| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"WCB" |
| Date: |
19 Aug 2005 10:41:28 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Canons of the Council of Orange |
~Glorious Appearing~ wrote:
God does not exist. Take thisATTRIBUTES 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.
crap away.
Canons of the Council of Orange
(529 AD)
CANON 1. If anyone denies that it is the whole man, that is, both body and
soul, that was "changed for the worse" through the offense of Adam's sin,
but believes that the freedom of the soul remains unimpaired and that only
the body is subject to corruption, he is deceived by the error of Pelagius
and contradicts the scripture which says, "The soul that sins shall die"
(Ezek. 18:20); and, "Do you not know that if you yield yourselves to
anyone as obedient slaves, you are the slaves of the one whom you obey?"
(Rom. 6:126); and, "For whatever overcomes a man, to that he is enslaved"
(2 Pet. 2:19).
CANON 2. If anyone asserts that Adam's sin affected him alone and not his
descendants also, or at least if he declares that it is only the death of
the body which is the punishment for sin, and not also that sin, which is
the death of the soul, passed through one man to the whole human race, he
does injustice to God and contradicts the Apostle, who says, "Therefore as
sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so
death spread to all men because all men sinned" (Rom. 5:12).
CANON 3. If anyone says that the grace of God can be conferred as a result
of human prayer, but that it is not grace itself which makes us pray to
God, he contradicts the prophet Isaiah, or the Apostle who says the same
thing, "I have been found by those who did not seek me; I have shown
myself to those who did not ask for me" (Rom 10:20, quoting Isa. 65:1).
CANON 4. If anyone maintains that God awaits our will to be cleansed from
sin, but does not confess that even our will to be cleansed comes to us
through the infusion and working of the Holy Spirit, he resists the Holy
Spirit himself who says through Solomon, "The will is prepared by the
Lord" (Prov. 8:35, LXX), and the salutary word of the Apostle, "For God is
at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure" (Phil.
2:13).
CANON 5. If anyone says that not only the increase of faith but also its
beginning and the very desire for faith, by which we believe in Him who
justifies the ungodly and comes to the regeneration of holy baptism -- if
anyone says that this belongs to us by nature and not by a gift of grace,
that is, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit amending our will and
turning it from unbelief to faith and from godlessness to godliness, it is
proof that he is opposed to the teaching of the Apostles, for blessed Paul
says, "And I am sure that he who began a good work in you will bring it to
completion at the day of Jesus Christ" (Phil. 1:6). And again, "For by
grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing,
it is the gift of God" (Eph. 2:8). For those who state that the faith by
which we believe in God is natural make all who are separated from the
Church of Christ by definition in some measure believers.
CANON 6. If anyone says that God has mercy upon us when, apart from his
grace, we believe, will, desire, strive, labor, pray, watch, study, seek,
ask, or knock, but does not confess that it is by the infusion and
inspiration of the Holy Spirit within us that we have the faith, the will,
or the strength to do all these things as we ought; or if anyone makes the
assistance of grace depend on the humility or obedience of man and does
not agree that it is a gift of grace itself that we are obedient and
humble, he contradicts the Apostle who says, "What have you that you did
not receive?" (1 Cor. 4:7), and, "But by the grace of God I am what I am"
(1 Cor. 15:10).
CANON 7. If anyone affirms that we can form any right opinion or make any
right choice which relates to the salvation of eternal life, as is
expedient for us, or that we can be saved, that is, assent to the
preaching of the gospel through our natural powers without the
illumination and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who makes all men gladly
assent to and believe in the truth, he is led astray by a heretical
spirit, and does not understand the voice of God who says in the Gospel,
"For apart from me you can do nothing" (John 15:5), and the word of the
Apostle, "Not that we are competent of ourselves to claim anything as
coming from us; our competence is from God" (2 Cor. 3:5).
CANON 8. If anyone maintains that some are able to come to the grace of
baptism by mercy but others through free will, which has manifestly been
corrupted in all those who have been born after the transgression of the
first man, it is proof that he has no place in the true faith. For he
denies that the free will of all men has been weakened through the sin of
the first man, or at least holds that it has been affected in such a way
that they have still the ability to seek the mystery of eternal salvation
by themselves without the revelation of God. The Lord himself shows how
contradictory this is by declaring that no one is able to come to him
"unless the Father who sent me draws him" (John 6:44), as he also says to
Peter, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not
revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven" (Matt. 16:17), and
as the Apostle says, "No one can say 'Jesus is Lord' except by the Holy
Spirit" (1 Cor. 12:3).
CANON 9. Concerning the succor of God. It is a mark of divine favor when
we are of a right purpose and keep our feet from hypocrisy and
unrighteousness; for as often as we do good, God is at work in us and with
us, in order that we may do so.
CANON 10. Concerning the succor of God. The succor of God is to be ever
sought by the regenerate and converted also, so that they may be able to
come to a successful end or persevere in good works.
CANON 11. Concerning the duty to pray. None would make any true prayer to
the Lord had he not received from him the object of his prayer, as it is
written, "Of thy own have we given thee" (1 Chron. 29:14).
CANON 12. Of what sort we are whom God loves. God loves us for what we
shall be by his gift, and not by our own deserving.
CANON 13. Concerning the restoration of free will. The freedom of will
that was destroyed in the first man can be restored only by the grace of
baptism, for what is lost can be returned only by the one who was able to
give it. Hence the Truth itself declares: "So if the Son makes you free,
you will be free indeed" (John 8:36).
