Posted on 12/08/2008 11:56:24 AM PST by Soliton
Thank you so very much for your kindly words of support, svcw! Let’s stay in touch!
Odd, when the chemist Edward Peltzer does exactly that, we get lawsuits and "theocracy" in response. Yet no one is able to show me where he said anything at all religious.
Well no, in post 154 I discussed the scientific observations that life doesn't just appear in the lab on it's on. And 'design' is very different from 'directed'.
Which still doesn't address the point about the blatant hypocrisy and double standards concerning multiverse theory, you know, "measurable, testable" and all the other tripe we keep hearing from people that have a complex with God when talking about ID.
Interesting that you can see atheism in the insistence that science restrict itself to propositions that can be studied using the methods of science.
Finding designers that have no attributes is not among the things that science can study.
Now if you were propose that a designer did some specific thing at some specific time and place, and we have the tools to conduct a forensic investigation, I would support that kind of research.
Sorry if Pelzer gets tarred incorrectly. It’s the 99.9 percent of ID proponents who are on record having religious motives that give the rest a reputation for being theistic.
Wow, what another leap! No, creation can occur without "direction": because there's free will, etc. And yes, to some extent evolution. I have disagreements with the theory of evolution, but have far more with the cult of evolution.
It’s the 99.9 percent of ID proponents who are on record having religious motives that give the rest a reputation for being theistic.
How absurd.
You should look into an antidote for the kool-aid ingestion you're sufferring from.
The person who fed his flock poisoned kool-aid was not a scientist. You need another metaphor.
Sorry but that dog won't hunt on a conservative website.
I don't need a new metaphor, as much as you need a new board!
Dear Soliton, I cannot "define" God at all! Though I do have conceptions of Him based on His own self-revelations and on my sense of His presence in my life. God in His immensitas transcends human reason, understanding, and imagination altogether.
Michael Novak, a Roman Catholic and author of the recently released No One Sees God, in a letter to the editor (National Review, December 15, 2008) speaks eloquently to this issue:
Jewish and Christian conceptions of God derive from God's own "pulling back the veils" (revelare) that hide his full nature from reason. But revelation depends on the possibility that the Author of all things can make known, to creatures capable of insight, reasoning, and judgment, truths addressed to their minds. He invites them to accept or to reject these truths, on grounds for which they are prepared to give an account. Thus, revelation implicitly affirms the legitimacy and necessity of the exercise of reason."...Because reason has limits does not mean that reason is worthless. Novak's statement accords with the scholastic philosophical tradition of the Roman Church advanced by such great spirits as Augustine, Aquinas, Anselm. This tradition ever has been motivated by fides quaerens intellectum, "faith in search of its reason." Faith is primary. Some faithful will be drawn to this search; others not. There is nothing wrong with simple faith, simple belief. But a philosopher — a lover of God's wisdom — will be drawn to the search.
Novak adds, "Even non-philosophers — especially non-philosophers — usually have an obscure awareness of God's presence. That seems to be the default position of the human race, not only in the long-distant past but today."
Indeed, it seems to me they must be aware of God; for many of them are doing battle with God, and for that to happen, He must somehow be "present" in the fight....
You certainly can define a multiverse as "an eternal sea in which an infinite variety of universes bubble away." This would then be your hypothesis. The problem is whether the hypothesis is true, and how do you find out?
You wrote, "In a philosophical dialog, the rules should be the same for birds and frogs." I totally agree with you! Just as the laws of the universe are said to be the same for all observers regardless of their inertial fames (roughly translated as their spatio-temporal positions). Einstein said this, in 1905. BTW, his statement is still regarded as a "theory" only, evidently because nobody really knows how to test it. (Just to indicate how deep the epistemological problem goes here....)
Anyhoot, the frog and the bird see what they see from where they sit. So to speak. The frog's view is closer in to the ground, to the material world; the bird, in flying to the highest point, has a more panoramic, aerial view. It would lack the "finer resolution" of the frog's view. On the other hand, the frog doesn't see what's coming "from over the hill" till it gets to where he is, while the bird does. Both views may well be truthful views. Perhaps the apparent difference in the respective accounts is the difference of observational position, which involves a whole lot more than just the observer's physical spacetime coordinates.
In any case, frogs and birds are both creatures of God....
Thank you so much for writing, Soliton!
Brilliant concept.. Just so, if eternity future is possible then eternity past (is/must be) also possible.. The human mind has problems with unlimited beginnings more than unlimited endings.. and infinity both ways mostly.. Linear/lineal time is quite limiting..
So much for the big bang.. if eternity future is possible why not eternity past?.. Linear time travel could be spiritual entertainment of the future.. It could take eons to trace the nuances and eddys of just our own lives(time travel) and to follow the impact each of us has on other lives during the time we spent as humans... The impact on ourselves and others.. and the drama and intrigues of what caused what with those we knew and know.. ultimately impact our own testimonies..
That could make quite a novel.. actually a series of novels..
Brilliant little paragraph above, I would say.. i.e. I Cor 2;9...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.