I suppose you agree that there are natural laws. If you are a theist you believe that these natural laws were made by God. These natural laws therefore can be capable of allowing anything whatsoever, having been made by the omnipotent.

A lot of the theists I know would agree with the above paragraph, but then turn around to say things like "human life could not have arisen from natural processes" or "order cannot come from chaos" or "this/that is a miracle (violation of natural laws)", and such.

Basically, theists have decided that the natural laws that the omnipotent perfect God made are not powerful enough to perform certain tasks that they (theists) deem complicated. They would however concede that what seems complicated to them cannot by dint of that be complicated for God, and thus nothing can be too complicated for God's natural laws.

If you're a theist and you believe that natural laws, despite being made by God, cannot do any heavy lifting, I'd like to hear your reasons for that and for why you think God would have gone to the trouble of creating such seemingly complicated laws if they are not useful for anything significant.

Just listen and look at ur self, what is ur question now?

Shey your eye dey pain you?

This is just a question to theists...
anyway grabs pop corn and occupy front seat...

Theist be like; Magic is bad but the world was created using magic hehehehehe

johnydon22:
This is just a question to theists...
anyway grabs pop corn and occupy front seat...

Theist be like; Magic is bad but the world was created using magic hehehehehe

Exactly. Sometimes they act as if things like physics or chemistry are from the devil.

U all are effected by christain view of god mythology

I'm most familiar with the christian deity. Also, the better part of the audience here are christians. If you use a generic sort of God, most people on here won't be able to relate. I tried to make the OP as general as possible tho.

The word, God. is not a name of any thing but a descriptive term remenber. So mention the name of the deity u have in mind,

It's no particular deity. All that is required is that the deity be maximally great.

undercat:
It's no particular deity. All that is required is that the deity be maximally great.

So am guessing you are implying this deity in the deist conception?

johnydon22:


So am guessing you are implying this deity in the deist conception?

I'm not implying any particular deity. As far as attributes of the deity are concerned, what matters here are the omnipotence/omniscience of the deity. It just needs to be powerful enough to have created the natural laws. The theist is my concern here, as I feel there is an inconsistency in believing God to be all powerful and yet incapable of achieving whatever he wants through natural processes, which is implied when they reject a natural account for the existence or state of certain things. Any sort of theist may hold this belief.

I hope my point is not too obscure.

undercat:
It's no particular deity. All that is required is that the deity be maximally great.

then u are confused. I must ask u what do u understand by the word God? U seem not to be an intellectually satisfied atheist like plaetton.

Jameselias:
then u are confused. I must ask u what do u understand by the word God?

I think you may have misunderstood the OP. For it's purposes it suffices that God is the omnipotent and omniscient creator of our universe.

undercat:


I'm not implying any particular deity. As far as attributes of the deity are concerned, what matters here are the omnipotence/omniscience of the deity. It just needs to be powerful enough to have created the natural laws. The theist is my concern here, as I feel there is an inconsistency in believing God to be all powerful and yet incapable of achieving whatever he wants through natural processes, which is implied when they reject a natural account for the existence or state of certain things. Any sort of theist may hold this belief.

I hope my point is not too obscure.

Yeah i think i get you boss

undercat:


I think you may have misunderstood the OP. For it's purposes it suffices that God is the omnipotent and omniscient creator of our universe.

what do u know about cosmology or cosmogony and how many creation account do u know. Go study creation as enumelrated in hermetic philosophy their far above what ur science know, in fact science is only begining to have a glimpse of what hermes thought thousand's of yrs, to a true OCCULTIST the mystry of the universe is with him the only thing i can tell u is this, man know thy self, and thy shall both the universe and God, for as below so above, there is no other God but man,

Jameselias:
what do u know about cosmology or cosmogony and how many creation account do u know. Go study creation as enumelrated in hermetic philosophy their far above what ur science know, in fact science is only begining to have a glimpse of what hermes thought thousand's of yrs, to a true OCCULTIST the mystry of the universe is with him the only thing i can tell u is this, man know thy self, and thy shall both the universe and God, for as below so above, there is no other God but man,

Okay. Will do.

A few threads on here today have made me think about this matter again.

What can someone who believes in an omnipotent God possibly mean by the statement "the earth/universe is perfect for life".

There is nothing that isn't perfect for life, as far as God is concerned. A comet, the center of the sun, a blackhole, a universe where nothing is heavier than helium, just name it. This leads us back to the question "what is the purpose of physical laws?"

And of course, how can you say that the earth is perfect for life when you don't believe that life could have arisen on earth naturally?

undercat:
A few threads on here today have made me think about this matter again.

What can someone who believes in an omnipotent God possibly mean by the statement "the earth/universe is perfect for life".

There is nothing that isn't perfect for life, as far as God is concerned. A comet, the center of the sun, a blackhole, a universe where nothing is heavier than helium, just name it. This leads us back to the question "what is the purpose of physical laws?"

And of course, how can you say that the earth is perfect for life when you don't believe that life could have arisen on earth naturally?

Just thinking...
"What is the purpose of physical laws?" ...somehow a weird question. The use of terminology like "purpose" and "meaning" already betrays a position, which can out of its nature not be atheistic. If atheists are consequent in their position, life can have no meaning.

If one talks about physical laws...it betrays a concept...laws are designed..serve a purpose...so time to change the terminology because it doesn't fit in an atheistic world view. Welcome to the atheistic religion . No declare me war o!

Tufanja:


Just thinking...
"What is the purpose of physical laws?" ...somehow a weird question. The use of terminology like "purpose" and "meaning" already betrays a position, which can out of its nature not be atheistic. If atheists are consequent in their position, life can have no meaning.

If one talks about physical laws...it betrays a concept...laws are designed..serve a purpose...so time to change the terminology because it doesn't fit in an atheistic world view. Welcome to the atheistic religion . No declare me war o!

Lol. No war. I'm not exactly atheist, but I don't think the universe owes anybody meaning. Some people do, so I want to know what they think the purpose of natural laws are.

It is somewhat taboo to call atheism a religion here tho.