Posted on 07/22/2005 4:46:53 AM PDT by Nicholas Conradin
And you have evidence of this where?
That, of course, is NOT the question (which you seek to avoid).
The question is how can YOU justify the 30 YEAR actions of Reiner Protsch being glossed over by the so-called 'bastions of scientific veracity' of peer-review.
We'll deal with Mr. Harrub only after you respond. Unless, of course, you're one of those whom Dimensio is constantly disparaging with regards to dishonesty.
And we would have to pay to view his wisdom.
Hmm.. For some reason I was under the impression that you were a Calvinist. The Calvinist god is a dualist god who enacts both good and evil. I have no logical dispute with that formulation, aside from the absence of evidence that a god exists in the first place. The only thing we'd really have to debate is whether we can call him a "dualist" god or whether we can only describe him precisely as a "dualist" god would be described but without using that term..
If you are an Arminian, then that's different. The Arminian god must be a self-limited god much as Ichneumon described. The problem is that Mike rejected that premise out of hand. You haven't yet (and neither do the Christian scriptures). I have no logical dispute with that formulation either, except for the same as above. Shall we argue whether we may properly call said god "self-limited" or if we shall only describe him in that way?
Sorry to barge in but your post caught my eye. You are touching on some heavy aspects of theology that are difficult for anyone to address. C. S. Lewis dealt with this in his "the problem with Pain" and others has written about it. Why does God allow man to suffer, why does he allow evil to exist, etc? Why does he allow Satan to exist, futile as it is, since Christ has already conquered him via the cross? But why does God allow satan to wreak havoc on this earth? These are all related questions.
By allowing evil, you say God commits evil. This would make sense if that was all there was to it. But there are many aspects. God allows man free will and apparently did not want to create goody-good robots which he could have. Sinful man with his free will will commit evil. God could stop every act of evil and intervene but why allow man to be sinful in the first place if he is spending all his time intervening. He allowed man free will because robots cant truly love. He wanted his creatures, at least some of them, to love God of their own free will. I know I want my own children to love me of their own free will.
Also, as humans we have a limited view of cause and effect. We do not understand how good things can come out of evil because we can't always see these relationships throughout the world. How someone's suffering for an instant (in terms if infinity) may bring someone else perhaps to Christ and to infinite life. I'm not saying thats why it happens I'm just suggesting a God-centered view takes into account a much broader view that we can't see.
God loves us but it's not about us, its about Him and his glory. We often look at logic from a man-centered view and not a God-centered view. I offer all this not to suggest I have it figured out but to to simply suggest we don't have all the facts to be able to check God's logic.
you don't really believe gravity sprung up out of nowhere do you?
No Does gravity exist eternally or was there a beginning? What caused its being?
Don't know.
Quite the opposite. I'm suggesting that our free will results in actions that may surprise God -- without violating either his omnipotence or omniscience.
No it isn't. See my follow up post.
It was not conditional and hence the same rule would apply to the parents as to God.
Yes, it was conditional. You made it so with your premise that God must be totally omniscient. And therefore no, the same rule would obviously not apply to the parents, unless they are also equally cognizant of the results of their action before they enact it.
Moreover, the omnipotent God - remember you said he's omnipotent - retains total control over the murderer's ability to act. The parents do not have any such control.
Willful inaction is an action.
So, you believe that evil is nothing more than breaking an arbitrary rule as opposed to a state of being?
My belief is irrelevant to this debate. But, fwiw, my view is that evil is defined by the properties of existence. If existence is dependent on an omnipotent god, then evil is defined by that.
Was Charles Manson evil or just a breaker of an arbitrary rule commanded by God?
From a Christian perspective he was both. All men are evil in Christian theology and he also violated several arbitrary rules explicitly commanded by God.
I agree. Identifying intelligence is more of a know-it-when-you-see-it sort of thing, not easily quantifiable. ID, therefore, properly belongs in the field of philosophy/religion, rather than scientific inquiry. However, it is equally true that atheists cannot somehow test for a lack of intelligent intervention, so their assertions of such similarly belong outside of real science.
I was with you until the final line:
"However, it is equally true that atheists cannot somehow test for a lack of intelligent intervention, so their assertions of such similarly belong outside of real science."
