This presupposes that there could arise a situation that is strictly against God's will. I say that this situation could not arise. If something is allowable in God's will but not preferred by humans (e.g., harmful events to humans), then I think humans can pray to God for a miracle.

In that case, a miracle might include a mistake in our calculations, or more dramatically it might include Star Wars technology being used to avert the disaster, or it might include a surprising situation where another object collides with the incoming rock thus averting the disaster, or it might include the discovery of some form of dark matter that we were completely unaware which averts the disaster, etc, etc.

The key is that the asteroid can only hit the earth if it is within God's will to do so, but some events may require miracles if humans pray for some events to transpire differently then how they appear they will transpire. However, I would add this caveat, the more likely an event appears, the more faith and intense prayer it requires for the expected event to be obstructed by the will of God.

Warm regards, Harv

• 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