Pericles, logic is a very good tool but, it nor science can not create a great many diverse things from with in a vacuum of no thing. That was Gods work. The expectation of no thing from no thing is logical (or reasonable). The factual evidents of diverse things beginning from no thing stands in the face of logic (or reason). The concept of God then becomes reasonable (or logical). Therefore there is a logical premise to believe there is a God. Understanding that there is a logical premise to believe that God exist it does not follow that it is reasonable that every one understand such a premise or to believe there is a God.
Therefore it is quite logical for some not to believe. What is not logical is that you would spend such an inordinate amount of energy to seize and hold a thread on "Islam's coming renaissance will rise in the West" to pontificate on your logic (or unreasonableness).

George, once again we are bogged down in wordplay, which doesn't help us move forward at all.

>>“Or are you suggesting that those who believe in God see the universe in the same way as those who don't?” Of course I do. Here “seeing” must imply also knowing enough of mathematics needed to understand contemporary cosmological theories<<

What I had in mind had nothing to do with mathematics, and everything to do with a theist's universe containing a god, while an empiricist's does not. You surely cannot be suggesting that the difference in one's conceptualization of the universe boils down to an equation?

From my observation, those who believe in that a god somehow invented the universe and everything in it "see" things very differently.

No mathematics involved.

Sorry to be obtuse, but this part needs some clarification:

>>One side (the theist) claims the (material) world is contingent, hence there most be a higher Something (only Abrahamic religions model it as a “personal God”) that is not contingent, where you cannot ask the question WHY does it exist, who or what created it. The other side (the empiricist) argues it is already the universe “seen” by science, where it does not make sense to ask WHY it exists, or who or what created it.<<

aqvarivs, you surely jest.

>>What is not logical is that you would spend such an inordinate amount of energy to seize and hold a thread on "Islam's coming renaissance will rise in the West" to pontificate on your logic (or unreasonableness).<<

If you care to check, you will find that my involvement on this thread was the direct result of my challenging some of the utter rubbish that was being put forward.

First by MaNiK_JoSiAh, who claimed that to

>>...insist that nothing can exist except for the things which can be observed and understood reeks of humanistic arrogance<<

... which no-one had actually insisted, then Boaz, who said

>>There are only 2 possible approaches to interpreting holy texts.
a) The 'wrong' one.
b) The 'right' one.<<.

... which is just typical Boaz arrogance.

And so on.

Bushbred,

Thank you for the feedback. Happy birthday for Sunday.

Pericles,

The relationship between mathematics and the cosmos has long been in play. The Pythagorian's initial felt that all the cosmos could be reduce to integers, until they discovered irrational numbers. To their credit, being good scientists, they recognized the anomolies in their ealier posits.

Christian fundamentalist quantitative science and Medieval quantification was leagues behind Islamic and Hindu science, prior to the Enlightenment. In the Reniassance dome and arch builders had to study Roman and Greek ruins to rediscover solutions to architectural problems.

While the Greeks knew of zero-like notation, they did to appreciate its significance. It took the Arabs and the Indians to understand zero and positional notation [which can incoporate zero: e.g, 10,203,040].

One can envisage a form of pantheism advocating mathematics as the basis for first cause and [non-conscious]intelligent design. There are some truly incredible relationships in nature

Acqvarius, looks like we should be all girding our loins, waiting for that fateful day. Surely it does not mean that fundmental arch-right wing "END DAY"?

Ecumenical Christians seem to believe more on the Sermon on the Mount which pretty well tells us to forgive our so-called enemies.

We also wonder why the Nazarene Christians can get on with the Muslims and we cannot. Further, how disgraceful it is that the Americans who have similar believers in their midst should have treated the Iraqi Christians so.

Give us our ecumenical beliefs anytime, Acqvarius, at least they have a chance of peace between Christians and Muslims.

Surely you are not one of those waiting for that fundamental arch-right wing - END DAY?

As the Roman writer Tacitus said, my Romans, peace to them is after a victorious battle, when what's left of the enemy are all methodically put to the sword.

But what matter with us when we have the - END TIMES - .

bushbred, I don't know anything about the end of days. I may have to face mine own before you do. God only promises that on our earthly death that if we hold faith with him we will be united with him. From the source returned to the source.
I do not owe the Muslim nor Islam any apology. They are not my enemy. I have no intention of becoming their enemy. If I am attacked by a Muslim I shant blame Islam nor all Muslims. I shall hold the individual responsible. However I have long sworn to defend democracy and all her principles. I have been a professional soldier since the age of 17. If Muslim Islamists make a coordinated attack on democracy and my nations institutions they will have made an enemy of me and must take responsibility for that. I am not in the habit of perpetuating the victim status of any group of people religious or political. And as far as a righteous fight goes, I don't care if it's the streets of Baghdad or the Streets of Sydney town.

You may have your Tacitus. I have no quarrel with him. Marcus Aurelius is more to my thinking. 'Let this be thy only joy, and thy only comfort, from one sociable kind action without intermission to pass unto another, God being ever in thy mind.'

'study to withdraw thine
heart from the love of things visible' (Also from the Romans pre-Christian).

Aqvar.. the enemy we need to watch most is the one in our midst.
Remember the story of the '5th column'..

No enemy EVER attacks without wide networks of intelligence gathering and people 'on the ground' in the place being invaded. You know this more than I.

Today, I can joyfully report that Jew, Atheist and Evangelical Christian stood firm together of one mind and heart, at the VACT court house on the issue of freedom of speech.
Large signs were present, and this is just the beginnings.

You have a duty to fight those who attack us, as the government directs, we have a duty to expose the enemies underhanded, slight of hand, pernicous and evil but well disguised attempts to stop us exposing the true nature of why they would even attack us.

The true 5th column is not insignificant, and we have 13 alledged members of it in Jail right now awaiting trial, 11 more in Sydney.
We must all work together in keeping Australia free of those who would stifle free and open debate about all faiths.
As I said at VCAT today, in a discussion with others.. "I don't want even 'us' (Christians) to have too much power" at which the receptionist, from a distance, noticably lifted her head in interest.

Danny Naliah was there, and it was nice to be able to offer a little encouragement and solidarity and meet him personally for the first time.
No one tried to have a 'piece' of me either :)