that doesn't keep scientists from looking, does it? While in religion, there just are no means, period.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>"God as nature" would be pantheism, so I fear I cannot follow you here.</p><p></p><p>But whether pan- or panentheism: a relationship can only exist between independent entities. So in order to keep "God as nature", and have humans have a relationship with it, you would have to define <em>humans</em> as supernatural (or rather, extranatural).</p><p></p><p></p><p>But "nature" is not within everyone. Quite the opposite.</p><p></p><p></p><p>You misunderstood me here. I did not say that "their theology" or "their science" is complete. I specifically responded to your post where your said that some <em>answers</em> (in fact: all answers are) are incomplete. Theology doesn't work that way. As Ygrene said in his post: "The unchangeable nature of the Most High God is an axiom." There you have it: a "complete" answer.</p><p>And other than being a rare exception, this position is prevalent in theological positions. Like "There must be a supernatural cause" (joinfree paraphrased).</p><p>Agreed, scientists can be dogmatic. But science as a system is not. Theology is.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Freodin, post: 71386039, member: 1363"] Are there [I]currently[/I] any such means? Not that I am aware of... but I am just an amateur, and "high" physics have never been my speciality. But that doesn't keep scientists from looking, does it? While in religion, there just are no means, period. "God as nature" would be pantheism, so I fear I cannot follow you here. But whether pan- or panentheism: a relationship can only exist between independent entities. So in order to keep "God as nature", and have humans have a relationship with it, you would have to define [I]humans[/I] as supernatural (or rather, extranatural). But "nature" is not within everyone. Quite the opposite. You misunderstood me here. I did not say that "their theology" or "their science" is complete. I specifically responded to your post where your said that some [I]answers[/I] (in fact: all answers are) are incomplete. Theology doesn't work that way. As Ygrene said in his post: "The unchangeable nature of the Most High God is an axiom." There you have it: a "complete" answer. And other than being a rare exception, this position is prevalent in theological positions. Like "There must be a supernatural cause" (joinfree paraphrased). Agreed, scientists can be dogmatic. But science as a system is not. Theology is. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Why in Physics we have proofs, but in Theology - arguments?
Top
Bottom