A Smart Christian
 

This guy may not be a smart as David. Then again he Was nominated for the Nobel Prize.

A Smart Christian


Not saying I agree or disagree with him. Just that he's evidently pretty smart - and a Christian.

PairTheBoard

Re: A Smart Christian
 

Honestly, from my viewpoint, a kindergarden variety of arguments...

Doesn't even start to cut it. Obviously his Nobel prize was not related to religion. That would have been a real worry.

Re: A Smart Christian
 

[ QUOTE ]
Scientists who are Christians...
Living:
Norman March
Robert Griffiths
Richard Bube
Donald Page
Allan Sandage
David Cole
Francis Collins
John Polkinghorne
S. William Pelletier
Andrew Bocarsly
James Tour

[/ QUOTE ]

When you posted this I immediately thought of mentioning my loony physics prof, but lo and behold Dr. Don Page already made the list. He's lived with Hawking and made very significant contributions to gravitational theoretical physics. He believes that God has created the world and that through physics we can find out how.

I would note that he's a crazy physicist, and its very difficult to hold a conversation with him.
http://fermi.phys.ualberta.ca/~don/Don.gif

Re: A Smart Christian
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you will acknowledge that you have sinned against God, and if you trust Jesus to save you from the just punishment of a holy God, you will find that He will make you into a new person, from the inside out

[/ QUOTE ] - Dr Schaeffer

Question: If God is omnipresent, then God IS Jesus. If not, Christ is the son of God (?), so is part of God (?). Therefore, "God" is saving us from His own just punishment?

Which would pose an interesting question: Why send JC down to put into effect a fundemental change of religious dogma? What could possible cause an omnipotent holy God to do this? Why would such a Creator need to make his religion (fundementally) more forgiving? Especially at a time when the Romans were being much more zealous in their methods of "gentle persuasion".

Could it be that Jesus wasn't any more the Son of God than you or I? Could it be that he, at the age of 30, decided "You know what - I'm going to start up a religio-social movement that will sweep the known world like wildfire"? Or should we simply accept the wise words of the good Dr as if a mathematical proof?

And, as a small aside, technically Newton wasn't a Christian (although he did study the Bible a lot. Gravity was the mechanism by which everything worked, but God set it all in motion. This means that God is fundementally removed from his creation, as any intervention would imply an imperfection (see Leibniz). Therefore, the understanding of the world is brought down to pure human reasoning.

Re: A Smart Christian
 

[ QUOTE ]

Obviously his Nobel prize was not related to religion. That would have been a real worry.


[/ QUOTE ]

And since he's neither a paleontologist, archeologist or microbiologist he can't possibly know anything about evolution and so his opinions on origins are worthless.

Re: A Smart Christian
 

[ QUOTE ]
Honestly, from my viewpoint, a kindergarden variety of arguments...

Doesn't even start to cut it. Obviously his Nobel prize was not related to religion. That would have been a real worry.

[/ QUOTE ]

Totally agree. Jesus is proven to have risen from the dead because the disciples said so?? Try harder. . .

Re: A Smart Christian
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Obviously his Nobel prize was not related to religion. That would have been a real worry.


[/ QUOTE ]

And since he's neither a paleontologist, archeologist or microbiologist he can't possibly know anything about evolution and so his opinions on origins are worthless.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd be interested to see a debate between him (or another ID supporter with extensive knowledge on the subjects surrounding evolution) with someone like Dawkins.

Re: A Smart Christian
 

[ QUOTE ]
Honestly, from my viewpoint, a kindergarden variety of arguments...
Doesn't even start to cut it. Obviously his Nobel prize was not related to religion. That would have been a real worry

[/ QUOTE ]
I thought he gave conclusive reasons why Elvis must still be alive. It's the low quality of evidence evaluation that does make you wonder how it can be confined to just one area of a person intellectual life.

Re: A Smart Christian
 

[ QUOTE ]
I'd be interested to see a debate between him (or another ID supporter with extensive knowledge on the subjects surrounding evolution) with someone like Dawkins.

