How Can God Prevent Such Catastrophe? - an Astronomy Net God & Science Forum Message

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


Home \| Discussion Forums \| God and Science \| Post	Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora

How Can God Prevent Such Catastrophe?

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Alexander on January 10, 2002 15:01:41 UTC

Because He can not change physical laws "at will", nor "for time being" nor "for asteroid only", both Earth and the asteroid will follow a collision trajectories (as it was many times in the past, obliterating lives on Earth many times with ease).

Follow Ups:

It's a matter of God's will - harvey1 - January 10, 2002 - 16:50 UTC
- How does God realise his will if he find colliding rock? - alexander - January 10, 2002 - 17:06 UTC
  - Well - harvey1 - January 10, 2002 - 17:20 UTC
    - We have been hit before, ya know - stormcrow - January 10, 2002 - 17:43 UTC
      - Anthrocentric or anthropocentric? - harvey1 - January 10, 2002 - 18:15 UTC
        
        Harvey, and what exactly is "God will"? - alexander - January 10, 2002 - 19:05 UTC
        
        Think of it this way - harvey1 - January 10, 2002 - 20:15 UTC
        
        So, basicly He is a passive observer. - alexander - January 10, 2002 - 20:55 UTC
        
        You forgot about his active role - harvey1 - January 10, 2002 - 21:27 UTC
        
        The reason why it takes years - our brain is too weak. - alexander - January 10, 2002 - 22:02 UTC
        
        Not a suitable answer - harvey1 - January 10, 2002 - 23:07 UTC
        
        Pauli principle is a CONSEQUENCE too. - alexander - January 10, 2002 - 23:37 UTC
        
        Define God here... - stormcrow - January 11, 2002 - 04:16 UTC
        
        I actually did post definitions of God & you "commenteth'd not - quiet - January 11, 2002 - 19:33 UTC
        
        I must have missed it - stormcrow - January 11, 2002 - 23:24 UTC
        
        could take ten minutes ! -- Mike - carefuluniverse - January 12, 2002 - 03:13 UTC
        
        Give me a little time to churn through this - stormcrow - January 12, 2002 - 05:09 UTC
        
        Thank you. When will my pizza arrive? - carefuluniverse - January 13, 2002 - 17:38 UTC
        
        Here you go - stormcrow - January 14, 2002 - 04:40 UTC
        
        whoa - stormcrow - January 14, 2002 - 04:41 UTC
        
        So, it's an IQ problem - quiet - January 14, 2002 - 07:07 UTC
        
        Yes, probably - stormcrow - January 14, 2002 - 16:10 UTC
        
        I know no reason to try harder to win your approval - occupant - January 14, 2002 - 19:20 UTC
        
        I'm not demeaning you in any way - stormcrow - January 15, 2002 - 03:55 UTC
        
        Why not...don't I deserve to be demeaned as much as anyone? - carefuluniverse - January 15, 2002 - 06:45 UTC
        
        Probably more so - stormcrow - January 15, 2002 - 17:13 UTC
        
        why more so? - occupant - January 15, 2002 - 18:17 UTC
        
        Mario, here is the definition (Anyway Mike does not have it). - alexander - January 15, 2002 - 20:01 UTC
        
        Isaac, Albert, Enrico, here is the definition (Alex is a ... : ) - occupant - January 15, 2002 - 21:56 UTC
        
        I did. It says "A supreme, or ultimate reality". Math, then. - alexander - January 20, 2002 - 22:46 UTC
        
        Reposting that - quiet - January 11, 2002 - 19:34 UTC
        
        More on the subject - harvey1 - January 11, 2002 - 06:16 UTC
        
        Three ways ways to explain. - alexander - January 11, 2002 - 20:02 UTC
        
        Thank you - stormcrow - January 11, 2002 - 23:25 UTC
        
        Mario, I'm afraid your missing the point - harvey1 - January 12, 2002 - 02:43 UTC
        
        No doubt I am - stormcrow - January 12, 2002 - 04:50 UTC
        
        Wow - carefuluniverse - January 12, 2002 - 06:22 UTC
        
        re: No doubt I am - harvey1 - January 12, 2002 - 16:09 UTC
        
        I'll specify - stormcrow - January 12, 2002 - 17:20 UTC
        
        You don't see the bigger picture - harvey1 - January 11, 2002 - 02:35 UTC
        
        Harvey, math governs it all, that is why. - alexander - January 11, 2002 - 20:29 UTC
        
        Doesn't work - harvey1 - January 11, 2002 - 20:52 UTC
        
        All forces and laws are related. - alexander - January 11, 2002 - 21:09 UTC
        
        Still won't work - harvey1 - January 11, 2002 - 21:54 UTC
        
        Harvey, try to understand simple things. - alexander - January 11, 2002 - 22:26 UTC
        
        Very simply - harvey1 - January 11, 2002 - 23:11 UTC
        
        No - harvey1 - January 10, 2002 - 22:55 UTC
        
        Oops! - harvey1 - January 10, 2002 - 22:56 UTC
      - Hmm. Let's See? - rggarfinkle - January 12, 2002 - 05:36 UTC
        
        A serene travel through the topic - spazcon - January 12, 2002 - 20:54 UTC
    - what are "God's options" ? and our logical limits - quiet - January 10, 2002 - 17:58 UTC
      - Let me give you my view of the matter - harvey1 - January 10, 2002 - 18:29 UTC
        
        I did read it... - quiet - January 10, 2002 - 22:30 UTC
        
        Religion is another matter - harvey1 - January 10, 2002 - 23:12 UTC
    - Prayer was experimentally found absolutely ineffective. - alexander - January 10, 2002 - 18:32 UTC
      - The use of statistics doesn't work - harvey1 - January 10, 2002 - 19:29 UTC
      - Al's absolutely mistaken...this dogma ignores everything mental - quiet - January 10, 2002 - 19:41 UTC
        
        This is not a belief (that all processes are a mathematical - alexander - January 10, 2002 - 20:42 UTC
        
        So, what does math calculate I will say next? - quiet - January 10, 2002 - 22:19 UTC
        
        Quite simple math. - alexander - January 10, 2002 - 23:47 UTC
        
        I need not argue . . .self=evidently, that is not an answer - quiet - January 11, 2002 - 01:08 UTC
      - Placebos have been shown -- experimentally -- to be effective. - luis_hamburgh - January 10, 2002 - 23:53 UTC
        
        Really? Why don't you try placibo for heart attack? - alexander - January 11, 2002 - 00:23 UTC
        
        Or try math - quiet - January 11, 2002 - 07:02 UTC
        
        Why do you argue against yourself so often? - luis_hamburgh - January 12, 2002 - 15:44 UTC
        
        Not 'oxymoron,' -- 'redundancy.' - luis_hamburgh - January 12, 2002 - 16:14 UTC
        
        A bit harsh - stormcrow - January 12, 2002 - 17:23 UTC
        
        Luis is also a musician....soars to achingly beautiful heights - spazcon - January 12, 2002 - 20:37 UTC

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