Kevin Wampler wrote:
> Darren New wrote:
>>
>> Yeah. Pretty much any absolute in this field leads to logical 
>> contradictions.
> 
> I'm not sure it's so much contradictions in this particular case as it 
> is the generally difficulty linguistically describing (or even 
> comprehending) something that's supposed to be infinite in the sense 
> that God is. 

Yet oddly enough, many will be happy to tell you exactly what this infinite 
incomprehensible entity wants from you personally. ;-)

> I think the same principal is actually true of physics as well (for 
> instance as it applies to the origin of the universe), although in that 
> case there's the advantage of having a more or less well-defined way of 
> definitively detecting such contradictions, which probably makes them 
> easier to remove.

Certainly. Plus the ability to say "We don't know yet, or maybe never."

> It's mostly that I've never the description be so, well, anatomical.

I'm certainly taking it to extremes, yes. :-)

> I mean, how many people would really argue that God has a functioning 
> digestive tract?  It's possible people would I suppose, but I've rarely 
> even heard the view the human similarity to God was physical at all, let 
> alone that it extended to the function and structure of individual organs.

You never heard the argument over whether angels have navels and such?

I think the general idea is that God is human-like, until it became 
scientifically obvious that was absurd.  I mean, most every other God is 
human-like (certainly all the major ones), God has a face (as in, "look upon 
the face of God") and a back to be turned, etc...


-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Linux: Now bringing the quality and usability of
   open source desktop apps to your personal electronics.

Post a reply to this message