>From your message it appears that socratic philosophy is generally not in
full acceptance with you. That is common among scientists... I am also in
agreement with you there too. So if natural philosophy is the only choice
here -> The God question cannot be answered one way or the other.
It seems to be similar to the conclusion that another group that I am now
consulting with also reached. And with natural philosophy, the Bible will
just be another religious text subject to higher criticism at best, or it
is dismissed as truth at worst. And apologetics becomes meaningless.
"An unexamined life is not worth living"
-- Socrates
Thankyou for your discussions, I enjoyed it very much and it along with a
few others in ASA has proved to be informative. It's time to retire now.
Pim van Meurs wrote:
>
> WilliamL That's a good point... Which God? Paul suggests in Romans 1 that everyone knows already, and are without excuse. This is called;
"inate knowledge". I
>
> Interesting but you still have not addressed the issue. Pascal's wager only has a relevance if you know which God to chose.
>
> William: If basic insticts prove usually correct... And people and cultures seem to have a religious predisposition... How can one really
dismiss religion as a
>
> No religion is a faith but the problem is that instinct cannot help determine which faith to chose in Pascal's wager. Therefor the wager is
not very useful aft
>
> William: It is here that we must employ something else than natural philosophy. It
> is here that socratic philosophy allows us to weigh the evidence which is
> contained within different religious texts. And it is here that the Bible wins hands down... :)
>
> Many agree and more disagree so instinct and evidence are not sufficient either. Tough, isn't it...
>
> Best Wishes,
> William - N6RKY
>
> Pim van Meurs wrote:
> >
> > The problem with Pascal's wager is: Which God should one worship? After all how can YOU be certain that the God you are worshipping is not
> deceiving you to ete
> > --------------------
> >
> > If you plan to exercise only "natural philosophy", then you have answered
> > your own questions already. But... I would suggest you consider something
> > to think about: Pascal's Wager.
> >
> > Are you willing to risk such an eternal consequence on natural philosophy
> > and it's limits within the space-time-continuum?
> >
> > -----------------
>
> Pim van Meurs wrote:
> >
> > The problem with Pascal's wager is: Which God should one worship? After all how can YOU be certain that the God you are worshipping is not
> deceiving you to ete
> > --------------------
> >
> > If you plan to exercise only "natural philosophy", then you have answered
> > your own questions already. But... I would suggest you consider something
> > to think about: Pascal's Wager.
> >
> > Are you willing to risk such an eternal consequence on natural philosophy
> > and it's limits within the space-time-continuum?
> >
> > -----------------
>
> --
> William A. Wetzel
> icq-uin# 13983514
> http://home.pacbell.net/n6rky
> http://www.qsl.net/n6rky
> mailto:n6rky@pacbell.net
> mailto:n6rky@qsl.net
-- William A. Wetzel icq-uin# 13983514 http://home.pacbell.net/n6rky http://www.qsl.net/n6rky mailto:n6rky@pacbell.net mailto:n6rky@qsl.net