Origins of life

[alextemplet]

Well I haven't had a beer since last summer, but it's late and I'm hungry and I'm tired so I do feel kind of, well, not quite buzzed but something close. So blah blah blah blah blah, that's all I have to say. Very informative, wasn't it?

[damien james]

I agree with Linn. God does know what will happen, but if He did choose to alter our choices - as damien seems to think He might - then He would destroy free will. Just because He knows what we're going to do doesn't mean that we aren't the ones responsible for doing it. The very fact that God allows both good and bad to coexist should prove that there is free will. If there wasn't, evil would not exist.

But yeah, I think this is going to be another one of those "I'm right!"/"No I'm right!" x 1000 repititions debate so I guess I'll just leave it at that. If you choose to disagree that's up to you, not me, because you have that free will!

Sorry, that last one was kind of corny, I know, forgive me.

The point I've been trying to make is that if God knows what we will do, then there is no free will. All it takes is one observation of an event, even if it is God's, to set the path of that event. If the path of the event has already been chosen, then there can be no deviation, hence no free will. And God allowing good and evil to co-exist still does not influence the path of events, since the events have already been observed before they happened, once again, no free will.

Everything I've stated has been backed by sound, unbiased logic. I have made no opinions based on assumptions, the only point being taking under consideration that God is "omniscient".

I still haven't seen anything yet as being legitimately contrary to what I have stated. I have not posted my original question for the sake of arguing, only to express my view of the omniscient God in Christian religion. My original view was that an omniscient God would be ultimately responsible for all the pain and suffering in the world. With omniscience comes knowledge of past, present and future. Knowledge of any event in any time frame would set the course of that event regardless. This is elementary physics. Since path has already been set, it is not subject to change, hence no true "free will".

[Linn]

This is elementary physics.

Of which God created bTW


I dont understand what part odf choose you dont get?


Ok you have complete knowledge of something:
That already exsists> God has this > Omniscient: also
is described as awareness, understanding, percieving of things

since the future does not really exsist yet in this realm
God has complete knowledge, and yet complete knowledge
to change the realm when/if he so chooses to percieve
the future in some cases.
He has the knowledge to do this whenever he so desires.
If you are all knowing in one catagory,
have you actually applied it?

Seeing the future means the application of such knowledge.
Which he has

[AstusAleator]

since the future does not really exsist yet in this realm
God has complete knowledge, and yet complete knowledge
to change the realm when/if he so chooses to percieve
the future in some cases.
He has the knowledge to do this whenever he so desires.
If you are all knowing in one catagory,
have you actually applied it?

I know I'm gonna get smacked for being a smartass but:

Linn (and others) you seem to have a strong grasp on "who" and "what" God is, and His capabilities, etc. I think this is a slippery slope that many people get on, attempting to define God, even if in defense of Him.
Frankly, you're making things up.
Cults have been formed from smaller assumptions than the ones you're making in this thread. If an all-powerful God does exist, I doubt It could be adequately defined in a single book, much less a million books.
This is not to discredit the current discussion. I think that it's worth discussing, without so many assumptions. It may shed some meaningful light on the values that can be taken from differing interpretations of religious writings.

As for "quantum physics" I think you're using that as a catch-all phrase for things people don't understand yet. Time travel and partical re-assembly etc have not been shown to even be remotely possible. Theoretical models for them are based on assumptions and abstractions of other theoretical models. This isn't to say that they aren't possible, just that at this point they're not attainable with our current understanding of science. There IS a large chance, however, that they're simply impossible on the scale you're thinking of.
The point is that it's possible that you're right, but there's not a very reliable way of testing what you're saying. Perhaps it would be better to remain within the realm of what we DO know, or at least what we can experiment with.


PS: In Damien's defence, a being that knows everything past, present, and future, is a slave to it's own knowledge, as it already knows what it will do at any given juncture. But that is just paradoxical human understanding. Just another reason why discussions of such matters are usually unproductive.

[Linn]

"SMACK"
JUST KIDDEN

We must be a cult eh?

OK Dear,
what is your belief in life origen?
why should we have to defend our beliefs lets see
what you can come up with to explian your religion
of non-god belief.
hmmm?
Where to start?
What quest to ask of you, to explain to me?
BTW
(I am not being angry, or upset, my face has a smile
and I was laughing at your reply)

[mith]

Have you ever heard how ppl say that once you stop looking, you'll find it?

Or maybe the answer isn't one for us to find?

personally I think it's kinda stupid to keep harping on and on about evolution, other nations are already progressing beyond this basic question and getting great progress in science while americans are wondering why we have a "science gap"

[Linn]

Have you ever heard how ppl say that once you stop looking, you'll find it?

Or maybe the answer isn't one for us to find?

personally I think it's kinda stupid to keep harping on and on about evolution, other nations are already progressing beyond this basic question and getting great progress in science while americans are wondering why we have a "science gap"

Well I could say something but it wouldnt be nice.
you have your own oppinion
and can I have a link about other nations vs ?? what R U saying?

[Linn]

Never mind the last two posts folks.
we all hve our oppinions
hope you all had a nice day, and good one tomorrow

[alextemplet]

In Astus's defense, he is a very religious person and I think what he said makes sense and carries a degree of merit. Damien, I believe that everything I've said is just as logical and backed by sound reason as you believe about everything you said. In fact I have a very hard time understanding the logic that you're trying to explain. But as I said before, any continuation of this discussion will just be repitition, so I'll leave it at that.

[Linn]

well )scratching head) personaly I cant figure out this
"I'm religious" yet seem to want to disproove God
why not just kick this one?
I dont want it to lead to sqabbling
you are lucky, I think I am the only female..
or woud be a "cat" fight
you guys are so civilized
one thing for sure your brains are sure "brainy"

[Skytroll]

There have been changes in evolutionary thinking since Darwin.

Free will means we choose.

Genetics followed Darwinism.

Purebreds vs adaptation.

That evolutionary box has some of you cornered here.

Genetics can change and evolve anything,

Evo devo.

Do you all know Gould?

Skytroll

[Linn]

Hey sky!!
thanx for joining the convers.
yes I have mentioned Gould and mithril has too.
somewhare in one of these threads I quoted .