Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Re: I Think You Misunderstood Me

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Greg Armel/">Greg Armel on October 14, 1999 00:27:50 UTC

Tenacious: My intention is not to disprove the existence of God, as such would be an impossible feat. My intention is to disprove one traditional religious view point of God (if you account for all the assumptions about God I've made). I'm not suggesting all theists think this way, because the definition of God can be much more diverse than those that I've included in my argument. You are right to say that my argument doesn't disprove God, because it doesn't.

Greg: First, I do not believe you were trying to disprove the existence of God, but I believe that you base Your view that He does not exist, on your ability to dispute the arguments of Bible Thumpers. I'm glad that you understand that a diverse definition of God exists. My own definition for God I am glad to share, because I can defend every bit of it, through a perception of the natural universe and sound logic. I am a Taoist. Harmony with Nature is a Taoist edict. My definition for God is Omnipotent, Omnipresent, OmniLove, providing Omniscience to Omnifarious, Omnivorous, Creation.

My purpose in discussing this with you was to explain the True Nature of God's Omniscience. I have noticed in several of your posts where you base your denial of God's existence on the view that if God were Omniscient, He would Know ahead of time what was going to occur, and He would not permit His Children to suffer. This view is only valid with someone who believes in Predestination, which from our previous conversations, you obviously do, even though you relate it to something else other then God.

I was mainly just explaining to you that God's Omniscience is not dependant on His Awareness of Future events, but rather it is provided by His Omnipresence. His Omnipresence doesn't provide entirely for the Awareness of Future events, even though without the need for Omnipresence, He is Aware of Everything which will be approved of through His initiation of "Thy Will Be Done".

Tenacious: As for free will, fine I'll accept your premise because we've already argued this point extensively.

Greg: I am an advocate of Free-Will vs. Predestination, which is why I am willing to discuss it to whatever length, since it is an imperative to the appropriate understanding of God, especially the difference between what God IS Aware of regarding the Future according to His "Thy Will Be Done" and Future events He is not Aware of due to the inherent Nature of Free-Will. Our discussion did not really involve Free-Will vs. Predestination, since you don't even believe in Free-Will in a universe devoid of God.

Tenacious: Concerning your point about evil: Of course I don't believe that natural disasters or diseases are evil. They are all part of nature's balance as you've said. Again, my argument appeals only to the traditionnal viewpoint of God, and the issue of good and evil. As far as I know, good and evil are purely subjective terms, and don't exist outside the human mind. In fact, human perception of good and evil very well shaped religious beliefs. However, you mentioned the fact that these disasters MUST happen because without them, the earth would split in two. However, this need not be. Remember that God is omnipotent, and he could have recreated the laws of physics differently if he wanted. For the cause of saving all the children (us) that he loves and created, I think that he could have done this without interfering with our free will (these events have nothing to do with free will). These events cause unnecessary suffering (as with the burning man example), and God could have prevented them.

Greg: What you are saying here is that "if I were God, I'd do it this way." God created the universe so that it would evolve based upon the Laws of Physics Created in the First Second of the Big-Bang. It has worked just fine the way He Created it, over fifteen billion years ago. He is Omnipotent, He could change it, but why should He, He Created it the way it is. If He altered things for the benefit of just the few, the many would suffer, by not having the opportunity to appreciate learning to provide for themselves. Everyone would just sit back and let God take care of it all. Is that the life you want?

Tenacious: Finally, I'd like to show how SOME theistic views are inconsistent. For instance, medical technology has advanced at a rapid rate, and lives are extended far beyond reproductive maturity. Few theists would think this is a bad thing, in fact many might think that it is a blessing from God. But, as human population growth explodes, the balance of nature is upset. Humans are consuming too many resources, and are forced to live in increasingly over crowded conditions. This facilitates the spread of disease, which is actually natures attempt at restoring balance. Theists might see this as being evil, or God unleashing his wrath before us, when it is simply nature's natural order. If we stop viewing events from a theological perspective (all things are caused by God for a reason), we'll see that things are caused by natural laws, that prefer balance and order.

Greg: God prefers balance and order, which is why Nature proceeds the way it does. It is man that disrupts the balance and order, through His application of Free-Will. I agree some theistic views need improvement. As regards the medical community, christians at one time refused medical treatment for their children based upon the view that if it were God's Will that they should die, so be it. It took a court order to get these children treatment, and thereby change the christian view regarding medical treatment. :o)

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2024 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins