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.
No.
James 1:13
Most opponents of creation (or God for that matter) are trying to limit Gods abilites by the "rules" of logic and human understanding. Yes, in a materialistic world they are absolutley correct that nothing can come from nothing (this happens to be one of the biggest obsticles facing atheism).
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?And let the special pleading begin in response to this well articulated statement.
Because this is getting more into Philosophy than E&Ms, I'll try to bring it back around.... If God created the universe from nothing, meaning God could have created anything within his power to do so, then did God create the most perfect universe he could have? In other words, is this the best God could have done, morally speaking. If I could imagine a more perfect world, then doesn't that cut against god creating it - at least from a standard of being a moral being?
Free will: The unfettered ability to choose an apple over an orange.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?
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?
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.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?
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?
Well, God is existence. Asking from whence He came is asking from whence existence came. Not really a question we can do.
Because matter becomes disordered after time. Infinite time means infinite disorder.
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
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.
Because matter becomes disordered after time. Infinite time means infinite disorder.
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: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).
All the matter we have today came from energy which can neither be created nor destroyed.....eternal.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.
Since energy cannot be created, it does not need a cause. It simply is.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.
It's a comparison that is unwarranted, the swimming one.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?
I allow God to act beyond logic nowhere; His omnipotence is enough of a logical explanation.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".
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.So there can be potentials without there being potentials. And where there are potentials, there are actualities.
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.
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.
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.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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?