On Apr 16, 4:57 pm, SM <[email protected]> wrote: > > And, lest we confuse terms, there is a difference between "nature" as > > in brooks and rocks and trees, and nature as in our Universe and all > > that exists within it.... > > I didn't intend to obfuscate my meaning by switching terms from 'universe' > to 'nature'...I was using them synonymously, but I can stick with 'universe' > if you find it preferrable. > Just so long as we're clear in defining what we mean by what we say.... I had a similar conversation once with someone who insisted (after some misunderstanding) that "Universe" meant all that was, including "God," and so there could not have been a Universe-creating God, because such a thing was always part of the Universe, and the collection of physically existing things such as galaxies stars and planets, and the laws of physics governing them, was merely our Cosmos....
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "A Civil Religious Debate" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/a-civil-religious-debate?hl=en.
