Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

The Nature And Relationship Of God And Creation


Recommended Posts

Posted

Even an amoeba acts and makes "decisions"- it moves toward food and away from pain.

 

So is that "free will"?

 

Does the question matter?  If it does not matter with an amoeba, why does it matter with us?

 

Will we let people out of jail because their actions were determined?  And does the most radical advocate of free will deny we are influenced and largely programmed by our cultures?

 

Quite honestly. why bother with these questions?  What difference does it make in anyone's life?

Posted

Thanks for your reply, but I was really responding to nofear's statement

I thought that raised a pretty interesting dilemma for those inclined to worry about this stuff.

 

 

Oh, I most certainly do.  I made videos on Adam and Eve as well.   "Traditional Christians" may have difficulty dealing with these implications.

 

 

 

 

Thanks for your reply, but I was really responding to nofear's statement

I thought that raised a pretty interesting dilemma for those inclined to worry about this stuff.

 

As far as the problem of free will and determinism, I tend to go with Wittgenstein that such confusions are purely semantic.  We still praise or blame people for their actions, and make choices all the time regardless of the out come of the debate.

 

Fortunately, we don't have to worry about the determinism aspect as much.  With the six-sided cube analogy, in LDS theology, God does not create the cubes out of nothing.  They represent potential free wills that already existed, therefore, God alone does not solely determine the outcomes of the created beings within existence.

 

-Stephen

Posted (edited)

It isn't based "solely" on coeternity with God, but coeternity with God is part of it.

Furthermore, those scriptures are speaking on an entirely different topic. Those verses are speaking concerning "fallen man". We know that even one single sin (which we have all committed) is enough to keep us from the presence of God. No "choice" on our part could ever undo that, therefore, without the atonement of Jesus Christ we would not be free to choose everlasting life.

But Christ DID perform the atonement, which gives us the opportunity to choose eternal life by following Christ.

Again, those verses have nothing to do with the fundamentals of free will itself.

-Stephen

Hi Stephen:

How in the world can the verses have NOTHING to do with free will if after the fall there would be no free will without without the atonement? If we loose our free will after the fall without an infinite and eternal atonement, then we've lost our free will unless there is an atonement. This loss of our free after the fall without an atonement is no mere "bump in the road" when it comes to our eternal destiny, because our freedom to choose after the fall was purchased at the price of the infinite and eternal suffering of God himself.

Furthermore, unless we as intelligences were perfect in every way and never made even wrong choice prior to the fall, then even our freedom to choose before the fall was only made possible by the atonement of Christ as well, otherwise any wrong choices made prior to the fall would never be wiped away insofar as the eternal law of justice is concerned. So if we progressed by learning from our mistakes and imperfections prior the fall, just as we do here (something that seems perfectly reasonable to me), then the blessings of the atoning sacrifice of Christ would have to retroactively extend back to the "beginning," otherwise mercy would rob justice.

In other words, I believe we will all eventually learn (I believe I already have already learned) that the spiritual growth we achieved prior to the fall was only made possible by the INFINITE and ETERNAL atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ, the blessings of which extend back retroactively forever. The only way it could be otherwise is if we were absolutely perfect and never made one wrong choice in all the eternity of our existence prior to the fall.

"This doctrine that man could, and did in many instances, sin before he was born, was well understood in ancient times. We have the instance of the question put to the Savior regarding the man born blind. If this question had been an improper one, and the doctrine false, the Savior would have corrected it by saying, "Ye do err, for no man could sin before he was born." This the Lord did not do, but by implication seemed to confirm the doctrine in his answer: "Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents; but that the works of God should be made manifest in him." (Joseph Fielding Smith, The Way to Perfection, 43-4)"

Edited by Bobbieaware
Posted

Fortunately, we don't have to worry about the determinism aspect as much.  With the six-sided cube analogy, in LDS theology, God does not create the cubes out of nothing.  They represent potential free wills that already existed, therefore, God alone does not solely determine the outcomes of the created beings within existence.

 

-Stephen

 I am not into metaphysics.   I have no clue how one could determine if such a sentences are true or false or even if one COULD determine that, what relevance  those sentences would have in constructing a meaningful life.

 

I really don't mean to be a jerk about it, it's just that I think we need to distance ourselves from the metaphysical nonsense of the sectarians.  There is a reason Creedal Christianity is in free fall and I think it is because it is not offering people what they need to understand in their lives.  Arguing about free will doesn't concern most people, nor does discussions about Substance and Being and the Trinity. or the meaning of Free Will.

