free will - by definition - to me means the ability of making a choice completely independent of everything and everyone (which includes god's omniscience). your choice, and your choice only - and it cannot be predicted. we apparently have different opinions on free will.edit*i understand that it's not god's omniscience that somehow restricts people from making their own choices. i have no problem with this. it's that free will, by the way i view it, implies a certain "unknowability" about what the future may bring. i start with free will, and go from there. you start from god, and go from there. hence the difference in perspective.it appears to be - QD: compatiblefree will ----------> free to make choicesgod ----------> does not interfere, simply knows.DHG: incompatiblefree will ----------> all outcomes are possible (unpredictable)god ----------> only certain outcomes are possible (since everything is already known)http://
I will admit to a more theological view of things than most but then, I wouldn't be much of a minister if I didn't now, would I? I like the cosmological argument (first put forth by Plato and Aristotle I believe) stated by Thomas Aquinas: 1. Every finite and contingent being has a cause. 2. Nothing finite and dependent (contingent) can cause itself.3. A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.4. Therefore, there must be a first cause; or, there must be something which is not an effect.This argument is, of course, speculating the existence of god from that which is observable of the universe. If the universe requires an explanation, an active creation of the universe by some(thing/one) outside of the universe must be that explanation. I am not aware of anything (which isn't saying anything - I don't know much, much less everything) of any current scientific conflict here. In fact, I recently came across and "update" of this argument which takes into account another controversial subject - the big bang theory. It states:1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.2. The universe began to exist.3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
You are somehow able to determine what God can or can't do better than someone else?Quote from: reaperthat's close to the point i was making.
that's close to the point i was making.
i do not think god is likely because of scientific evidence, i've always said i think the extreme improbability of this universe could be used as an argument to support religion. for this improbability not to exist one or more of the following would have to take place:there would have to be prior big bangs (big bang theory would change)a multi-verse would exists (most likely undetectable) - some say science points us in this directionscientific laws would have to changei don't think multiple big bangs would change this improbability, at least from what i was reading. so from the hypothesis that there is one big bang, you have life forming from extreme chance. what would make this chance in our favor, i say a god who had the intent to create life. not that i believe that there was only one big bang, i think what's really going on is beyond our comprehension, just had a few thoughts
no critical thinker could be positively impressed by the argument from intelligent design or creationism in biology.
Quote from: dahang no critical thinker could be positively impressed by the argument from intelligent design or creationism in biology. are you sure, the man most directly responsible for mapping the human genome believes in god; i'm pretty sure he understands critical thinking. people form the concept of god based on their experiences, they don't relate such an idea soley from physics equations.
personal experiences are something that prove absolutely nothing.
positive.
you only further prove my point - biology itself is not a reason to believe in god. personal experiences are something that prove absolutely nothing. having a strong inner conviction that god exists is not a good reason to believe it. David Koresh had a strong inner conviction that he was the final prophet, clearly he had good reason to believe he was the final prophet then, right? one personal experience leading to the belief that muhammad was the last prophet should not be inconsistent with another's personal experience of something entirely different if these experiences have validity.