[/ QUOTE ]

He doesn't, he seems to be trapped in about 1930 as far as his level of knowledge in biology goes. I didn't see any reason to think our own NReady couldn't stand in his place in that debate. ID is still just the 'god of the gaps' thinking dressed up a bit, "I can't explain it, therefore..." Not a very interesting debate since the premise from the Gappers is "anything you can't conclusively prove, I claim as mine." They don't even want to share it with the FSM.

Re: A Smart Christian
 

[ QUOTE ]
This guy may not be a smart as David. Then again he Was nominated for the Nobel Prize.

A Smart Christian


Not saying I agree or disagree with him. Just that he's evidently pretty smart - and a Christian.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

There are no nominations for the Nobel Prize. Nice try.

Re: A Smart Christian
 

[ QUOTE ]
Question: If God is omnipresent, then God IS Jesus. If not, Christ is the son of God (?), so is part of God (?). Therefore, "God" is saving us from His own just punishment?


[/ QUOTE ]

I will take a stab at answering this question: This "saving" was for us, not Him. (This is, similar to Texas No Limit Hold'em, much harder to understand than it seems.) We NEEDED it...in many, many ways, me more than most. Have a nice day! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

Re: A Smart Christian
 

[ QUOTE ]
Why send JC down to put into effect a fundemental change of religious dogma? What could possible cause an omnipotent holy God to do this?

[/ QUOTE ]

JC was sent because man was incapable of atoning for the offense committed against the infinite being that is God.

Stu

Re: A Smart Christian
 

[ QUOTE ]
Tom Collins -
<font color="white"> .
</font>

There are no nominations for the Nobel Prize. Nice try.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought that sounded kind of funny. This is from the article. Looks like Somebody's off.

"Dr. "Fritz" Schaefer is the Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and the director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia. He has been nominated for the Nobel Prize and was recently cited as the third most quoted chemist in the world. "The significance and joy in my science comes in the occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, 'So that's how God did it!' My goal is to understand a little corner of God's plan." --U.S. News &amp; World Report, Dec. 23, 1991. "

PairTheBoard

Re: A Smart Christian
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Tom Collins -
<font color="white"> .
</font>

There are no nominations for the Nobel Prize. Nice try.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought that sounded kind of funny. This is from the article. Looks like Somebody's off.

"Dr. "Fritz" Schaefer is the Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and the director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia. He has been nominated for the Nobel Prize and was recently cited as the third most quoted chemist in the world. "The significance and joy in my science comes in the occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, 'So that's how God did it!' My goal is to understand a little corner of God's plan." --U.S. News &amp; World Report, Dec. 23, 1991. "

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

Technically there are no nominations. But ANYONE can write a letter to the committee and call it a nomination. This happened with the Doctor that claimed Terri Schiavo wasn't braindead. Some Congressman "nominated" him for the Nobel Prize in Medicine, and Sean Hannity/etc... ate it up and always introduced him as a Nobel Prize Nominated. I might write a letter and nominate Sklansky, and he'll have the same credibility.

Re: A Smart Christian
 

[ QUOTE ]
I thought that sounded kind of funny. This is from the article. Looks like Somebody's off.

"Dr. "Fritz" Schaefer is the Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and the director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia. He has been nominated for the Nobel Prize and was recently cited as the third most quoted chemist in the world. "The significance and joy in my science comes in the occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, 'So that's how God did it!' My goal is to understand a little corner of God's plan." --U.S. News &amp; World Report, Dec. 23, 1991. "
PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't going to comment on it because it's not directly relevant to the quality of his other argument, but when I 1st went to the site and saw the Nobel reference was not something he claimed directly but set inside a quoted article it was a very bad sign. Rather than just having it mentioned in a lead in with other 'credentials' doing it by external quote allows a person deniability. If challenged you can always respond, "Well, 'I' didn't say I was nominated" Dr Schaefer would know both that you aren't nominated and that's it's a meaningless psuedo-designation because of how the process is done. But it's only negative in the sense of not being 'upfront', and an argument in a different area needs to be evaluated on it's own merits.

