feikema@mmm.UUCP (John Feikema) (10/12/85)
A couple of caveats here: First of all, I realize I should edit as much of the previous submissions as possible, but in the interest of clarity I haven't done very much in this posting. Second, this is the continuation of the thread started in net.origins, if you're interested you can trace it back there. Third, I have been quite please by the comments to date, I have seen quite a bit of flaming on the net and it's refreshing to see well thought out questions and responses. I'll attempt to respond in kind. In article <408@cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA> hua@cmu-cs-edu1.ARPA (Ernest Hua) writes: > >> Christianity is based on the fact that an omnipotent being, GOD, created >> the world. This creation was not "outside" of physical laws. > >That's quite an assumption ... that a "GOD" created the world ... more >specifically, that "He" created it with laws that "He" designed ... that >these laws still exist ...? What evidence do you have to support this? > Evidence... A good but very difficult point to argue either direction. What evidence do I have that anything exists, what evidence do I have that the sun will rise tomorrow.etc. Hume pondered this at great length and his (and others) conclusions help to form the basis for INDUCTION. In my case I have come to these conclusions through the same process. This induction comes from two main sources. One is through the evidence (you may feel I'm stretching this word) in the Bible. I have found it to be consistent, not only with itself but with creation in general. The second main source of "data" or "evidence" I have used in coming to these inductive conclusions comes from my own experiences. I have found GOD to be more than trustworthy. I have found HIM to be completely consistent and faithful. >> Miracles, and even original human thought is merely evidence that the >> laws of physics that GOD wrote, are orders of magnitute above our present >> understanding and perhaps even our ability to understand (although I >> certainly advocate trying) the real fabric of the universe. > >If these laws are "orders magnitude above our present understanding", how >do you expect anyone to be able to figure out that they exist? What kind >of evidence could possibly support the existence of laws beyond our under- >standing? > Holes or inconsistencies in our theories! What evidence did anybody have that Aristotle's laws of physics were incomplete. Holes. What evidence did anybody have that Newtonian mechanics were incomplete. Holes. What evidence does anybody have that present unified field theories are incomplete. HOLES. Granted with each step the holes or inconsistancies are harder and harder to find but they are there nonetheless. i.e. I have never seen a satisfying explanation of where the energy (or matter, or whatever) that was the supposed basis for the big bang came from?? The presence of a GOD and his laws is no harder to accept than the existance of energy from nothingness. What existed before the bang? > >You have already assumed that God exists, of course, which is not support- >able by science by any means (certainly not the Christian God which you >mostly likely speak of). Remember ... if God created physical laws, he >must be able to circumvent them or make up new ones. If this is really >the case, then science has no value whatsoever as it cannot discover any >real useful information that will most likely apply beyond the next moment. >______________________________________________________________________________ > >Keebler { hua@gandalf.cs.cmu.edu } > This argument is akin to "Can GOD create a mountain that is to big for GOD to move?" I have some real problems trying to understand the concept of omnipotence. I don't think it is an easy concept. With respect to your question I have a couple of thoughts. In Exodus GOD states "I am who I am" and in Malachi He says "I am the Lord, I change not". I believe that these two verses (two of many) describe GOD's unchanging personality. As such, He has restricted Himself to acting consistently, it is his nature. It follows then, that He can't just "circumvent ... or make up new..." laws. It wouldn't be consistent. Besides, that argument implies that he needed to change something because it wasn't done quite right in the first place. (I realize that the use of Bible verses in support of arguments could be less than convincing to those who haven't acccepted the Bible, but it follows from my induction comments above). John Feikema (ihnp4!mmm!feikema)