Re: Defense of Theism pt 1

From: George Murphy <>
Date: Tue Jun 21 2005 - 23:35:05 EDT

----- Original Message -----
From: "Glenn Morton" <>
To: "'George Murphy'" <>; <>
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 9:24 PM
Subject: RE: Defense of Theism pt 1

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: George Murphy []
>> Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2005 3:12 PM
>> Others will have to speak for themselves but I don't think most here are
>> opposed to concord (or perhaps consonance) between science & religion.
>> Where you have met disagreement (from me & others) is about whether
>> scripture must be read in scientifically &/or historically concordist
>> ways.
> But at the very basis of it all is the need for a concord between reality
> and how we read "In the Beginning God created the Heavens and the earth".
> If that does not concord as true history, then all else is self-deception.
> And, once you go there, why stop unless one has to. After all a miraculous
> God can have a talking snake and human-swallowing whales if HE decides to,
> not if we decide to allow him to.

I assumed that you were trying to be precise in this discussion. You have
shifted here from "concordance between religion and science" to "concord
between reality and how we read 'In the Beginning God created the Heavens
and the earth.'" Are science and reality to be equated? Is "religion"
identical with Gen.1:1?


>> &
>> with your emphasis on "existence," is it obvious that we want to talk
>> about
>> "existing"? That suggests that God is one entity alongside of, or
>> perhaps
>> above, others, but having the same ontological status. That is why
>> Tillich,
>> e.g., argued that God is not "a being" but "the ground of being" or, in a
>> sense, existence itself ("deus est esse").
> This one at this point I think is a bit pedantic given that I cited
> Hawking
> and his use of the word which gives context.

It may have appeared pedantic because I omitted a word. "Is it obvious that
we want to talk about God "existing"? The question is not about the meaning
of "exist" but about how the concept should be applied to God.

>> Sure - you have to give Hawking some math which is assumed to possess
>> some
>> reality for him to get started.
> At least we agree here.

Actually we agree on a number of things. I wasn't trying to argue with all
your points but in some cases was just casting a different light on them.

>> Here again you would need to define "God-like powers." I gather that you
>> mean "the ability to cause things (including one's own self) to exist."
> You seem to be the only one who doesn't understand what I mean, given that
> I
> listed them over and over in the post.

You list "god-like properties" and "god-like attributes" but do not define
"god-like powers."

Received on Tue Jun 21 23:39:06 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Jun 21 2005 - 23:39:06 EDT