Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: betty boop; Alamo-Girl; Dr. Eckleburg; Quix; spirited irish; MHGinTN; Godzilla; stfassisi
The "rules" I am using are: logic and evidence.

Logic is subject to human undertsanidng and comprehension and evidence should be demonstrable. You said God is subject neither to logic nor provable evidence. Besides, one must be able to define what it is he believes in. Evidently, that's not possible either. So, what's left?

904 posted on 03/11/2010 10:04:51 AM PST by kosta50 (The world is the way it is even if YOU don't understand it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 902 | View Replies ]


To: kosta50; Alamo-Girl; Dr. Eckleburg; Quix; spirited irish; MHGinTN; Godzilla; stfassisi
You said God is subject neither to logic nor provable evidence.

God is not so subject. But we are, if we're rational. Indeed, our rationality is itself evidence of our subjection to and dependence on God; i.e., His Logos.

I see evidence of God everywhere; but this is not the sort of evidence that can be directly observed and scientifically measured. Which is what you are asking me to provide.

The evidence that I find most persuasive is the seemingly perfect correspondence among God's four revelations: Holy Scripture, the Incarnation of Christ, the world of Creation, and the Holy Spirit with us.

But this is the very sort of evidence which is unacceptable to you. More, it's the very sort of evidence you want most to tear down, disqualify.

So, what do we have to say to each other, really? We can't even get on the same page.

905 posted on 03/11/2010 10:21:47 AM PST by betty boop (Moral law is not rooted in factual laws of nature; they only tell us what happens, not what ought to)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 904 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson