Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 20:20:34 -0400 From: Joshua Lee <yid@softhome.net> To: "Neal E. Westfall" <nwestfal@directvinternet.com> Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Fw: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-ID: <20020905202034.77ef17b3.yid@softhome.net> In-Reply-To: <20020905091446.R41451-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> References: <20020905005747.1f5964a2.yid@softhome.net> <20020905091446.R41451-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 5 Sep 2002 09:25:35 -0700 (PDT)
"Neal E. Westfall" <nwestfal@directvinternet.com> wrote:
> > Occam's razor is being used here to refute the cosmological
> > argument; you're distorting things with this strawman.
>
> Nobody has even mentioned the cosmological argument until now, so
> you are the one invoking a strawman.
You are arguing about the creation of the universe neccesitating a
creator, right? That's the cosmological argument. At least that's what
they taught me in philosophy 101 class in college.
> Why do you refer to God as "G-d"?
According to Jewish law, the divine name cannot be used in print in a
profane context. (Also pronounced in any context.) This is in Hebrew. A
chumra of the Gaonim extends this to the vernacular. Of course, this
doesn't count on a CRT according to recent rulings, but someone (even
more foolish than us) might want to print this stuff out....
> > because, following the Breslover Rebbe, I believe that philosophy
> > provides unanswerable questions from the part of the universe that
> > appears as a void devoid of the devine presence;
>
> There is no part of the universe that is devoid of the divine
> presence.(Psalm 139:7-12)
I certainly agree. Note that I said "appears", I was trying to word things carefully.
> Philosophical arguments are unavoidable.
> The fact that philosophers have struggled with questions that still
> remain unsolved is just one more piece of evidence that without God,
> you can't prove anything.
You can't prove anything *with* G-d either, at least not that simply.
Isn't there a saying, for the atheist there are no answers, and for the
religionist no questions? Of course, considering how many questions Jews
tend to ask in debates ("learning b'chavrusa") during Talmud study
perhaps this is not true. :-)
> > than better. (This is not a "blind faith" position, it's important
> > to examine as far as possible everything with the intellect, which
> > is a better guide to what's good than the seat of emotions; but a
> > man has got to know his limitations. :-) )
>
> I think you are operating on a Thomistic notion of "faith". Faith
> does not take over where reason leaves off. Faith is the foundation
> of reason. Reasoning would not even be possible without faith. I
> argue that only *Christian* faith can account for reason, but here I
> suppose we disagree.
Until you prove that through your faith you can reason better than the rest of us, a thesis very much in doubt, this statement is unsupportable.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20020905202034.77ef17b3.yid>