|
Post by DaveC on May 12, 2006 15:33:20 GMT -4
I guess I subscribe to the Albert Einstein view "God does not play dice with the universe". If there is a God, there is no basis to conclude He has interfered, or ever would interfere in the operation of the universe. The story of Christ is one that may be based on God's interference, or may just be a human interpretation of events. We have no way of knowing. One either believes or doesn't.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on May 12, 2006 18:00:52 GMT -4
Not sure what you mean by "manipulation of natural laws". My take is that the laws of nature can't be manipulated - they are what they are. If you mean that God is able to make use of the natural laws (the way we use them to manufacture chemicals, build heavier than air flying machines or send men to the moon) but in ways that are beyond our current ability, I'm OK with that concept. Yeah, that's basically what I mean. Yes, that is the implication. My own faith has the idea that man can become like God as one of its fundamental doctrines (if you want a hint at which faith that is take a look at my location). I am unsure about the exact source of the natural laws of the universe. Did God design them in the sense of deciding what they would be? ("hmmm, I think I'll make pi equal to 3.14159..."), or are they simply the only way things like matter, gravity, and energy can work, and so they had to be this way? Instead of thinking of them as a restriction on how God can act, it may be more accurate to think of them as descriptions of how God does act.
|
|
|
Post by DaveC on May 23, 2006 17:05:48 GMT -4
Yeh, I did qualify my comments by saying "if one believes that God created the laws .... etc". If one believes that God is omnipotent, He could make pi equal to anything he wants. A circle that had a different relationship between circumference and radius obviously couldn't exist in the universe as we know it, but presumably an all powerful creator (unconstrained by "natural law") could have made a much different universe. I personally don't believe in that version of God the creator. I'm more inclined to accept your suggestion that the natural laws are the only way they could be, and that if God exists outside our minds, He is as constrained by those laws as we are.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on May 23, 2006 19:52:50 GMT -4
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on May 24, 2006 5:46:28 GMT -4
Interesting ;D
One direct hit, one bitten bullet
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on May 24, 2006 7:23:58 GMT -4
Two bitten bullets, or looking at it in another way, it took me three goes to get through unscathed.
|
|
|
Post by 3onthetree on May 24, 2006 8:13:36 GMT -4
One direct hit, But I got a medal. ;D I contradicted myself , It was gods will I think.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on May 24, 2006 12:29:51 GMT -4
Interesting indeed. I took two direct hits. Allow me to quibble a bit (and be warned that this is a potential spoiler if you haven't taken the quiz):
The test gave me a hit when I said it was reasonable to not believe in the Loch Ness Monster but still maintained that an inner conviction is enough to believe in God, regardless of external evidence. My difference in opinion on the two issues is based on what they are testing. From what I understand of the Loch Ness Monster it is claimed that it is a prehistoric natural animal. It is not claimed to be sentient, or invisible, or otherwise unnaturally masked from modern detection capabilities. It therefore seems reasonable to me that if we've been unable to find any solid evidence of its existence by now that it probably doesn't exist. God is a different matter. It is claimed that He is not physically present on Earth, He is vastly more intelligent then we are, and He has a far greater ability to manipulate the physical laws of the universe than we do. It therefore seems reasonable to me that our current science is simply not up to the task of providing positive evidence for or against His existence if He doesn't wish to reveal Himself to it. Rationalization? Perhaps, but one that works for me. Something akin to this argument appears in the FAQ for the test, to which I say they are technically correct - the way they phrased the questions may make it logically impossible to answer the way I did without a contradiction, but its an issue of semantics, not whether my view is logically consistant or not.
The second direct hit came because I said it was valid to base your beliefs in God's existence on an inner conviction but that rapist Peter Sutcliffe was not justified to believe that God had commanded him to rape women. On review, the way the question is worded does mean that to be entirely consistent I should have answered yes rather than no. I believe it's wrong for society to punish someone for their beliefs but perfectly valid for society to punish that person for their actions, if those actions are illegal or immoral and especially if they bring harm others (which obviously a rape does). The sticking point for me, and what tripped me up on this question comes with the term "justified". While I don't have a right to determine what Peter Sutcliffe believes, saying "he is correct in his belief" is a different matter, which the use of the term "justified" seems to imply. I don't believe he was correct in his belief because I don't believe God would command someone to rape women, although I can conceive of there being (very unlikely) circumstances I am unaware of which may have made such a commandment possible. There are, after all, several places in the Old Tesament where God commands the Israelites to completely wipe out entire cities, killing men, women, children, and even livestock.
|
|
|
Post by Dead Hoosiers on Jun 18, 2006 23:22:53 GMT -4
|
|
|
Post by Halcyon Dayz, FCD on Jun 19, 2006 2:41:21 GMT -4
You don't really expect us to watch 90 minutes of that, do you? This guy was personally responsible for a major split in the Creationist movement. That's how nutty he is. And I doubt he actually has a million dollars. Wiki on Hovind.
|
|
|
Post by gwiz on Jun 19, 2006 3:29:44 GMT -4
And as it is in the nature of science that you can never prove a theory, his money is safe.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jun 19, 2006 10:59:30 GMT -4
That wikipedia entry isn't very complimentary of the guy, is it? And no I'm not going to watch 90 minutes of video either.
|
|
|
Post by freon on Sept 26, 2006 22:15:21 GMT -4
In the evolution of life, where or how do they explain the divergence of animal life from plant life. In theory, if all life is descendant from an original pool of primordial soup, how could their be such a divergence in plant life and animal life and no theories on it. Why aren't we more plant like than animal like? Which came first? The plant life or the animal life? Or did they appear at the same time?
|
|
|
Post by Data Cable on Sept 27, 2006 0:39:14 GMT -4
how could their be such a divergence in plant life and animal life and no theories on it. How do you know there are no theories on it. Where have you looked? Anyhow, as to the divergence, it's no different than the divergence between more similar organisms. Two (or more) groups with a common ancestor become reproductively isolated from each other, and over millions of years of independent descent with modification, the groups are no longer similar to each other. Because we're animals, not plants.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Sept 27, 2006 1:04:28 GMT -4
I have a few qualms with some of their responses. I believe it must be possible for the Goddess to do things, but I believe that She must choose not to. I also don't think all of those answers have true-or-false answers.
|
|