Re: A Smart Christian
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Tom Collins -
<font color="white"> .
</font>

There are no nominations for the Nobel Prize. Nice try.

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought that sounded kind of funny. This is from the article. Looks like Somebody's off.

"Dr. "Fritz" Schaefer is the Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and the director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia. He has been nominated for the Nobel Prize and was recently cited as the third most quoted chemist in the world. "The significance and joy in my science comes in the occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, 'So that's how God did it!' My goal is to understand a little corner of God's plan." --U.S. News &amp; World Report, Dec. 23, 1991. "

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

Technically there are no nominations. But ANYONE can write a letter to the committee and call it a nomination. This happened with the Doctor that claimed Terri Schiavo wasn't braindead. Some Congressman "nominated" him for the Nobel Prize in Medicine, and Sean Hannity/etc... ate it up and always introduced him as a Nobel Prize Nominated. I might write a letter and nominate Sklansky, and he'll have the same credibility.

[/ QUOTE ]

There actually is an official nomination process, with qualified nominators. usually about 100 - 250 people are nominated for each prize.

http://www.britannica.com/nobel/art/onobelp011a4.gif
http://www.britannica.com/nobel/art/onobelp011a4.gif

http://nobelprize.org/chemistry/nomi...ominators.html
[ QUOTE ]

The Nominators – Chemistry

Right to submit proposals for the award of the Nobel Prize in Chemistry, based on the principle of competence and universality, shall by statute be enjoyed by:

1. Swedish and foreign members of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences;
2. Members of the Nobel Committees for Chemistry;
3. Nobel Laureates in Chemistry;
4. Permanent and assistant professors in the sciences of Chemistry at the universities and institutes of technology of Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Iceland and Norway, and Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm;
5. Holders of corresponding chairs in at least six universities or university colleges selected by the Academy of Sciences with a view to ensuring the appropriate distribution over the different countries and their seats of learning; and
6. Other scientists from whom the Academy may see fit to invite proposals.

Decisions as to the selection of the teachers and scientists referred to in paragraphs 5 and 6 above shall be taken each year before the end of the month of September.

Prize-Awarder: The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Stockholm

Re: A Smart Christian
 

http://uspolitics.about.com/b/a/155906.htm

This about.com website discredits the claim that the Schaivo Doctor was nominated at all but also makes the case that its not ok for anyone to claim they were nominated

Re: A Smart Christian
 

[ QUOTE ]
http://uspolitics.about.com/b/a/155906.htm

This about.com website discredits the claim that the Schaivo Doctor was nominated at all but also makes the case that its not ok for anyone to claim they were nominated

[/ QUOTE ]

From the Link:
"According to the Statutes of the Nobel Foundation, information about the nominations is not to be disclosed, publicly or privately, for a period of fifty years. The restriction not only concerns the nominees and nominators, but also investigations and opinions in the awarding of a prize. Nomination information older than fifty years is public.
So, if he had been truly nominated -- he would be violating fundamental Nobel Foundation principles to say that. "

If that's how it is then it looks fishy in the article I linked to, to see Dr. "Fritz" Schaefer reported as having been nominated. I don't recall seeing claims of being "nominated" for the Nobel prize before.

I thought Schaefer might be Super Smart to have been nominated. Maybe not Super Duper Smart since he didn't win it, but still pretty darn smart. However, if claiming to have been nominated is automatically bogus I would have to demote him from Super Smart to something less than just plain smart.

PairTheBoard

Re: A Smart Christian
 

[ QUOTE ]
This about.com website discredits the claim that the Schaivo Doctor was nominated at all but also makes the case that its not ok for anyone to claim they were nominated

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the clarifying information, TQuick. The secrecy part now makes sense of why there's the notion that there is not a normal nomination process, it's not something that gets any press like other nomination procedures. It also clears up why that strange 'quoted' claim to it is how it's presented on Dr Schaeffer's ID website. If it's ethically verboten to reveal it, then deniability is important. Oh, well, in 40ish years I guess we'll know the truth ( nominations are made public after 50). Oh, and The PrankoTimes says it's rumored that I've been nominated for a Nobel, again...sigh

ah, I can sleep now, cause and effect are back at work.

Re: A Smart Christian
 

talk about your all time backfires... whoops

Re: A Smart Christian
 

[ QUOTE ]
This guy may not be a smart as David. Then again he Was nominated for the Nobel Prize.

A Smart Christian


Not saying I agree or disagree with him. Just that he's evidently pretty smart - and a Christian.

PairTheBoard

[/ QUOTE ]

WTF???

Re: A Smart Christian
 

[ QUOTE ]

Not saying I agree or disagree with him. Just that he's evidently pretty smart - and a Christian.


[/ QUOTE ]

I believe that Dr Schaeffer's statement in point 3 (which is correct, IMHO) contradicts his statements in point 4, where he makes assumptions whose implication belie the omnipotent nature of God.

According to Dr Schaeffer:

(Point 3): "In philosophy, many errors result from supposing that the conditions and limits of our own finite existence apply to God"

(Point 4): "God is omnipotent. But omnipotence does not mean that God can do literally everything...God cannot sin...God cannot lie...God cannot change His nature. God cannot deny the demands of His holy character. God cannot make a square circle, for the notion of a square circle is self–contradictory."

If God is omnipotent, then (IMHO) the statements in point 4 resolve themselves into absurdity.

Consider carefully the nature of an omnipotent being. God is the creator of everything: every concept, including the space-time universe, energy, and the potential for thought, which encompasses knowledge, logic, language, and abstracts like morality, justice, and the "law". Taking this further, God has even created the concept of a "concept", along with the concepts of "possibility" and of "probability". As their creator and sustainer, God Himself is not subject to any of these. Thus God can not be defined in human terms, terms which He Himself has created (supposedly for the benefit of the creation). As the Bible attempts to put it, He is simply "I am who I am", the "Alpha and the Omega", timeless, infinite, sovereign.

As an example, it is meaningless to debate whether God could do evil if He chose. Everything God does is good, by divine definition, simply because He is God. The moral law can not be applied to God, because it is subject to its Creator, not the other way around. Evil is simply everything that is contrary to the will of God. Whether God chooses to create or destroy, who can judge Him, and moreover judge Him by standards and values that were not ultimately of God's own definition? The same applies to any other concept, which highlights the impotence of the created being in the face of God. As soon as we say "God is just, righteous, or compassionate" we are trying to describe God in human terms, ideas that He Himself has created. Sure, the Bible describes these as "truths", but that is because God has, using divine prerogative, created these concepts as humanly intelligible ways that He would have us view Him. The Bible is an act of reduction: God attempting to explain Himself in terms of concepts that he has granted us the "intelligence" to "understand".

Let me attempt to put this another way. God can not be constrained by "His nature", for God and "His nature" are one and the same. God's nature exudes His very essence; He is never "at odds" with Himself.

The creation apparently exists for God's glory, and His good pleasure. The process of creation supposedly requires simultaneous acts of inclusion and exclusion. For example, the creation includes a space-time theater, but in doing so supposedly excludes an infinite range of other possibilities (that we can only try to imagine). The creation could exist without knowledge (Bible: "knowledge will pass away"), without language, and (dare I suggest it) without logic. God could have chosen to create a universe within which no being has the capacity for any kind of thought. For "with God, all things are possible"!!

Returning momentarily to debate Dr Schaeffer's point 4:

a) I disagree with "omnipotence does not mean that God can do literally anything". Who, or what, is holding Him back?

b) "God cannot sin" – already covered above. Whatever God does is good, because He is God. If God were to sin, He would be in conflict with Himself ("a kingdom divided against itself will fall").

c) "God cannot lie" – similar concept. Whatever God says is true, because He has defined the very idea of truth. He (as Christ) claims "I am the Truth" – by definition, everything contrary to the character of God character is, by divine definition, false.

d) "God cannot change His nature" – utterly meaningless, because it implies that there are other "options" for God to choose from. But if there is no being greater than, or pre-existing God, then who created these options?

e) "God cannot deny the demands of His holy character" – The omnipotent creator can only be "holy" by His own definition of holiness. Again, this pre-supposes that God has "options" that are "foreign" to Him. Same question: what higher being created these options?

f) "God cannot create a square circle". Only because God has, through the process of exclusion in creation, decided that there should be a space-time world, an which furthermore should include the very concept of "geometry"...

The question of "who created God?" is likewise reduced to absurdity. Such an act of creation would have supposedly had to take place in time, and God, as the creator of the concept of time, can not be subject to time. Hence it is an anachronism to think of God as the "first cause"; He is more like the "primary eternal cause".

We "discover" our own consciousness. As an infant, at some point in time I become aware of the fact that I'm alive. But the same idea can not be applied to God. God did not suddenly "discover Himself". He is simply the "I am", who (viewed from the perspective of time) always "was" and always "will be".

Return to Dr Schaeffer's point 3, where I believe he is both correct and articulate. Then he betrays its merit, with total contradictions in point 4.

(I also believe that, as part of the creation process, and culminating with Calvary, God voluntarily divests Himself of elements of His power, but that is potentially the subject of another essay.)

I believe that there are flaws in my "logic", in that I too fall into the trap of "applying conditions and limits of our own finite existence" to an omnipotent Creator. But my intention to provoke discussion along more mature lines about the possible character of an omnipotent being ("God"). If we are to somehow gain any kind of understanding about God, then, just for starters, we have to try to think from outside a space-time perspective. To whatever extent this is humanly impossible we must humbly acknowledge our finitude. The alternative is to concede defeat and become an atheist :-)

David

Re: A Smart Christian
 

it sounds like you're referring to Gid, the creator of God of this universe, who may well have some limitations placed on him by Gid, however minor, and whether we can know them or not. Why or why not?

Re: A Smart Christian
 

[ QUOTE ]
it sounds like you're referring to Gid, the creator of God of this universe, who may well have some limitations placed on him by Gid, however minor, and whether we can know them or not. Why or why not?

[/ QUOTE ]

In your scenario it appears that Gid is greater than God. Is Gid omnipotent, or was he too created, and if so, by whom?

You can argue that God was created by A, who was created by B, etc, ad infinitum. For the effect to follow the cause, all creation must take place at a certain point of time. Therefore either time is greater than everything, or there is a being who is not subject to time, that created time. Such a being could not be created.

Given the hypothetical nature of any scenario, it is possible that (an omnipotent, eternal) God created Gid, gave Gid certain powers, and, as a further exercise of divine prerogative, voluntarily subjected Himself to some or all of the "laws of Gid".

Alternatively, if you're suggesting that Gid is simply the omnipotent creator of God, then all we're doing is toying with names.

As to the question of why, please re-read my post. I believe that God has created the very idea of reason itself. Therefore God is not subject to reason. Otherwise, reason would be greater than God, and would therefore be created by another being, i.e. God (or call Him wahtever you like).

Re: A Smart Christian
 

[ QUOTE ]
You can argue that God was created by A, who was created by B, etc, ad infinitum. For the effect to follow the cause, all creation must take place at a certain point of time. Therefore either time is greater than everything, or there is a being who is not subject to time, that created time. Such a being could not be created.

[/ QUOTE ]
Actually, I'm not arguing anything. I was wondering how, given your statement - [ QUOTE ]
I believe that God has created the very idea of reason itself. Therefore God is not subject to reason.

[/ QUOTE ] how there was any way we could use reason to rule out the Gid/God possibility? You certainly wouldn't be allowed to pull out some "well that's unreasonable" argument against it, or would you? Why would cause and effect, or time or any of the things that we experince apply to beings that are premised to be beyond such limitations?

Re: A Smart Christian
 

[ QUOTE ]
I believe that Dr Schaeffer's statement in point 3 (which is correct, IMHO) contradicts his statements in point 4, where he makes assumptions whose implication belie the omnipotent nature of God.

According to Dr Schaeffer:

(Point 3): "In philosophy, many errors result from supposing that the conditions and limits of our own finite existence apply to God"

[/ QUOTE ]

Your refer to how correct and articulate point 3 is but it is wrong. Philosophers are exploring what follow from claims made about gods properties i.e if by god being omnipotent you mean ... then ... follows.

No errors about anything result from this method. They do however show that most people who talk about the omnipotence etc of god are talking nonsense.

chez

Re: A Smart Christian
 

Not so smart on this answer:

[ QUOTE ]
4. Can god make a rock so big that he can’t lift it?

...

God cannot change His nature.

[/ QUOTE ]



John 1:
1| In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
14| The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us.

Matthew 24:
36| "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."


Philippians 2:
5| Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus:
6| Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
7| but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness.
8| And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death — even death on a cross!

Re: A Smart Christian
 

Isn't hating America a prereq for getting a Nobel prize?

Re: A Smart Christian
 

[ QUOTE ]

Not so smart on this answer:

Quote:
4. Can god make a rock so big that he can’t lift it?

...

God cannot change His nature.


[/ QUOTE ]


His answer was correct. Jesus was both God and man. As man, He was subject to change. He was born then matured. He learned. As man, he wsn't omniscient. And He died, then was resurrected. As God, He is the same yesterday, today and forever.

Re: A Smart Christian
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Not so smart on this answer:

Quote:
4. Can god make a rock so big that he can’t lift it?

...

God cannot change His nature.


[/ QUOTE ]


His answer was correct. Jesus was both God and man. As man, He was subject to change. He was born then matured. He learned. As man, he wsn't omniscient. And He died, then was resurrected. As God, He is the same yesterday, today and forever.

[/ QUOTE ]

I really don't want to have a religious/Christian argument... because I'm not a Christian, so my motivation is about nil. However, as a former Christian, I would disagree with you. The verses I quoted show that God BECAME flesh. Jesus existed before he ever came to earth. He was not a MAN at that point, and he is not a MAN now (according to Christian doctrine). He BECAME a man... his nature changed. As a man, Jesus did not consider himself to be equal in nature to God. However, before and after being a man, Jesus is in nature, equal to God.

[ QUOTE ]
"As man, He was subject to change. He was born then matured. He learned. As man, he wsn't omniscient."

[/ QUOTE ]

Is Jesus omniscient now? If so, then his nature changed. Jesus is God, so God can change his nature.

Re: A Smart Christian
 

[ QUOTE ]
Jesus was both God and man. As man, He was subject to ....

[/ QUOTE ]

HE can't be both. It's possible to look at it like a shared possession of a body along the lines of Multiple Personality Disorder ( if it exists) but at the level where a person exists ( I am not my arm) I can only be a person ( by definition, since I am something else I am not a person). So to say, God shared a body with this guy Jesus would capture something meaningful. To say 'he' was both destroys the person 'jesus' because people don't have god qualities. "They" were both, sharing the carpenters body. Entity I, jesus the man. Entity 2, the god. The is no dual 'he'.

Re: A Smart Christian
 

[ QUOTE ]

He BECAME a man... his nature changed.


[/ QUOTE ]

He became a man but His divine nature did not change. Christian theology has been consistent at least since Augustine - Jesus has two natures, divine and human. And no, no one understands it very well. It's similar to the Trinity, God is three and also one. There's no logical inconsistency because the different aspects are taken in different senses. There's much on both these topics that can help with the difficulties, but they are both doctrines that we can't fully grasp.

[ QUOTE ]

Is Jesus omniscient now?


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure concerning His human nature. I will say these concepts are in the Bible and are impossible for us to understand fully.

