RE: God is not a cat in Schroedinger's box!

I have been away at a conference which is why it has taken me so long to
respond.

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Howard J. Van Till [mailto:hvantill@sbcglobal.net]
>Sent: Saturday, October 09, 2004 9:39 PM

>Glenn replied:
>
>> When applied to philosophical systems, and to theological systems, I do
>> beleive that. It is because there is no objective mechanism to tell which
>> one is better other than internal self-contradiction. Assuming
>both systems
>> are internally consistent, then I do beleive that one can't be any better
>> than the other.
>
>I disagree. I think it's a lot like the situation in scientific theory
>evaluation.

Excuse me, but I wasn't speaking of scientific theory evalutation. I was
specifically speaking of determining which of two theological or
philosophical theories were better. Since observational data seems not to
be able to distinguish between two philosophies or theologies, I stand on my
statement.

The rest of your reply to this issue is non-responsive to the issue. since I
wasn't speaking of science or scientific theories, it matters not what
affects their truth content.

>
>
>On another issue:

>The question that I asked was this: Are you claiming that your portrait of
>God is not a humanly crafted product?

I would hope that God was able to communicate something true about His
nature. If he was unable to successfuly communicate any information about
Himself to me, then yes my portrait is nothing but a human product. If he
has been able to communicate, then it isn't. What is so difficult for you
to understand about that position?
Received on Fri Oct 15 22:23:17 2004