|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
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
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |