Who's on First?

[Cabal]

Miracles aren't necesarily contrary to natural laws... just not obviously mechanistic in their initial observation. See also Clarke's law.

I see no reason why God, with access to infinite energy and processing power, should necessarily break his own laws to perform the miraculous.

Miracles can simply be a matter of good synchronicity or timing also - although that suggestion often seems to disappoint the literalist-types. Probably not dramatic enough.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Miracles can simply be a matter of good synchronicity or timing also - although that suggestion often seems to disappoint the literalist-types. Probably not dramatic enough.

I don't believe that is the case... I believe that miracles are real expressions of a directly interventionist God, I just don't believe they necesarily break the laws of physics.

That said, you are welcome to believe what you like. This is all matter of faith stuff.

 

[Cabal]

I don't believe that is the case... I believe that miracles are real expressions of a directly interventionist God, I just don't believe they necesarily break the laws of physics.

That said, you are welcome to believe what you like. This is all matter of faith stuff.

I meant, that God uses the natural processes he instituted to create the outcome he wants at the time he wants.

 

[AV1611VET]

Miracles aren't necesarily contrary to natural laws... just not obviously mechanistic in their initial observation. See also Clarke's law.

What would Clark's Law say about creatio ex nihilo, where the amount of energy in the universe started out at zero, then was raised to its current level over a period of six days?

There are no natural laws mention in Genesis 1 --- that I know of.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

What would Clark's Law say about creatio ex nihilo, where the amount of energy in the universe started out at zero, then was raised to its current level over a period of six days?

There are no natural laws mention in Genesis 1 --- that I know of.

Does God reproduce or not?

 

[lostaquarium]

Does God reproduce or not?

No, of course not But that doesn't mean he's not alive. Because our definition of "alive" was defined by us, from observing organisms around us. It's a limited definition. God is alive, but he doesn't reproduce.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

No, of course not But that doesn't mean he's not alive. Because our definition of "alive" was defined by us, from observing organisms around us. It's a limited definition. God is alive, but he doesn't reproduce.

This is why AV was asked about the definition of "life". If you go with the official term, reproduction is indeed a necessary criterium for life.

 

[lostaquarium]

Well, he shouldn't have let himself get tangled up in semantics.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

What would Clark's Law say about creatio ex nihilo, where the amount of energy in the universe started out at zero, then was raised to its current level over a period of six days?

There are no natural laws mention in Genesis 1 --- that I know of.

Not even the Bible says that the universe was ever at null sum...

Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

But yep, Clarke's law still applies anyway

 

[EnemyPartyII]

I meant, that God uses the natural processes he instituted to create the outcome he wants at the time he wants.

So... are you suggesting that God created the universe in such a way that the universe would have the thunder roll and lightning flash when he wanted to from the beginning?

Whereas I think he creates the thunder and lightning as required, neither need violate a fundamental law.

Either is equally possible, though I admit I hadn't thought of the first one previously.

 

[pgp_protector]

Plug Jesus walking on water into your computers and see if you don't get a 404.

Plug Jesus' resurrection into your computers and see if you don't get a 404.

Plug creatio ex nihilo into your computers and see if you don't get a 404.

Like I say --- you guys program these computers according to uniformitarian expectations, then cry because it 404s when a miracle is inputted.

None of those give me a 404, but then again that's because I do know how to code.

 

[Tenka]

No, of course not But that doesn't mean he's not alive. Because our definition of "alive" was defined by us, from observing organisms around us. It's a limited definition. God is alive, but he doesn't reproduce.

Then we can also say that God is a donut, if you think he doesn't fit the definition of a donut then you are using the limited definition of "donut".
God may not be a ring of fried pastry but he is still a donut.

 

[pgp_protector]

Then we can also say that God is a donut, if you think he doesn't fit the definition of a donut then you are using the limited definition of "donut".
God may not be a ring of fried pastry but he is still a donut.

Well a torus is without a beginning and end & God is without a beginning and end, so maybe God does fit a "definition" of a donut if you use the proper "definition"

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Can we have a schism and start burning crueler heretics at the stake? And those who believe God is a bear's claw aren't REAL Christians.

 

[Cabal]

Well, he shouldn't have let himself get tangled up in semantics.

Are you kidding me? Semantics is all he has.

 

[Cabal]

So... are you suggesting that God created the universe in such a way that the universe would have the thunder roll and lightning flash when he wanted to from the beginning?

Whereas I think he creates the thunder and lightning as required, neither need violate a fundamental law.

Either is equally possible, though I admit I hadn't thought of the first one previously.

Pretty much. If it's a random statistical process to us, it won't look that way to God. But I still maintain that the greatest portion of any miracle is the timing of it, and good timing alone can be interpreted as miraculous.

 

[pgp_protector]

Pretty much. If it's a random statistical process to us, it won't look that way to God. But I still maintain that the greatest portion of any miracle is the timing of it, and good timing alone can be interpreted as miraculous.

True, just think of God starting everything up with the most awsom Break (Pool table) of all the quantum particles, so that they all hit where they're supposed to hit when they're supposed to hit.

We get impressed with 15 Balls on a pool table, imagine His expert shot with every particle in existance

 

[tansy]

I meant, that God uses the natural processes he instituted to create the outcome he wants at the time he wants.

Yep...I think that that could be the case

 

[tansy]

True, just think of God starting everything up with the most awsom Break (Pool table) of all the quantum particles, so that they all hit where they're supposed to hit when they're supposed to hit.

We get impressed with 15 Balls on a pool table, imagine His expert shot with every particle in existance

Yes, this is what I have wondered about....maybe this is how He knows the beginning from the end and is all-knowing etc. Just supposing he created through evolution (though I'm not saying that si the case), then He could have kinda set everything from the beginning to develop the exact way He envisaged..culminating with human beings.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Yes, this is what I have wondered about....maybe this is how He knows the beginning from the end and is all-knowing etc. Just supposing he created through evolution (though I'm not saying that si the case), then He could have kinda set everything from the beginning to develop the exact way He envisaged..culminating with human beings.

Too true -- and when you consider that evolution only explains a species' physical development, and God (so I've heard) is a more "spiritually" minded Supreme Being, does it really matter what we physically developed into, so long as we are able to commune (however it happens) with the divine?

How much less "in God's Image" would we be if we had evolved into two-headed firebreathing chickens?