Originally posted by mikewhitney
View Post
X
-
Originally posted by Truthseeker View PostI wonder what you think of methodical naturalism. Some people do science on that basis even though they say that they believe in God and the point that we ourselves are supernatural in a way, as I showed in a recent post.O Gladsome Light of the Holy Glory of the Immortal Father, Heavenly, Holy, Blessed Jesus Christ! Now that we have come to the setting of the sun and behold the light of evening, we praise God Father, Son and Holy Spirit. For meet it is at all times to worship Thee with voices of praise. O Son of God and Giver of Life, therefore all the world doth glorify Thee.
A neat video of dead languages!
Comment
-
My view at this point isn't so much of nature as it is of natures. Hume said dropping a rock 1,000 times is not proof that the 1001st time it will fall. I say ridiculous. If you know what a rock is, you know that it will fall.
As for what God is made of with regard to what Kelp said, God is not made of something as if He has parts. I hold to divine simplicity.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostExactly right! And there is no other form of existence than the natural universe that we know of.
As for AP’s non-definition of God as “divine simplicity”, this is meaningless drivel. God is either a part of this universe, which would make him a natural entity OR He is not a part of the natural universe which would make him non-natural – or, as usually designated: “supernatural”.
If the latter, one is faced with the question: how can an immaterial entity interact with the material universe? What is the point of contact or nexus?Last edited by Kelp(p); 11-13-2014, 10:12 PM.O Gladsome Light of the Holy Glory of the Immortal Father, Heavenly, Holy, Blessed Jesus Christ! Now that we have come to the setting of the sun and behold the light of evening, we praise God Father, Son and Holy Spirit. For meet it is at all times to worship Thee with voices of praise. O Son of God and Giver of Life, therefore all the world doth glorify Thee.
A neat video of dead languages!
Comment
-
Originally posted by Apologiaphoenix View PostMy view at this point isn't so much of nature as it is of natures. Hume said dropping a rock 1,000 times is not proof that the 1001st time it will fall. I say ridiculous. If you know what a rock is, you know that it will fall.
As for what God is made of with regard to what Kelp said, God is not made of something as if He has parts. I hold to divine simplicity.Last edited by Kelp(p); 11-13-2014, 10:13 PM.O Gladsome Light of the Holy Glory of the Immortal Father, Heavenly, Holy, Blessed Jesus Christ! Now that we have come to the setting of the sun and behold the light of evening, we praise God Father, Son and Holy Spirit. For meet it is at all times to worship Thee with voices of praise. O Son of God and Giver of Life, therefore all the world doth glorify Thee.
A neat video of dead languages!
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Kelp(p) View PostI don't know how to answer the nexus question,but it seems to me that simplicity is a concept supported by science. Elements, atoms, protons, quarks...it seems like eventually you have to get down to an indivisible substance (and no, I'm not arguing for any kind of irreducible complexity).Last edited by Tassman; 11-14-2014, 03:09 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View Post... As for AP’s non-definition of God as “divine simplicity”, this is meaningless drivel. God is either a part of this universe, which would make him a natural entity OR He is not a part of the natural universe which would make him non-natural – or, as usually designated: “supernatural”. ...אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃
Comment
-
Originally posted by Truthseeker View PostI wonder what you think of methodical naturalism. Some people do science on that basis even though they say that they believe in God and the point that we ourselves are supernatural in a way, as I showed in a recent post.
On a review of the term 'methodological naturalism' (and some posts just now) I realized that 'science' doesn't particularly operate (in every scientist's mind) under the constraints of a single philosophical understanding. But indeed, to a large extent, science does work in a general paradigm of creating theory and experimentation. My quick study looked at an article on methodological neutralism -- which focused on a wider range of outcomes than methodological naturalism, essentially the idea of following the evidence rather than constraining results to a naturalistic framework (I speak in conventional terms of 'nature' rather than adding Apologia's proposal). The term 'nature', however, has become perceived as its own independent force which is an assumption without basis.
In the alternative to the term 'natural laws', the term 'patterned behavior' would possibly be better. 'Nature' and 'natural' have taken on meaning which I suppose to be a distortion from earlier meaning, that is of nature as part of creation -- "to be born" as its root.
I suppose we could keep 'law' within the description. The idea of 'law' is good enough as long as we hold to the definition such as at m-w.com
" a statement of order or relation holding for certain phenomena that so far as is known is invariable under the given conditions "
But we may be giving too much weight to the idea that 'law' forces everything in an inviolable fashion.
Comment
-
Originally posted by robrecht View PostPerhaps the primary meaning of divine simplicity, for those to hold divine simplicity, for example, Thomas Aquinas, is that God cannot be defined, we are unable to analyze his nature into genus and species. The 'non-definition' is worn as a badge of courage by those who hold to some type of apophatic theology.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Adrift View PostThis is off topic, but do you believe that God has any well defined properties?אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃
Comment
-
Originally posted by Kelp(p) View PostDoes He have to have parts in order to be made of something? How about an infinite amount of uniform energy?
btw, just so you all know, I put Tassy on ignore long ago. I have far better usages of my time.
Comment
-
Originally posted by robrecht View PostNot sure, but I suspect that if they are too well defined then they are no longer properties of God himself. I do believe we can certainly speak of God by analogy, metaphor and parable.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Adrift View PostAre there any positive theological statements we can make about God? Any true statements we can make about God?אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Apologiaphoenix, Yesterday, 09:43 PM
|
0 responses
5 views
0 likes
|
Last Post Yesterday, 09:43 PM | ||
Started by Apologiaphoenix, 04-25-2024, 09:42 AM
|
0 responses
11 views
1 like
|
Last Post 04-25-2024, 09:42 AM | ||
Started by Apologiaphoenix, 04-15-2024, 09:22 PM
|
0 responses
18 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 04-15-2024, 09:22 PM | ||
Started by Apologiaphoenix, 04-09-2024, 09:39 AM
|
28 responses
194 views
1 like
|
Last Post 04-30-2024, 09:42 AM | ||
Started by Apologiaphoenix, 04-08-2024, 02:50 PM
|
0 responses
15 views
1 like
|
Last Post 04-08-2024, 02:50 PM |
Comment