Posted on 04/11/2005 10:25:55 AM PDT by Michael_Michaelangelo
No, he is a self-controlling God.
The presence of freewill establishes that another's will is not being forced upon us. This does not say another will doesn't exist, as that would mean we would have but the one choice. This means that not only do we have a will, but another will MUST exist for ours to be "free"
Therein lies the problem. The commandment that says that "thou shalt worship no other gods before me" indicates that there are indeed other gods. Some of them are even named in the bible. Which one is telling the truth? Are any of the stories about gods true? It is an interesting question, and it is in the realm of philosophy, not science.
My view is that if an infinite god exists then evil cannot exist. Everything must be precisely as the infinite god wishes it to be.
I've addressed this to almost everyone who has asked me such. Even some who don't.
God "having a creator" (even if it is Himself) is not a rational that we can venture to. Not saying one we shouldn't, but one we CANT.
Given that Time is a property of the Universe, and God created the Universe, God gave the Universe the Time. Thus "before" God does not exist in any way we could fathom. If there is no "before" there is no "creator"
Thus, God has always been. End of story.
----If a god created a musician then a god created him. If a god created a musician but did not have any control over what the musician would end up doing, then he is a limited god. I already discussed limited gods above.----
What if God wasn't within the realm of thinking as we perceive 'life', as in being 'created' by something. We are subject to creation, I believe that God doesn't exist in the way we look inwards within ourselves. Creation is an instrument created by God, that doesn't necessarily mean creation applies to God.
That negates the entire premise of science that you so desire to defend with atheism!
For evil to exist, God MUST exist, and vice-versa.
Think of it as "1" and "0"
Something and nothing.
You can't have "something" without "nothing" being an option. That's why the number 0 exists. It's why it's used as "off" in machine speak.
For there to be existance, there has to be something beyond existance.
Your view is flawed.
So that would mean that an infinite god could create a number which is both even and odd? Answer quickly!
And it brings us full circle to my ultimate point, which is that if god exists one cannot reach god via reason, but only through faith. Many here have faith, I don't.
Intelligent Design is an attempt to reason out god. To one with true faith, ID theory is unnecessary and meaningless.
"Yes, of course it is, because creating the option to engage in evil is evil."
Your arguments do not hold water.
By the same token our constitution would be evil because it permits gun ownership, and guns can be used in a bad way. In fact, we can be certain that someone is going to misuse a gun in the next few days. So do you think allowing gun ownership is evil?
God has created beings with the ability to make choices. Many choices people make are against God's will. He does not instantly judge these sins because He is patient and merciful. But He has promised to judge the world in righteousness.
You have a very simplistic approach to theology, but at least you have given the subject some consideration. What you are not accounting for is the concept of redemption.
----My view is that if an infinite god exists then evil cannot exist. Everything must be precisely as the infinite god wishes it to be.----
Evil acts do exist, because they are part of mankind and of our existence. Evil acts are there, and are not to be overlooked. We recognize them as what they are. If evil didn't exist, we wouldn't be talking about the subject at hand.
I disagree. Proponents of "intelligent design" always, always beg the question of religion.
For example:
In contrast to what is called creation science, which parallels Biblical theology, ID rests on two basic assumptions: namely, that intelligent agents exist and that their effects are empirically detectable.
The question begged is "what intelligence?" The obvious and immediate answer is the Creator. (Unless, of course, you're a Raelian.) "Intelligent design theorists" are creationists, and the sole purpose of "intelligent design" is to advance the idea that the Creator created life. Not that there is anything wrong with the idea. There's nothing bad about being a creationist. But it isn't scientific. "Intelligent design" is nothing but creationism dressed up in pseudo-scientific jargon.
Now, I sincerely believe there is nothing wrong with the idea of creation in a religious context. All too often, objections to "intelligent design" are characterized as hostility to religion. With a few exceptions, nothing could be further from the truth. The problem that I, and many others, have with "intelligent design" is that it is advanced as a scientific theory; particularly an equivalent and alternative theory to evolution. It is not a scientific theory. The sole purpose of "intelligent design" is to torpedo the scientific concept of evolution because some people believe that evolution contradicts their religious faith.
The purpose of science is not to answer philosophical and metaphysical questions, such as "is there a Creator" and "why do we exist." By its very definition the divine defies description and transcends measurement. The purpose of science, however, is to describe the physical world in concrete terms. Science is simply a tool. One does not demand ethics from a hammer or inclined plane. By dressing up religion as science, "intelligent design theorists" do a disservice to both science and religion.
Was that post directed at me by mistake? It sounds like you're making an arguement... but the post not only is not what you addressed, but agrees with yours as well.
Yes.
Fine. Now give me the number that is both even and odd.
tick
tick
tick
White smoke already?
I am not an infinite god, as one might readily discern from the sorry state of existence. :)
If I posted something towards you, it was prob a mistake. I don't recall posting an argument towards you. Which response are you talking about?
You responded to 164... but you wre quoting an earlier one.
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.