| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"~Glorious Appearing~" |
| Date: |
17 Aug 2005 03:08:11 AM |
| Object: |
Is creation by God rational? |
Is creation by God rational?
A last desperate tactic by sceptics to avoid a theistic conclusion is to
assert that creation in time is incoherent. Davies correctly points out that
since time itself began with the beginning of the universe, it is
meaningless to talk about what happened 'before' the universe began. But he
claims that causes must precede their effects. So if nothing happened
'before' the universe began, then (according to Davies) it is meaningless to
discuss the cause of the universe's beginning.
But the philosopher (and New Testament scholar) William Lane Craig, in a
useful critique of Davies,10 pointed out that Davies is deficient in
philosophical knowledge. Philosophers have long discussed the notion of
simultaneous causation. Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) gave the example of a
weight resting on a cushion simultaneously causing a depression in it. Craig
says:
The first moment of time is the moment of God's creative act and of
creation's simultaneous coming to be.
Some skeptics claim that all this analysis is tentative, because that is the
nature of science. So this can't be used to prove creation by God. Of
course, sceptics can't have it both ways: saying that the Bible is wrong
because science has proved it so, but if science appears consistent with the
Bible, then well, science is tentative anyway.
A final thought
The Bible informs us that time is a dimension that God created, into which
man was subjected. It even tells us that one day time will no longer exist.
That will be called "eternity." God Himself dwells outside of the dimension
He created (2 Timothy 1:9, Titus 1:2). He dwells in eternity and is not
subject to time. God spoke history before it came into being. He can move
through time as a man flips through a history book.
Because we live in the dimension of time, it is impossible for us to fully
understand anything that does not have a beginning and an end. Simply accept
that fact, and believe the concept of God's eternal nature the same way you
believe the concept of space having no beginning and end -- by faith -- even
though such thoughts put a strain on our distinctly insufficient cerebrum.
--
Most of my quotes are from:
http://www.carm.org/doctrine.htm http://www.carm.org/cults.htm
http://www.carm.org/apologetics.htm http://www.carm.org/seekers.htm
http://www.carm.org/atheism.htm http://www.carm.org/boards.htm
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/ http://www.christianquotes.org/
http://bible.gospelcom.net/ Let no one be found among you
who sacrifices his son or daughter in [a] the fire, who practices divination
or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, or casts spells, or who
is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. Deut 18:10
http://www.christiananswers.net/
.
|
|
| User: "655321" |
|
| Title: Re: Is creation by God rational? |
17 Aug 2005 11:43:55 PM |
|
|
On 2005-08-17 01:08:11 -0700, "~Glorious Appearing~"
<inverclyde_uk@hotmail.com> said:
The Bible informs us
There's your problem, right there.
--
GlennGlenn (655321) -- aa#825 --
"Genocide is used sparingly by God in only extreme circumstances." -Jim Spaza
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Vic" |
|
| Title: Re: Is creation by God rational? |
17 Aug 2005 12:24:14 PM |
|
|
on 17 Aug 2005 in alt.atheism, dear sweet ~Glorious Appearing~
(inverclyde_uk@hotmail.com) made the light shine upon us with this:
Is creation by God rational?
No.
--
Uncle Vic
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
http://home.comcast.net/~vickman/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Godoit" |
|
| Title: Re: Is creation by God rational? |
17 Aug 2005 12:35:33 PM |
|
|
Alright I'm coming out of the closet. I'm God. You shits should all
bow down and kiss my feet. Kiss as I walk. Kiss as I walk. Bunch of
know it all faggots. I hate you. You killed my Son, Damn all of you!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Apostate" |
|
| Title: Re: Is creation by God rational? |
17 Aug 2005 02:35:03 PM |
|
|
On 17 Aug 2005 10:35:33 -0700, "Godoit" <Joelpanther@cox.net> wrote:
Alright I'm coming out of the closet. I'm God. You shits should all
bow down and kiss my feet. Kiss as I walk. Kiss as I walk. Bunch of
know it all faggots. I hate you. You killed my Son, Damn all of you!
