Christian hymn of creation

felltoearth · **#61** by **felltoearth** » Nov 26, 2018 3:36 am

Rachel Bronwyn wrote:What form of leukemia is genetic?

Shows what I know.

Fallible · **#62** by **Fallible** » Nov 26, 2018 7:20 am

Wortfish wrote: A hydrogen[...]

Ah, a hydrogen. You're obviously an expert.

LucidFlight · **#63** by **LucidFlight** » Nov 26, 2018 9:04 am

My question to God is, "Why a hydrogen?"

Animavore · **#64** by **Animavore** » Nov 26, 2018 10:04 am

Wortfish wrote:
Animavore wrote:
Are you saying that God is powerless against the forces of nature?

No. God is the ultimate author of the forces of nature that he has established. But that doesn't mean that the forces of nature are bad because they can kill us. They are inherently good.

So if God isn't powerless against the forces of nature then why won't he do anything about the negative effects of natural selection?
Also if he is the author of the forces of nature, and you say that one of those forces - natural selection - is to blame for leukaemia, then how is God not to blame?

Wortfish · **#65** by **Wortfish** » Nov 26, 2018 1:00 pm

Fallible wrote:
Wortfish wrote: A hydrogen[...]

Ah, a hydrogen. You're obviously an expert.

You know full well I meant a hydrogen atom. Don't be so pedantic.

Wortfish · **#66** by **Wortfish** » Nov 26, 2018 1:03 pm

Animavore wrote:
So if God isn't powerless against the forces of nature then why won't he do anything about the negative effects of natural selection?
Also if he is the author of the forces of nature, and you say that one of those forces - natural selection - is to blame for leukaemia, then how is God not to blame?

No. God is not powerless but neither is he free to obstruct the natural order that he has created. Everything falls within his providential plan, and this included natural disasters and diseases. My point is that he created everything good and whole, but the inherent imperfection in Nature is to blame for much of the suffering we experience, including our sinful ways.

Cito di Pense · **#67** by **Cito di Pense** » Nov 26, 2018 1:23 pm

Wortfish wrote:
Animavore wrote:
So if God isn't powerless against the forces of nature then why won't he do anything about the negative effects of natural selection?
Also if he is the author of the forces of nature, and you say that one of those forces - natural selection - is to blame for leukaemia, then how is God not to blame?

No. God is not powerless but neither is he free to obstruct the natural order that he has created. Everything falls within his providential plan, and this included natural disasters and diseases. My point is that he created everything good and whole, but the inherent imperfection in Nature is to blame for much of the suffering we experience, including our sinful ways.

And somehow, I'm just not thankful for all that, which is another way of saying I think it's a stupid story you're telling. I think we both take it as it comes. One of us praises God, and the other thinks it's a stupid story. I'll leave you to sort out who's who.

By the way, I pretty much applaud what you're doing here, which is to mock people for writing theology. Anyone can write theology, even atheists, as I've done, above. When an atheist writes theology, God is just a character in a story. Writing theology as if it were a proof of anything is a sure-loss proposition.

Calilasseia · **#68** by **Calilasseia** » Nov 26, 2018 2:20 pm

Wortfish wrote:
Calilasseia wrote:
This presumes in advance that an "agent" actually exists. That presumption itself awaits proper, rigorous test. Which we've been waiting for 5,000 years to see from supernaturalists.

Yes, agents do exist. They use mechanisms to produce desired effects.

The only "agents" we have reliably repeatable and verifiable evidence for, are assorted living organisms. The presumption that an agent other than this exists, is of course what I was referring to above.

Wortfish wrote:
Oh for fuck's sake, haven't you learned that we've moved on as a species, in the 23 centuries since Aristotle wrote about this?

Aristotle fell into the same trap as a lot of people, namely, thinking that because human beings are responsible for ordered actions arising from intent, that ordered actions arising in nature needed an invisible magic man acting upon intent. Except that, oops, they don't. NONE of the asserted magic entities of any of our mythologies, your favourite one included, has ever shown up, let alone in a reliably repeatable manner. Alleged instances of food vandalism, arising from human pattern matching ability, don't count.

