10 January 2006
Prolly not a new concept
But perhaps one of the reasons science cannot prove/dissprove the existence of God is very simple. Taken from a scientific standpoint wouldn't it be reasonable to assume if there's a God that He would not be capable of being measured/scaled/identified by a system He created? Essentially He'd be limiting Himself by fitting into a box meant for beings obviously of a much more limited scope.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Yep, that's fair. The question, then, is why God seems to insist on being so concerned with petty issues like who people have sex with, what names they call Him, what animals they eat, what fabrics and colors they wear, what liquids they drink, what days they work, and so on and on.
I realize, BTW, that not everyone views God in those terms; I mainly speaking about religious dogma. A lot of folks, I'm aware, don't think God does care about minutiae like that.
-Matt
If it's fair to grant God's existence for being the creator of creation and therefore exempted from empirical verification, then it by default must also be fair to say that the creator is concerned with what the creation does, whether we consider it "minutiae" or not.
To posit God's existence is more than a mere metaphysical assent to the real nature of things, it is a moral qualification with moral ramifications as well. Dogma or deism, if God is there, God's opinion therefore matters.
Post a Comment