Sorry, God.
By the reciprocity principle, if you want to talk to your subjects, you
should stay in the closet to do it. And you thought xianity was a
catch 22.
--
/Apostate
alt.atheist #1931 I've found it!
BAAWA Knife AND SMASHer
EAC Supernumerary Deputy Director, Department of Redundancy Department
plonked by Lani_girl, first post; Billions Served!
I doubt, therefore I might be.
e-mail to lower-case only
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Vic" |
|
| Title: Re: Is creation by God rational? |
17 Aug 2005 12:41:07 PM |
|
|
on 17 Aug 2005 in alt.atheism, dear sweet Godoit (Joelpanther@cox.net)
made the light shine upon us with this:
Alright I'm coming out of the closet. I'm God. You shits should all
bow down and kiss my feet. Kiss as I walk. Kiss as I walk. Bunch of
know it all faggots. I hate you. You killed my Son, Damn all of you!
When you come out of the closet, please remember to open the door first.
--
Uncle Vic
aa#2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department
http://home.comcast.net/~vickman/
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ordog" |
|
| Title: Re: Is creation by Bible rational? Nooooooooooo! |
17 Aug 2005 06:40:57 AM |
|
|
~Glorious Appearing~ wrote:
Is creation by God rational?
<You gave me no choice, I had to snip moronic Bible worship)
Look, there may or may not be a God for all I care, but you should give
up that completely idiotic fixation on the Bible. It is a story book
and nothing more. It is not accurate, it is not written for a
twentyfirst century human, it has nothing scientific about it, and it
is not even funny.
If you can not envisage God without an archaic collection of hearsay
written by the occasionally quite corrupt Hebrew clergy under
instruction from their kings and reedited by countless interest groups
up to the present day, than you are better off worshipping garden
fairies instead. They are as real as your Bible is.
Ordog
"Beware of the man whose God is in the skies." Bernard Shaw
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: Is creation by Bible rational? Nooooooooooo! |
17 Aug 2005 07:52:39 PM |
|
|
On 17 Aug 2005 04:40:57 -0700, "Ordog" <odbok001@sneakemail.com> wrote:
~Glorious Appearing~ wrote:
Is creation by God rational?
<You gave me no choice, I had to snip moronic Bible worship)
Look, there may or may not be a God for all I care, but you should give
up that completely idiotic fixation on the Bible. It is a story book
and nothing more.
But who would believe you, and why?
It is not accurate,
The inspired parts are without error.
it is not written for a
twentyfirst century human, it has nothing scientific about it, and it
is not even funny.
It is written for all mankind.
If you can not envisage God without an archaic collection of hearsay
written by the occasionally quite corrupt Hebrew clergy under
instruction from their kings and reedited by countless interest groups
up to the present day, than you are better off worshipping garden
fairies instead. They are as real as your Bible is.
Sorry to disagree, but there is no reason to believe your falsehood, which is
totally unsubstantiated and willful dreaming by a guy scared to death that it
might be true.
duke
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew W" |
|
| Title: Re: Is creation by Bible rational? Nooooooooooo! |
18 Aug 2005 05:31:30 AM |
|
|
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:tnm7g1hj8q9hstr27i4scku0vpq657f5e3@4ax.com...
On 17 Aug 2005 04:40:57 -0700, "Ordog" <odbok001@sneakemail.com> wrote:
~Glorious Appearing~ wrote:
Is creation by God rational?
<You gave me no choice, I had to snip moronic Bible worship)
Look, there may or may not be a God for all I care, but you should give
up that completely idiotic fixation on the Bible. It is a story book
and nothing more.
But who would believe you, and why?
It is not accurate,
The inspired parts are without error.
Would you know an error if you saw one?
it is not written for a
twentyfirst century human, it has nothing scientific about it, and it
is not even funny.
It is written for all mankind.
Then why was it given to only a few and in only one part of the world?
If you can not envisage God without an archaic collection of hearsay
written by the occasionally quite corrupt Hebrew clergy under
instruction from their kings and reedited by countless interest groups
up to the present day, than you are better off worshipping garden
fairies instead. They are as real as your Bible is.
