God of the Gaps

That is ok as far as it goes. However, that gets us nowhere at all. Now we need a method for distinguishing "viewpoints" that are more or less likely to be closer to correct in some way.The only method that I'm aware of that actually seems to settle differences of viewpoint in ways that are constructive (that actually "work" ) is the scientific method. Is there another one?

Exactly to plan, according to the Bible.I've never understood this viewpoint, or the related one that blames the Romans or the Jews for the death of Christ. Wasn't the death the whole point? Shouldn't Christians be thanking Jews for Christ's death, which more or less makes salvation possible?Would mankind have recieved Christ's saving grace if he'd died of old age in Tampa?I don't get it. Why the rush to blame people for implementing God's plan and allowing salvation for all persons?{OK, BUT EVERYBODY NOTICE THE "OFF-TOPIC MUSING" SUBTITLE. DON'T DEBATE THIS POINT IN THIS TOPIC. - Adminnemooseus}[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 04-17-2004]

It has been said a few times in this thread that "we can never prove or disprove the existence of God", or words to that effect. While I agree with the sentiment behind this statement, in that it appeals to rationalism and the need for positive proof, I think something is being overlooked here. What I'm missing is the realisation that the truth of this statement is contingent on the non-existence of God.After all, if God does exist, then, although that would make it impossible to disprove his existence, which is half of what the statement purports, it would indeed be possible, in principle at least, to prove his existence, which is a negation of the other half of the statement. To wit, if he exists, he can make his existence known in no uncertain terms, which would constitute proof. God would be part of reality and as such would not need to be considered supernatural, and would thus be susceptible to a scientific approach. (Especially so if he decided to cooperate a little.)On the other hand, if God does not exist, we would never be able to prove his existence: whatever would be presented as proof might seem to be so, to some at least, but would be false in light of the fact of his non-existence. Neither could we ever disprove it: one cannot positively prove the non-existence of anything. Taken together, that is what the statement says.In conclusion: if God does not exist, the statement "we can never prove or disprove the existence of God" is true, and if God does exist, the same statement is false.Any takers?

---

"It's amazing what you can learn from DNA." Desdamona, home school teacher.

I'll play,
If God exist but operates outside the perception of mankind then God is beyond probing. Hence God exist but can not be proved to exist.
But If God does not exist then any amount of speculation will not prove his non existance either. In short: whether God exist or does not is moot since there is no way to prove either. Of course the above statement is only valid if God chooses to remain elusive and undetectable, and if so again it is a moot point because If God has no connection with his creation then he is superfulous.IMO *edit to add IMO.[This message has been edited by 1.61803, 04-17-2004]

---

"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche

I got a big bang out of your reply. Thank you.
Nietzsche displays occasional wisdom in his opinions. A quantum fluctuation has a source.

I cannot imagine finding such a way/method. The scientific methods is as open to dispute as any other. Who, then, determines what is right? For what is right for you is not necessarily right for me.

Only the uninformed would blame something other than sin for the death of Christ. As such, all are participants in his crucifixion.
I like your wit, that remark about Tampa is priceless.

There is this little word - 'faith' - it is the basis of a relationship with God. Now faith is the object of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen. That system collapses on actual evidence of God's existence, and that will never happen, the system will not collapse and evidence of his existence will not be had to collapse the system.....and round and round we go.