Aristotle distinguished between the efficient cause that produces the effect and the material cause that serves as the means through which the effect is produced. That is uncontroversial and has nothing to do with any religious claims.

Except that blindly asserted magic "agents" from mythology don't count as "agents" in reality. They're figments of human imagination.

Plus, there are plenty of interactions that are not caused by agents of any sort. Gravity, anyone?

Wortfish wrote:
Hydrogen atoms form naturally, the moment you have a lot of protons and neutrons occupying the same space. Those opposite electric charges do the work.

For your information, a hydrogen consists of a single proton orbited by a single electron. So tell me, who/what made protons and electrons and determined their respective charges and masses that are finely balanced?

There was no "who" involved. Oh, and don't try slipping Douglas Adams' Puddle in by the back door.

At bottom, particles (or their string landscape equivalents, for those who took the requisite physics classes) are products of quantum fields. Those quantum fields are, as far as physicists can currently ascertain, have always existed. Indeed, that's a point I keep raising whenever questions of the form "what instantiated X" are inserted into discourse, namely, that either explanations (natural or otherwise) will continue diving deeper and deeper into an infinite regress, or will come to a stop at some point with "we can go no further, and this particular X simply exists, as a brute fact".

Wortfish wrote:
As for oxygen, see: stellar nucleosynthesis.

And who made the stars? We can play these silly games all day long.

Which are only silly as long as you keep insisting upon a "who".

Wortfish wrote:
Bollocks. Mythological magic men are nothing more than figments of the imaginations of ignorant pre-scientific humans. It's testable natural processes all the way down, which have been demonstrated during the past 300 years of scientific advance, to be sufficient to explain vast classes of entities and phenomena, including entities and phenomena that the authors of your sad mythology were incapable of even fantasising about. The authors of your mythology didn't even know of the existence of vast continental land masses on Earth, let alone the majestic panoply of astronomical objects science has since alighted upon, and placed with precise, usefully predictive quantitative frameworks of knowledge. The authors of your mythology didn't know about bacteria, they didn't know the underpinnings of basic genetics, indeed, they were incapable of counting correctly the number of legs that an insect possesses, a task any astute modern day five year old child can accomplish without difficulty. Yet you want to assert here, that the same authors of infantile mythology, that didn't know any of these things, somehow magically alighted upon the keys to the cosmos, whilst 300 years of diligent scientific advance didn't even come within a light year of the bull's eye? You should take this shit to Comedy Central.

Irrespective of whether people in the past did not know many things which we know today, they knew of the existence of observable natural processes and mechanisms.

Except that the authors of mythologies seem to have forgotten this, when they started creating their fiction. And started introducing magic.

Wortfish wrote:They knew that when you heat metals to great temperatures with oxygen you can melt and shape them. They also knew that human agents make use of these physical conditions and laws just as they realised that a supernatural agent was responsible for the tides and the colours in the rainbow by availing of the natural forces (like gravity and refraction) that it established.

Bollocks. They merely assumed that an invisible magic man was responsible, because they didn't possess the cognitive powers to work out that lots of interactions continue happening, without any "agent" being responsible. Intentionalist thinking is inherently misleading whenever this is the case.

Scot Dutchy · **#69** by **Scot Dutchy** » Nov 26, 2018 4:19 pm

I see the usual derail has taken place. I thought this thread was about a hymn?

SafeAsMilk · **#70** by **SafeAsMilk** » Nov 26, 2018 4:33 pm

Wortfish wrote:
Animavore wrote:
So if God isn't powerless against the forces of nature then why won't he do anything about the negative effects of natural selection?
Also if he is the author of the forces of nature, and you say that one of those forces - natural selection - is to blame for leukaemia, then how is God not to blame?

No. God is not powerless but neither is he free to obstruct the natural order that he has created.

If he isn't free to do anything about it, then he IS powerless against the forces of nature. You can't have it both ways.

Everything falls within his providential plan, and this included natural disasters and diseases.

So everything bad that happens, he's planned. Too bad he didn't plan better!

My point is that he created everything good and whole, but the inherent imperfection in Nature is to blame for much of the suffering we experience, including our sinful ways.

