Comments on: God v. logic, over three hundred proofs for gods existence http://simianuprising.com/2005/10/12/god-v-logic-over-three-hundred-proofs-for-gods-existence/ Thu, 08 Jan 2009 23:11:20 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.9 by: F.N. http://simianuprising.com/2005/10/12/god-v-logic-over-three-hundred-proofs-for-gods-existence/#comment-3776 Sat, 22 Oct 2005 00:21:00 +0000 http://simianuprising.com/2005/10/12/god-v-logic-over-three-hundred-proofs-for-gods-existence/#comment-3776 GOD IS DEAD! GOD IS DEAD!

]]> by: Amanda http://simianuprising.com/2005/10/12/god-v-logic-over-three-hundred-proofs-for-gods-existence/#comment-3772 Mon, 17 Oct 2005 13:43:05 +0000 http://simianuprising.com/2005/10/12/god-v-logic-over-three-hundred-proofs-for-gods-existence/#comment-3772 I'm not going to go on about religion - too many arguments for my liking. But Jer, you used to always preach about God... I can't picture you not believing. I’m not going to go on about religion - too many arguments for my liking. But Jer, you used to always preach about God… I can’t picture you not believing.

]]> by: Jigs http://simianuprising.com/2005/10/12/god-v-logic-over-three-hundred-proofs-for-gods-existence/#comment-3768 Thu, 13 Oct 2005 22:31:41 +0000 http://simianuprising.com/2005/10/12/god-v-logic-over-three-hundred-proofs-for-gods-existence/#comment-3768 Maybe you can have both ; the absolute alongside creationism and evolution. Perhaps what we understand scientifically is the work of the absolute seen through a lense of tangible limits. The work of God if you will, could therefore never be understood because science simply does not see past the finite. Then again, the big bang isn't finite. The theory suggests that matter is in constant expansion. The way I see it, science tries to explain God's work with theories such as Evolution and the big bang, but can never succeed in doing so specifically because it is finite. It has definable limits outside of which it can't operate. So I'd have to agree. We do need an absolute. Maybe you can have both ; the absolute alongside creationism and evolution. Perhaps
what we understand scientifically is the work of the absolute seen through a lense of tangible limits. The
work of God if you will, could therefore never be understood because science simply does not see past the finite. Then again, the big bang isn’t finite. The
theory suggests that matter is in constant expansion. The way I see it,
science tries to explain God’s work with theories such as Evolution
and the big bang, but can never succeed in doing so specifically because
it is finite. It has definable limits outside of which it can’t operate.
So I’d have to agree. We do need an absolute.

]]> by: mekka http://simianuprising.com/2005/10/12/god-v-logic-over-three-hundred-proofs-for-gods-existence/#comment-3767 Wed, 12 Oct 2005 22:02:28 +0000 http://simianuprising.com/2005/10/12/god-v-logic-over-three-hundred-proofs-for-gods-existence/#comment-3767 What does creationism or evolution have to do with the existence of the absolute, formerly known as God? Nothing. Repeat after me: nothing. And how would creation compare to evolution? How would the transgression from the absolute to a finite universe and a mere finite process exclude each other? Evolution and the Big Bang are finite processes/events. But nothing finite can be by itself, i.e. everything finite asks for yet another cause. And all of finiteness as a whole asks for an infinite cause. Neither evolution nor the Big Bang can explain existence because they are finite. That's why we need an absolute. Just my philosophical two cents. What does creationism or evolution have to do with the existence of the absolute, formerly known as God? Nothing. Repeat after me: nothing.

And how would creation compare to evolution? How would the transgression from the absolute to a finite universe and a mere finite process exclude each other?

Evolution and the Big Bang are finite processes/events. But nothing finite can be by itself, i.e. everything finite asks for yet another cause. And all of finiteness as a whole asks for an infinite cause.

Neither evolution nor the Big Bang can explain existence because they are finite. That’s why we need an absolute.

Just my philosophical two cents.

]]> by: Jigs http://simianuprising.com/2005/10/12/god-v-logic-over-three-hundred-proofs-for-gods-existence/#comment-3766 Wed, 12 Oct 2005 21:57:10 +0000 http://simianuprising.com/2005/10/12/god-v-logic-over-three-hundred-proofs-for-gods-existence/#comment-3766 Perhaps God doesn't exist but don't be so quick to join the modern day trend in youth of hating everything religious. The world is an amazing place and science, although it did bring about your wonderful technological toys, simply cannot explain most natural phenomena. Don't confuse the religious Institution with the inner religious and collective minds. Don't confuse God for a man. This isn't to say I'm preaching or asking you to believe in God, but rather to look beyond the world science has created and realize we are still at the mercy of something we don't understand. Also, Philosophy is retarded, indeed. Perhaps God doesn’t exist but don’t be so quick to join the modern
day trend in youth of hating everything religious. The world is an
amazing place and science, although it did bring about your wonderful
technological toys, simply cannot explain most natural phenomena.
Don’t confuse the religious Institution with the inner religious and
collective minds. Don’t confuse God for a man. This isn’t to say
I’m preaching or asking you to believe in God, but rather to look
beyond the world science has created and realize we are still at the
mercy of something we don’t understand. Also, Philosophy is retarded,
indeed.

]]>