[geocentrism] Re: Invitation
- From: "philip madsen" <pma15027@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 08:58:54 +1000
Dear Jack, You miss read me. I accuse you of nothing. I merely try to point
out the invalidity of your arument. Within a careful read of yours below, I try
to clarify your concerns, and support my original contention. in brown.
,,,Philip.
----- Original Message -----
From: Jack Lewis
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 12:13 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Invitation
Dear Philip,
Please read the following very, very carefully and you will see that what I
have said is just the same as my other posting that you commented on. Much of
what you accuse me of is what I accuse evolutionists of. There is no
contradiction in this and I explain it below. [ there can be no comparison. Our
faith in God is either by revelation ( my excuse) or accepted in faith in our
reason, which is psychologically based on hope, or need, with many other
environmental factors. That is true faith and it cannot be changed.
On the other hand, science truely applied , should be based upon experimental
evidence, as observed and evaluated. This process cannot be duplicated as
regards the existence of God. When the scientist believes something of science
to be true, it is because he has judged the evidence, and made a decision. This
decision cannot be compared with our faith which is based upon a decision to
accept without reserve. But the scientists "belief" always allows for a change
in evidence. His "faith" is open to change. He has reservations. In fact he
depends on change to continue. I said true science above, not to be confused
with some who may not be so rational, and subject to the frailties of human
nature. ]
The whole point of my posting, in a nutshell, is that my belief in a creator
God (an un-caused first cause) is exactly that - a belief. It is not irrational
to believe that there was a creator.
[ The word has many conotations. Perhaps we are getting confused here. When
you use the word "irrational" in this phrase, meaning adjective "not using
reason or clear thinking", I agree with you. I would not call us irrational,
which give the impression of "unreasonable" .
But surely you can see I meant "rational" in the other sense of "rationalism
noun the belief or principle that actions and opinions should be based on
reason rather than on emotion or religion." Notice the dictionary makes
religion synonomous with emotion. And it is in this sense that I used the word.
Science is rational. Religion is irrational. That is how science and all the
free thinkers and opponents of religion use the word.
I hope that clarifies the position on belief systems. Our faith is a
permanent supernatural virtue. Theirs is no more than a temporary reasoned
assent. This should answer your next paragraph re faiths. .
Those who do not believe in this must believe that order happened without any
cause, undirected and from nothing and they too have to stick a 'rational'
label on it - they have no choice. But from their humanistic, materialist world
view, it doesn't stack-up without they first admit it is their belief. I have
no problem with evolutionists if they admit that theirs is a belief system. If
they want to wear the mantle of scientists, they must put their science where
their mouths are. [ But their belief system by definition has reservations . It
is where their mouth is. The science on which evolution is based is admittedly
incomplete, and certainly very much unexplained. However there is no lack of
experimental evidence to support the idea of natural selection. Simply because
you or I cannot comprehend nature sufficiently with all of its possibilities,
does not give us a case in support of intelligent design. Surely you can see
that such reasoning is akin to the primitive natives when first confronted with
men firing guns saw them as being gods.
It is OK for me to say 'God did it' because that is my belief. But they
cannot appeal to 'belief' so they must what???????? Progress! Jack. Thats what
they work for. Looking for answers makes progress in science. To them, if the
answer was "God did it" then there is no need to progree in science. As you and
I know, it would be pointless, and much of the evils of our society would be
less intense. But that is from the supernatural viewpoint, which we know and
hold, not the natural, which science feels impelled to investigate.
Regarding witnessing to non-Christians, my tactic is to show them the
absurdity of evolution and get them to admit that something must have caused,
designed, created it etc.
"witnessing to non-Christians" You mean athiests don't you? The rest, be he
Muslim, or tree worshipper, has no problem with the idea of creationism.
But the athiest wil not accept your line of reasoning. To them your argument
is irrational. You even used terminology "absurdity" which is hardly charitable
, stingingly confrontationalist, with arrogance in the following "get them to
admit " phrase.
I will follow up soon with some material which puts my alternative approach
in the way of bringing God to the ungodly. Philip.
Jack
----- Original Message -----
From: philip madsen
To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Sunday, September 09, 2007 12:49 AM
Subject: [geocentrism] Re: Invitation
Jack I know you wrote it to Paul, but, taking it personally, your
arguments are typical of those that could never swing me towards a belief in
God. It was the standard argument used by the Catholic Church, and even as it
was to the 14 year old that I was, it is still today without logic. It is what
I would call "primitive logic" suited to non technical natural peasants. And I
say this, St thomas Aquinas, and Aristotle, nothwithstanding. I was a true
seeker. But I was then and am still today too knowledgeable for Aristotle.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.485 / Virus Database: 269.13.10/995 - Release Date: 8/09/2007
1:24 PM
Other related posts:
