tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5216738179263317509.post2520554867086812680..comments2024-01-08T00:25:24.777-08:00Comments on Philosophy of Science Portal: Theodocy and cold scienceMercuryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13757909461674304095noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5216738179263317509.post-73975133035749271962010-01-25T20:09:59.945-08:002010-01-25T20:09:59.945-08:00i had not thought to bring Leibniz into such a pos...i had not thought to bring Leibniz into such a post. Hume or Kant either....i as a believer take away from this shame that such people exist who would even mention Gawd with a natural disaster....i rather see it as a call to the basic principles of Christianity and helping our fellow humans. this principle, as does Gawd, runs through all the great books and learned men, women....a child in England rode his bike for 5 miles to raise money for Haiti....that should be the only example we need...Timothyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16506919336703343072noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5216738179263317509.post-83278861732530803002010-01-25T19:58:58.856-08:002010-01-25T19:58:58.856-08:00Ah, but God we are told can provide a nonconsuming...Ah, but God we are told can provide a nonconsuming bush and a virgin birth...do these not violate laws of physics which this god can not violate.<br /><br />I really don't understand your point.<br /><br />The point of the post was to demonstrate that many people wrongly drag God into huge natural disasters...that there is a causal effect involved regarding some form of punishment for God's displeasure. This is nonsense. Were such statements employed in the huge China earthquake just a few years ago?Mercuryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13757909461674304095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5216738179263317509.post-30554848948384115332010-01-25T19:41:13.008-08:002010-01-25T19:41:13.008-08:00Theodicy is not as nonsensical as this post presup...Theodicy is not as nonsensical as this post presupposes. Assume you are god, not just any disinterested god, but one of the sensitive, caring sort. You have some major goals and a number of self-imposed constraints. A god cannot do something contrary to his basic nature such as create a rock he cannot lift or perform an act contrary to the fundamental aims of his creation. Rule number one for such a god is you must foster free will among those created entities with consciousness. This means you cannot load the dice so obviously as to be discovered. Number two is that the world created must be a dynamic process with a probabalistic basis. This is necessary for evolution, for the development of consciousness and for gross little details like tectonic plates. The system has to permit earthquakes since it is only through creative destruction that a planet like Earth can exist. Dynamic processes like hurricanes are essential for an atmosphere just as earthquakes are a necessary corollary of a planet with a molten core. As regretable as the loss of life occasioned by such dynamic processes, they are still necessary and a caring god can no more stop their action than he can upend the physical laws that he establishes.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5216738179263317509.post-70134611841854765162010-01-25T07:52:51.503-08:002010-01-25T07:52:51.503-08:00never waste a catastrophe....the dullard thinking ...never waste a catastrophe....the dullard thinking of reprobates and miscreants....Timothyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16506919336703343072noreply@blogger.com