CANON 14. No mean wretch is freed from his sorrowful state, however great
it may be, save the one who is anticipated by the mercy of God, as the
Psalmist says, "Let thy compassion come speedily to meet us" (Ps. 79:8),
and again, "My God in his steadfast love will meet me" (Ps. 59:10).
CANON 15. Adam was changed, but for the worse, through his own iniquity
from what God made him. Through the grace of God the believer is changed,
but for the better, from what his iniquity has done for him. The one,
therefore, was the change brought about by the first sinner; the other,
according to the Psalmist, is the change of the right hand of the Most
High (Ps. 77:10).
CANON 16. No man shall be honored by his seeming attainment, as though it
were not a gift, or suppose that he has received it because a missive from
without stated it in writing or in speech. For the Apostle speaks thus,
"For if justification were through the law, then Christ died to no
purpose" (Gal. 2:21); and "When he ascended on high he led a host of
captives, and he gave gifts to men" (Eph. 4:8, quoting Ps. 68:18). It is
from this source that any man has what he does; but whoever denies that he
has it from this source either does not truly have it, or else "even what
he has will be taken away" (Matt. 25:29).
CANON 17. Concerning Christian courage. The courage of the Gentiles is
produced by simple greed, but the courage of Christians by the love of God
which "has been poured into our hearts" not by freedom of will from our
own side but "through the Holy Spirit which has been given to us" (Rom.
5:5).
CANON 18. That grace is not preceded by merit. Recompense is due to good
works if they are performed; but grace, to which we have no claim,
precedes them, to enable them to be done.
CANON 19. That a man can be saved only when God shows mercy. Human nature,
even though it remained in that sound state in which it was created, could
be no means save itself, without the assistance of the Creator; hence
since man cannot safe- guard his salvation without the grace of God, which
is a gift, how will he be able to restore what he has lost without the
grace of God?
CANON 20. That a man can do no good without God. God does much that is
good in a man that the man does not do; but a man does nothing good for
which God is not responsible, so as to let him do it.
CANON 21. Concerning nature and grace. As the Apostle most truly says to
those who would be justified by the law and have fallen from grace, "If
justification were through the law, then Christ died to no purpose" (Gal.
2:21), so it is most truly declared to those who imagine that grace, which
faith in Christ advocates and lays hold of, is nature: "If justification
were through nature, then Christ died to no purpose." Now there was indeed
the law, but it did not justify, and there was indeed nature, but it did
not justify. Not in vain did Christ therefore die, so that the law might
be fulfilled by him who said, "I have come not to abolish them <the law
and prophets> but to fulfil them" (Matt. 5:17), and that the nature which
had been destroyed by Adam might be restored by him who said that he had
come "to seek and to save the lost" (Luke 19:10).
CANON 22. Concerning those things that belong to man. No man has anything
of his own but untruth and sin. But if a man has any truth or
righteousness, it from that fountain for which we must thirst in this
desert, so that we may be refreshed from it as by drops of water and not
faint on the way.
CANON 23. Concerning the will of God and of man. Men do their own will and
not the will of God when they do what displeases him; but when they follow
their own will and comply with the will of God, however willingly they do
so, yet it is his will by which what they will is both prepared and
instructed.
CANON 24. Concerning the branches of the vine. The branches on the vine do
not give life to the vine, but receive life from it; thus the vine is
related to its branches in such a way that it supplies them with what they
need to live, and does not take this from them. Thus it is to the
advantage of the disciples, not Christ, both to have Christ abiding in
them and to abide in Christ. For if the vine is cut down another can shoot
up from the live root; but one who is cut off from the vine cannot live
without the root (John 15:5ff).
CANON 25. Concerning the love with which we love God. It is wholly a gift
of God to love God. He who loves, even though he is not loved, allowed
himself to be loved. We are loved, even when we displease him, so that we
might have means to please him. For the Spirit, whom we love with the
Father and the Son, has poured into our hearts the love of the Father and
the Son (Rom. 5:5).
CONCLUSION. And thus according to the passages of holy scripture quoted
above or the interpretations of the ancient Fathers we must, under the
blessing of God, preach and believe as follows. The sin of the first man
has so impaired and weakened free will that no one thereafter can either
love God as he ought or believe in God or do good for God's sake, unless
the grace of divine mercy has preceded him. We therefore believe that the
glorious faith which was given to Abel the righteous, and Noah, and
Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and to all the saints of old, and which the
Apostle Paul <sic> commends in extolling them (Heb. 11), was not given
through natural goodness as it was before to Adam, but was bestowed by the
grace of God. And we know and also believe that even after the coming of
our Lord this grace is not to be found in the free will of all who desire
to be baptized, but is bestowed by the kindness of Christ, as has already
been frequently stated and as the Apostle Paul declares, "For it has been
granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in
him but also suffer for his sake" (Phil. 1:29). And again, "He who began a
good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ"
(Phil. 1:6). And again, "For by grace you have been saved through faith;
and it is not your own doing, it is the gift of God" (Eph. 2:8). And as
the Apostle says of himself, "I have obtained mercy to be faithful" (1
Cor. 7:25, cf. 1 Tim. 1:13). He did not say, "because I was faithful," but
"to be faithful." And again, "What have you that you did not receive?" (1
Cor. 4:7). And again, "Every good endowment and every perfect gift is from
above, coming down from the Father of lights" (Jas. 1:17). And again, "No
one can receive anything except what is given him from heaven" (John
3:27). There are innumerable passages of holy scripture which can be
quoted to prove the case for grace, but they have been omitted for the
sake of brevity, because further examples will not really be of use where
few are deemed sufficient.
According to the catholic faith we also believe that after grace has been
received through baptism, all baptized persons have the ability and
responsibility, if they desire to labor faithfully, to perform with the
aid and cooperation of Christ what is of essential importance in regard to
the salvation of their soul. We not only do not believe that any are
foreordained to evil by the power of God, but even state with utter
abhorrence that if there are those who want to believe so evil a thing,
they are anathema. We also believe and confess to our benefit that in
every good work it is not we who take the initiative and are then assisted
through the mercy of God, but God himself first inspires in us both faith
in him and love for him without any previous good works of our own that
deserve reward, so that we may both faithfully seek the sacrament of
baptism, and after baptism be able by his help to do what is pleasing to
him. We must therefore most evidently believe that the praiseworthy faith
of the thief whom the Lord called to his home in paradise, and of
Cornelius the centurion, to whom the angel of the Lord was sent, and of
Zacchaeus, who was worthy to receive the Lord himself, was not a natural
endowment but a gift of God's kindness.
--
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
.
|
|
| User: "Hugh Betcha" |
|
| Title: Re: Canons of the Council of Orange |
20 Aug 2005 12:18:53 AM |
|
|
WCB wrote:
~Glorious Appearing~ wrote:
God does not exist. Take thisATTRIBUTES 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?
God is also omnipresent; ie. an unchanging constant with no need for
time. he IS at the Beginning, He IS now, and He IS at the end. 2+2 can
never equal 5 because it IS 4. See?
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.
No, that does not follow logically. God created the universe as a
whole; not as a clockwork that is winding down through time. Time is
irrelevant, the universe IS as He created it, then, now and forever; it
IS.
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.
Change the rules? Irrelevant. But, if we can ONLY choose one thing;
that is not 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.
Change the universe that He has already created in it's entierty?
Again, irrelevant postulation. Besides, benevolent is a subjective
term, hardly appropriate for describing God.
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.
Same goes for '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.
Therefore, the rest of your points proceed from a false assumption; so
I will <snip> them for convenience.
H.
--
"To be an atheist requires an infinitely greater measure of faith than
to receive all the great truths which atheism would deny."
-Joseph Addison
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Lister" |
|
| Title: Re: Canons of the Council of Orange |
21 Aug 2005 08:27:11 PM |
|
|
"Hugh Betcha" <gemond@canada.com> wrote in
news:1124515133.202378.279040@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
God is also omnipresent; ie. an unchanging constant with no need for
time. he IS at the Beginning, He IS now, and He IS at the end. 2+2 can
never equal 5 because it IS 4. See?
Likewise he can never speak or do anything.
No, that does not follow logically. God created the universe as a
whole; not as a clockwork that is winding down through time. Time is
irrelevant, the universe IS as He created it, then, now and forever;
it IS.
Eventually the universe will drift into heat death, which is clearly not
the same as it is now.
--
Republican Health Plan: Don't Get Sick
Guantanamo: The Gulag of Our Time
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Canons of the Council of Orange |
20 Aug 2005 12:24:10 AM |
|
|
Hugh Betcha wrote:
WCB wrote:
~Glorious Appearing~ wrote:
God does not exist. Take thisATTRIBUTES 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?
God is also omnipresent; ie. an unchanging constant with no need for
time. he IS at the Beginning, He IS now, and He IS at the end. 2+2 can
never equal 5 because it IS 4. See?
No, then he is not omnipotent. See?
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "No one ever demonstrated, so far as I am aware, *
* the non-existence of Zeus or Thor - but they *
* have few followers now." Arthur C. Clarke *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Canons of the Council of Orange |
20 Aug 2005 12:31:26 AM |
|
|
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?
God is also omnipresent; ie. an unchanging constant with no need for
time. he IS at the Beginning, He IS now, and He IS at the end. 2+2 can
never equal 5 because it IS 4. See?
No, then he is not omnipotent. See?
No, actually. That's the very definition of omnipotent.
H
--
"Ideo crededum quod incredibile."
-Tertullian
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Canons of the Council of Orange |
20 Aug 2005 01:21:23 AM |
|
|
wrote:
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?
God is also omnipresent; ie. an unchanging constant with no need for
time. he IS at the Beginning, He IS now, and He IS at the end. 2+2 can
never equal 5 because it IS 4. See?
No, then he is not omnipotent. See?
No, actually. That's the very definition of omnipotent.
No, it's not. Omnipotent means *ALL* powerful, including, but not
limited to, changing the laws of logic. God could make 2+2 equal 5 if
he were omnipotent.
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "No one ever demonstrated, so far as I am aware, *
* the non-existence of Zeus or Thor - but they *
* have few followers now." Arthur C. Clarke *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "WCB" |
|
| Title: Re: Canons of the Council of Orange |
20 Aug 2005 07:16:21 PM |
|
|
DanielSan wrote:
gemond@canada.com wrote:
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?
God is also omnipresent; ie. an unchanging constant with no need for
time. he IS at the Beginning, He IS now, and He IS at the end. 2+2 can
never equal 5 because it IS 4. See?
No, then he is not omnipotent. See?
No, actually. That's the very definition of omnipotent.
No, it's not. Omnipotent means *ALL* powerful, including, but not
limited to, changing the laws of logic. God could make 2+2 equal 5 if
he were omnipotent.
Either god can make 2 + 2 = 5 or he cannot.
If he cannot, he is not omnipotent because there is
something he cannot do.
Refining omnipotent is rejected.
If god cannot make 2 + 2 = 5, why not?
Where then does 2 + 2 = 4 come from? Obviously, not god.
Because if it did he could change it.
If god is forced to accept 2 + 2 = 4, that then is outside gods
control, as are an infinite number of similar facts.
Since it is outside god's control, god cannot have created
the underlying reasons for 2 + 2 being 4 or any other similar
fact. Thus god cannot have created these facts and underlying
reasons for them, and he cannot therefore have created the
Universe in which they are imbedded.
Therefore god cannot, as claimed, have created the Universe
as a whole.
We are still left with the questions, just what else beside 2 + 2 = 4
can god not change or influence, that are outside him and beyond
his control?
Logic? The way the Universe is put together, time, dimensions, speed of
light, quantum phenomenon such as Plancks's constant? Why electrons
have spin or why gravity has the nature it has? How about ethics?
Is something moral because it has an underlying natural morality to it?
And how would one begin to show anything along these
lines in a scientific manner? And why hasn't theology bothered
with that? Or even realizing this is a problem?
So many questions, so few theologians capable of giving us any
answers to anything worth asking.
--
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
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hugh Betcha" |
|
| Title: Re: Canons of the Council of Orange |
21 Aug 2005 01:16:17 AM |
|
|
Either god can make 2 + 2 = 5 or he cannot.
Okay, fine. He can.
I suppose that feeding thousands with a few loaves and fishes, and
raising Lazarus from the dead may have involved making '2+2 = 5' within
a limited time and space; as would have arranging molecules into the
first living cell as well.
<snip moot points>
H.
--
"Can you discover the depths of God? Can you discover the limits of the
Almighty?"
-Job 11:7
.
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Canons of the Council of Orange |
21 Aug 2005 03:55:24 PM |
|
|
Hugh Betcha wrote:
Either god can make 2 + 2 = 5 or he cannot.
Okay, fine. He can.
I suppose that feeding thousands with a few loaves and fishes, and
raising Lazarus from the dead may have involved making '2+2 = 5' within
a limited time and space; as would have arranging molecules into the
first living cell as well.
Great. Can you prove that any of these events happened now? Or is it
just a baseless claim? As baseless as saying that Zaphod Beeblebrox is
the presient of the galaxy.
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "No one ever demonstrated, so far as I am aware, *
* the non-existence of Zeus or Thor - but they *
* have few followers now." Arthur C. Clarke *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hugh Betcha" |
|
| Title: Re: Canons of the Council of Orange |
21 Aug 2005 05:30:32 PM |
|
|
Okay, fine. He can.
I suppose that feeding thousands with a few loaves and fishes, and
raising Lazarus from the dead may have involved making '2+2 = 5' within
a limited time and space; as would have arranging molecules into the
first living cell as well.
Great. Can you prove that any of these events happened now? Or is it
just a baseless claim? As baseless as saying that Zaphod Beeblebrox is
the presient of the galaxy.
Prove? Well, we are here aren't we? The laws of the universe that we
have been able to observe do not provide for living, metabolizing,
reproducing and improving cells to suddenly 'pop' into extistence. If,
for a brief period in time and space, 2 + 2 equaled 5, (so to speak)
then it just might have. Who can make 2 + 2 = 5? We've established
that, it's God.
H.
--
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Lister" |
|
| Title: Re: Canons of the Council of Orange |
21 Aug 2005 08:32:01 PM |
|
|
"Hugh Betcha" <gemond@canada.com> wrote in
news:1124663432.809132.209160@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Okay, fine. He can.
I suppose that feeding thousands with a few loaves and fishes, and
raising Lazarus from the dead may have involved making '2+2 = 5'
within a limited time and space; as would have arranging molecules
into the first living cell as well.
Great. Can you prove that any of these events happened now? Or is
it just a baseless claim? As baseless as saying that Zaphod
Beeblebrox is the presient of the galaxy.
Prove? Well, we are here aren't we? The laws of the universe that we
have been able to observe do not provide for living, metabolizing,
reproducing and improving cells to suddenly 'pop' into extistence.
They do provide for life coming into existance, after all, it did.
--
Republican Health Plan: Don't Get Sick
Guantanamo: The Gulag of Our Time
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hugh Betcha" |
|
| Title: Re: Canons of the Council of Orange |
22 Aug 2005 12:42:38 AM |
|
|
Prove? Well, we are here aren't we? The laws of the universe that we
have been able to observe do not provide for living, metabolizing,
reproducing and improving cells to suddenly 'pop' into extistence.
They do provide for life coming into existance, after all, it did.
Yes, but the point is... from what we what we know of the nature of the
universe; it shouldn't have.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Lister" |
|
| Title: Re: Canons of the Council of Orange |
22 Aug 2005 11:40:54 AM |
|
|
"Hugh Betcha" <gemond@canada.com> wrote in news:1124689358.605067.26060
@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Prove? Well, we are here aren't we? The laws of the universe that we
have been able to observe do not provide for living, metabolizing,
reproducing and improving cells to suddenly 'pop' into extistence.
They do provide for life coming into existance, after all, it did.
Yes, but the point is... from what we what we know of the nature of the
universe; it shouldn't have.
