Why the earth is the center of the universe

[Data Cable]

Once the concept of an omnipotent, omniscient God is accepted, everything which occurs becomes His will.

[Al Johnston]

As Epicurus asked:

"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he not benificent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?"

[Jason]

The answer to which is that God is willing to tolerate suffering and evil in order to preserve mankind's free will - which necessarily includes the ability to inflict suffering and evil on others.

[Data Cable]

In which case, anarchy is the will of God. By discouraging the exercise of one's free will, laws defy God's will that mankind's free will be preserved.

[Jason]

No, the possibility of anarchy is God's will.
Human beings must have the ability to establish laws and governments as well, or they would not have free will.

God wants us to chose to follow His commandments, and may support those who do so, but He will not force us to do so.

[Data Cable]

But our free will is already restricted by Him, in the form of natural law. He does not give us the choice of whether or not to follow the laws of gravity, or thermodynamics, or mathematics, we simply do. There is no "Thou shalt not levitate" commandment, because He already prevents me from levitating.

[Jason]

Well, it depends on how one views physical laws and God's relationship to them.
If they are viewed as something God created out of scratch that could have been different in any number of ways, then you might have a point.
If instead you view them as they way they are because they had to be that way then God has only restricted human free will in this regard out of necessity.

Physical laws, in cany case, aren't laws the same way as moral commandments are. Physical laws describe what is, whereas human laws describe how we would like things to be.

[Data Cable]

jason said:

If instead you view them as they way they are because they had to be that way then God has only restricted human free will in this regard out of necessity.

If God answers to an even Higher Power, then He is only middle management. How do I contact the Man upstairs of Him?

human laws describe how we would like things to be.

As do God's commandments. For exactly this reason, they are indistinguishable from human laws put into the mouth of a deity.

[Jason]

datacable said:

jason said:

If instead you view them as they way they are because they had to be that way then God has only restricted human free will in this regard out of necessity.

If God answers to an even Higher Power, then He is only middle management. How do I contact the Man upstairs of Him?

If physical laws are the way they are simply because they have to be that way then there is no "even Higher Power" enforcing them.

Now, you may argue that if God can't violate some physical laws then he is not truly omnipotent. To which I reply that omnipotence in its strictest definition as "the ability to accomplish anything" is self-contradictory. The old question of whether an omnipotent God could create a rock that He would be unable to lift illustrates the paradox.
Since that definition is paradoxical, I prefer to define omnipotence when applied to God as "the ability to accomplish anything that can be accomplished," with the limits of what can be accomplish being only imperfectly understood by mankind but fully understood by God.

human laws describe how we would like things to be.

As do God's commandments. For exactly this reason, they are indistinguishable from human laws put into the mouth of a deity.

We could easily get into a "chicken or egg" argument here, so I'll just say that my opinion is that God's commandments came first, and human laws are essentially attempts to emulate and enforce imperfect understandings of them.

[Data Cable]

jason said:

If physical laws are the way they are simply because they have to be that way then there is no "even Higher Power" enforcing them.

On the contrary, that is exactly what it means. If they must be a certain way, whom or what decided that they must be this way?

"the ability to accomplish anything that can be accomplished,"

Under that definition, I'd argue that mankind is omnipotent.

We could easily get into a "chicken or egg" argument here

Oh, there's no argument there... the egg predated the chicken by millions of years. ;D

[Jason]

datacable said:

jason said:

If physical laws are the way they are simply because they have to be that way then there is no "even Higher Power" enforcing them.

On the contrary, that is exactly what it means. If they must be a certain way, whom or what decided that they must be this way?

No one and nothing. They just are.

"the ability to accomplish anything that can be accomplished."

Under that definition, I'd argue that mankind is omnipotent.

Given an eternity to develop I believe mankind could eventually become omnipotent, yes.
At the present however there are certainly things that God can accomplish that we cannot.

[Bill Thompson]

phantomwolf said:

Actually just as a point of interest, you don't have to stop the Earth moving to have the sun become stationary in the sky, you just have to change a few angles to make the Earth's rotation and orbit about the sun approximately equal periods for a short time. As for complaining that such an act would break the laws of nature, well by definition anything supernatural breaks the laws of physics. To say that God can exist, but he has to obey the laws of physics and if he doesn't, that's unfair, seems just a little silly to me.

My brother who has a strong faith was overjoyed at a Christian radio program where he heard that an impact crator was discovered at about the time that this battle was raged. He had me for a few minutes. Then I realised that it would have had to be a heck of an impact. And there would also have to be two impacts. One to stop the earth from spinning and another to get it going again. Plus, have you ever slammed on the breaks in a fast moving car? The people on the ground were not wearing seat belts. Humanity would have been set flinging through the air at both impacts. There are other problems as well. Like, this still does not explain why the moon stopped moving across the sky. And wouldn't the far side of the earth have frozen solid?

[reynoldbot]

Wow you guys sure are confident about God's will. Here I always thought God was unknowable. I think you're talking about somebody else's will.

[Jason]

What use is worshiping something that is fundamentally unknowable?

[PhantomWolf]

One to stop the earth from spinning and another to get it going again. Plus, have you ever slammed on the breaks in a fast moving car? The people on the ground were not wearing seat belts. Humanity would have been set flinging through the air at both impacts.

You are still assuming that the Earth was stopped. I'd propose a different mechanism, and that is an orbit/axis change. As an interesting aside, most ancient calendars had only 360 days (we still have 360 degrees in a circle because of this.) I guess perhaps we'll gave have to accept that they were too dumb to count back then....

There are other problems as well. Like, this still does not explain why the moon stopped moving across the sky.

Yes this is a problem is you assume that the action was stopping the Earth's rotation, which is not what I'm suggesting.

And wouldn't the far side of the earth have frozen solid?

In 48 hours? Not likely. What is interesting though is that many ancient cultures have tales about the sun doing something strange. The Aztecs had tales about the sun not coming up and a sacrific being required to raise it. The pacific islanders have stories about the sun being captured in a cave and not let out. The Mexicans still have tales of the long night when the sun didn't rise. The Greeks had tales about the sun being out of control and staying in the sky longer than it should. But hey, that's right, they were stupid, couldn't count and just made thing up.