 

People today want personal meaning in their lives- they need reasons to believe in explanations of why they are here and why it makes sense to believe in God at all, why they should be moral, and what will happen when they die and why they should believe that such possibilities even exist.

 

So again, I don't mean to be a wet blanket, but I just don't get turned on thinking about "potential free wills that already existed".  But to each his own!

Posted

People today want personal meaning in their lives- they need reasons to believe in explanations of why they are here and why it makes sense to believe in God at all, why they should be moral, and what will happen when they die and why they should believe that such possibilities even exist.

So again, I don't mean to be a wet blanket, but I just don't get turned on thinking about "potential free wills that already existed". But to each his own!

All of the answers that people need are here, there, wherever they are. They just need to ask to get them. Asking the right person. And we or any other missionary of our Lord can tell them the right person to ask. And then they can get all of the answers they need. It's up to them. Each one of us. Putting our free will to use. The free will we have always had and will always have.

But why am I saying this to you now? Or to anyone else? Or why do any of us other than our Father share ideas with other people? All of us can use our free will any time we want to use it to get the answers we need. "The Nature And Relationship Of God And Creation" gives us all that we need.

Posted

..................................................................

.........................................We were part of him, not yet independent from him; as well as being part of all those from where he had come from. Parents reproducing themselves into what then are independent spirits. Same intelligence, or kind of intelligence, and same spirit or kind of spirit. All God. We are one and the same kind of being. Always have been and alwaya will be forever. And our free agency is the same kind of free agency as the kind our Father(s) in heaven have and have had which they passed on to us as they reproduced to create/organize us from themselves.

Free will is not passed on, but is inherent in the necessary beings which we are and always have been.  We are eternal in the same way that God is eternal.  These are propositions which normative Christianity and Judaism do not accept.  For them, humans are wholly contingent, and all things are created ex nihilo.  Thus, for them, free will ls logically impossible, even though many of them fail to admit it.

 

...................................................................................................

And you might also like to know that other kinds of beings besides the kind that we are also have free will as the kind of being they are. Other kinds of intelligences. LOTS of other kinds. And our kind often creates or organizes their kinds too.

Which beings are you speaking of?  Animals?

Posted (edited)

But does not the Book of Mormon teach us that as a consequence of the fall there needed to be an infinite and eternal atonement in order for men to be made free once again?

26 And the Messiah cometh in the fulness of time, that he may redeem the children of men from the fall. And because that they are redeemed from the fall they have become free forever, knowing good from evil; to act for themselves and not to be acted upon, save it be by the punishment of the law at the great and last day, according to the commandments which God hath given. (2 Nephi 2)

Throughout the Book of Mormon, it is repeated many times that God, not coeternality, made men free.

8 And under this head ye are made free, and there is no other head whereby ye can be made free. There is no other name given whereby salvation cometh; therefore, I would that ye should take upon you the name of Christ, all you that have entered into the covenant with God that ye should be obedient unto the end of your lives. (Josiah 5)

In fact, Jacob testifies that without an atonement all men would inexorably be drawn into perdition without any freedom to choose otherwise;

8 O the wisdom of God, his mercy and grace! For behold, if the flesh should rise no more our spirits must become subject to that angel who fell from before the presence of the Eternal God, and became the devil, to rise no more.

9 And our spirits must have become like unto him, and we become devils, angels to a devil, to be shut out from the presence of our God, and to remain with the father of lies, in misery, like unto himself; yea, to that being who beguiled our first parents, who transformeth himself nigh unto an angel of light, and stirreth up the children of men unto secret combinations of murder and all manner of secret works of darkness. (2 Nephi 9)

I'm genuinely interested to see how you would fit the above verses of scripture into your paradigm of freedom based solely on coeternity with God?

It isn't based "solely" on coeternity with God, but coeternity with God is part of it.

 

Furthermore, those scriptures are speaking on an entirely different topic.  Those verses are speaking concerning "fallen man".  We know that even one single sin (which we have all committed) is enough to keep us from the presence of God.  No "choice" on our part could ever undo that, therefore, without the atonement of Jesus Christ we would not be free to choose everlasting life. 

 

But Christ DID perform the atonement, which gives us the opportunity to choose eternal life by following Christ. 

 

Again, those verses have nothing to do with the fundamentals of free will itself.

 

-Stephen

But all of us were among the 2/3 of the heavenly host who exercised free will at the great Council in Heaven to choose to undergo the human testing on Earth pursuant to God's Plan of Happiness.  All else is a direct consequence of that human condition which we each freely chose.  We all understood the nature of that brilliant Plan, which is designed to return nearly all of us to our Father in Heaven.  We accepted the human pain and suffering of that testing process or state of probation fully knowing that our Elder Brother Jesus would intercede on our behalf, answering the demands of justice.

 

Of course free will has consequences.  We all understood and accepted that at the outset.  God himself had to pay the same price.  Take the same risk.

Edited by Robert F. Smith
Posted (edited)

But all of us were among the 2/3 of the heavenly host who exercised free will at the great Council in Heaven to choose to undergo the human testing on Earth pursuant to God's Plan of Happiness. All else is a direct consequence of that human condition which we each freely chose. We all understood the nature of that brilliant Plan, which is designed to return nearly all of us to our Father in Heaven. We accepted the human pain and suffering of that testing process or state of probation fully knowing that our Elder Brother Jesus would intercede on our behalf, answering the demands of justice.

Of course free will has consequences. We all understood and accepted that at the outset. God himself had to pay the same price. Take the same risk.

I have no argument with what you say here. I'm just not sure to what the opening "but" is referring, as none of what you say voids the fact that the Book of Mormon tells us the free agency we enjoy on earth would not exist without the atonement of Christ. Our freedom was purchased at an infinite and eternal price.

Edited by Bobbieaware
Posted (edited)

Yes.  I think it is.

 

-Stephen

 

THIS is the sort of thing that is changing people's lives today.  No being, substance, essence, debate about the trinity.

 

How do we tap into this as a vehicle for teaching the gospel?   This stuff actually works- I know because I have been involved in this sort of thing.  The gospel works better.  So how do we get from here to there?

 

Notice the values advocated.   This is a secular version of the spirit.  Who's to say it is not?

 

http://www.mindful.org/about-mindful/mindful-dot-org

 

http://www.mindful.org/mindfulness-practice/meditation-for-beginners-video

 

This is THEIR "Plan of Happiness".

 

Of course what it lacks is God.  So how do we make them see what is lacking?

 

If we want a worthwhile philosophical exercise which will change the world, this is not a bad place to start instead of worrying about 2000 year old Greek philosophy of substance theology

Edited by mfbukowski
Posted

Stephen

You are obviously a talented and very smart guy. I am just suggesting you turn your considerable talents away from dead issues as battled out by the sectarians for the last 2k years, and turn your attention to matters which could communicate to the real world in which we live today. You are a good communicator and have talents with video, I am just suggesting you change your focus

But who am I to tell you anything? Nobody at all.

Posted

Yes.  I think it is.

 

-Stephen

So if even an amoeba has "free will", what is the importance of discussing these implications for humans?

I submit humbly that it is not an important question.

Posted

Hi Stephen:

How in the world can the verses have NOTHING to do with free will if after the fall there would be no free will without without the atonement? If we loose our free will after the fall without an infinite and eternal atonement, then we've lost our free will unless there is an atonement. This loss of our free after the fall without an atonement is no mere "bump in the road" when it comes to our eternal destiny, because our freedom to choose after the fall was purchased at the price of the infinite and eternal suffering of God himself.

 

 

Of course it was no mere, "bump in the road".  I never said that.   We would have the freedom to choose.  I could have the freedom between choosing Cocoa Puffs in the morning rather than Chex cereal, but we would not be able to choose freedom from the consequences of sin.  We would not have the freedom to choose eternal life.

 

Look, one of the examples you gave was this:  8 And under this head ye are made free, and there is no other head whereby ye can be made free. There is no other name given whereby salvation cometh; therefore, I would that ye should take upon you the name of Christ, all you that have entered into the covenant with God that ye should be obedient unto the end of your lives. (Josiah 5)

 

In what sense are we made free?  Choosing between playing soccer or tennis?  No.  This is referring to being "free from sin".   Likewise, 2 Nephi 9:8-9,

 

O the wisdom of God, his mercy and grace! For behold, if the flesh should rise no more our spirits must become subject to that angel who fell from before the presence of the Eternal God, and became the devil, to rise no more.

And our spirits must have become like unto him, and we become devils, angels to a devil, to be shut out from the presence of our God, and to remain with the father of lies, in misery, like unto himself; yea, to that being who beguiled our first parents, who transformeth himself nigh unto an angel of light, and stirreth up the children of men unto secret combinations of murder and all manner of secret works of darkness.

