07-23-2003, 09:18 PM
(This post was last modified: 07-23-2003, 09:20 PM by Chaerophon.)
Well, I just looked at the "Battlefield God" game and found that it is inherently flawed, despite the fact that it attempts to base its judgements upon logical fallacies rather than dogma, etc. Let me preface this little blurb with the disclaimer that at this point in time I have no particular religious affiliation - in fact, for now I'm agnostic. However, the test claims that if one does not believe in the Loch Ness monster due to the preponderance of evidence against its existence and yet one is still able to believe in God despite a lack of evidence as to His existence, one holds beliefs that contradict one another. Well...
If I am prepared to accept the existence of God as the creator of the universe and all of the natural laws therein, then I may (I don't have to) draw two conclusions:
1.) All of the complex natural laws of the universe as they were created by God may be used to explain the world in general and possibly be considered an act of God in and of themselves.
2.) Just because God created the laws of the universe does not mean that he is bound by them in his own actions.
That being said, I am not trying to make the point that morality is or is not a logical/religious constant above and beyond God, himself; that is a topic for a much more involved and, frankly, fruitless, debate. However, I find it amusing to be told that because, on the one hand, I hold the Loch Ness monster subject to the natural laws of God and yet do not hold God to the same burden of proof, I am a hypocrite, and a practitioner of faulty logic. Whether or not anybody agrees with me on the grounds of "faith", my logic is quite sound and relatively impregnable, if not particularly adventurous, and cannot be outright refuted without additional inside information, which, I assume, would have to come directly from God, himself. (Unless you are one of those 'literalists' in which case, we could argue all day and not arrive at any semblance of a consensus. IMO, the bible was written, not infallibly, but as a guideline... if that... by fallible human beings - not that anyone cares what I think about that, anyways)
Anyways, thanks for the quiz, but I'll stick to my guns :)
EDIT: punctuation
If I am prepared to accept the existence of God as the creator of the universe and all of the natural laws therein, then I may (I don't have to) draw two conclusions:
1.) All of the complex natural laws of the universe as they were created by God may be used to explain the world in general and possibly be considered an act of God in and of themselves.
2.) Just because God created the laws of the universe does not mean that he is bound by them in his own actions.
That being said, I am not trying to make the point that morality is or is not a logical/religious constant above and beyond God, himself; that is a topic for a much more involved and, frankly, fruitless, debate. However, I find it amusing to be told that because, on the one hand, I hold the Loch Ness monster subject to the natural laws of God and yet do not hold God to the same burden of proof, I am a hypocrite, and a practitioner of faulty logic. Whether or not anybody agrees with me on the grounds of "faith", my logic is quite sound and relatively impregnable, if not particularly adventurous, and cannot be outright refuted without additional inside information, which, I assume, would have to come directly from God, himself. (Unless you are one of those 'literalists' in which case, we could argue all day and not arrive at any semblance of a consensus. IMO, the bible was written, not infallibly, but as a guideline... if that... by fallible human beings - not that anyone cares what I think about that, anyways)
Anyways, thanks for the quiz, but I'll stick to my guns :)
EDIT: punctuation
But whate'er I be,
Nor I, nor any man that is,
With nothing shall be pleased till he be eased
With being nothing.
William Shakespeare - Richard II
Nor I, nor any man that is,
With nothing shall be pleased till he be eased
With being nothing.
William Shakespeare - Richard II