You are talking about things you don't understand. From what we know of
the universe, it appears to be quite inevitable.
--
Republican Health Plan: Don't Get Sick
Guantanamo: The Gulag of Our Time
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hugh Betcha" |
|
| Title: Re: Canons of the Council of Orange |
22 Aug 2005 09:22:30 PM |
|
|
Yes, but the point is... from what we what we know of the nature of the
universe; it shouldn't have.
You are talking about things you don't understand. From what we know of
the universe, it appears to be quite inevitable.
You're saying... that we shouldn't be surprised that everything is
here, because, after all, it IS here? Good point. I'll have to ponder
that one.
H.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "DanielSan" |
|
| Title: Re: Canons of the Council of Orange |
21 Aug 2005 06:24:46 PM |
|
|
Hugh Betcha wrote:
Okay, fine. He can.
I suppose that feeding thousands with a few loaves and fishes, and
raising Lazarus from the dead may have involved making '2+2 = 5' within
a limited time and space; as would have arranging molecules into the
first living cell as well.
Great. Can you prove that any of these events happened now? Or is it
just a baseless claim? As baseless as saying that Zaphod Beeblebrox is
the presient of the galaxy.
Prove?
Yes. Prove.
Well, we are here aren't we?
Yes, we are.
The laws of the universe that we
have been able to observe do not provide for living, metabolizing,
reproducing and improving cells to suddenly 'pop' into extistence.
Life doesn't "pop" into existence.
If,
for a brief period in time and space, 2 + 2 equaled 5, (so to speak)
then it just might have. Who can make 2 + 2 = 5? We've established
that, it's God.
But can you prove that 2+2 has EVER equaled 5?
--
****************************************************
* DanielSan -- alt.atheism #2226 *
*--------------------------------------------------*
* "No one ever demonstrated, so far as I am aware, *
* the non-existence of Zeus or Thor - but they *
* have few followers now." Arthur C. Clarke *
****************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hugh Betcha" |
|
| Title: Re: Canons of the Council of Orange |
22 Aug 2005 12:38:12 AM |
|
|
Prove?
Yes. Prove.
Well, we are here aren't we?
Yes, we are.
The laws of the universe that we
have been able to observe do not provide for living, metabolizing,
reproducing and improving cells to suddenly 'pop' into extistence.
Life doesn't "pop" into existence.
Depends on your point of view. If you deny intelligent design, the yes,
it must have just 'popped' into reality. If life evolves by random
genetic mutation then the first genes (which are extremly complex
things) must have just appeared by accident... somehow.
If,
for a brief period in time and space, 2 + 2 equaled 5, (so to speak)
then it just might have. Who can make 2 + 2 = 5? We've established
that, it's God.
But can you prove that 2+2 has EVER equaled 5?
Well, no, but it would explain a great many things; like how random
molecules in a puddle of primordial goop arrange themselves into the
complex helix design of RNA and start reproducing. It's silly to assume
that this could have happened without reality being 'bent' just a
little. You don't have to call it 'God', just consider the possibilty.
H
--
"Religion is poetry plus, not science minus."
-Krister Stendahl
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Lister" |
|
| Title: Re: Canons of the Council of Orange |
22 Aug 2005 11:39:49 AM |
|
|
"Hugh Betcha" <gemond@canada.com> wrote in news:1124689092.730118.31790
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
Life doesn't "pop" into existence.
Depends on your point of view. If you deny intelligent design, the yes,
it must have just 'popped' into reality.
Nonsese, loon. If you accept intelligent design, life popped into
existance.
If life evolves by random
genetic mutation then the first genes (which are extremly complex
things) must have just appeared by accident... somehow.
That is how life evolves now. There were untold trillions of experiments
before that particular method was found to work well.
Well, no, but it would explain a great many things; like how random
molecules in a puddle of primordial goop arrange themselves into the
complex helix design of RNA and start reproducing. It's silly to assume
that this could have happened without reality being 'bent' just a
little. You don't have to call it 'God', just consider the possibilty.
You simply don't understand what you are talking about.
--
Republican Health Plan: Don't Get Sick
Guantanamo: The Gulag of Our Time
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hugh Betcha" |
|
| Title: Re: Canons of the Council of Orange |
22 Aug 2005 10:13:56 PM |
|
|
Nonsese, loon. If you accept intelligent design, life popped into
existance.
Actually, the idea is that the first life was designed and arranged by
an intelligent creator. Evolution, on the other hand, insists that
everything happened by accident.
If life evolves by random
genetic mutation then the first genes (which are extremly complex
things) must have just appeared by accident... somehow.
That is how life evolves now. There were untold trillions of experiments
before that particular method was found to work well.
This is where the 'popping' comes in. In order for the 'life form' to
be self replicating and mutating; and for evolution to occur, it has to
have a great deal of complexity. A level of complexity that just
doesn't occur by accident. I.e. you have an egg, but then you are faced
with the problem of explaining how it was laid without a chicken.
Well, no, but it would explain a great many things; like how random
molecules in a puddle of primordial goop arrange themselves into the
complex helix design of RNA and start reproducing. It's silly to assume
that this could have happened without reality being 'bent' just a
little. You don't have to call it 'God', just consider the possibilty.
You simply don't understand what you are talking about.
Oh, and like, YOU do?
H.
--
"The great tragedy of science - the slaying of a beautiful theory by an
ugly fact."
-Thomas Huxley
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Lister" |
|
| Title: Re: Canons of the Council of Orange |
23 Aug 2005 10:26:02 AM |
|
|
"Hugh Betcha" <gemond@canada.com> wrote in
news:1124766836.671448.327140@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
That is how life evolves now. There were untold trillions of
experiments before that particular method was found to work well.
This is where the 'popping' comes in. In order for the 'life form' to
be self replicating and mutating; and for evolution to occur, it has
to have a great deal of complexity. A level of complexity that just
doesn't occur by accident. I.e. you have an egg, but then you are
faced with the problem of explaining how it was laid without a
chicken.
The level of complexity was quite low at first. ]Complexity came much
later. In reality probably close to a billion years of trial and error
occured.
You simply don't understand what you are talking about.
Oh, and like, YOU do?
Yep.
--
Republican Health Plan: Don't Get Sick
Guantanamo: The Gulag of Our Time
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hugh Betcha" |
|
| Title: Re: Canons of the Council of Orange |
23 Aug 2005 11:04:33 PM |
|
|
This is where the 'popping' comes in. In order for the 'life form' to
be self replicating and mutating; and for evolution to occur, it has
to have a great deal of complexity. A level of complexity that just
doesn't occur by accident. I.e. you have an egg, but then you are
faced with the problem of explaining how it was laid without a
chicken.
The level of complexity was quite low at first. ]Complexity came much
later. In reality probably close to a billion years of trial and error
occured.
'trial and error'? Doesn't that imply intelligence? Anyhow, how do
molecules come together into more and more complex patterns, conducting
'trial & error' experiments completly by accident and random chance,
until they manage to arrange themselves into a living cell? Doesn't the
first law of thermodynamics have anything to say about that? Aren't you
taking a lot on faith? And *I* am supposed to be a loon! Sheesh.
You simply don't understand what you are talking about.
Oh, and like, YOU do?
Yep.
Hmm... impeccable credentials. I am humbled.
H.
--
"As a blind man has no idea of colors, so we have no idea of the manner
by which the all-wise God perceives and understands all things."
-Sir Isaac Newton
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Lister" |
|
| Title: Re: Canons of the Council of Orange |
23 Aug 2005 11:10:04 PM |
|
|
"Hugh Betcha" <gemond@canada.com> wrote in news:1124856273.564446.191680
@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
'trial and error'? Doesn't that imply intelligence?
No. Errors are self-correcting. Successes are self-replicating.
Anyhow, how do
molecules come together into more and more complex patterns, conducting
'trial & error' experiments completly by accident and random chance,
until they manage to arrange themselves into a living cell? Doesn't the
first law of thermodynamics have anything to say about that?
Not a thing. You don't understand what these laws say.
Aren't you
taking a lot on faith? And *I* am supposed to be a loon! Sheesh.
I'm not taking anything on faith, loon.
--
Republican Health Plan: Don't Get Sick
Guantanamo: The Gulag of Our Time
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hugh Betcha" |
|
| Title: Re: Canons of the Council of Orange |
24 Aug 2005 12:12:50 AM |
|
|
Dave Lister wrote:
"Hugh Betcha" <gemond@canada.com> wrote in news:1124856273.564446.191680
@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
'trial and error'? Doesn't that imply intelligence?
No. Errors are self-correcting. Successes are self-replicating.
Natural selection? As far as I know, that only applies to living things
with working genes. You are proposing that NON-living things of greater
and greater complexity were created by accident until they achieved
life. That raises the question: What natural force drove non living
molecules to form more and more complex structures? Heat and gravity?
You think?
Anyhow, how do
molecules come together into more and more complex patterns, conducting
'trial & error' experiments completly by accident and random chance,
until they manage to arrange themselves into a living cell? Doesn't the
first law of thermodynamics have anything to say about that?
Not a thing. You don't understand what these laws say.
err... I wasn't using my brain, there. It's the 2nd law: Any system
which is free of external influences becomes more disordered with
time... so, obviously your billion year experiment in molecule
combining required external influence.
Aren't you
taking a lot on faith? And *I* am supposed to be a loon! Sheesh.
I'm not taking anything on faith, loon.
Faith: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.
Yep. That's it.
H
--
"Credo ut Intelligam."
-St. Augustine
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Lister" |
|
| Title: Re: Canons of the Council of Orange |
24 Aug 2005 12:46:25 AM |
|
|
"Hugh Betcha" <gemond@canada.com> wrote in
news:1124860370.730485.5630@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
Natural selection? As far as I know, that only applies to living
things with working genes.
Not at all. That is the best example in our world today but it is not
the only possible example.
You are proposing that NON-living things of
greater and greater complexity were created by accident until they
achieved life. That raises the question: What natural force drove non
living molecules to form more and more complex structures? Heat and
gravity? You think?
We already know that amino acids and polymers form under these
conditions. There is a lot we don't know, but people are working hard to
find out.
Not a thing. You don't understand what these laws say.
err... I wasn't using my brain, there. It's the 2nd law: Any system
which is free of external influences becomes more disordered with
time... so, obviously your billion year experiment in molecule
combining required external influence.
That isn't what the law says. It says that any closed system will tend
toward greater entropy over time. The earth is not a closed system. The
sun pumps enormous energy into the earth.
Faith: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material
evidence.
I'll leave that to you people who feel the need to invoke the giant
fairy in the sky when they don't understand something.