 

This speaks about what kind of beings we would be like if it weren't for the influence of God and the atonement of Christ ... we would be subject to the devil and we would be subject to sin and the consequences of sin.  So, now let's address the first one,

26 And the Messiah cometh in the fulness of time, that he may redeem the children of men from the fall. And because that they are redeemed from the fall they have become free forever, knowing good from evil; to act for themselves and not to be acted upon, save it be by the punishment of the law at the great and last day, according to the commandments which God hath given. (2 Nephi 2)

 

We all know that we had free will prior to entering mortality.  In the presence of God, Adam and Eve were free to choose from any tree in the garden.  Likewise, the spiritual sons of God were free to choose in the pre-mortal existence.  God had a plan whereby we would obtain physical bodies and "know good and evil" in the sense of the blessings and temptations that come with having a physical existence as well as a spiritual existence.   Furthermore, we would have the freedom to act outside of the powerful influence of God's direct presence.

 

With the Fall, I suppose we could theoretically try to say, well how would we act if God had not foreordained Christ to be slain for the sins of man kind from before the foundation of the world, however, I don't see the point.  Without the fore-ordination of Jesus Christ to work out the atonement, the plan would have never been set forth to begin with, because the Father would have never placed us in a position to which there was no hope for redemption.

Furthermore, unless we as intelligences were perfect in every way and never made even wrong choice prior to the fall, then even our freedom to choose before the fall was only made possible by the atonement of Christ as well, otherwise any wrong choices made prior to the fall would never be wiped away insofar as the eternal law of justice is concerned.  So if we progressed by learning from our mistakes and imperfections prior the fall, just as we do here (something that seems perfectly reasonable to me), then the blessings of the atoning sacrifice of Christ would have to retroactively extend back to the "beginning," otherwise mercy would rob justice.

 

I don't know what kind of "sins" existed in the spiritual realm, other than the kind committed by Lucifer, who was cast out from God's presence. 

 

I don't think that the kinds of "choices" that any of us made would result in our separation from God, like I said, other than the kind committed by the adversary and those who followed him.

 

If you are trying to say that IF God did not have an intelligence who would be the "preeminent spiritual son" who was able to redeem us, then maybe God would not have procreated any spiritual children in the first place either, then maybe you have a point, .... but that is highly speculative.

 

In other words, I believe we will all eventually learn (I believe I already have already learned) that the spiritual growth we achieved prior to the fall was only made possible by the INFINITE and ETERNAL atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ, the blessings of which extend back retroactively forever. The only way it could be otherwise is if we were absolutely perfect and never made one wrong choice in all the eternity of our existence prior to the fall.

 

Again, I don't know if you can claim that any of the "mistakes" that the two-thirds may have made in the spiritual realm would have resulted in separation from the presence of God.  I will agree with you in this sense, IF we had all been spiritually perfect like Jesus, there would have been no need for mortality or separation from God in the first place.  And there would be no need for an atonement, and there would still be free will.

 

-Stephen

Posted (edited)

So if even an amoeba has "free will", what is the importance of discussing these implications for humans?

I submit humbly that it is not an important question.

 

 

The reason why I addressed the Ex Nihilo creation theology here, is because the grand majority of believers in God espouse this view.  This is the picture of God that is being presented to the world, and it is wrong fundamentally.  The nature and relationship of God and creation is being misrepresented, which makes it more easy to reject.

 

Again, my skeptical view point as a teenager was valid, "Why would God damn me for being what God created me to be?"  The answer: 'Well, God gave you free will", was not sufficient, because it is impossible within the framework of ex nihilo.  I provided the reasons why here.

 

Skeptics of religion have a reason to be skeptical, especially with "the problem of evil and suffering" within the scenario whereby God created all of existence entirely from God's own mind.  That kind of theology is indefensible.

 

Ex Nihilo also causes misinterpretations on other issues as well.  Consider the Trinity.  What was the debate?  Is Jesus Christ eternal or was he created?   Under the ex nihilo framework, it had to be one or the other, when in reality, the answer is "both".

 

-Stephen

 

 

Edited by stephenpurdy
Posted

Again, my skeptical view point as a teenager was valid, "Why would God damn me for being what God created me to be?"  The answer: 'Well, God gave you free will", was not sufficient, because it is impossible within the framework of ex nihilo.  I provided the reasons why here.

