Comments on: God’s Physical Problem http://atheology.com/2006/07/29/gods-physical-problem/ n. against God or gods, anti-theology, the defense of naturalism Mon, 28 Jun 2010 14:08:52 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: Gabriel Edilberto Cruz y Lumanlan http://atheology.com/2006/07/29/gods-physical-problem/comment-page-1/#comment-321 Gabriel Edilberto Cruz y Lumanlan Sat, 27 Jun 2009 06:47:24 +0000 http://atheology.com/2006/07/29/gods-physical-problem/#comment-321 People are the onlt species in this world that has an "Idealism" in its head. Try to look at Baboons, do they have a religion? If so, what would their God look like or how are they going to view humans - daemons, demigods or merely creatures who don't understand their language? We've elaborated this God view for milleniums because there is no proof proof in something that is only understood by humans. And another thing, if we are to problem how the world was created, pick the story of St. Augustine of Hippo's conversation with a child/angel on the beach; this tells how we are to accept that we are not to know the deepest mysteries in the world. Here is the thing: We can't and shouldn't learn anything in this world - it's like being a cancer patient who already knows how the clock ticks to his death. People are the onlt species in this world that has an “Idealism” in its head. Try to look at Baboons, do they have a religion? If so, what would their God look like or how are they going to view humans – daemons, demigods or merely creatures who don’t understand their language? We’ve elaborated this God view for milleniums because there is no proof proof in something that is only understood by humans. And another thing, if we are to problem how the world was created, pick the story of St. Augustine of Hippo’s conversation with a child/angel on the beach; this tells how we are to accept that we are not to know the deepest mysteries in the world.

Here is the thing: We can’t and shouldn’t learn anything in this world – it’s like being a cancer patient who already knows how the clock ticks to his death.

]]> By: Mautho Ndolo http://atheology.com/2006/07/29/gods-physical-problem/comment-page-1/#comment-318 Mautho Ndolo Sun, 21 Jun 2009 16:04:12 +0000 http://atheology.com/2006/07/29/gods-physical-problem/#comment-318 God is incorporeal and true to the preceding arguement, he exists outside the realm of time. He doesn't have to think through anything because all ideas are in him and all knowledge is plain to him. He is not bound by the laws of physics, chemistry or Biology, he posses all power and knowledge. His will and desire carried out not with respect to the physical laws which are known to us, but according to the efficatious and omnipotent power of his creative being whose laws that govern that realm are not plain to us. God is incorporeal and true to the preceding arguement, he exists outside the realm of time. He doesn’t have to think through anything because all ideas are in him and all knowledge is plain to him. He is not bound by the laws of physics, chemistry or Biology, he posses all power and knowledge. His will and desire carried out not with respect to the physical laws which are known to us, but according to the efficatious and omnipotent power of his creative being whose laws that govern that realm are not plain to us.

]]> By: Morgan-LynnGriggs Lamberth http://atheology.com/2006/07/29/gods-physical-problem/comment-page-1/#comment-281 Morgan-LynnGriggs Lamberth Sun, 08 Mar 2009 15:05:14 +0000 http://atheology.com/2006/07/29/gods-physical-problem/#comment-281 Again, this affirms ignosticism! We now have many naturalist [positive atheist] arguments against Him. The[ Lamberth ] atelic [no teleology] argument maintains that as the weight of evidence reveals no cosmic teleology, God is ever useless as a cause in making patterns, the so-called designs. The [Lamberth ] argument from pareidolia is that when we look around, we naturalists see patterns whilst theists infer desgns in the manner that peiople see Yeshua in a tortilla, not there like the man in the moon. Again, this affirms ignosticism! We now have many naturalist [positive atheist] arguments against Him.
The[ Lamberth ] atelic [no teleology] argument maintains that as the weight of evidence reveals no cosmic teleology, God is ever useless as a cause in making patterns, the so-called designs.
The [Lamberth ] argument from pareidolia is that when we look around, we naturalists see patterns whilst theists infer desgns in the manner that peiople see Yeshua in a tortilla, not there like the man in the moon.

]]> By: Dwight http://atheology.com/2006/07/29/gods-physical-problem/comment-page-1/#comment-215 Dwight Thu, 28 Aug 2008 17:45:05 +0000 http://atheology.com/2006/07/29/gods-physical-problem/#comment-215 Jim, that's well put. Placing God outside of time and space really does make it logically impossible for God to do anything, much less create the world. Jim, that’s well put. Placing God outside of time and space really does make it logically impossible for God to do anything, much less create the world.

]]> By: Jim Leslie http://atheology.com/2006/07/29/gods-physical-problem/comment-page-1/#comment-214 Jim Leslie Tue, 26 Aug 2008 21:22:37 +0000 http://atheology.com/2006/07/29/gods-physical-problem/#comment-214 The theist is right about this. Thinking is a kind of doing. But any kind of doing takes time and so can occur only in Time. The God of Christianity is, however, said to be transcendent rather than temporal or spatial (physical). That he is not temporal is why he can never change. But, existing outside of Time as he does he cannot do anything that takes time to do, and thinking does. Thinking is a process that takes inputs and produces outputs. It cannot be conceived without contradiction to occur outside of Time and thus the issue is a logical or conceptual one, not a physical one. Consequently, not only is it logically impossible for God to think, it is logically impossible that he could do anything at all. The theist is right about this. Thinking is a kind of doing. But any kind of doing takes time and so can occur only in Time. The God of Christianity is, however, said to be transcendent rather than temporal or spatial (physical). That he is not temporal is why he can never change. But, existing outside of Time as he does he cannot do anything that takes time to do, and thinking does. Thinking is a process that takes inputs and produces outputs. It cannot be conceived without contradiction to occur outside of Time and thus the issue is a logical or conceptual one, not a physical one. Consequently, not only is it logically impossible for God to think, it is logically impossible that he could do anything at all.

]]>