Interesting thoughts.
BTW, too all, I know I was over generalising scientific theorem, and I wasn't intentionally trying to misrepresent them simply by leaving out details. Rather, those generalisations are conclusions that I have to come to even upon further study of the said theory. The said theories are related because they rely on each other, so I tend to lump them together.
Here you've hit the a major point, which needs to be addressed. I find it it odd that any human thinks that they could define God with rules. I realise we seek to do it, because we want answers but it's terribly misguided to think that as a human you are even remotely capable of understanding God. If you could, he would by definition cease to be God if we could comprehend Him. More on this later.
It's not a misquote, he really said that. I didn't mean to portray that he was a Christian, but I could see why you would think that's what I was saying. I was just trying to point out that an intelligent design opinion even based simply on what we can observe is not naive at all, and that the opinon is shared by some brilliant minds. I didn't mean to make it sound like more than that. (Lady Hope FTW BTW! :razz
I 100% agree; Christianity is not about explaining how the universe works on a technical level. It's about why we are here, and why things are the way they are. Faith is not an intellectual endeavour, it's a spiritual one. You're trying to observe the unobservable based on the observable. (!) I would say it's comparing apples to oranges, but we understand both apples and oranges; so it's N/A.
Ok, well, I didn't do a very good job of drawing out what I mean by that. The line may be more ambiguous for some, but my point is that everyone has something that's the most important thing(s) in your life. It could be anything, or maybe a multitude of things. I didn't mean to imply that everyone literally has an object that they bow down to, but rather more metaphorically so. For lots of people it's money for example.
I agree, it's been very interesting . I'll have to step away somewhat unfortunately because it's eating up a lot of time, and potentially could eat up about 10x more than it has already.
Or at least appears to be so based on what we can observe, and deduce. Not that that matters.
Or at least appears to be so based on what we can observe, and deduce. Not that that matters.
... If you mean it does not work like a cosmic vending machine, then you're correct. You say it doesn't "work", as if it's a tool, or method to get a predictable and desired result. The fundamental purpose of prayer, from a Christian perspective is to align your will with the will of God - not the other way around.
Logically impossible? Who cares? Logic is again,based on human thought and discovery. To make that assertion, you would have to be somehow greater that both of those qualities - which I don't think is the case.
This never ceases to amaze me: how can a finite mind be arrogant enough (not directed at you personally btw!) to say that the infinite God is impossible? That, from MY perspective is what's totally illogical, even by human standards. Once again, you're applying scientific principles where they are completely not applicable, 100%. If a being has the capacity to create "something" from "nothing" (the big bang) I don't think we're in a position to even comment on the intellect, or the "properties" of their existence.
The concept of infinity, whilst mathematically sound is so far beyond the ultimate comprehension of humans that it's made certain mathematicians insane - and I can understand why. The fact that things appear in some particular fashion doesn't mean that they are limited to having gotten that way by means of things that we can observe, or that we are even capable of observing the fundamental truth behind it, OR that even what we we think can observe is ultimately correct. Perhaps bacterium have the same conversation about humans!
Really, all you're saying is "I can't understand God, therefore he cannot exist". (!)
The "existence of God as a scientific hypothesis" is immeasureably absurd.