Sorry to disagree, but there is no reason to believe your falsehood, which
is
totally unsubstantiated and willful dreaming by a guy scared to death that
it
might be true.
And your falsehoods are better?
--
Andrew W.
Free-mindedness is foolishness to those whose brains are perishing.
Religion Exposed!
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~ajwerner
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "655321" |
|
| Title: Re: Is creation by Bible rational? Nooooooooooo! |
17 Aug 2005 11:45:02 PM |
|
|
On 2005-08-17 17:52:39 -0700, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> said:
there is no reason to believe my falsehood, which is totally
unsubstantiated and willful dreaming by a guy scared to death that it
might be false.
Fixed it for you. You're welcome.
--
GlennGlenn (655321) -- aa#825 --
"Genocide is used sparingly by God in only extreme circumstances." -Jim Spaza
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Painter" |
|
| Title: Re: Is creation by Bible rational? Nooooooooooo! |
17 Aug 2005 08:42:13 PM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On 17 Aug 2005 04:40:57 -0700, "Ordog" <odbok001@sneakemail.com>
wrote:
~Glorious Appearing~ wrote:
Is creation by God rational?
<You gave me no choice, I had to snip moronic Bible worship)
Look, there may or may not be a God for all I care, but you should
give up that completely idiotic fixation on the Bible. It is a story
book and nothing more.
But who would believe you, and why?
Most of the worl, including most of the christians in the world and that
includes most of the catholics.
It is not accurate,
The inspired parts are without error.
But you can't show which parts are inspired.
it is not written for a
twentyfirst century human, it has nothing scientific about it, and it
is not even funny.
When are you going to do your christian duty and report us Earl?
You can never catch up to Slyvia, why try?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Is creation by Bible rational? Nooooooooooo! |
17 Aug 2005 08:40:15 PM |
|
|
Ordog wrote:
~Glorious Appearing~ wrote:
Is creation by God rational?
<You gave me no choice, I had to snip moronic Bible worship)
Look, there may or may not be a God for all I care, but you should give
up that completely idiotic fixation on the Bible. It is a story book
and nothing more. It is not accurate, it is not written for a
twentyfirst century human, it has nothing scientific about it, and it
is not even funny.
Oh, but it CAN be funny:
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/index.html#beastiality
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "WCB" |
|
| Title: Re: Is creation by God rational? |
17 Aug 2005 01:20:01 PM |
|
|
~Glorious Appearing~ wrote:
Is creation by God rational?
No, and its disprovable also.
ATTRIBUTES OF GOD PART THREE
Does god create the rules, the laws, the logic of the Universe
or not? Is 2 + 2 = 4 something god set as part of the nature of
the Universe or is that outside and beyond god? Can god change 2 + 2 to 5?
A. If god did in fact make the rules and laws and logic of the Universe,
he could also change them as needed. God is claimed to be omnipotent
as one of his attributes.
B. For example, many claim that man's free will is necessary. That
is why evil exists. But a god that is omnipotent and omnibenevolent
could simply make a world where man has free will yet freely choses
only to do moral good. Since god creates the rules of the Universe, he
could change them in name of omnibenevolence, free will is perserved
and evil is banished. Evil no longer needs to exist to allow for free
will.
C. If god could do this and fails to, evil exists solely and only because
of god's failure to use his omnipotence to change the rules and laws
and logic of the Universe to give man free will and a nature incapable
of doing evil.
D. If god can do this and fails to, god is not omnibenevolent as claimed,
a contradiction.
E. God in fact since he is essentially the creator and sustaining cause of
all
evil that was, is, and shall be is omni-malevolent.
F. If god does not make the rules, the laws, the very logic of the
Universe,
then we have the problem of what these things are and where they come
from.
G. If these laws and rules and logic limit god, then god is obviously not
omnipotent as claimed.
H. And thus god is not as claimed, the greatest thing that can be imagined.
Obviously laws and rules and logic that limit the most powerful being
in the Universe are greater still because they do in fact limit such a
being.
