Replies

For the life of me I don't understand where this comment is aimed.

"For cryin'-out-loud, even the dead are ceded a place to stand."

Let me examine the part I can deal with.

"If I'm asking some interesting questions, that's because I have precious little in the way of answers that are satisfying to me."

You know, I have perceived a spot of disgust in your replies. Have you ever noticed "The question determines the answer?"

Enough talk about you, back to the eternal Truths. <;)

I was trying to get down to basics when I asked if you could define Energy. You have made it clear that God can not be defined. I wanted to make it clear that no one has DEFINED Energy, or Light, which is "pure energy".

Yet we know how to use energy and light. Why don't we do the same with God?

Since I am on God's side and you are on man's side allow me to try to define the words you have placed on the table.

"But, I should like some definitions. For instance; what is 'randomness'? Unpredictability? Chance? Or, what? Whatever it is, I should like it to be the same tomorrow as it is today."

God said "I am the same yesterday, today and tomorrow."
Therefore, using Non-Accidental Scientific thought, from God's Point of View, There is no such thing as randomness, Unpredictability or Chance.

From Man's Point of View, there is randomness, unpredictability and Chance, because our vast knowledge is limited.

It seems to me the Chaos theory indicates there is no such thing as randomness, or chaos. It seems to indicate there is a design even when something "Looks" Chaotic.

I could be wrong. Check me out.

You have stated:
"There can be no separation between God and the truth He created."

If I am not mistaken, God did not CREATE Truth. He IS Truth.

"There can, however, be a considerable separation between truth and our feeble understanding (believer and unbeliever alike) of what it is:"

Once I recognize He is The Truth, then I must consider Him in any question, or any scientific endeavor I am involved in.

We can quote from many great and distinguished people of Faith and those without Faith. If we are speaking of God I would prefer to stick with Quotes from Him.

We are discussing Him and Nature. Be careful who speaks for Nature. Some of them think the Earth is alive and Trees should be hugged. This is no joke. Excuse me the people are not joking. Their Theory requires more than a leap of faith.

Faith= "The evidence of things Hoped for."

My definition of 'more than a leap of faith' is "things hoped for", without evidence.

May you faithfully seek good evidence.

Have a good day.

I can't imagine how the remark "even the dead are ceded a place to stand" is thought by you to be so mystifying. The context is immediately at hand. The meaning seems not to be obscure, nor understanding difficult. Perhaps you are merely reading too much into the remark. In any event, your agreement is not necessarily anticipated with respect to any given proposition.

If you perceive 'a spot of disgust' in my replies (in my replies? or in my questions?) then you need to lay off the hallucinogenic mushrooms, because you're seeing something that isn't there. Generally, it is to be expected that answers will have some bearing on the questions asked, so it should come as no suprise that a question will, to some degree, influence an answer. In this forum, great unbrage is oft taken if the reply fails to have some relationship to the question, said umbrage indicating considerable emotional anguish aroused by disappointed anticipation (known otherwise as an insistence of not 'sticking to the subject').

In the establishment media, 'sticking to the subject' is a rarely seen phenomenon, as various talking heads on both sides of the interview desk vie to promote their agenda and to blunt or obscure that belonging to the other fellow. But pay no attention to those folks. This is but one mark of their abnormality. There are many.

"We are discussing Him and Nature."

I thought so. Just the same, I sense in you a growing disenchantment with my questions.

"Be careful who speaks for Nature."

Aquinas speaks of God and Nature. It appears to me Aquinas asserted that God's Truth in any matter could not be contrary to the facts of the Nature He created (contrary to 'natural knowledge'). This assumes the requisite level of both knowledge and sincerity, which can be a big assumption, both virtues being of short supply among members of the human race. Still, that seems to be the choice of Aquinas, and I choose to follow his lead in that respect. As to the issue of who speaks for Nature: I'm not aware that anyone does with any great authority. Why? Does Nature require representation?

"Some of them think the Earth is alive and Trees should be hugged."

I am not numbered among them. To be sure, Earth may be alive in some philosophical sense, but hardly sentient, and, on a magnitude beyond our present abilities to express in any meaningful terms, Al Gore does not in any way approach the level of Aquinas .

"This is no joke."

Who's laughing?

"Excuse me the people are not joking."

About what?

"Their Theory requires more than a leap of faith."

Who is 'they'? And, to what theory do you refer?