Re: OT:Thanksgiving

"Howard Brazee" <howard@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Judson McClendon" <judmc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Where do you get the idea that any God has to create a universe
consistent with its' own nature?

No "has to" involved, simply a "logically would". :-)

If so, then the logical inference is that God has the same
characteristics that we see in this universe. But I don't know of
fundamentalists in the religions of the Book who believe this.
(usually they see the world as being closer to their views of Satan).

Howard, if you read my original comments, what I actually said was:

"It is logical to assume that if God created the universe, that it
would be consistent with His nature."

That *is not* the same as saying God has "the same" characteristics as
this universe, which you attributed to me above. Humans don't have
"the same" characteristics as a hand tool, but hand tools are designed
with human attributes in mind. The fact that screwdrivers exist implies
that their creators (humans) wanted them. For example, why would
we see such consistency in physical laws, if their creator was not also
consistent? Or, why would God create love or beauty, if He did not
posess and appreciate them? It is illogical to assume otherwise. We may
not be able to prove that such is the case with God, but it is logical
to assume so, which is all that I suggested. If the Bible is correct,
then the effects of sin and the curse in Genesis 3 are quite sufficient
to explain evil and other negative attributes.

<aside>
In formal proof, you often test a hypothesis by making it a postulate,
then following the logic to see if there are any contradictions within
the framework of the hypothesis. If one is to test the logical validity
of the Bible in the same way, you cannot use arguments that violate the
Bible as a postulate. Any contradictions must be found within the Bible
framework, just as would be the case for any other hypothesis. And when
any logically valid explaination is found within that framework for any
apparent contradiction, that is sufficient. Almost any hypothesis, even
many that have been formally proven true, can be "invalidated" by using
arguments that violate the postulates. This is only valid if the argument
is proven true and applies to the postulates. Since there is no (and can
be no) proof that God does not exist (can't prove a negative), this does
can not apply here.
</aside>
--
Judson McClendon judmc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx (remove zero)
Sun Valley Systems http://sunvaley.com
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: OT:Thanksgiving
    ... I would look for a God for Whom that statement is true. ... Who's attributes are consistent with the creation of the universe we see. ... You have made the mistake of starting from a Christian point of view ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Re: Christianity and civil partnership
    ... even more apologies if they feel hostile. ... How do you know that what you're encountering (if that's ... eager to mislead you about what God wants?) ... consistent with the encounters described in the bible. ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Re: Dawkins, Davies and daughters
    ... the laws of nature are predictable and consistent. ... With consistent predictable laws of nature there will ... One assumes God knew what he was doing at the time. ...
    (rec.arts.drwho)
  • Re: OT:Thanksgiving
    ... So if someone tries to persuade me to believe that Brahma is the ... I would look for a God for Whom that statement is true. ... Who's attributes are consistent with the creation of the universe we see. ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Re: OT:Thanksgiving
    ... I would look for a God for Whom that statement is true. ... Who's attributes are consistent with the creation of the universe we see. ... be consistent with the nature of its Creator. ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)