@thelotuseater725 gods are meant to be all powerful creators, being confined to the physical laws and science doesn't sound logical in that context at all. More importantly if you can't detect or test his existance within science then how can he be constrained by scientfic laws. What you're arguing for really is the god of the gaps - i.e god sits in an area of science we currently don't have a solid answer for. And we all know how that will play out...
|
DaveMcDavidson (9038)
1 SFW Posts |
2 Space Comments
| Favorites | RSS Feed
Registered 2009-02-26 13:28:34 Comment Karma: 0 Featured Comments: 0 Member of : |
Recent Comments from DaveMcDavidson
- Comment on Conventional Logic Vs Religous Logic (2009-05-09 14:53:35)
@thelotuseater725 gods are meant to be all powerful creators, being confined to the physical laws and science doesn't sound logical in that context at all. More importantly if you can't detect or test his existance within science then how can he be constrained by scientfic laws. What you're arguing for really is the god of the gaps - i.e god sits in an area of science we currently don't have a solid answer for. And we all know how that will play out... - Comment on Conventional Logic Vs Religous Logic (2009-05-08 09:43:42)
It's pretty straight forward, and doesn't require huge pseudo intellectual rants. Gods are supernatural, science doesn't deal with the supernatural so trying to prove/disprove religion with science is about as helpful as trying to catch fish with philosophy. Absolutely nothing we know about the world requires a god to make it possible, or function correctly so why insert one?
