I actually wrote those exact words in another thread on the matter. So, this idea that God broke any natural laws in the creation event is not a valid point. Glad we were able to get to that.
??? I don't know how you get from your first statement above to the second one. And your third statement makes even less sense than the second one. Can you explain how these statements follow from one another? There seem to be connections that exist in your thinking that you aren't clearly expressing.
On that I disagree, but the point can be made. It just can't be proven.
Sure it can. It can be readily deduced from simple reason and from the data of scientific research that God acted both supernaturally and according to the natural laws He instituted over physical reality in the act of creating that reality. We know that there were no laws existing prior to the existence of time, space, matter and energy. How could such laws exist separately from these things? Even using the phrase "prior to" in reference to the pre-universe state-of-affairs is enormously problematic. And when we imagine "no thing," we tend to think of empty space. But "no thing" would include space itself. How, though, does one conceive of a spaceless nothingness?
Anyway, Scripture, too, seems to indicate that God created
ex nihilo - out of no thing, no time, space, matter, or energy. Doing so would require acting entirely from His own resources, from His own power, and will, and creativity. But once He had brought time, space, energy and matter into being, it's possible for us to track how things went from there through things like cosmic red-shift that reveal galaxies are moving away from us in an ever-expanding universe from a single point of origin in the finite past. Science has revealed, too, what had to be the case within the universe and our own solar system for life to be sustained on our planet; what universal constants and "fine-tuning" was required for human life to be on earth (or anywhere in the universe). As this data is collected, we can form an ever-more detailed picture of God's creation of the universe (and of our own world).
So, I don't see that my viewpoint is unprovable; quite the opposite, actually.
Because they are people who study theology?
If they are truly studying the truth of God, as theologians do, how do they not understand the truth of God, as you say is the case? And if they don't understand what they are studying, if theologians don't understand divine truth, can they be properly called theologians? Would you call someone who has studied car repair but still has no idea how to repair cars a mechanic? I wouldn't. It'd be like calling a person who has fallen into deep water and immediately drowned a "swimmer who didn't understand how to swim." The very fact that he didn't know how to swim and therefore drowned immediately proves he was
not a swimmer. So, too, the "theologian" who does not understand theology (i.e. divine truth).
Yes, when it comes to God's testimony, if he says that He can be trusted in His word... I trust that to be true without any outside evidence of such.
This is extremely facile and dangerous thinking! I doubt very much you'd accept this sort of thinking from, say, a Muslim, or Hindu, or Buddhist, who was making truth-claims on the same circular basis. Would you, for instance, accept the claim of a Muslim that Allah has no son (i.e Jesus) because it says so in the Q'uran and the Muslim thinks the Q'uran is the word of Allah? Would you say that his thinking is reasonable though it is entirely circular? It seems you must since his thinking is just like yours in regards to your belief in God's testimony about Himself in the Bible.
The Muslim thinks:
The Q'uran says it is the true word of Allah.
Therefore, everything the Q'uran says is true.
The Q'uran says Allah has no son.
Therefore, it is true Allah has no son.
This conclusion is certain to be correct because the Q'uran says it is the true word of Allah.
miamited thinks:
The Bible is the true word of God. This is what it says about itself.
Therefore, everything the Bible says is true.
The Bible says God can be trusted.
Therefore, it is true God can be trusted.
This conclusion is certain to be correct because the Bible says it is the word of God.
I would deny the argument (i.e syllogism) of the Muslim above because of its irrational circularity. But if this is a proper response to the Muslim's circular thinking (which it definitely is), why isn't it also the proper response to your circular argument, too,
miamited?