One cannot prove a negative. The burden of proof must therefore lie with the people making assertions of an intelligent designer, not with those who deny one.
Or: "theists don't want to talk about the origin of God because its the biggest fault of their entire theory and they have no answer for it".
Accordingly (again, according to your post) "Protsch was forced to retire in disgrace after a Frankfurt University panel ruled he had 'fabricated data and plagiarized the work of his colleagues.'"
Indeed, his fabrications were uncovered by (again, according to your post) evolutionists, for whom Mr. Protsch’s results were "too good to be true." Sounds to me like the system worked, even if belatedly. Mr. Protsch was disgraced and forced to resign as a consequence of his fraud, as he rightly should have been.
Now, I’ll ask again. What have the "creationist peer reviewers" done about "Brad Harrub, Ph.D."?
You see, that's the difference between science and "creation science."
No one has ever claimed that scientists are incapable of lying or incapable of fraud. That's one of the reasons for peer review. And when a scientist is caught fabricating results, the punishment is severe.
But with "creation science," the lies are routine, they are repeated again and again even after revealed, and they are never punished.
Indeed, it is readily apparent that the "scientists" manning the ramparts of creationism cannot be punished for their fraud by the "creation science" establishment. There aren't enough of them. If there was ever a decision made to actually weed out the frauds, there wouldn't be any more soldiers on the ramparts.
I don't there is any argument that dogs and wolves -- different species that they are -- share a common ancestor. I think the argument starts with claims that the dog shares an acestor with a cat -- much less fish, dragonfly or oak tree.
The burden of proof is on anyone who makes an assertion either way.
Add omnibenevolent, too. Omnipotence and omniscience alone would still permit God to create and/or condone evil.
I'm just a free thinker who has spent a fair amount of time trying to understand God, based on scripture.
"Hmm.. For some reason I was under the impression that you were a Calvinist. The Calvinist god is a dualist god who enacts both good and evil."
I think along those lines. God creates all things. Therefore, He creates infinite variety. He also creates Free Will, the opportunity to choose evil, and opportunity for Eternal Life. He knows exactly how we are going to choose. Yet there is an aspect of God, sometimes found in the scriptures, that is amazed, that marvels, that is surprised. So one consciousness of God may not be able to foresee all things.
Jesus, quite clearly, was not able to foresee absolutely everything, such as when He asked the Bitter Cup to be passed from Him. Seems to me He felt doubt. He also chided his followers for sleeping that night, as though he wanted them to keep watch. That would not be needed if Jesus knew absolutely everything.[But He did know everything He was required to know.] Also, when He allowed Legion to enter the pigs, it's not clear He wanted them to run off the cliff and thus, He was alienated from that area.
But the Heavanly Father, I often wonder if His consciousness is not completely merged with the Son's. Just as we have a subconscious, perhaps the Father communicates with the Son in a similar, even more sophisticated way. And it is obvious to me that the Father is capable of incredible ruthlessness. Just look at this world of death that we were cast into for being sinners.
"I have no logical dispute with that formulation, aside from the absence of evidence that a god exists in the first place."
Note that in the book of Daniel, Alexander the Great was predicted, and if that doesn't grab you, Daniel also predicted the increase of travel and knowledge. Peter predicted that one day the entire surface of the earth would dissolve. Revelations predicted a World Court that would pass judgement over the entire earth. And BTW, the sun was not created on the first day, so I'm not a hardcore believer that the earth was created in six solar days. And Revelation spoke of 200 million 'dragons' one day crossing the Euphrates, which will one day dry up. [Think China.]
"The only thing we'd really have to debate is whether we can call him a "dualist" god or whether we can only describe him precisely as a "dualist" god would be described but without using that term.."
I tell you, He is what He is. My main concern is how to be His friend. It's a good idea, believe me. Our knowledge of God is, quite obviously flawed. We, with our puny, limited minds, can't figure out our own subconscious minds, let alone the mind of God. Trying to understand Him before meeting Him is much like trying to understand an elephant before seeing it, only worse.
"If you are an Arminian, then that's different. The Arminian god must be a self-limited god much as Ichneumon described."
God does limit Himself through promises.
FRegards....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.