-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Something from nothing and God
- Thread starter MaxP
- Start date
- Status
No - God provide us with a perfect world, but in order to maintain that perfection we would have to have no ability to wreck that perfection - no free will, and thus no ability to choose God, or perfection. Which would be more ideal? A world of robots?
Upvote
0
Free will: The unfettered ability to choose an apple over an orange.
So, we need the ability to wreck the moral perfection in order to choose the apple? Seems a odd, to say the least.
Upvote
0
tcampen
Veteran
Why couldn't god create a world with free will, but no options that include sin? Sin and evil are not requirements for free will, and free will does not require the ability to choose all possiblities. We are always limited in the number of choices we have, and God could have created a world where the evil choices were simply not available. Why wouldn't THAT be a more perfect world?
(And just so I understand your point, are you referring to original sin, or something else?)
Upvote
0
P
pantless rationalist
Guest
This was my line of thinking, as well. It does not limit my free will if I cannot swim 1000 fathoms beneath the sea; I am simply unable to do so. Similarly, if I were unable to make certain choices my free will would still exist, just in a different form. For instance, if human anatomy and physiology were such that consensual acknowledgment was necessary for intercourse, no one would lose any free will by not having the choice to rape--the "choice" would just be an impossibility.
Thoughts?
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
LittleNipper
Contributor
- Mar 9, 2005
- 9,011
- 174
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
GOD, according to even Genesis one, created the heavens (SPACE) and the earth (MATTER). GOD also created time, since without GOD nothing exists which exists. Disorder comes from sin and not perfection. What we presently observe is often clouded by the results of sin...
Upvote
0
B
brightmorningstar
Guest
To b&wpac4, God is God, He wil decide what is posiible and what isnt, not you, unless of course you dont believe in Him.
You cant have left without right and you cant have an end without a beggining and there can be no light without dark
You cant have left without right and you cant have an end without a beggining and there can be no light without dark
Upvote
0
70x7
Junior Member
Hi 70x7-
This is exactly why many (including myself who is not an atheist) have a problem with God being the Alpha, if a thing cannot rise from nothing then wence came God? Saying he has always been answers the riddle for many of Origin, but opens the same question wide for infinite regress. If God exsisted forever, then why not matter itself, getting rid of God as an explanation for anything. (In the beggining at least).
*
Here's the outside of the box thinking part..
Lets start with science.
The Law of Causuality states that everything that had a beginning had a cause. (There was a reason why it was created, a force, an action, etc).
God was never created. If that were the case, there would have been another "God" to create Him and the cycle would continue. Since God was never created, He does not need a cause. Nothing caused Him to "appear". Simply as it sounds, He just IS.
God is not a person or a thing that we can grasp or physically define, not like matter. Matter is a physical substance which has a chemical makeup. We can verify this scientifically in all forms of matter. Matter cannot just appear. Because matter needs a cause, it could not have existed without one.
Upvote
0
Freodin
Devout believer in a theologically different God
I still present the alternative of "chaos" as the beginning of everything.
Max said that "nothing" would include also "no potentials". That is correct. But he also allows "God" to act beyond the rules of logic... and so does Chaos. "Nothing" also means "no logic".
So there can be potentials without there being potentials. And where there are potentials, there are actualities.
Max said that "nothing" would include also "no potentials". That is correct. But he also allows "God" to act beyond the rules of logic... and so does Chaos. "Nothing" also means "no logic".
So there can be potentials without there being potentials. And where there are potentials, there are actualities.
Upvote
0
Here's the outside of the box thinking part..
Lets start with science.
The Law of Causuality states that everything that had a beginning had a cause. (There was a reason why it was created, a force, an action, etc).
God was never created. If that were the case, there would have been another "God" to create Him and the cycle would continue. Since God was never created, He does not need a cause. Nothing caused Him to "appear". Simply as it sounds, He just IS.
God is not a person or a thing that we can grasp or physically define, not like matter. Matter is a physical substance which has a chemical makeup. We can verify this scientifically in all forms of matter. Matter cannot just appear. Because matter needs a cause, it could not have existed without one.
..and that's fine. The problem is you (people who propose this) REFUSE to see the OTHER side. You say that this HAS to be true, when there is not evidence that suggests it does. Could it be true? Sure! Could it be false? Yes.
Upvote
0
jayem
Naturalist
- Jun 24, 2003
- 15,427
- 7,164
- 74
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
There are cyclic models of the universe positing infinite series of expansions and contractions. The Steinhardt model is one. I'm not an expert by any means, but I know they avoid the thermodynamic death which might be assumed by the 2nd Law. And they are consistent with the evidence that is thought to support the Big Bang. Steinhardt draws from M-Theory, which is controversial. But the point is that there are coherent scientific theories for an eternal universe which obviate the need for some supernatural creative force.
Upvote
0
T
Tenka
Guest
Show me where this "Law" exists in a scientifically responsible source. Causality is a principle of physics but it doesn't say what you said.70x7 said:
All the matter we have today came from energy which can neither be created nor destroyed.....eternal.
So by your description of god:
Since energy cannot be created, it does not need a cause. It simply is.
Upvote
0
It's a comparison that is unwarranted, the swimming one.
Sinning is not choosing God; if we could only choose God would free will be free? No, it would be just another function of God, not separate from Him.
If you have a mouse in maze that is just a straight corridor, is it a maze? Does the mouse choose? In order for it not to be a choice, we would have to be completely unaware of anything but good, which makes choosing good not a choice.
You can swim 1000 fathoms under the sea. But you will die. You have the choice to, but there are consequences.
Upvote
0
I allow God to act beyond logic nowhere; His omnipotence is enough of a logical explanation.
Firstly, if you think logic does not apply, this argument does not apply. Because it can make sense. It uses premises and makes a conclusion; a logical argument. So your own premise that logic does not apply violate your argument.
Secondly, potentialities do not imply actualities. Much potential is never moved into actuality, and anyway, what is there to move nothing into something, to move potentiality into actuality?
And don't say logic can't apply, because to support that argument you use logic.
Upvote
0
P
pantless rationalist
Guest
The principle of causality only applies to general relativity, though, not to quantum physics; QP would apply if the universe started a an superdense singularity (or collection of such singularities), so your causality point is moot.
Here's the outside of the box thinking part..
Lets start with science.
The Law of Causuality states that everything that had a beginning had a cause. (There was a reason why it was created, a force, an action, etc).
God was never created. If that were the case, there would have been another "God" to create Him and the cycle would continue. Since God was never created, He does not need a cause. Nothing caused Him to "appear". Simply as it sounds, He just IS.
God is not a person or a thing that we can grasp or physically define, not like matter. Matter is a physical substance which has a chemical makeup. We can verify this scientifically in all forms of matter. Matter cannot just appear. Because matter needs a cause, it could not have existed without one.
Upvote
0
N
Nathan45
Guest
even if the universe has existed forever, that's still an infinite regress.
anyways i can't believe you guys are still arguing this. IMO, the arguments make less and less sense the longer you go on. I mean, the universe exists, and nobody knows why. Is there really anything else to say?
Upvote
0
P
pantless rationalist
Guest
I'm sorry if I didn't make my argument totally clear. I was addressing your false dichotomy between having free will or being a world of robots. Just because one choice is closed to us (deap-sea swimming, sinning, rape) does not mean that we are robots or mindless machines. It simply means that we have one option closed to us.
As for your mouse, it can always choose to take a nap where it is standing. That's what I would opt for, anyways.
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
