Albion

I've been reading "Faith, Form, and Time" by Kurt Wise, the guy Richard Dawkins wrote about in his piece "Sadly, an honest creationist," and I was struck by this passage:

"God did not create the earth to exist forever in perfect form. He knew that man would sin. He knew that He would have to curse the entire creation. He also knew that He would have to judge the earth with a global flood. Both the Curse and the Flood would substantially impact the earth. So the earth was created in such a way that it would not only provide an optimal environment for animals and man in the Edenic world, but that it would survive both the Fall and the Flood and provide an optimal environment after these global catastrophes. The earth has shown remarkable resilience. This incredible ability to survive abuse makes the earth look almost as if it were an organism. Unbelievers have used this kind of evidence to argue that the earth is a living organism - an organism with the name Gaia. This Gaia hypothesis has become popular in some circles. Just like the heavens, the earth's structure also gives evidence of God's nature."

Well, and there was me wondering why I've got a bad headache. Reading this stuff, it's no wonder. God knew upfront that he'd have to curse and destroy everything in sight (regardless of the fact that he hadn't created it yet and could have redesigned the parameters a bit to avoid quite such a terrible outcome - IF he'd wanted to, of course), so he just made the infrastructure that much more resilient to start with? What sort of sick logic is that? At least the guy had the decency to use the word "abuse," but I don't think he meant people to infer that he thought God was abusive. At this rate I'm not sure I'll be able to get through the chapter on baraminology without a severe migraine and probably palpitations.

At least this book overtly puts the Bible front and centre, which means it'll never get into the public schools (as long as church-state separation exits, of course). So much for creation science not really being about pushing Bible-based science. The folk at ICR and AiG must hate this guy.

braces_for_impact

I am continually amazed at the mental gymnastics some theists will go to to rationalize their concept of a divine being. Despite all obvious evidence surrounding them that their particular deity does not posess certain characteristics, they will attempt to explain away any contradictiions or faults in their logic.

Sad really.

Dr.GH

OK, thet me add to your problems:

God can "know" what will happen, but if humans do not know, then the excersise must be followed.

When I give my students an exam, I KNOW THE ANSWERS. The students are not teaching ME anything.

So, the creationists always have a ready explanation for the objectios that "Why did God do x,y, or z if results A, B, or C were known to God beforehand. "A, B, or C" were not known to humans, and perhapes this is the point being made.

If one raises the question of "What sort of God would not be able to predict every outcome, and eliminate any sort of unhappyness/" the obvious responce is: a God consistant with the natural, and biolgical sciences.

I can propose that evolution makes the existance of some sort of god-like being inevitable.

(Mainly I do this when I have had a lot to drink.)

Albion

Yes, but the mindset that is satisfied with a scenario that God knew he was going to create a species that he'd have to curse and destroy, so he built an extra-sturdy planet to accommodate the destruction, is a mindset beyond comprehension. And this is the great God of love they're always on about? God so loved the world that he gave it an extra layer of scaffolding so it would hold up when he obliterated a species he hadn't even created yet, along with everything else that walked and flew, just because it acted according to the nature he gave it? That's a whole new definition of love. And these people are trying to rewrite science to accommodate this scenario.

Reldas of Melchezidec

Mat 18:18
"I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be[ 18:18 Or have been] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[ 18:18 Or have been] loosed in heaven."



If you knew better what this means, I bet you wouldn't have headaches over the concept of fatalism, just of certain peoples interpretation of it. People personify themselves as if they were the very I Am. Its a wonderfull ability granted, but one which can get oneself into a confused mess- most any sort of logic becomes highly subjective at such a point. It helps to learn about such things in the form of parables and paradoxes, that way the cognitive mind doesn't get in the way. Intuitively said, I think.
:]

-Reldas of Gnomicism

Oolon Colluphid

“Just the place for a Snark!” the Bellman cried,
As he landed his crew with care;
Supporting each man on the top of the tide
By a finger entwined in his hair.

“Just the place for a Snark! I have said it twice:
That alone should encourage the crew.
Just the place for a Snark! I have said it thrice:
What I tell you three times is true.”

-- Lewis Carroll, The Hunting of the Snark, Fit the First.
If we had the slightest inclination to accept as a guide to the real world an old book derived from Bronze Age goatherds, then we might take notice of it.
Funny, but I don’t have a problem with it, and I completely ignore the Babble.
Would you be kind enough to run that one by me again in English? I don’t speak Autoproctologian.
Yeah, it requires a certain suppleness of the spine that I lack.

Which sorts do you have in mind?
Hmmm. Subjective logic...
Hmmm. “Cognitive (adj): connected with thinking or conscious mental processes.” Well hey, we’d not want any of dat pesky ‘thinking’ getting in the way!

TTFN, DT

Jimmy Higgins

What comes to mind through this is that if such were the case, then god would certainly be the most foresightful deity. However, does that mean he's got a lick of common sense? If you've got a fork and an electrical outlet, and you know that sticking the fork in their is going to hurt you, are ya going to do it?

Once again, the complexity of the entire design is what leads me to believe there is no god. It is TOO "complicated."

Oolon Colluphid

Argument from personal incredulity.

Cheers, DT

XChamp

Albion,
I run into so many people that refuse to/don't believe in God because they do not understand or comprehend why he would do certain things. This view does not make any sense. How can you expect to even come close to understanding a being that is infinite? To be able to do so would mean that God is not all-knowing and all-powerful after all and thus not worth believing in anyway.


Although no one can hope to understand God, I believe we can come close, in certain cases, with analogies. God bringing humanity into existence is very much like having a child. If I bring a child into this world I will be doing it because I want someone to love and I want this someone to *choose* to love me as well. I want a child that will be made in my image (like exceling in the same sports I excel in, as a trivial example) and someone that I can look at and see myself in. Now, bringing a child into this world will definitely result in punishing this child. It will involve punishing the child to the point where it will most likely hurt me more than it hurts him or her. Some of the time he or she will not even understand *why* i am punishing him/her. Don't you remember being punished as a child and thinking how unfair it was? Do you still think it was unfair? I don't.


Again, I dont know if you have children, but I know that the majority of adults on this planet have chosen to have children and have done so knowing they will have to punish them. Why is it so hard to believe that God made the same decision?

Chimp

:banghead:

It becomes the question:

"What are the ultimate causal factors for reality?"

This question should be approached analytically.

An equation to be solved.

Reality = ?

Abstract thought.

Chimp.