Skip to main content
9 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Nov 27 at 21:23 comment added Matthew @ChessIce, I did. "The universe" is not a causal agent, nor is it the sort of entity for which "existence as a brute fact" follows ontologically. God is both.
Nov 27 at 21:03 comment added Chess Ice I think that these questions in the 3 comments above are actually really interesting. Do you have any responses to them?
Mar 27 at 23:15 comment added user61679 Great edit. With respect to "Rather than remaining aloof from His Creation, God has revealed Himself to us in the form of Scripture, authenticated in its consistency with natural evidence and by the miracle of Christ's Resurrection", I would also add that many Christians believe that God also reveals Himself personally to each individual through the witness of the Holy Spirit (and we can go even more extreme in this direction by considering Christian mysticism, Pentecostalism, Charismatics, etc.)
Mar 27 at 23:13 vote accept CommunityBot
Mar 27 at 20:26 history edited Matthew CC BY-SA 4.0
added 2804 characters in body
Mar 26 at 22:03 history edited Matthew CC BY-SA 4.0
added 2191 characters in body
Mar 26 at 20:57 comment added user61679 And anticipating your answer (and the subsequent objection by an atheist): if you say that God doesn't need an explanation, why can't we say the same thing about the universe? (This is actually what Carl Sagan said in the first quote.)
Mar 26 at 19:47 comment added user61679 Dawkins (and many atheists) would probably object that, by postulating a God, instead of solving the problem, you now have something even more complicated to explain (where did God come from?). Can you say something about that (ideally by editing your answer instead of replying in the comments)? [Note: I'm acting as a devil's advocate here.]
Mar 26 at 18:57 history answered Matthew CC BY-SA 4.0