More Denton: Reply to Tony (Introduction)

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Saturday, August 01, 2015, 03:52 (3403 days ago) @ romansh

You do understand the difference between suggesting something and knowing something, right? The evidence for God's power is evident in creation, as is the evidence of his wisdom, knowledge, and love. "They have eyes but can not see..."
> 
> Romansh: I do understand BM. But I sort get confused when someone suggests that a god might exist and assuming certain properties of that god we might expect certain effects. 
> But when one suggests that the universe is the Evidence of God's Power then I think we have overstepped the mark of simple suggestion.
>-You start from the premise of naturalism. I start from the premise of theism. So, assuming that:
If
A) I believe in God
and 
B) I believe that God created the Universe, even if I don't claim any certainty about HOW he did 
then,
C) The creation (i.e. the universe and everything in it) is evidence of God's power, among other things. --
>Romansh: And your commentary on Occam's razor is a little tainted, I can't help thinking.
> 
> God as an explanation is not an explanation, it is an abdication of an explanation. That we don't have the wit to give an accurate account of creation does not mean god did it.-Actually, it IS an explanation of first cause. I have repeatedly stated that it is not an explanation of HOW it was done. But, just like you can tell someone that an engineer designed your vehicle, and that is a suitable explanation of the point of origin of the guiding principles behind your vehicles design, so is pointing to God and saying that he designed the universe. Now, if you want to get into the details of HOW or WHY, that is an entirely different question.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.