--
Republican Health Plan: Don't Get Sick
Guantanamo: The Gulag of Our Time
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hugh Betcha" |
|
| Title: Re: Canons of the Council of Orange |
24 Aug 2005 08:34:34 PM |
|
|
Natural selection? As far as I know, that only applies to living
things with working genes.
Not at all. That is the best example in our world today but it is not
the only possible example.
Okay, I'll bite. What non-living system in the world improves itself
and grows more complex through natural selection?
You are proposing that NON-living things of
greater and greater complexity were created by accident until they
achieved life. That raises the question: What natural force drove non
living molecules to form more and more complex structures? Heat and
gravity? You think?
We already know that amino acids and polymers form under these
conditions. There is a lot we don't know, but people are working hard to
find out.
Researchers have duplicated what they think were the atmospheric
conditions of the early Earth; and under very controled condtions
managed to make some organic molecules... do you think that if they
keep at it for a billion years they might make an RNA strand?
Not a thing. You don't understand what these laws say.
err... I wasn't using my brain, there. It's the 2nd law: Any system
which is free of external influences becomes more disordered with
time... so, obviously your billion year experiment in molecule
combining required external influence.
That isn't what the law says. It says that any closed system will tend
toward greater entropy over time. The earth is not a closed system. The
sun pumps enormous energy into the earth.
Okay, good point.
Faith: Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material
evidence.
I'll leave that to you people who feel the need to invoke the giant
fairy in the sky when they don't understand something.
Well, you have a theory; which is unproven; with little evidence to
support it, and yet you have the utmost faith that it is true; and
that sometime in the future someone will prove it correct... Sounds
familiar. Christians believe that their theory is true, and are waiting
for a particular Someone who will someday in the future prove them
correct.
H.
--
"It is theory that decides what can be observed."
-Albert Einstein
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Lister" |
|
| Title: Re: Canons of the Council of Orange |
24 Aug 2005 10:02:53 PM |
|
|
"Hugh Betcha" <gemond@canada.com> wrote in news:1124933674.898360.22620
@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Okay, I'll bite. What non-living system in the world improves itself
and grows more complex through natural selection?
Since only life reproduces, an improvement in any other system will not
result in the tranference of that improvement. However, natural
selection can be seen in any negative feedback system, the weather for
example. Not all tropical storms become hurricanes, but hurricanes are
far more complex that the tropical storms from which they originate.
Natural selection has taken place.
We already know that amino acids and polymers form under these
conditions. There is a lot we don't know, but people are working hard
to
find out.
Researchers have duplicated what they think were the atmospheric
conditions of the early Earth; and under very controled condtions
managed to make some organic molecules... do you think that if they
keep at it for a billion years they might make an RNA strand?
Is this what's holding you back? You can't imagine the number of trials
takling place over a billion years? Scientists can in no way duplicate
this, that's why the experiments need to be controlled. What they can do
is develop a plausible chain of events from this research, no god
required. This science is in its infancy, more is learned every day.
I'll leave that to you people who feel the need to invoke the giant
fairy in the sky when they don't understand something.
Well, you have a theory; which is unproven; with little evidence to
support it, and yet you have the utmost faith that it is true; and
that sometime in the future someone will prove it correct...
You are incorrect. There is a theory, constantly being refined, which
the evidence supports very well. Evoultion is a fact, not a theory. The
theory is in the details, which will be worked out for the next 500
years at least as we learn more. That is how science, not religion,
works.
It is always possible that evolution will be supeceeded by something
else, but it won't be intelligent design until someone can demonstrate
the existnace of a designer conclusively. That isn't very likely.
Sounds
familiar. Christians believe that their theory is true, and are
waiting
for a particular Someone who will someday in the future prove them
correct.
Most Christians worldwide accept that evolution is a fact. There are a
number of mostly undereducated Xian Americans who confuse their lack of
understanding with a flaw in the science of both biology and cosmology.
--
Republican Health Plan: Don't Get Sick
Guantanamo: The Gulag of Our Time
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p" |
|
| Title: Re: Canons of the Council of Orange |
22 Aug 2005 03:19:38 AM |
|
|
On 21 Aug 2005 15:30:32 -0700, "Hugh Betcha" <gemond@canada.com>
wrote:
Okay, fine. He can.
I suppose that feeding thousands with a few loaves and fishes, and
raising Lazarus from the dead may have involved making '2+2 = 5' within
a limited time and space; as would have arranging molecules into the
first living cell as well.
Great. Can you prove that any of these events happened now? Or is it
just a baseless claim? As baseless as saying that Zaphod Beeblebrox is
the presient of the galaxy.
Prove? Well, we are here aren't we? The laws of the universe that we
have been able to observe do not provide for living, metabolizing,
reproducing and improving cells to suddenly 'pop' into extistence.
No they don't. How does that support any god?
If,
for a brief period in time and space, 2 + 2 equaled 5, (so to speak)
then it just might have. Who can make 2 + 2 = 5? We've established
that, it's God.
However you have not established that it ever happened.
Thomas P.
"Life must be lived forwards but understood backwards"
(Kierkegaard)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim Burns" |
|
| Title: Re: Canons of the Council of Orange |
21 Aug 2005 05:41:42 PM |
|
|
WCB wrote:
DanielSan wrote:
No, it's not. Omnipotent means *ALL* powerful, including,
but not limited to, changing the laws of logic. God could
make 2+2 equal 5 if he were omnipotent.
Either god can make 2 + 2 = 5 or he cannot.
