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
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
RE: RE: RE: RE: Free Will... The Dead Topic Claws Back Into The Woodwork

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by S.H. Le on October 5, 2000 17:59:30 UTC

"God allowed Hitler to damn himself to hell. Of course, God knew all along Hitler would wind up in hell, should God not create anyone who choses to wind-up in hell?" - Bzrd.

Yes, that`s exactly what i`m saying, God shouldn`t create anyone whom he knows will with absolute certainty be sent to hell. Don`t you see the contradiction there? Certainly, God has given someone like Hitler the free choice to go to hell, but i can`t see how that can be an action of love. Hell is supposedly a horrible place where one is punished for all eternity, therefore it can`t be a place intended to reform behavior because there`s noway out of hell. Would you ever create a child you knew was hopelessly condemned to hell? Yes, this is a `human conception` of morality, but if we can`t even trust our own human conceptions of morality... than how can we possibly know what god wants?

"If this were the case, what purpose would free-will play?" - Bzrd.

Interesting you should bring that up... i don`t believe in the existence of free will. I`m a determinist. If the universe follows deterministic physical laws, what makes humans free of these laws other than your assertion that God gave us free will? The question is Nature vs. Nurture, both external. What else is there?

"There are things we will never know [etc] therefore God exists", is an object lesson in circular-reasoning. - Bzrd.

Yes, that`s right. That is the argument from ignorance. It is circular.

"Similar to "I exist, I can`t see God, therefore God does not" - Bzrd.

Quite right. That would be true IF my only basis for denying God`s existence was the fact that i couldn`t see him. I don`t think i`ve ever used the "i can`t see god therefore he doesn`t exist" argument, because i`m aware it`s unsound. We can infer that black holes exist even though we can`t directly see them... we can only see their effect on other bodies in space.

I have many other reasons for denying God... many of which i`ve posted on this forum to the extent that i`m sure you`re all sick me. Ah well, a small price to pay for my own enjoyment.

"To me, the Bible is the word of God. It aptly explains the nature of the First Cause, which is something science has not, and almost certainly is not equipped to do." - Bzrd.

You couldn`t be more right. There are certain things in science that may never be discovered... this doesn`t mean i have to accept the bible just because it hasn`t been explained by science... i can say that your explanation isn`t satisfactory to me. I`ve acknowledge the fact that science isn`t perfect because it was created by men... the bible isn`t perfect because it was also written by men. How else do you account for all the contradictions in the bible? The bible has been wrong in the past... that IS an undeniable fact (Heliocentric view of the universe?). Interpretation can be stretched only so far.

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2018 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