3 ms·
And you may not agree, but I posit that there's also a difference between "God is all-powerful and thus can overrule the laws of physics when so inclined" and "
by steve-howard 15y ago
And you may not agree, but I posit that there's also a difference between "God is all-powerful and thus can overrule the laws of physics when so inclined" and "God can't exist because the laws of physics disprove him."
I'm not too solidly decided on faith myself, but if God created the universe, then you can't use the properties of that universe to disprove Him. It's like proving a theorem, finding it conflicts with some common axiom, and then saying you've disproved the axiom.
- zargon 15y agoIn your analogy, you assume that god exists. I could argue that if all unicorns are pink, then you can't disprove all unicorns are pink by showing me a blue one. That's like proving a theorem, finding it conflicts with your axiom, and saying you've disproved the axiom. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question
- steve-howard 15y agoYou're quite right, and I'm a little off. The point I'm trying to articulate, if not too well, is that in the case that God doesn't exist (at least as an omnipotent being), these questions hardly matter, and in the case that he does, it doesn't make sense to use the system we're in to prove the non-existence of something outside of it. This is quite off-topic now, so if you want to reply, please send it to the address in my public profile. :)