Quote from stu:
Look 2cents , I assure you, I am not being argumentative, which I gather from the tone of your posts to me you think I am.. This is not to do with the last word, not on my behalf anyways.
God is no more presupposed than science... come on 2c, are you sure?
You see, I understood you want to debate the issue you opened the thread on, and not to steer away from any substantive issues reasonably brought.
I am merely confirming the point with you that you cannot expect to successfully debate a philosophical concept (God) , without acknowledging the way your question is posed must resolve inevitably to insubstantiality (ha, is that catholic?? ) That is because your question presupposes its subject .
A substantial premise cannot form out of your question in its present form, is my opinion. This is because I am sure you know a premise must first be assumed to be true,. The subject of your question (God) is a philosophical presumption, not a premise which can be assumed to be true. The subject of your question is a presumption based upon imaginary emotional invisible concepts . Without first acknowledging that, the question is as meaningless as Did Gilbert create science.
I know to stimulate a theistic response, taking God as a granted is often an approach. But to what use that in any partly seriously advanced enquiry? Surely to arrive at anything which may provide firm insight or fresh angles, there should be less obscurity in a question, not the implication of more.
If you want to presuppose everything is presupposed, -perhaps in some way the Iam-Jesus dude might ,- then you are not discussing science - or more precisely, not discussing science arrived at via the scientific method.
A presupposition should really be declared implicit where it is so. It is so. That is all I intended to show..
Did anything thought to be God create science? Answer still no.
