bcspace wrote: Why not? Why wouldn't God use natural processes to accomplish His work? Why would we always be able to detect such operations? Why don't we understand scientifically everything that goes on now?
Is there a detectable difference between the situations that would lead us justifiably to make one or other of these two statements?
1. God uses natural processes to achieve X.
2. Natural processes bring about X.
bcspace wrote:Yes. But that comes by John 7:17.
Isn'it it boring how bcspace never posts the actual words he is referring to? Is it because he hopes we will read the whole Bible in order to find the verse in question and then get converted? Fortunately Google saves us from intellectual contamination:
17 If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself.
So as usual with bcspace: WTF does that have to do with the point?
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Utter twaddle. You apologists need to step up your game. You're not debating evangelicals here.
I know. It's even less intellectually honest here.
You wish. We're not impressed by appeals to authority. You have to defend your position with logic and evidence. Like many mopologists, you still haven't figured that out. That's why you have such a hard time. Mormons get some training with how to deal with criticism from EVs, but still haven't figured out how to deal with secular/rational criticism.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Oct 05, 2011 6:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
DarkHelmet wrote:Imagine a world where religion's warped view of science was actually real. We couldn't trust science to send rockets to space because is always changing, so we must trust in the lord.
We couldn't trust science to send rockets into space because God would get pissed, destroy the rockets, and confuse our languages.
DarkHelmet wrote:Imagine a world where religion's warped view of science was actually real. We couldn't trust science to send rockets to space because is always changing, so we must trust in the lord.
We couldn't trust science to send rockets into space because God would get pissed, destroy the rockets, and confuse our languages.
Good call. As we all know, God's throne is on top of the firmament. If we were to build a rocket, we would reach it and usurp God's place in the heavens.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
Buffalo wrote:And that's because we wouldn't get repeatability and predictability. Imagine trying to track courses for rockets in a world where the laws of physics can be interfered with by an unseen being. God's intervention would throw everything off.
uh...so because God hasn't intervened as far as we know with rockets' trajectories that means there is no God, or a deist conception, because if He was able to interfere with the laws of physics that would throw everything off?
So either God isn't real, or God is as the Deists suppose - complete aloof, never intervening in anything. Both amount to the same thing, really. God is irrelevant to us.
I think you need to go back to the drawing board on this one, Buffalo.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
stemelbow wrote: uh...so because God hasn't intervened as far as we know with rockets' trajectories that means there is no God, or a deist conception, because if He was able to interfere with the laws of physics that would throw everything off?
I think you need to go back to the drawing board on this one, Buffalo.
Rocket trajectories was just an example, Stem. We have yet to see any evidence of ANY interference at all. And interference from an invisible being would make it awfully hard to predict anything, or get repeatable results.
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
Buffalo wrote:Rocket trajectories was just an example, Stem. We have yet to see any evidence of ANY interference at all. And interference from an invisible being would make it awfully hard to predict anything, or get repeatable results.
eyewitness testimony might be considered evidence to some. I think your dogmatic approach isn't all that useful, nor do I think you have something here--as much as I'd like you to prove religion all false.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.
Buffalo wrote:Rocket trajectories was just an example, Stem. We have yet to see any evidence of ANY interference at all. And interference from an invisible being would make it awfully hard to predict anything, or get repeatable results.
eyewitness testimony might be considered evidence to some. I think your dogmatic approach isn't all that useful, nor do I think you have something here--as much as I'd like you to prove religion all false.
I can't think of a less useful indicator of celestial interference than eyewitness testimony. Can you?
Parley P. Pratt wrote:We must lie to support brother Joseph, it is our duty to do so.
Buffalo wrote:I can't think of a less useful indicator of celestial interference than eyewitness testimony. Can you?
I don't know. Perhaps we have different things in mind. If Jesus truly ascended into heaven right before poeple's eyes I don't think there is any other indicator at all.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.