That is both concise and correct. The other "you have, which speaks about a so-called more modern view, seemed a bit unnecessarily bloated. I also do not agree that it is somehow a modern vs no longer modern definition of natural theology, just because that blogger said so.

The advantage to arguing from natural theology with an atheist is that you avoid saying because the Bible says so.

Natural theology shows that there are good reasons to think that God exists based on the evidence we find in science, reason and logic.

You're seeking to discuss the concept of God with the atheist in terms to which he is amenable.

<Natural theology shows that there are good reasons to think that God exists based on the evidence we find in science, reason and logic.> Correct.

Science, reason and logic point towards the existence and nature of God, however this is distinct from attempting to "prove" the existence of God.

<This is especially effective these days when the most common framework for such discussions is the false dichotomy of science versus religion.> Correct.

Religion is not dependent upon scientific discoveries nor is science dependent upon religious doctrine.

<Many atheists, who haven't really thought about these issues and perhaps obtain all of their knowledge from a few infidel websites, find themselves fleeing from modern science in order to maintain their worldview.> If by "fleeing from modern science" you mean investigating ideas such as string theory or quantum mechanics, then I doubt they explore these concepts with the intention of defending atheism.

No, I don't claim that characterization, or even necessarily agree with it.

I have no idea if God even has emotions - can God be pleased?

I think you are trying to make sense out of what God may have done by thinking about it in a human way.

But of course the only way we can think about stuff is in a human way.

In the end we are like dogs staring quizzically at a supercomputer or a space shuttle.

Do atheist pikeys celebrates Xmas? Do they serve special soup in jail at Xmas? What didi you got? Cockmeat sandwich??

Sounds like <nisj> ... he seem's so, but i don't think so, he is a newer guy, althou <fun> is also a possibility, but this guy play it safe thou ..... ths G>

<I do think that when we see an example of someone refusing to believe the obvious, what we actually see is them believing the obvious (how can't you?) but refusing to *submit* to it. >

I agree that is indeed a thought-provoking comment with a strong element of truth to it.

A typical example are the Muslim apologists who outwardly refuse to believe the obvious truth that Islam is a political ideology hell-bent on destroying Western Christian Civilisation, yet inwardly do believe the obvious truth of this fact, but refuse to *submit* to it for various reasons, i.e. it suits their own left-wing agenda, they have too much pride to admit they were wrong, they are afraid of retaliation from their peer group, etc

Another example are the YEC's who outwardly refuse to believe the obvious truth that evolution is a scientific fact and the universe is billions of years old, yet inwardly do believe the obvious truth of this fact, but refuse to *submit* to it for various reasons, i.e. it suits their own right-wing agenda, they have too much pride to admit they were wrong, they are afraid of retaliation from their peer group, etc

Still another example are the armchair sports critics who outwardly refuse to believe the obvious truth that Margaret Court is the greatest womens tennis player of all time, yet inwardly do believe the obvious truth of this fact, but refuse to *submit* to it for various reasons, i.e. it suits their own armchair agenda, they have too much pride to admit they were wrong, they are afraid of retaliation from their peer group, etc

You know what?

I'm so impressed by this comment that I'm going to post it on the <Memorable Quotes> forum!

<Big Pawn>'s wisdom should be shared with as many people as possible!

It can't be observed or tested, so it's not scientific.

I know I have been a joker on this site for almost 14 years so things that I say may not carry the weight it merits because of my past clowning.

But be advised that I have heavy artillery.

<I must admit without airs that I am a Torah scholar and a new testament ministry of teacher. I have stacks of diplomas to justify my words.

I know I have been a joker on this site for almost 14 years so things that I say may not carry the weight it merits because of my past clowning.

But be advised that I have heavy artillery. >

Looking forward to your input.

<Looking things over on this page I can say that I am in agreement with <Big Pawn>.>

I have been in a very contemplative mood this week. I can't even get interested in the food fight in Rogoff.>

When I see that, it sounds exactly like the Rogoff page.

Looks like <CHEESEBURGER> and <CREEPY TOAD> have a thing goin ere ! lol lol

Good luck with that <CHEESEBURGER> !

xx

" Now an angel of the Lord said to Philip, “Rise and go toward the south[a] to the road that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza.” This is a desert place. 27 And he rose and went. And there was an Ethiopian, a eunuch, a court official of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians, who was in charge of all her treasure. He had come to Jerusalem to worship." (Acts 8 26-27)