Unheeding of the danger, he forged ahead, knowing all too well that he hadn't posted anything for a week or so.
A few further thoughts on your comment.
What necessarily makes this your God any more than some random deity?
The impossibility of the contrary.
It comes down, basically, to examining the alternatives and discovering whether they contain internal inconsistencies. Depending on their severity, this leads to their rejection.
It's interesting what you are willing to attribute to supernaturalism given that we don't know if a supernatural realm even exists.
Naturalism is false. The converse is...?
3. If the supernatural can come and act in our world, how does it bridge the gap between natural and supernatural - can I observe this taking place? Whereabouts does it happen?
In the case of Christian theism, God created the universe and thus apparently has a way to move in the natural.
But it's a category error to state that, since you can't examine them scientifically or whatever, such actions thus do not actually occur.
4.You've simply asserted what natural mechanisms can't account for without really explaining why.
B/c your brain, on naturalism, is molecules in motion, a vat of chemical reactions.
So is a can of Coca-Cola. If I shake up your brain and a can of Coke, each will fizz out gas - CO2 and brain gas.
Alternatively, your liver secretes bile, and your brain secretes thoughts. I've not yet seen a rebuttal that accounts for why I would ask a brain for true thoughts about the world but couldn't trust the liver's emissions on the same topic.
5. Your variant of supernaturalism includes talking snakes and plants, neither of which possess the cognitive ability or anatomy to talk
1) Naturalism is false and self-defeating; you don't get to analyse things like this from the standpoint of naturalistic presupps as you have. On theism, this is perfectly reasonable since such would be accted for as miraculous.
2) And it's not sure at all that the serpent in the Garden was literally a snake.
3) Demons can take the form of physical entities when they desire to do so.
4) So can God - the BUSH wasn't talking; God was.
That's what Steve meant when he chided you for neglecting to perform any exegesis. If this is the best kind of thing you bring to the table on the topic, I'd recommend you stay away from throwing Bible "contradictions" at people. I'm trying to help you keep from looking really foolish.
is there any reason I should take this viewpoint any more seriously than I do Scientology's ludicrous tales?
B/c Scientology is false, and Christianity isn't.
How can one utilise things like logic as a tool if the world potentially will not behave in a logical fashion 10 minutes from now dependent on the whim of a God,
You're confusing words here. On theism, it IS perfectly logical when God intervenes. The world may not behave in its USUAL manner all the time, but that's not the same as LOGICAL.
And on naturalism, there's no way to acct for laws of logic AT ALL, so theism is still way better if your objection holds.
Under your worldview, you can't realistically make the assumption that things will not be radically different 5 minutes from now
On the contrary, I *CAN* b/c God has told us that it will. And He has made certain things about the future eternal kingdom will work.
On naturalism, your objection holds, definitely. You're on the right track!
First of all, science employs methodological naturalism as opposed to proving that naturalism is the be all and end all.
The flavor of this post has been an objection to precisely that kind of talk that issues from the scientific/new atheist community. Dick Dawk doesn't speak as carefully as you did here, and he's alot more well-known than you.
Go on a facebook discussion page on Cre vs Ev
Oy. I don't have the patience for it! And too few Creationists take the presupp position I do, so I find myself screaming at my computer screen. :-D
So God has given us tools such as inductive logic
Which extent naturalists abuse, as you did in your comment "you can't realistically make the assumption..."
Use it all day, great! Just don't take it further than it can take you.
I assume you are also firing off letters to the judiciary as we speak demanding that all murderers that weren't witnessed in the act be released since this type of science apparently isn't valid?
Humans weren't around even close to the time that the Big Bang, the formation of the earth, or the (apparent) abiogenesis of life occurred. They were when the murder occurred. Big difference.
This is the same point made by one of your own - Henry Gee In Search of Deep Time.
The sheer volume of fossils works against a young Earth:
1) No telling how many animals were on earth before the Flood/in the Garden of Eden.
2) I don't see a problem with God having put the fossils there.
3) Yet it's probably a better explanation to think that they really were animals and that naturalists, in your truth-suppressing ways, have misinterpreted the data given your limited knowledge, limited patience, limited presuppositions, limited methodologies, and limited instrumentation.
is it realistic to say that the world is only a few thousand years old?
Naturalism is false, so evolution is right out.
The Bible doesn't really support an old earth; so yes, it's realistic.
I think we can see here how RTT has made an idol out of naturalistic approaches to science.
You think it can tell you the age of stuff, what happened millions of yrs ago, etc; things that science cannot repeatably test. You're thus already stepping out of the realm of pure science; what's to stop you from taking a further step and using science to tell me any number of other things?