This is a lazy way to get out of admitting that everything isn't actually good, as is observably the case. If nature is inherently imperfect, and god made it that way, then he is responsible for it. You can only assume the creator of the universe could have made it any way they wanted, but they chose to make it this way, so to blame it on anything other than the creator is balls-out ridiculous.

laklak · **#71** by **laklak** » Nov 26, 2018 4:42 pm

It's all good, because God made it and God is good. If you don't see it's all good then it's your problem. He only tortures you for your own benefit.

Sounds just like an abusive spouse.

Evolving · **#72** by **Evolving** » Nov 26, 2018 8:04 pm

Hermit · **#73** by **Hermit** » Nov 27, 2018 5:24 am

Wortfish wrote:
Animavore wrote:
No. God is not powerless but neither is he free to obstruct the natural order that he has created. Everything falls within his providential plan, and this included natural disasters and diseases. My point is that he created everything good and whole, but the inherent imperfection in Nature is to blame for much of the suffering we experience, including our sinful ways.

According to you, God exists and he created nature, right? He, again according to you, is the designer of earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, pestilence and so on, is he not? What a weird concept of "intelligent design".

LucidFlight · **#74** by **LucidFlight** » Nov 27, 2018 5:41 am

Earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, pestilence, and so on, are inherently good. It's only when sinful humans get involved that bad things happen.

zulumoose · **#75** by **zulumoose** » Nov 27, 2018 6:29 am

Earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, pestilence, and so on, are inherently good.

No you're missing the point, nature started off good, but the butterfly effect ensured that some chick eating an apple (metaphorical or otherwise) turned nature ugly, in a way that although bad, is ultimately good. Makes perfect sense.

DoctorE · **#76** by **DoctorE** » Nov 27, 2018 8:51 am

Hermit · **#77** by **Hermit** » Nov 27, 2018 9:15 am

zulumoose wrote:
LucidFlight wrote:Earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, pestilence, and so on, are inherently good.

No you're missing the point, nature started off good, but the butterfly effect ensured that some chick eating an apple (metaphorical or otherwise) turned nature ugly, in a way that although bad, is ultimately good. Makes perfect sense.

You're wrong, zulumoose. LucidFright is right. Wortfish will come along presently and explain to you why earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, pestilence, and so on, are inherently good, but we simply lack God's wisdom to recognise what's good for us.

felltoearth · **#78** by **felltoearth** » Nov 28, 2018 3:42 am

: 755E1F11-15A8-4555-9C81-1C755399E846.jpeg (73.75 KiB) Viewed 1138 times

Fallible · **#79** by **Fallible** » Nov 28, 2018 8:05 am

Wortfish wrote:
Fallible wrote:
Wortfish wrote: A hydrogen[...]

Ah, a hydrogen. You're obviously an expert.

You know full well I meant a hydrogen atom. Don't be so pedantic.

I think you know by now it's pointless to expect your posts to be taken seriously.

Fallible · **#80** by **Fallible** » Nov 28, 2018 8:09 am

Wortfish wrote:
Animavore wrote:
So if God isn't powerless against the forces of nature then why won't he do anything about the negative effects of natural selection?
Also if he is the author of the forces of nature, and you say that one of those forces - natural selection - is to blame for leukaemia, then how is God not to blame?

No. God is not powerless but neither is he free to obstruct the natural order that he has created. Everything falls within his providential plan, and this included natural disasters and diseases. My point is that he created everything good and whole, but the inherent imperfection in Nature is to blame for much of the suffering we experience, including our sinful ways.

Isaiah 45:7 King James Version (KJV) wrote:

7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.

Christian hymn of creation

Re: Christian hymn of creation

Re: Christian hymn of creation

Re: Christian hymn of creation

Re: Christian hymn of creation

Re: Christian hymn of creation

Re: Christian hymn of creation

Re: Christian hymn of creation

Re: Christian hymn of creation

Re: Christian hymn of creation

Re: Christian hymn of creation

Re: Christian hymn of creation

Re: Christian hymn of creation

Re: Christian hymn of creation

Re: Christian hymn of creation

Re: Christian hymn of creation

Re: Christian hymn of creation

Re: Christian hymn of creation

Re: Christian hymn of creation

Re: Christian hymn of creation

Re: Christian hymn of creation

Who is online