I. If such laws and rules and logic outside and beyond god do exist, and
are
thus greater than god, god is not the greatest thing imaginable and all
ontological 'proofs' that are based on that basic claim fail.
J. Such rules and laws and logic must exist outside of god's control and
must have always been outside his control. If there were ever in god's
control, god cannot have reduced his power to abandon omnipotence
voluntarily.
Omnipotence is an inherent ability. It would be like abandoning a sense
of
taste or touch.
K. If god could indeed abandon omnipotence, he must avoid that. After all,
he is also omnibenevolent. Omnibenevolence dictates he must at all
times do the good thing, never an evil thing. Abandoning omnipotence
such that he could no longer create a world where man has free will,
and a nature incapable of evil is to allow evil to exist. To abandon
omnipotence is to embrace the proposition evil is to be allowed to
flourish.
So any claims god might have for some greater good abandoned omnipotence
freely are not possible.
L. If god is said to be omnipotent, if he at anytime gave up any abilities
he can no longer said to be omnipotent, if he gave them up in actuality.
M. Since god must have had maximum power and abilities and cannot have at
any
time vountarily relinquished any powers or abilities, the fact that
there
are laws and rules and logic of a universe outside and beyond god, they
are truely beyond and outside god, and always were.
N. Since such laws and rules and laws are outside god, and always were so,
and are properties of the Universe, the Universe is likewise outside
and beyond god, with its collection of laws and rules and logic.
O. Since the Universe and its laws and rules and logic are outside
of god, god is not as claimed, creator of all.
P. Since the Universe no longer relies on god for its purported existance,
nor on god for the existance of its laws and rules and logic, god is no
longer
a necessary being. If there are things that have necessary existance, it
would
have to be the Universe as whole, or possibly its laws, its rules or its
logic,
or a subset of these rules or laws or the underlying causes of these
things,
if any. None were created by god or can be modified by god.
Q. If these laws and rules and logic could be modified by god, then the
rules
and laws and logic of the Universe would have been modified to end
existance of
evil, and must be modified this if god is actually omnipotent and
omnibenevolent.
R. God then is not omnipotent, or not omnibenevolent, or is neither, or
does not
exist.
THE ATTRIBUTES AND NATURE OF GOD IN LIGHT OF THE ABOVE EXAMINATION OF GOD
Thus the idea god is omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and creator of all, clash
again
and mutually self-destruct over the issue of evil's existance. This raises
serious questions on the nature of the Universe that cannot be as Grand
Theology
tells us it is.
A. We have shown god cannot have created the Universe.
B. We have shown god does not create the laws, rules and laws of that
Universe.
C. That god is thus not omnipotent as these laws limit him.
D. That god is not the greatest imaginable thing.
E. That ontological proofs of god's existance based on claims
god is the greatest thing imaginable are failed arguments.
F. That god cannot be a necessary being, as claimed.
G. That any possible claims god might for some reason abandon or limit
any abilities cannot be true in any attempt to avoid this line of
inquiry. Nor can that approach derail logical examination of
consequences
of Grand Theology's overarching claims to god's attributes or nature.
The fact that god is alledgedly omnibenevolent and evil exists, demonstrates
god cannot make the rules of the world. 2 + 2 = 4 because that is the
nature
of the Universe, not something god created. Because if god did create the
rules
and laws and logic of the Universe, and was omnibenevolent, we should have
no
signs of evil, especially moral evil of man, Satan, demons and devils.
But if one admits to that, Many other important claims collapse, many other
arguments
about god and his attributes and nature no longer are viable. Some of these
claims,
god's creation of the Universe are among the oldest and most basic of
theology.
Ontological proofs started with Anselm in the 11th century,
all of these now must be abandoned.
The necessary being argument, long a rhetorical argument is
now finally dead.
Free will defenses against the problem of evil opened up a line
of attack here that is powerful and pretty final.
--
Xenu is around and about,
mention Hubbard, Xenu pops out!
No way for the clams to stamp Xenu out,
Xenu is around and about!
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
