Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 13:50:52 -0700 (PDT) From: "Neal E. Westfall" <nwestfal@directvinternet.com> To: Lawrence Sica <lomifeh@earthlink.net> Cc: Dave Hayes <dave@jetcafe.org>, Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com>, <chat@FreeBSD.ORG> Subject: Re: Why did evolution fail? Message-ID: <20020906132444.B22067-100000@Tolstoy.home.lan> In-Reply-To: <0D38D150-C1C7-11D6-A71E-000393A335A2@earthlink.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, 6 Sep 2002, Lawrence Sica wrote: > The proof or disproof of God is impossible because the question is > inherently one not of science but of faith. If there is a God no human > mind could fully comprehend him/her/it. If no human can comprehend God > then how can God be proven? Some look at a tree and say that is the > proof of God, some loo kat the tree and say that is just a part of the > ecosystem. God and the proof of such a being is a very personal > subject, and no one can prove it either way, one can simply decide on > their own. Larry, You are right that the proof or disproof of God is not a question that can be answered by science. As science can only tell us about things in the universe, it can't tell us about that which transcends the universe. However that does not mean the question cannot be answered. It just shows us what the limitations of science are. You are also correct that no human could ever have comprehensive knowledge of God, otherwise He would be finite and would not be God. But that doesn't mean that it is impossible for us to have *any* knowledge of God. If your last statement above were true, we would be doomed to subjectivism, everybody deciding for themselves what the "truth" is. This fact alone ought to be enough to cause one to reject the idea that there is no God, for without Him, we cannot account for everything we take for granted in every waking and sleeping moment. The intelligibility of our every experience is predicated on the fact that we can trust that the universe will continue to exhibit its uniformities that we have become accustomed to. This is the problem that vexed David Hume, for he pointed out that we have no rational basis for believing that the uniformity of nature will continue to hold, and this problem has yet to be solved by philosophers. Of course it never was a problem for either Judaism or Christianity, since the scriptures relate a God who is by nature a covenant-keeping God who has promised to uphold the creation. Now I realize that it takes faith to believe in this God, but on the other hand, rejecting this God means rejecting science, human freedom, human dignity, logic, ethics, and everything else that we take for granted. Just once I would like to run across an atheist who really understands the argument and can at least appreciate the fact that all of these philosophical questions that remain unanswered by secular philosophy are not even problems for Christianity. Neal 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?20020906132444.B22067-100000>