tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9189981194016418049.post5890901252648498989..comments2024-03-08T16:52:11.999-06:00Comments on APOLOGIA: Fish's Faulty DilemmaHendrik van der Breggenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04149481975577863835noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9189981194016418049.post-6018133230000559432012-04-29T14:50:07.527-05:002012-04-29T14:50:07.527-05:00Hi Kane,
The issue isn't whether understandin...Hi Kane,<br /><br />The issue isn't whether understanding can be had without God; the issue is whether the evidence is <i>best explained</i> by God. Does the evidence point to the truth of God, or not? Let the evidence decide.<br /><br />Cheers back to you!<br />HendrikHendrik van der Breggenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04149481975577863835noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9189981194016418049.post-68404002885264156792012-04-27T23:42:37.409-05:002012-04-27T23:42:37.409-05:00What do you think of LaPlace's comment that he...What do you think of LaPlace's comment that he has "no need of that equation" [in reference to the absence of God in his mathematical proofs]? Do you think this is the same as the Dawkins/Pinker dismissal of God? Or do you think it's closer to the <i>maybe</i> suggestion you made?<br /><br />It seems to me to be a philosophical indifference rather than an outright rejection (Dawkins/Pinker) or a definite 'yes' (Ham, Van Til). And it certainly doesn't give an affable openness (e.g., maybe). It does, however, imply that the idea of God can be useful if such an idea becomes necessary for understanding. But if understanding can be had without God as a variable, then why bother?<br /><br />Cheers!<br />KaneAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17771674447306246398noreply@blogger.com