A Smart Christian

[Stu Pidasso]

[ 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

[TomCollins]

[ 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.

[PairTheBoard]

[ 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

[TomCollins]

[ 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.

[imported_luckyme]

[ 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.

[ThinkQuick]

[ 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://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

[ThinkQuick]

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

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

[bocablkr]

[ 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???

[DavidL]

[ 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