 

I agree the problem of evil is a big problem for ex nihilo, but not necessarily free will

 

Posted

I agree the problem of evil is a big problem for ex nihilo, but not necessarily free will

 

This guy needs to stick to physics and keep out of philosophy.  He is acting as if scientific research and theory is relevant to the question.  It is not.

 

Philosophy questions why science is even relevant to free will and even if science can teach us "truth" in the first place.

 

Philosophy is about analyzing the fundamental assumptions behind knowledge claims.

 

Scientists just unquestioning think they know about "reality" and don't even ask the questions or analyze their own assumptions.   What scientists DO know about are what mathematical theories seem to make things work.  Scientists are essentially highly brilliant mechanics and engineers. Einstein was not a philosopher.

 

They make things go, they do not ask what things are or why they are important.  The mere fact that they comment on these topics proves they don't know what they are talking about

 

Their basic assumption is that all that is important is discoverable through the scientific method.   It is not. 

Posted (edited)

Their basic assumption is that all that is important is discoverable through the scientific method.   It is not. 

 

Everything in the natural world is. Morality is not natural science. 

 

I think God is an alien that uses the scientific method. 

Edited by TheSkepticChristian
Posted

The reason why I addressed the Ex Nihilo creation theology here, is because the grand majority of believers in God espouse this view.

Clearly this is true.

 

So now the question becomes, do you go after converts in the mass of people who have already been misled, or do you go after those who do not have preconceived ideas and who just want happier lives?   It becomes a kind of marketing question.

 

Does google or linux go after microsoft devotees who will never change, or those who are looking to solve the problems microsoft has created?

 

Do you go after entrenched believers in error, or do you go after those who are looking to solve problems in their lives and have no clue how to solve them?

 

Do you argue with those who argue actively in favor of apostasy, or those who are open to new ways of looking at life? 

 

 

Jesus said, “'Follow me.' But the man replied, 'Lord, first let me go and bury my father.' Jesus said to him, 'Let the dead bury their own dead, but you go and proclaim the kingdom of God'” (Luke 9:59–60).

Should we first try to fix those entrenched in error, or be proclaiming the truth to those who will hear, and doing so in their own language?

Posted

Everything in the natural world is. 

 

I think God is an alien that uses the scientific method. 

Please define the "natural world" if you want to go down that road.   How do you know anything about it when all we have is theories of men?  How do you get beyond human observation to the "natural world"?

 

How do you express your alleged knowledge without human language which immediately distorts anything you say with ambiguity?

 

It's like putting on a welder's helmet while observing flowers and using those descriptions to speak to a blind man about color.  Whatever you say is "wrong" because we cannot perceive "things as they are" anyway!

 

So why perpetuate the illusion that we DO see things "as they are"??

 

We need to say "Well about the best we can come up with is......" and leave it at that.

 

God is too smart to use the scientific method.  Heck the scientific method doesn't even show that God can exist!   On that premise God would not even believe in himself!

Posted (edited)

Please define the "natural world" if you want to go down that road.   How do you know anything about it when all we have is theories of men?  How do you get beyond human observation to the "natural world"?

 

There is an infinite number of possibilities, our world could be a matrix, you could be a computer program, so I simply look for the simplest explanation.  You define "natural world" I am not going to play philosophical games. 

 

 

God is too smart to use the scientific method.  Heck the scientific method doesn't even show that God can exist!   On that premise God would not even believe in himself!

 

Science is progressing, perhaps someday science will answer your question. 

Edited by TheSkepticChristian
Posted

Most people learn basic logic in high school geometry class.  Others get it in college classes on critical thinking, logic, and philosophy.   No mathematician, physcist or chemist can function without mastery of logic.  Hawking, who is a profound thinker in physics and math, has likely found that normative Christian dogma is not logical and therefore rejects it.  For many that is the source of their rejection of religion in general -- even though some religions, such as the LDS faith, are quite logical.  However, Hawking  is not likely to want to waste time doing a survey of religions.  He doesn't believe in God because the god offered to him by mainstream religion is illogical and self-contradictory.

 

A good, short primer on logic is A. J. Ayer, Language, Truth, and Logic (1936), which is available online at https://ia802605.us.archive.org/10/items/AlfredAyer/LanguageTruthAndLogic.pdf or at  http://s-f-walker.org.uk/pubsebooks/pdfs/ayerLTL.pdf .  Another good way to be introduced to the subject is to take a course on critical thinking at a local college.

The idea that Hawking is a profound thinker in areas of theology is a huge error. 