Actually, if you're going to go there anyway, if god
can make 2 + 2 = 5, then there's no longer a reason to
reject "God can make 2 + 2 = 5 AND he cannot."
With that style of omnipotence, there's not really anything
else to do but to find a nice closet somewhere and curl
up in it, quietly rocking. I hear sucking thumbs is good, too.
Jim Burns
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Brze" |
|
| Title: Re: Canons of the Council of Orange |
20 Aug 2005 03:11:05 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 06:21:23 GMT, DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com>
wrote:
gemond@canada.com wrote:
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?
God is also omnipresent; ie. an unchanging constant with no need for
time. he IS at the Beginning, He IS now, and He IS at the end. 2+2 can
never equal 5 because it IS 4. See?
No, then he is not omnipotent. See?
No, actually. That's the very definition of omnipotent.
No, it's not. Omnipotent means *ALL* powerful, including, but not
limited to, changing the laws of logic. God could make 2+2 equal 5 if
he were omnipotent.
If changing the law of universe only for convenience, then it would
not be omnipotence. Omnipotence means God can do the impossible
without breaking the law of the universe. 2+2=5 is not the law of this
universe. God can certainly make it happen, but it would be in a
different universe.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Lister" |
|
| Title: Re: Canons of the Council of Orange |
21 Aug 2005 08:29:10 PM |
|
|
Eric Brze <brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in
news:mjodg1dv2qr750vgkmgutuo4s0bcfipm0j@4ax.com:
On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 06:21:23 GMT, DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com>
wrote:
gemond@canada.com wrote:
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?
God is also omnipresent; ie. an unchanging constant with no need
for time. he IS at the Beginning, He IS now, and He IS at the end.
2+2 can never equal 5 because it IS 4. See?
No, then he is not omnipotent. See?
No, actually. That's the very definition of omnipotent.
No, it's not. Omnipotent means *ALL* powerful, including, but not
limited to, changing the laws of logic. God could make 2+2 equal 5 if
he were omnipotent.
If changing the law of universe only for convenience, then it would
not be omnipotence. Omnipotence means God can do the impossible
without breaking the law of the universe. 2+2=5 is not the law of this
universe. God can certainly make it happen, but it would be in a
different universe.
Two plus two defines something, which will be the same in any universe.
If 2 + 2 = 5 somewhere, the plus sign is not performing addition.
--
Republican Health Plan: Don't Get Sick
Guantanamo: The Gulag of Our Time
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Brze" |
|
| Title: Re: Canons of the Council of Orange |
21 Aug 2005 08:39:32 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 01:29:10 GMT, Dave Lister
<retsildivad33@hotmail.com> wrote:
Eric Brze <brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in
news:mjodg1dv2qr750vgkmgutuo4s0bcfipm0j@4ax.com:
On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 06:21:23 GMT, DanielSan <daniel-san@myrealbox.com>
wrote:
gemond@canada.com wrote:
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?
God is also omnipresent; ie. an unchanging constant with no need
for time. he IS at the Beginning, He IS now, and He IS at the end.
2+2 can never equal 5 because it IS 4. See?
No, then he is not omnipotent. See?
No, actually. That's the very definition of omnipotent.
No, it's not. Omnipotent means *ALL* powerful, including, but not
limited to, changing the laws of logic. God could make 2+2 equal 5 if
he were omnipotent.
If changing the law of universe only for convenience, then it would
not be omnipotence. Omnipotence means God can do the impossible
without breaking the law of the universe. 2+2=5 is not the law of this
universe. God can certainly make it happen, but it would be in a
different universe.
Two plus two defines something, which will be the same in any universe.
If 2 + 2 = 5 somewhere, the plus sign is not performing addition.
You are talking about the law of this universe. The law of other
universe may be very different. You just never know.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Dave Lister" |
|
| Title: Re: Canons of the Council of Orange |
21 Aug 2005 10:36:15 PM |
|
|
Eric Brze <brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in
news:51big19g27ig6kdoi2pcv1m3uq5if6fnnt@4ax.com:
On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 01:29:10 GMT, Dave Lister
<retsildivad33@hotmail.com> wrote:
Eric Brze <brze@no.spam.mail.com> wrote in
news:mjodg1dv2qr750vgkmgutuo4s0bcfipm0j@4ax.com:
On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 06:21:23 GMT, DanielSan <daniel-
san@myrealbox.com>
wrote:
gemond@canada.com wrote:
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?
God is also omnipresent; ie. an unchanging constant with no need
for time. he IS at the Beginning, He IS now, and He IS at the
end.
2+2 can never equal 5 because it IS 4. See?
No, then he is not omnipotent. See?
No, actually. That's the very definition of omnipotent.
No, it's not. Omnipotent means *ALL* powerful, including, but not
limited to, changing the laws of logic. God could make 2+2 equal 5
if
he were omnipotent.
If changing the law of universe only for convenience, then it would
not be omnipotence. Omnipotence means God can do the impossible
without breaking the law of the universe. 2+2=5 is not the law of
this
universe. God can certainly make it happen, but it would be in a
different universe.
Two plus two defines something, which will be the same in any
universe.
If 2 + 2 = 5 somewhere, the plus sign is not performing addition.
You are talking about the law of this universe. The law of other
universe may be very different. You just never know.
It isn't a law, loon, it is a definition. 2 plus 2 will always equal 4.
--
Republican Health Plan: Don't Get Sick
Guantanamo: The Gulag of Our Time
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

|
Related Articles |
|
|