Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
You said absolutely nothing here.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Come on, Creationists!
- Thread starter ppp
- Start date
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
God created physics. He's not subject to any laws that he made.
ppp
Well-Known Member
So, the laws of quantum physics defy all laws of physics? That's what you are going with?
ppp
Well-Known Member
Certainly nothing within your grasp.
So you don't think real theology is or would be complicated?
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
Apparently Einstein thought so.. he struggled with accepting quantum theory and its implications. “I cannot seriously believe in quantum theory because … physics should represent a reality in time and space, free from spooky actions at a distance.”
ppp
Well-Known Member
And he was wrong. Duh.
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
I didn't say it wasn't complicated. In reality completely understanding God is impossible.
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
Yes because he didn't take theology into account.
"By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.”
Did you have another point that I missed?
Wildswanderer
Veteran Member
The point was that God isn't subject to natures laws because he runs it.
firedragon
Veteran Member
One could make a lot substance-less comments.
And I just think that's beyond my pay grade to answer.
firedragon
Veteran Member
I didnt disagree on this. And YEC is not a theory?? Wow. Brand new information??
Anyway, you didnt give any answer to a question I asked based your OP. You didnt stop with the YEC's. You also brought in an irrelevant jab on an Arabic word you got hold of from the Qur'an. So I asked a question based on that.
How do you understand Nuthfah? Is it Semen or a small portion of many or is it speaking of an Amshaj? Please explain. ...
ppp
Well-Known Member
No new information. I guess you just didn't know.
It was not an irrelevant jab. It was a pointed jab. With tiny little barbs.
Your question was irrelevant.
ppp
Well-Known Member
Where did God's nature come from?
A Vestigial Mote
Well-Known Member
That is not what the research points to as far as I understand it. From what I understand, the ambiguity you're referencing is such that one cannot know if it was the simple act of observing that caused the state change one may witness. Meaning that at that level, the players involved may be so sensitive that such action can result in such change, and one is unable to know what otherwise would have happened.
Regardless any of that... where is the "hand" again? The observer? And who is the observer again? Isn't it just your average human being in the specific case you're citing? Or are the scientists claiming that they were able to summon God to the lab and get him to be the observer for them? Is that what you're claiming? It certainly sounds like it must be.
I have a different read on the purpose of the Old Testament. It was not about a deity, but about explaining the human condition in terms of a deity that is proclaimed to be tri-omni. Human misfortune is defined as punishment for sin. Why does man walk the scorched earth in search of food only to die, often from childbirth? Why not immortality in paradise? Sin. God hates it.
Look at the flood story. Why is that in there? Floods aren't known to cover mountaintops. The story depicts a hapless and immoral deity, one that fails to make man as it wants him, blames man, destroys most terrestrial life in a particularly cruel way rather than just download new software into man alone, and then repopulates the earth using the same breeding stock. Who writes a story like that about a deity and includes it in a holy book? I suggest that it is people who found marine fossils on the highest mountain tops. The rest follows - all land must have been submerged, and since God did that, and God is good, it must have been deserved. And the deity's character is filled in a little more, complete with a promise to never do that again if man will just conform to a covenant. Why else would we have that story?
Other phenomena are also explained in terms of sin - the diaspora, and Sodom and Gomorrah. I'm assuming that two neighboring towns were destroyed by some natural phenomenon, and this needed explaining. So, the character of this all-powerful and good God evolves to account for what man sees.
Why is there a creation story in which a tri-omni deity needs six days to create everything, and then a day of rest? Again, not as flattering as one who creates all at once in an act of will, and needs no rest. Why is that story in there? One answer jumps out at us. Once, all able-bodied people were expected to work every day, and failing to do so was deemed sloth. Eventually, man settled in towns and grew to larger political units than tribes. The holy man was no longer always always close at hand as he had been in the tribal days, and permanent temples were established that might be a few hours away and require a few hours in the temple, taking up much of a day. This was essential for the priesthood, who now needed tithes to survive rather than a share of the kill as had been the case in hunter-gatherer days. So, the work week was born complete with the weekend. God took six days to work and then off work, and it became a sin to work on that day where once it had been antisocial not to work every day. Why else do we have such a story?
The story of Job is another such story that depicts the deity rather unflatteringly. It toys with a good man's life for no good reason - something about demonstrating something to Satan. Why is that there? I don't have a good answer for that one. I suppose it is to explain why bad things happen to good people even when they are upright, even with a tri-omni deity in control, but I don't find that as compelling an argument as the global flood and week of creation stories.
So, the character of the deity conforms to whatever is needed to account for daily life in the Old Testament, and an angry and jealous yet loving God is created. He's angry because He loves us, and we disappoint Him, but like a good and loving parent, corrects us when we need it, so much does He love us.
By the time of the New Testament, this is no longer true, and the central character there is now no longer need to explain to explain life as we see it, but as we hope it to be after death.
A side-note. With God, understanding God is possible. Maybe I'm right?