Worldview and Religion

To say that ``the laws of the universe can usually be relied upon'' is a bad answer---how usual? One cannot answer this question, so ``usual'' is arbitrary.

No it is a good answer. I cannot give you a figure like the laws of the universe are dependable 98.8772% of the time. Because i do not know the actual figure. But i can state that the laws of the universe can be a good guild to normal day life.



But it does to ME. If any of what you are saying is true, there is no reason to trust science.

See your talking about a switch on and a switch off kind of trust. You want to be able to believe in science and the laws of the universe 100% or discard the whole lot and trust in nothing. Both extremes are faulty.

Trust should always be limited in science. Because science is not perfect and yesterdays theories end up in the trash can. As i said People think they know the laws of the universe until someone comes along with another theory that shoots their prior views out of the water.

But in God we can trust 100%.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days
 
Come on Ben. So far, the laws of the universe have held to our best ability to test and apply them. We clearly don't have the "ultimate truth" and never will IMO. But "usually" is an understatement when describing the frequency that known physical law holds true. You're not being very honest here.

I think we are in agreement here. I was making the same point that you are making, which is

Right. No reason at all.

Because I cannot accept that we cannot trust our own senses, I cannot prescribe to Adstar's views.
 
But in God we can trust 100%.

I guess the main problem that I want to make is that we are expected to not trust so many things, except for God. And if I doubt God or want to test God, that is wrong, and I am a bad Christian. The question of God cannot be answered empirically, and to even attempt to do so is explicitly forbidden. This is an abandonment of reason and logic, and there is no clear place to draw the line between faith and reason.

I understand your position well, because I have encountered it so often.
 
Now there's a leap. You have the exact handle on "what god is"? Pretty cool.

Come on---at least cut and paste the WHOLE quote.

This would, I believe, constitute a limit on human understanding of the universe, and a breakdown of logic. But this is exactly what God is!

If there is a God, then this is exactly what is required of him.

Possibly, but that does not excuse substituting superstition.

Are you reading my full posts or just the bits that you want to? One can either accept that there are questions that cannot be answered by science, or that there aren't. If there are questions that can't be answered by science, then all explanations are weighted equally, and Christianity is as good as anything else.
 
I guess the main problem that I want to make is that we are expected to not trust so many things, except for God. And if I doubt God or want to test God, that is wrong, and I am a bad Christian.

The desire to test God shows one does not trust God.

Now there is a difference between testing God and seeking answers from God. One can seek answers and still trust in God no matter if the questions are answered or not.


The question of God cannot be answered empirically, and to even attempt to do so is explicitly forbidden. This is an abandonment of reason and logic, and there is no clear place to draw the line between faith and reason.

I understand your position well, because I have encountered it so often.

Once again your want a 100% full knowledge of God or to throw everything out the window. You want things to be black or white, on of off. But existence is not a black and white thing it is 1000 shades of grey. That frustrates the scientific mind but that’s the way it is.

Yes there is no clear place to draw the line between faith and reason. That’s why we need to trust in God to guide us.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days
 
Yes there is no clear place to draw the line between faith and reason. That’s why we need to trust in God to guide us.

You might as well substitue ``astrology'' or ``Satan'' or ``Flying Spaghetti Monster'' for ``God'' here. There is no real value in this statement, other than what it means to you. The problem is that ``God'' is a question of faith, and faith is dependant on culture. Asking someone who was raised in Saudi Arabia, who is a good and loving Muslim, who gives money to orphans and loves his wife, and whe fears and loves Allah to accept Christ is unreasonable.

Your answer will be ``If God calls him then it is up to him to answer'', but this is not an objective statement. If the man is a muslim, and dies a muslim, then he didn't heed God's call. I know this paradigm well---if someone falls on misfortune, then it is because they turned away from God, and not some string of coincidental events that conspired against them. If the Canaanites were masacred (killed by the edge of the sword = hacked to pieces---check the old testament) by the Jews, then it is because they didn't trust in God. If the Israelites killed women and childeren, and animals along with the men, it is because the Canaanites were standing in the way of God's will.

If you read the Old Testament literally, and believe that God gave the land of Canaan to the Jews, and that the Jews were doing God's will as they slashes Canaanite women and childeren to pieces, then you call Islam a violent religion, then you are a hypocrite.

The problem with ``God's will'' is that it is a highly subjective thing. If I think that it is ok to drink alcohol, and you do not, then it is I who am disregarding God's will. If I want to marry another man, in the church, and you think that it is an aberration of nature, then it is I who am turning against God's will.

We are each in the unique position that God has told us what he wants us to do. And if what God has told me conflicts with what God has told you, then YOU are wrong, and not me. It is YOU who are disregarding God's will.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top