 

Do you believe that God is limited in any way?  For example, do you believe (with the LDS faith) that God is limited, that He is part of time and space, and that He was once a man like us?  Then, of course, free will is possible -- because humans (who are of the same basic nature as God) are considered to be coeternal with God.  Only thus is free choice possible.

 

If you believe that God is the only uncreated being, then you cannot logically have any other uncreated beings; moreover, any beings which are created are fully contingent on that God; that means that they have no free will (Presbyterians at least admit that God is fully sovereign and that salvation is not a matter of human choice, because God decides who is predestined to be saved).  These logical issues have been fully discussed in philosophical and theological works for over a century.  If you need some recommendations for reading, just let me know.

 

Your statement does not follow if God is able to create us in his image, as he claimed. 

Posted

Your (and his) argument is that our "being" is created by God therefore those choices that come from our being are determined by God (if Ex Nihilo is true). Therefore, you conclude that God couldn't have created a moral free agent from nothing. 

 

The assumption (which I disagree with) contained in this argument is that God cannot create a moral free will. As I have argued countless times already, God has stated that he created us in his image, which contains this very element. 

 

What is missing so far is an explanation as to why? What is it that stops God from creating us with moral free agency? What stops him from creating us in his image as he claimed? 

 

 

The "assumption" is that God cannot cause an uncaused cause.  That is obvious.

 

All you have argued is that "God said that he created us in his image, therefore we have free will."   Yes, we know that God created us in His image.  Yes, we know that we have free will.  However, that does not prove that God creates ex nihilo, nor does it demonstrate that God could create free will "out of nothing."

 

Daniel wrote:   What is missing so far is an explanation as to why? What is it that stops God from creating us with moral free agency? What stops him from creating us in his image as he claimed?

 

Nothing stops God from creating us in His image.  God DID create us in His image ... but not "from nothing".  Again, claiming that God creates beings of free will ex nihilo is equivalent to saying that , "God causes uncaused causes".  You cannot make any sense of this logical contradiction.

 

"...the choices we make are the results of the motivations, desires, loves, values, priorities, beliefs, etc., that constitute who we are, that make up the real essence of our actual being. That is why our choices reveal who we are. If our choices were not produced from the essence of our being, they would not be our choices fundamentally and would not reveal anything about who we are." - M. Hausam

 

You refuse to address Hausam's statement specifically, and this is understandable, because you cannot escape the ex nihilo conundrum. 

 

IF God created every single aspect of our essence/being from God's own mind, and our very nature is the result of God's creation "from nothing" , then our motives, desires, loves, values, priorities, beliefs, etc. are the result of this creation. 

 

To argue against that, would mean to say that "our choices were not produced from the essence of our being, and they would not be our choices fundamentally..."  (And it would be like the dice I described in the first half of my supplement video, which are practically random).

 

As the video illustrates clearly, Daniel, either way Ex Nihilo fails to allow for true free agency.

 

-Stephen

 

 

I addressed both your arguments above. 

Posted

This guy needs to stick to physics and keep out of philosophy.  He is acting as if scientific research and theory is relevant to the question.  It is not.

 

Philosophy questions why science is even relevant to free will and even if science can teach us "truth" in the first place.

 

Philosophy is about analyzing the fundamental assumptions behind knowledge claims.

 

Scientists just unquestioning think they know about "reality" and don't even ask the questions or analyze their own assumptions.   What scientists DO know about are what mathematical theories seem to make things work.  Scientists are essentially highly brilliant mechanics and engineers. Einstein was not a philosopher.

 

They make things go, they do not ask what things are or why they are important.  The mere fact that they comment on these topics proves they don't know what they are talking about

 

Their basic assumption is that all that is important is discoverable through the scientific method.   It is not. 

 

I couldn't agree with you more. Thanks. However, it appears that many scientists are blind to what you are saying here. It's almost as though they don't know how to analyze their own assumptions. 

Posted

I couldn't agree with you more. Thanks. However, it appears that many scientists are blind to what you are saying here. It's almost as though they don't know how to analyze their own assumptions.

They simply don't. There are no instruments to measure assumptions.
Posted

There is an infinite number of possibilities, our world could be a matrix, you could be a computer program, so I simply look for the simplest explanation.  You define "natural world" I am not going to play philosophical games. 

 

 

 

Science is progressing, perhaps someday science will answer your question.

Then God lies because he has told us we must walk by faith not science. If you are right, there is no plan of salvation.
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...