Greg Dawes: Religious Arguments Are Susceptible to Divine Mystery

Responding to tjguy's point: "For instance, I doubt such a Creator would choose to use death, suffering, disease, bloodshed, competition, etc. as the main agent of creation. Does that fit with the character of God – really?" It all depends on what we believe about the character of God, doesn't it? My own view is that the primary revelation of God to humanity is the person of Jesus Christ, and that the primary revelatory event was his crucifixion and Resurrection (I speak of a single event, b/c I am not able to separate them when it comes to drawing out their meaning.) On my own view of God, tjguy, death, suffering, and bloodshed (leaving out disease and competition) were integral to that event and crucial to understanding the character of God. God definitely used them to redeem us; whether God also used them to create us remains for me a distinct possibility.Ted Davis

July 3, 2014

July

07

Jul

3

03

2014

06:40 AM

6

06

40

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

GVC says in the comments section:

Dawes, trained as a Jesuit, makes some fundamental mistakes about God. He imposes his own view of what God should be. He says:

"an agent who was omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect would be so different from any other agent with which we are familiar that it is difficult to make predictions about how he would act. "

Actually, although I can understand the point Dr. Hunter is trying to make, I actually agree with Dawes to a certain extent. It is hard for finite humans to truly know the mind of God. But still, I would think that we could know/deduce some things about how this agent would/would not act based on our belief in a morally perfect, omnipotent, and omniscient Creator. For instance, I doubt such a Creator would choose to use death, suffering, disease, bloodshed, competition, etc. as the main agent of creation. Does that fit with the character of God - really? Granted, that is simply an assumption/guess based on our beliefs of who God is, but it makes sense. However, we are not stuck with mere guesses here. We have added information to help us decide this. We have the added benefit in that we have a written revelation, a record of how God did create the universe and life.

"My own view is that we can make predictions about how God would not act. He would not, for example, act in such a way as to create gratuitous suffering. This makes theistic explanations falsifiable"

I agree. It seems a reasonable deduction based on who God is and based on what He has revealed to us.tjguy

June 29, 2014

June

06

Jun

29

29

2014

06:11 AM

6

06

11

AM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

I just love the evolutionist appeal to divine ignorance.Mung

June 28, 2014

June

06

Jun

28

28

2014

06:02 PM

6

06

02

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link

as to:

"Greg Dawes finds there to be all kinds of problems with appeals to divine agents, including the fact that we really can’t predict what an omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect agent would do,,,

and yet when we look at the foundation of the universe we find:

The Galileo Affair and “Life/Consciousness” as the true "Center of the Universe" Excerpt: I find it extremely interesting, and strange, that quantum mechanics tells us that instantaneous quantum wave collapse to its 'uncertain' 3D state is centered on each individual conscious observer in the universe, whereas, 4D space-time cosmology (General Relativity) tells us each 3D point in the universe is central to the expansion of the universe. These findings of modern science are pretty much exactly what we would expect to see if this universe were indeed created, and sustained, from a higher dimension by a omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal Being who knows everything that is happening everywhere in the universe at the same time. These findings certainly seem to go to the very heart of the age old question asked of many parents by their children, “How can God hear everybody’s prayers at the same time?”,,, i.e. Why should the expansion of the universe, or the quantum wave collapse of the entire universe, even care that you or I, or anyone else, should exist? Only Theism, Christian Theism in particular, offers a rational explanation as to why you or I, or anyone else, should have such undeserved significance in such a vast universe. [15] Psalm 33:13-15 The LORD looks from heaven; He sees all the sons of men. From the place of His dwelling He looks on all the inhabitants of the earth; He fashions their hearts individually; He considers all their works. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BHAcvrc913SgnPcDohwkPnN4kMJ9EDX-JJSkjc4AXmA/edit

Strangely, for some reason, his gripe that we can't know what God would do, (despite the fact that Darwinists are dependent on twisted Theistic metaphysics), reminds me of this old joke:

One day a group of scientists got together and decided that man had come a long way and no longer needed God. So they picked one scientist to go and tell Him that they were done with Him. The scientist walked up to God and said, "God, we've decided that we no longer need you. We're to the point that we can clone people and do many miraculous things, so why don't you just go on and get lost." God listened very patiently and kindly to the man and after the scientist was done talking, God said, "Very well, how about this, let's say we have a man making contest." To which the scientist replied, "OK, great!" But God added, "Now, we're going to do this just like I did back in the old days with Adam." The scientist said, "Sure, no problem" and bent down and grabbed himself a handful of dirt. God just looked at him and said, "No, no, no. You go get your own dirt!"

:) Verse and Music:

Romans 1:20 For from the creation of the world the invisible things of Him are clearly seen, being understood through the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse. Multiplied - Needtobreathe - music http://myktis.com/songs/multiplied/

bornagain77

June 27, 2014

June

06

Jun

27

27

2014

06:52 PM

6

06

52

PM

PDT

Copy Comment Link