@ Skyla again:
Before I start on the theology side of things, I'd like to point out a little...okay, so a pretty disastrous error you've made here xD
Evolution states we were created from nothing, originally.
Because evolution makes no claim on the process of creation itself. Since science is a descriptive tool, the limit of their consideration is to note that which we can observe, not to explain that which we can't. That is to say that it's not concerned with the questions of
how and
why we came into being, because there's...no need to answer such.
Also, there's a discussion on speculative cosmology somewhere...but I'm too tired to find the link for you right now. Sorry!
So I've been thinking about how best to approach this...and I've decided I'll give a general statement and then deal with quotes piecemeal.
Actually, let's start with your summation:
God cannot exist unless He operates above the laws of logic.
I won't pretend to be a representative of traditional Christian theology, seeing as personally speaking, this kind of phrase partially resonates with me also. But this is precisely the definition of God: a being that exists
above everything within the limits of human comprehension.
It's this last bit that proves particularly bothersome when attempting to open dialogues between different systems of belief. On the one hand, I struggle when confronted with the insistence on subscribing to a metaphysical dilemma- I would say that it's trying to rationally believe that one exists both strictly outside and within the universe at the same time. On the other hand though, I prefer a conciliatory path that allows appreciation of the various facets of what I'm presented with. This in turn (and more importantly) stops me from becoming arrogant and complacent in my own worldview.
It's this latter bit I'm most concerned with, because the kind of arrogance that comes from sticking to your end in some diametric opposition virtually eliminates any chance of progress, acknowledgement of new evidence and gaining of knowledge in itself. It will always be molded to an agenda, and worse, it will be selective. We must always remember that when we speak, it is from our own mouth, and our own knowledge, and our own perspective...this is why just as it is improper for any Christian to say that they know the will of God (yes, it really is), to me it is also improper to say that God is necessarily
reductio ad absurdem because you've limited your consideration of anything worth valuing to the world of the rational.
That said, as it's been pointed out before, a belief in God oughtn't necessarily be
rational. The entire point of faith is to commit to something beyond the rational, beyond comprehension. It should also be remembered that logic is a system that was developed by people, and hardly encapsulates the be all and end all of our consciousness, let alone being.
Now I understand of course you've got your personal beliefs, and you may not be at your best seeing as you were up nearly as late as I was (for that matter I've been making a few mistakes here and there myself...I'm tired too :P) So let's think of this as discussion on what is simply being said, as opposed to anything personal:
You can't base your beliefs on a book that isn't meant to be taken literally. You can't say the book of Genesis is false, but the book of John isn't
Well, to the first, I ask 'why?' and to the second, I say that's a bit of an exaggeration. The thing about the Bible is that perspectives on its varied interpretation is a double-edged thing. You can interpret it many ways to suit your own purposes. For mine, I will relate that Genesis can be thought of as an allegory, a metaphor if you will, alongside with relation of historical fact (perhaps, I am no Biblical scholar). We have to account for different writing styles, different contexts, and even the different
natures of the two Testaments. Speaking of which:
Also, the ten commandments are just ridiculous
My own beef is that those with conservative sensibilities are prone to quoting from Leviticus and Numbers to justify their Phariseean insistence on discrimination and prejudice. This is anathema to the Christianity that Jesus himself preached, as related in the Gospels (books of Mark, Matthew, Luke, John), where he actively revoked the teachings of old in preaching the practice of love and acceptance that most Christians would prefer to spread.
This in itself would seem like an inconsistency. But is it necessarily? Things change, and that is why we have history. Just as it is improper for those who preach Christianity to do so as if everything need be absolutely constant, so too would it be to refute their claims on the same grounds.
God is supposedly omniscient, he knows what will happen in the future, he knows what HE will do next, which means nothing has free will, including God.
Ah, the free will argument. Something that provides me with amusement because of the endless fallacies it generates. Again, personally, I actually identify with your point here because I feel that this is a place where Christian theology tends to grasp at straws- but not in a direct sense.
The usual rationale you'll hear here is that God did not create man to be an automaton without free will, that man was created so that man and God could share the development of a relationship, and without free will being granted to man there is no point in this. This of course opens up the floor to discussing what is meant by "God is omniscient"- and perhaps even extending into to realm of what misconceptions we hold in defining a passage of time. Personally I prefer the buddhist philosophy of the conception of the
moment.
I think that about sums it up for the time being. To reiterate, I'd dearly like for everybody to start contemplating their own limitations, and in the humility of that, learn transcension.
