Most of us would agree that the objectivity of good was a thing we had settled and dismissed with the existence of God. Theology and absolute ethics are two famous subjects which we have realized have no real objects.
If the prospect of integrating faith and contemporary experiences is to be ultimately successful it must be sufficiently radical. And to be sufficiently radical it must get to the root concept of God. And to be sufficiently radical respecting the concept of God it must radically depart from the philosophical world-view which has given the traditional faith in God a cultural form which no longer serves well that faith.
Leslie Dewart, Catholic theologian
It is possible that in their time the Five Ways (Aquinas Proofs) were an exciting expression of the whole movement from the actual world to the reality of God… But there can be no doubt that they no longer express anything of the sort.
And the winner is
Who can say why I disbelieveAll the make-believe only timeAnd who can say why I feel the needA new path to lead only timeWho can say why they tell the liesThe truth disguise only timeAnd who can say when I will healFrom the ordeal only timeWho can say why they insistA god exists only timeAnd who can say why I resistDon’t believe in myths only timeWho can say only timeWho can say when I will be freeLive as I want to be only timeWho knows what tomorrow will holdWhat will unfold only timeWho can say only timeNo God
in God if angels can be found in the zoo.
As I said the other day that I will share with you greetings from Lady Sighs, here it is.
I hope you like it as I did.
the humour, the wit
We know the contrivances of human beings whenever we see them. If I should find a bicycle assembled, I wouldn’t have to rock my head trying to discover its source. Everyone who has seen a bicycle knows to what ends they are produced and by whom. We do not have the same knowledge for things occurring in nature. I cannot tell, when I meet an elephant that there was a purposeful designer who wanted it to crash plants.
To say something happened by chance, does not rule out a designer. It could have been experiment and this result was a chance result. It was never planned.
The theist has no reason to limit the being of the universe to this
The only possible explanation for the structure is that it was designed by an intelligent being, not some random physical process.
For what is intelligence? It includes
the capacity for logic, understanding, self-awareness, learning, emotional knowledge, reasoning, planning, creativity, and problem solving
many properties which would rule out the god of theism; an all knowing god can’t learn, reason nor plan. Such a god can’t be creative. We are told, for example if you believe the Abrahamic religions, that god said and it was. In a scenario such as this, the god need only wish and it is.
The question of how did the universe come to be is not made easier in supposing an intelligent designer. I could grant you a designer and ask why must we stop at one designer? If one argues from man made things to the universe, then we see that many things have components built by different people; someone a roof, someone windows and doors and another walls. So, then, we can be certain there is no contradiction in saying there is a designer for trees, another for elephants and another for fish and for all other million of things that exist.
I contend this blogger has not demonstrated his claim.