2011-05-17, 01:14 PM
wait did i miss a point in the thread where things actually became theological? Now there is a topic to my interests when people actually consider things outside their own viewpoints.
To Loose: Known vs. unknown is the same from a theological standpoint. Where things differ is when one is working under an assumption that X is true, as at that point it is pointless to speak outside of absolutes. General logic way of saying it: to discuss Y one must accept X. This is both useful and viable in theology as it is often exploring the idea of omnipotence or the logic that could follow what is a Divinities purpose or there "word" The confusion comes where people insist on bringing the "existance of X at all" back it to the question when it isn't part of the discussion. Theologians are willing to work under assumptions because sometimes they have to, good ones don't consider this a luxury.
In science discussing the merits of things in potentially impossible situations or realities is pointless. In theology, the equivalent isn't. Theology isn't all about proving good or pushing religion.
You believe in authority, I believe in myself.
+10 respect points for anyone who knows this reference.
You made up your reasons and asserted it as history, no further retort needed to your (under-researched) opinion. 'splained.
In math and science, infinity isn't a practical function it is viewed as acceptable as a concept because it's simpler that way. It isn't something a person can entirely comprehend. This is just accepted as the way it is.
Bring this into belief in any form of divine being and those same people suddenly go WTP IS THIS HORSESHIT.
Where's the inconsistency again?
Infinity is a concept, not a practicality. No matter where you find it.
To Loose: Known vs. unknown is the same from a theological standpoint. Where things differ is when one is working under an assumption that X is true, as at that point it is pointless to speak outside of absolutes. General logic way of saying it: to discuss Y one must accept X. This is both useful and viable in theology as it is often exploring the idea of omnipotence or the logic that could follow what is a Divinities purpose or there "word" The confusion comes where people insist on bringing the "existance of X at all" back it to the question when it isn't part of the discussion. Theologians are willing to work under assumptions because sometimes they have to, good ones don't consider this a luxury.
In science discussing the merits of things in potentially impossible situations or realities is pointless. In theology, the equivalent isn't. Theology isn't all about proving good or pushing religion.
kingdj333 Wrote:So do Atheist believe in Science or things they believe.?
You believe in authority, I believe in myself.
+10 respect points for anyone who knows this reference.
Kitteh Wrote:2. Defend that position. I've stated my reasons, explain yours.
You made up your reasons and asserted it as history, no further retort needed to your (under-researched) opinion. 'splained.
Kalovale Wrote:How do they know about God with God being... unknowable?
In math and science, infinity isn't a practical function it is viewed as acceptable as a concept because it's simpler that way. It isn't something a person can entirely comprehend. This is just accepted as the way it is.
Bring this into belief in any form of divine being and those same people suddenly go WTP IS THIS HORSESHIT.
Where's the inconsistency again?
Infinity is a concept, not a practicality. No matter where you find it.