XPost: rec.arts.books.tolkien   
   From: Taemon@zonnet.nl   
      
   On 23-7-2014 19:16, Paul S. Person wrote:   
   > On Wed, 23 Jul 2014 17:19:30 +0200, Taemon  wrote:   
   >> On 18-7-2014 18:57, Paul S. Person wrote:   
   > Ah, but he is only dealing with this one specific topic. He isn't   
   > prohibiting discussion in general.   
      
   I wonder what he'd say about it today.   
      
   Well, actually, I don't. I'll discuss anything if I know something about it.   
      
   >>> The idea that Man cannot say anything about God except what God   
   >>> Himself has told us about Himself is not that uncommon in Christian   
   >>> theology. And, since it is Christian theology, the place where God has   
   >>> told us about Himself is, of course, the Bible.   
   >> But our current knowledge of the Bible has taught us that it was written   
   >> by people, several of them, decades apart, decades after Jesus died.   
   > I don't know about /knowledge/. That is certainly the current   
   > mainstream belief, which I happen to agree with.   
   > But that does not matter. To the believer, the Bible says only what   
   > God wants it to say. It could have been written yesterday and it would   
   > make no difference.   
      
   Ah, true. I didn't think of that because I don't share that mindset.   
      
   >>> That sounds nice, and I would generally agree, but would you support a   
   >>> study of how to create the set of all objects not part of any set?   
   >>> While not the same sort of thing as determining the characteristics of   
   >>> the Deus absonditus, it shares with it the property that it actually   
   >>> is impossible.   
   >> I would support the study, but I see your point.   
   > The set of all objects not part of any set is a logical contradiction:   
      
   I see the point :-)  And Julian showed us there was more to say after all!   
      
   >>> And yet /some/ things are designed ... which is why we have the debate   
   >>> over labelling genetically-modified foods, which are clearly designed,   
   >>> nay, engineered. But this path leads to endless circles on what   
   >>> "design" means.   
   >> Or if there is another explanation. "There must have been a designer" is   
   >> just another way of saying "X cannot be studied" anyway.   
   > Really? If someone showed you a ray-gun, which was obviously designed,   
   > you believe that it could not be studied?   
      
   I was referring to the "magicmandidit" approach of adherers of   
   creationism/Intelligent Design.   
      
   > Actually, to believe that something is designed is to believe that   
   > that is can be studied.   
      
   Let's just say anything can be studied?   
      
   >>> Meanwhile, actual scientists, heedless of anti-design ideology, are   
   >>> trying to design their own organism (generally quite simple). Such is   
   >>> the result of mixing Science with Religion.   
   >> What's the part of religion in that?   
   > This belongs with the bit above.   
   > The point is that those who insist on the lack of design are behaving   
   > religiously, while actual scientists are behaving scientifically, and   
   > so have no concern about whether or not they are dealing with the   
   > products of design. A /scientist/ would not care if he or she proved   
   > that the course of evolution, for example, were not random; those who   
   > would, those who /insist/ that it /must/ be random, are behaving   
   > religiously.   
      
   Evolution is far from random. Also, if one found evidence against   
   evolution, that would be a great find (great as in having many   
   consequences). Also also, if one didn't study an organism from lack of   
   design, it would be hard to study it. So I have to disagree here.   
      
   >> Nah, we know for a fact that large part of the Bible are untrue. So if   
   >> there's an All-Powerful Being, it's not that one.   
   > If you say so. Sounds like a tour through the "little grey book of   
   > atheistical anti-religious arguments" is pending. Where do you plan to   
   > start? "Pi == 3"? "Earth stands still"? Those are the most popular,   
   > IIRC.   
      
   The Flood! The Flood! By FAR my favourite.   
      
   > And are you quite certain that the Bible describes a Being who is   
   > "All-Powerful" in the sense in which you understand the phrase (which   
   > may owe more to Greek Philosophy than to the Bible)?   
      
   The Bible certainly doesn't, in the sense in which I understand the   
   phrase. Bible-followers seem to believe it does, so maybe I understand   
   the phrase differently.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)