Re: A Smart Christian
 

[ QUOTE ]

"They" were both, sharing the carpenters body. Entity I, jesus the man. Entity 2, the god. The is no dual 'he'.


[/ QUOTE ]

It's a mystery. In can only be stated, it can't be explained. Many analogies have been used but are always lacking. All I can say about it is the Bible presents this concept and it's perfectly logical to believe that God would be above our logical capabilities.

Re: A Smart Christian
 

[ QUOTE ]
All I can say about it is the Bible presents this concept and it's perfectly logical to believe that God would be above our logical capabilities.

[/ QUOTE ] Naturally, or should I say, supernaturally, god is above our logical capabilities, but 'being a man' isn't. Else, we'd have no idea whether to shake hands with it or shoot it and have it for din-din.

Re: A Smart Christian
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

"They" were both, sharing the carpenters body. Entity I, jesus the man. Entity 2, the god. The is no dual 'he'.


[/ QUOTE ]

It's a mystery. In can only be stated, it can't be explained. Many analogies have been used but are always lacking. All I can say about it is the Bible presents this concept and it's perfectly logical to believe that God would be above our logical capabilities.

[/ QUOTE ]

The "fact" is... when Jesus was on Earth, he did not have all of his God-qualities. He did before he was born as a man. Ergo, his nature changed. Unless you want to equivocate the word "nature".

Re: A Smart Christian
 

[ QUOTE ]

Unless you want to equivocate the word "nature".


[/ QUOTE ]

It's not an equivocation because He had two natures. But I can't give a full, logical explanation of what that means. If the doctrine was that He had one nature and then gave contradictory descriptions of that nature it would be illogical. Having two natures isn't illogical, it's just impossible to understand what it means.

Re: A Smart Christian
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Unless you want to equivocate the word "nature".


[/ QUOTE ]

It's not an equivocation because He had two natures. But I can't give a full, logical explanation of what that means. If the doctrine was that He had one nature and then gave contradictory descriptions of that nature it would be illogical. Having two natures isn't illogical, it's just impossible to understand what it means.

[/ QUOTE ]

So he had 1 nature, then 2. That's a change of "nature" then. His nature was to have 1 nature... then his nature was to have 2 natures. Whatever that means. [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

Re: A Smart Christian
 

[ QUOTE ]

SETI isn't a scientific theory. It's a search.


[/ QUOTE ]

It must claim to be based on science. If not, it should be funded by artistic foundations, not scientific ones.

The crux of the argument from the site you linked is:

[ QUOTE ]

In short, the champions of Intelligent Design make two mistakes when they claim that the SETI enterprise is logically similar to their own: First, they assume that we are looking for messages, and judging our discovery on the basis of message content, whether understood or not. In fact, we’re on the lookout for very simple signals. That’s mostly a technical misunderstanding. But their second assumption, derived from the first, that complexity would imply intelligence, is also wrong. We seek artificiality, which is an organized and optimized signal coming from an astronomical environment from which neither it nor anything like it is either expected or observed: Very modest complexity, found out of context. This is clearly nothing like looking at DNA’s chemical makeup and deducing the work of a supernatural biochemist.


[/ QUOTE ]

Error number one isn't made by anyone I've read or anything I've thought. I've always thought the search was made based on any sign of intelligence. For instance, our own TV signals, though not sent as a message, would enable ETs to infer we are here.

Error number two is also not part of my understanding of SETI. I don't think of it as looking for compexity, but artificiality.

The whole article is just an attempt to define terms in such a way that SETI is scientific and ID isn't. It draws artificial distinctions and focuses on differences, ignoring similarities. Much turns on the definition of artificial. The presupposition that isn't stated is that the universe is a closed system, therefore by definition whatever occurs in the universe CAN'T be attributed to God. Of course, the whole question is always decided at the outset. If DNA is designed, there is a Designer. If DNA isn't designed, it's an accident. The conclusion depends on the premises. What is meant by design and artificial? But formally there's a basic similarity between SETI and ID. Both believe it's proper to infer intelligence behind something that has no natural explanation.