Zach, you write: (A)“I think that God and nature are one and the same.” Then you write: (B)“I think that if there is a God, then it created life and all matter and that God’s rule is in fact the laws of nature.” But this is logically incoherent. If God = nature then God is not a being outside of nature who could have also created nature. So I think that this view does not make any logical sense.
Put another way, you have here a form of pantheism that equates God with all that is (nature). Such a god is not, cannot be, a creator-god. This form of pantheism does not allow you to affirm (A) and (B) above at the same time.
Also, Zach, can you argue for your agnosticism? That is, can you give reasons for your agnostic belief? If not, it’s just an unsupported, unsubstantiated belief. And, it is a very strong, dogmatic claim re. knowledge. Agnosticism says: One cannot know whether there is a God or there is not a God. But who says? And why should anyone believe this? What reasons can you give to support this statement, which is very strong precisely in its claim to KNOW that one cannot know whether or not there is a God?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment