Star Course Discussion Page

Main Topics [with last update dates]

• Notes from Nature
• This lead to a thread on The Definition of Science
• and another on Why Dawkins is Wrong .
• Comments on Lucas' Theorem [22 July 99]
• Does Man have Freewill [3 Oct 99]
• Anthropic Principle [7 June 98] - also pages on Anthropic Parameters & Constraints and on the 1993 Venice Conference.
• Comprehensible Universe []
• Objective Morailty[23 May 98]
• Jesus [27 April 98]
• Suffering [25 May 98]
• Other God & Science [15 July]
• Other Star Course []
• Other [15 July 99]
• Biblical Manuscripts [12 Nov 98]
• How can uncertainty be compatible with faith [2 May 98]
• AJ Ayer's Verification Principle Refuted [25 May 98]
• Are we alone in the Universe? [17 July 2000]

Are we alone in the Universe?

• Dan Berger 17 July 00 (bergerd@bluffton.edu) On this topic I recommend the recent book "Rare Earth" by Peter Douglas Ward, Donald Brownlee. The thesis is that microbial life is quite robust and therefore likely to be common, but multicellular life requires such stringently narrow conditions that it will be extremely rare or perhaps unique to Earth.
  • Nicholas Beale 17 July 00 Dan, I very much agree. I haven't quite finished it yet, and must get back to reading it. It is very consonant with what Prof Conway Morris says here.

Notes from Nature has moved to its own page

Lucas' Theorem

• Nicholas Beale 8 Nov 98 I thought this was reasonably well-known, but it seems that it's not, so  I have put it on the web at http://www.starcourse.org/lucas.htm. Any comments?
• Steven Carr 9 Nov 98 The argument is that it is impossible to produce a totally deterministic model of human thought processes, or at least of those few human beings who are able to prove Godel's theorem without looking it up in a book.

 How very true. Could you tell me if it is possible to produce a totally deterministic model of the weather which will predict the behaviour of the weather with complete accuracy?
 If people do not behave in a deterministic manner, are they behaving in a random manner?
 Do you consider that people are not behaving randomly and are also not behaving deterministically? Do you believe people do things for no cause whatsoever? If people are not doing things for no cause whatsoever, are they doing things because there is some cause for their actions?
Is it morally important that people make decisions at random, rather than making decisions predictable by looking at what the moral thing to do is in any situation?
 If we were able to produce a moral system of calculus which could predict what a morally good being would do in any situation (perhaps we could call it the WWJD system) would it be morally vital that people did not obey the WWJD rules? Would it be much better if they acted at random rather than obeying the WWJD rules?
• Odessa Elliott 9 Nov 98 I finally had a chance to check out your upload of the Lucas Theorem - thanks for posting the two items.

 Several years ago, I heard a lecture by the head of the Computer Science dept. at Vassar College, USA, in which he spoke of some of the most recent studies in his speciality, Artificial Intelligence.
 He was speaking to non-computer scientists and so gave a "homey" example of what was in the works. He told us to imagine we had customized computers around the house, to help with various tasks; and that the computer by our bedside was not only an alarm clock, but also a weather sensor.
 "Good morning!  It's a half-hour earlier than usual, but you will want to know that some 8 inches of snow fell over night, so you will have to dig out the walkway and driveway, if you want to get to work on time."     Owner of this computer groans loudly.  Pause.
 Computer's voice comes on again, but softly and soothingly:   "Of course, you really don't have to get to the office on time.  I'll call your secretary and say there was a blizzard."
 The professor's basic point:  computers don't design and program themselves.   Even with all the zillion-line instructions that permit computers to play chess, 'tis still the mind of homo sapiens that wrote all the zillions of lines (esp. the "If then..." statements).
 As for "cutting edge" research into brain cell physiology, structure, and function, scientists have not determined the location of the cells that control most physical functions, much less thought.
 No, indeed, the computer is not 'meat.'
• Steven Carr 9 Nov 98  The article on Lucas Theorem mentions the further work of Professor Roger Penrose FRS on these ideas. He is an atheist, is he not? At least, I know for a fact that he is a humanist.
• Steven Carr 21 July 99  think I understand this now!

The idea is that if we have a machine which is simulating the mind of Lucas, then we can construct a sentence such as 'Lucas cannot , in all consistency, prove that this statement cannot be proved true.'
 I can prove this sentence is true. You can. Almost everybody else can, but the machine cannot (Lucas theorem is true after all!)  The only question is Can Lucas prove that that statement is true (ie can Lucas prove that that statement cannot be proved true)  If he cannot, then the machine is accurately simulating the mind of Lucas.
• Nicholas 21 July 99 Nearly ... but the sentence is "[Machine] cannot..." not "Lucas cannot..." and Lucas is in no different a position than any other logician.

Does Man have Freewill?

• Mike Hewitt Mon, 27 Sep 99 How does a mental thought cause the K+/Na+ shunts in a neuron to open? By doing so, it contradicts the Law of the Conservation of Mass and Energy. My proposition is that, unless there is some mysterious fifth fundamental force (i.e. a "mental force", we have no way of controlling our actions. It only seems like we do because of the intimate connection we have between our awareness of our actions and the actions themselves.
• Nicholas Beale 28 Sep 99 We clearly don't know the details of how mind/body interaction works but a plausible outline can be given in terms of chaotic dynamics. Because the human brain is a hypercomplex system (Large Poincare System in the jargon) the outcome is under-determined by the normal physical laws (such as the Law of Conservation of Mass & Energy): a disturbance of less than the quantum uncertainty, amplified by the chaotic dynamics of the system, produces a macro-observable result. John Polkinghorne speaks suggestively of 'Active Information' at this point.
• Mike Hewitt 28 Sep 99 Even if there are chaotic elements within the brain can, can they account for HOW we can actively make a choice? Since they are chaotic, it naturally follows that we have no control over them (although we may know what the parameters of the system are). What it boils down to is a matter of probabilities -- I will either go left or right, I don't make a choice.
• Nicholas Beale 3 Oct 99 You've shifted your ground a lot in 1 day! Yesterday you said that mental action contradicts the Laws of Physics. Now you are on the other tack. But it is just not true that "chaotic" implies "we have no control over them". "Chaotic" means that given a compete description of the system at time t=0, your uncertainty about the state of the system grows as e^kt where k is 'large'. It by no means precludes the possibility that the system can be controlled - indeed it is rather helpful because it allows small interventions to have large effects. Of course we don't know in detail how the mind/brain interface works - indeed, contrary to the popular science writers, we know very little about how the brain really works and most of what is put in medical textbooks is 'fairy tales'. But we do know that thoughts influence physical events if we know anything at all.
• Steven Carr 28 Sep 99 You mean our brains work randomly? Chaos means that we cannot predict the future. Is the essence of freewill the fact that we have no idea what we are going to do from moment to moment? This seems the opposite of freewill to me. I wonder if this Active Information determines what people do. It seems pointless having this active information put in to the system if it does not determine the result. It still remains the case that the things we do either have a cause or causes, or they do not have a cause. If they have a cause, we have determinism. If they do not have a cause, then we do not cause our own actions, which is a strange position for people who say freewill is morally valuable. Daniel Dennett has a nice book on freewill/compatibilism called 'Elbow Room'. I especially recommend the chapter 'Don't let the Bugbears bite.' I have started a review of 'Serious Talk' by John Polkinghorne. It is not finished, but what there is is at http://www.bowness.demon.co.uk/serious.htm.
• Nicholas 3 Oct 99 Steven, welcome back.  But you know as well as I do that this is an old chestnut.  It must be obvious, especially to someone of your intelligence, that any argument which purports to show that freewill is logically impossible must be bogus - the question is too interesting to be settled that simply.
    This 'argument' turns on an equivocation about the words 'cause' and 'random'.  The basic claim of freewill is that at least sometimes there is a person P who has the possibility of two actions (R and W) whose difference is morally significant and that P causes his/her choice between R and W (in the sense that the outcome is underdetermined until P has made his/her choice, not in the sense that there are no other factors that influence the outcome). Without knowing what P's choice, the best that science can do is to calculate p(R) and p(W) (both >0) and say that the choice between them is 'random', but this is randomness based on ignorance, not an ultimate existential randomness such (probably) exists in the timing of nuclear decay.

Anthropic Principle

• Hong Ling  Sat, 25 Apr 98 18:56

Nicholas,
Can we discuss the universe creating machine theory? I find it interesting - and I'm sure other users will too.
• Nicholas Beale 26 Apr 98 16:26

I'm trying to make a list of the major anthropic parameters and their constraints.  It's far from finished at present.  The ideas then are:
a. To somehow allow people to make their own assumptions about the probability distributions, and work out for them what this implies about the likelihood (under Green) of an Anthropic Universe. But its not clear how to do this simply.
b. More ambitiously - to make a 'Universe Creating Machine' of the type suggested by John Polkinghorne so that people can see for themselves how hard it is.
Any thoughts, anyone?
• Steven Carr Tue, 28 Apr 1998 06:59

What does 'naturally occurring' mean?
If the world rested on the backs of four elephants, would it be remotely conceivable that these elephants had occurred naturally? Would that not be a clear proof of a creator?
Alan Guth's book The Inflationary Universe speculates that with the right technology, we could create our own universes. Is it a logical impossibility for us to create our own universes?
• Nicholas Beale 28 Apr 98 09:16

What's special about 4 elephants?  By definition an elephant is a complex organism so there would be some 'explanation'. 4 forces in detailed anthropic balance seems logically stronger evidence.  The issue is the ratio of the likelihoods of the Observations given Red and Green.
    As for "create our own universes" it depends what you mean.  "Be the proximate cause of conditions arising in which a discrete region of space-time arose" (inside a Black Hole, say) - logically fine.  "Be the ultimate cause", logically impossible because we are contingent beings. (some interesting discussion of these issues here)
• Steven Carr 28 Apr 98 17:07

So your view is that contigent things can not be created by non-contingent things? Is your view that while other universes may be contigent upon beings which are contingent (assuming you are unable to prove that we are logically incapable of creating our own regions of space-time) , this particular  universe is not contigent upon contigent beings?
    4 elephants would be very special if the world rested on them. Elephants that size do not occur naturally and cannot live in a vaccum. As God is supposed to be able to do the impossible, the impossible is good evidence for God. The possible is not good evidence for God, as the possible has a tendency to happen.
    BTW, {a} what is your definition of 'naturally occurring'? {b} Do you think naturally occurring things can occur naturally? {c} Can you name some things which are not fine-tuned? {d} Is it your opinion that everything is impossible, and everything has to be fine-tuned by God?
• Nicholas Beale 28 Apr 98 22:00

Exactly the reverse: only a non-contingent being could be an ultimate creator =def a Creator beyond which there can logically be no further explanation.  It is my view (Red) that there exists a loving ultimate creator and it is my contention that this view performs better when subjected to the normal scientific and philosophical tests than its negation (which is all I mean by Green).  I don't think Green is logically impossible, just very unlikely.
    These 4 giant elephants would not be elephants in the normal sense.  If they existed physically they would be subject to physical laws.  Their presence would be no more impressive (indeed much less) than the demise of the dinosaurs happening at exactly (cosmologically) the right time to allow Man to evolve.
    It's silly to say that only the impossible is good evidence for God: you must know that any observation whose likelihood under Red is much higher than under Green is good evidence for Red (and vice versa).   I shan't get drawn into a long discussion of God doing the impossible, becasue you must know that mainstream Christian philosophers do not hold such a simplistic view (read Keith Ward's latest, it's very good).
(a) I suppose "naturally occurring" means "occurring without the need for human intervention". (b) in that sense, yes.
(c) Plenty.  I have no reason to suppose that the number of planets + moons in the galaxy as a whole is fine-tuned.
(d) Not at all.  It is my opinion that the probability that intelligent life would emerge spontaneously in a random universe is not zero, but it is vanishingly small (probably less than 10^-50  in fact, certainly less that 10^-6) and that this is one important reason why it is more reasonable to believe Red than Green.  Indeed it seems to me that if Red were any ordinary theory it would be firmly believed by every educated person - it's only becasue it has radical lifestyle implications that people are so resistant to it.
• Steven Carr Fri, 1 May 1998 06:49

{a}The principle of relativity states that all physical theories must be compatible with the observed fact that all observers see a constant speed of light.
{b} The anthropic principle states that all physical theories must be compatible with the observed fact that all observers see that there are observers.
{c}  The anthropic principle does not state that naturally occurring things cannot occur naturally.
{d}  A man walks along a beach when he finds a watch. Which is more finely-tuned - the atoms in the watch, or the atoms in the beach?
  'I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster. I YHWH do all these things' - Isaiah 45:7
• Nicholas Beale Sat 9 May 1998 15:00

Steven, I think you have got most of this wrong.
{a} Of course all true Physical Theories must be compatible with all truly observed facts. The principle of relativity says that physical laws must transform consistently between the frames of reference of differnet potential observers.  Before Einstein there was 'Galliean Relativity' which had an approximately correct but inexact set of transformations.  It is currently believed (with good evidence) that the speed of light in vacuo is the same for all observers, and this places strong constraints on other physical theories.  It's certainly not vacuous or a tautology.
{b} The whole point is that it is not the case that all Physical Theories are compatible with there being observers.  Almost any choices of the dimensionless constants other than the ones we have would result in perfectly good theories with no embodied observers, and even the present universe lacked embodied observers for billions of years.
{c} nor that Red things cannot be Red. So what?  What it does show is that the likelihood of a randomly chosen set of laws+constants being anthropic is negilgible, hence the laws+constants are very unlikely to have arisen randomly.
{d} It's not the Atoms but the laws+constants that are 'finely tuned'.
• Nicholas Beale Sat 9 May 1998 15:00

Prof Russell Stannard's Discourse at the RI last night raised some interesting points which are new, or newly expresed, to me, as well as covering much old ground.
i. Quantum Fluctuations occur in space and time.  So the idea that the Big Bang arose spontaneously out of a Quantum Fluctuation cannot fully explain the origin of the Universe - it would merely be an hypothsis that this 'universe' arose out of another unknowable Universe.  Positing an additional unknowable universe is almost as much an act of intellectual desperation as positing an infinite number of other unknowable Universes.
ii.  Fred Hoyle, who discovered the remarkable anthropic coincidence of the resonace that allows 3 Helium Atoms to form Carbon in a Star, used to be a militant Atheist.  Now he talks about "He who fixed it" becasue he is convinced, on the basis of his discovery and the other Anthropic Coincidences, that the Universe is a put up job.
iii. Not only does life depend on Carbon and higher elements being formed in 1st Generation stars, it also depends on these ingredients being ejected by supernovae.  How does a massive Implosion cause an Explosion? Why doesn't it all disappear down a Black Hole?  It's becasue of Neutrinos, which hardly interact with anything at all, so that you'd have to fire thousands through the earth for one to have a 50:50 chance of hitting anything.  So Life depends, in addition, on having Neutrinos with just the right miniscule cross-sections.
• Nicholas Beale Sun 17 May 1998

Any more thoughts on the Anthropic Principle from anyone?  The latest research  shows that even on inflationary models the liklihood of an anthropic universe arising by chance is negligible.  They are forced to posit a nearly infinite number of universes and to crank up inflationary parameters by hand to get a quasi-anthropic result.
• Steven Carr Sat, 23 May 1998 18:52:

The greatest success of the anthropic principle was the prediction by Fred Hoyle (an atheist) that a certain reaction had to be able to happen in stars to produce carbon, because, obviously, carbon exists. We are made of carbon.
  It was later found that this transition was indeed possible. This is what the anthropic principle is about - physical laws have to confirm to the observed facts, one of which is that there are observers. The anthropic principle dictates that naturally occurring things have to be able to occur naturally. The Universe has to be possible, not impossible - because it exists.
  Of course, the incorrect version of the anthropic principle has always been with us, and always will. When people thought that that the Universe consisted only of the Milky Way, this was touted as a proof that the Universe was designed for intelligent life.( See A.Wallace's 1903 book  - Man's Place in the Universe)
  We needed the Milky Way to supply external fuel. We needed the inner ring of the Milky Way as a filter, to fine-tune the amount of fuel getting thru. We needed a central cluster of stars where they did not interfere with each other too much.
  It is interesting to see that the same faulty arguments about the anthropic principle were used almost a century ago. I'm sure they were used when people thought the Sun was dragged across the sky by a chariot. After all, who could create a chariot so powerful?
  As it is impossible to conceive of a universe that is not fine-tuned, using the anthropic principle in the wrong direction empties it of all meaning.
  Combining the anthropic principle with the principle that the Universe is impossible is self-contradictory.
  Combining the anthropic principle with the principle that the Universe is possible gives the anthropic principle its power, which people like Fred Hoyle exploited.
• Nicholas Beale Sun 24 May 1998 18:30

The point is not that an Anthropic Universe is impossible (which it obviously isn't) but that it vanishingly unlikely to have occurred by chance (Steve Hawkin's latest paper describes one of the basic conicidences as 'exponentially improbable')..  I've listed 16 of the known Anthropic Coincidences - if each were independent and had as much as a 10% chance of occurring in a random universe this would make the likelihood barely 10^-16.  Do you agree with the parameters listed, and what do you think their likelihoods in a random universe are?
• Steven Carr Mon 25 May 1998 20:04

{a}Well, I've examined every Universe I've come across and everyone has life in it (mainly bacteria)
{b} I think you've shown that all those Universes which don't exist, can't exist. This seems reasonable to me. But then you can't count them in the odds.
{c}  What are the chances that the Laws of Physics correspond to the observed facts? They seem quite high to me. Where are all these multiple, random universes which are devoid of life, so that we can estimate their probability? Without other universes, there are no facts to estimate probabilities.
{d} BTW, Andrei Linde, the main man behind inflationary theory and multiple universe theory, believes in God. Some cosmologists do, some don't. Perhaps the evidence is not as overwhelming as commonly reputed?
{e} In any case, all agree that the statement 'God did it' needs fleshing out.
{f}  BTW, is the same being who blew up the inflationary universe the same Yahweh who gave hemerroids to all the Philistines, and started the first
joke about 'piles of gold' (1 Sam. 6)?
• Nicholas Beale Sun 24 May 1998 18:30

{b} Just becasue something happens not to be the case doesn't mean it is impossible! As Howson points out in his (v. good) book, that attitude would mean that no statistical evidence could ever be used.
{c} Actually if you look at the latest papers on cosmology you will see that the probability distributions of certain parameters, and the probability of a universe being anthropic, are very much live issues.
{d} Interesting.  I'll link to him.
{e} Of course.  This is common ground, from Newton (at least) onwards.
{f} Why not, although he clearly used (biological) agents to do the latter.  It's a relatively gentle way of disposing of an enemy army!
• Nicholas Beale 6 June 98 14:38

The brilliant physicist Max Tegmark has proposed that "all logically possible universes exist" as a way of 'getting round' the increasingly deep anthropic fine-tuning of the observed universe.
 I think this idea is philosophically questionable (becasue it negates the distinction between the potential and the actual).  However if it were true, then the existence of God is a corollary.
  Proof: The existence of a Loving Ultimate Creator (ELUC) is not logically impossible.  Hence, according to Tegmark, there exists a non-empty set S of universes in which ELUC is true. Hence ELUC is true in the 'multiverse' (the set of all existent Universes) and if an Ultimate Creator exists in the Multiverse the UC must be the Ultimate Creator of the Multiverse, and hence of each extant Universe, hence ELUC is true in our Universe.
• Steven Carr 6 Jun 98

{a}It would be intriguing to know in which Universe the existence of the tribal god of the Israelites (Yahweh) would not be a corollary.
{b} Perhaps you could devise a universe we could observe which is not capable of sustaining observers?
{c} Would you like to prove that Baal did not create the universe?
{d} One Biblical test is to see which god can produce fire from heaven. You can choose Yahweh to produce your fire, and I'll choose Swan Vesta.
• Nicholas Beale 7 Jun 98

{a}YHWH is not "the tribal god" - the whole point is that The Lord is universal - "the Earth is The Lord's and all that is in it", "in the beginning God created the heavens & the earth" - ie the universe. Even if it were true that some of the human writers in the OT had a defective concept of YHWH this would not alter what YHWH means, merely what some people thought it means.
 {b} Any number - just have one like ours with the fundamental constants a bit different.  These can be devised and even simluated readily.  Anthropic fine-tuning is really not a non-question.  Tegmark is driven to such an extravagant suggestion precisely becasue the fine-tuning evidence is overwhelming.
{c} From what we know of Baal, "Baal" does not denote a LUC.  If Tegmark is right then ENLUC must be a contradiction.
 There are various proofs for this, eg:
P1: A1: an UC must be greater than all his creatures.
     A2: Loving is greater than non-loving.
     A3: Some creatures are loving.
      Hence ENLUC is a contradiction.
Clearly A1 and A2 are questionable, but you have to start with some axioms.
{d}Swan Vesta's could not possibly have created the sun. I'll stick with YHWH - at least this is logically possible!
• Don Seigel 7 Jun 98

{a} I certainly agree that the universe we are in is logical and beautiful and miraculous (in the wonder sense). But Nick, we have but a sample of one--and we are IN it.
{b}And again, if there is a god, then who made god? My bottom-line problem with religion is that it is proponents seem to easily accept that a god or whatever surrogate for it just "existed" forever, while having a hard time just assuming that the matter and energy in some form in the universe just has existed forever (whatever forever means). The fundamental assumption or "belief" is really the same.
• Nicholas Beale 8 June 98

{a} But thanks to the deep understanding of cosmologists, we now have a clear idea of what would happen if the Universe were slightly different.  You don't need lots of earths to do geology.
{b} I'm not saying that 'Green' (just matter/energy/stuff) is logically impossible.  Can you accept that either Red (Loving Ultimate Creator) or Green are possible?  If so, doesn't the debate show that the weight of evidence is strongly pro-Red?

Comprehensible Universe

Objective Morailty

This thread has now moved here.

Jesus

• Steven Carr Sun 26 Apr 1998 17:24

I find it amazing that Colin Howson accepts Barbara Thiering's wild speculation that the Gospels are very accurate, but written in a strange code that only she can read.  This seems rather like his complaint that we can always find an ad hoc hypothesis which will cover every single fact, but such an hypothesis fails the test of simplicity and predictive power.

• Steven Carr, Sun, 26 Apr 1998

Who were the enemies of Jesus who did not want him to be king over them? Who therefore was the king in Luke 19?
• Nicholas Beale, Mon 27 Apr 1998

Who were the Userers?  Parables are not allegories, they are memorable stories that usually make 1-2 points.  The King is this parable is a "hard man" and the point is that if even a vicious tyrant expects people to use their talents, then surely God, the loving father, does.  Obviously the King is not Jesus, who loves his enemies and dies for them.

• Steven Carr Mon, 27 Apr 1998 17:14

This is not the viewpoint of Martin Clarke on 'Churchnet UK Q+A', who takes it for granted that the king was Jesus. As does such hard-line atheistic commentaries such as Matthew Henry's :-)
    I can quote umpteen commentaries which support the view that the person who went away to return as a king was Jesus, and that the enemies who did not want the returning king to rule over him were the enemies of Jesus.
    Perhaps I should point out that this story about a kingdom is a response to a direct question about the 'kingdom of God' in verse 11 - what I would call a clue as to the symbolism.
    While I agree that a parable is not an allegory, this story is an allegory, not a parable. Furthermore, the symbolism is quite easy to work out.
• Nicholas Beale, Monday 27 Apr 1998 21:23

He proceeded to tell them a parable (v11).  And it probably refers to Archelaus (Son of Herod the Great - see Josephus Bk 17 esp Ch 9 where he had 3000 rebels put to death) who went to Rome in AD3 to get appointed King of Judea, and a delegation of 50 Jews went to oppose him.
    It's clear that there are eschatological overtones here but this does not mean that you can make a literal interpretation.

Suffering

• Diarmid Weir Fri 22 & Sat 23 May {extracts from 2 posts but starts this thread}

{a}What about God's inaction over human suffering? He either has the power to prevent it or he doesn't. (To choose not to see it is no excuse.) If he does but chooses not to his guilt is very great. If he doesn't, then we are more powerful than him, because we do have that power - should we only choose to use it.
{b}  As to why God should choose not to act on suffering (assuming his/her existence for the sake of argument) - the only possible explanation could be that the consequences of not interfering are greater than those of interfering. But this brings us back to the question as to why the world is like that. Either it's because God chose to create it that way - or there are indeed forces outwith God's control - in which case in some situations our knowledge or judgement might, in theory at any rate, be superior to his.
• Nicholas Beale, Sat 23 May 11:30

Yes. Christians believe that (given sin=human free choice of failures to love) creating a world with suffering is more loving than creating a world with none.  If you were a parent, would you seriously want your child never to suffer?  To succeed in your argument (that Suffering refutes God) you have to prove that there are cases where God does not interfere without sufficient reason, which you manifestly can not.  Although it is obviously impossible to say with certainty what the reason for every specific act of God is, a reasonable schema is given in the debate here.  Don't forget also that Christians claim that God has intervened in all human suffering through the Cross.
• Diarmid Weir Mon 25 May 18:49

I wouldn't expect my children (6 and 3) to love me if I subjected them to Alzheimer's, renal colic, AIDS, death by volcanic eruption, depression, Mary
Bell's childhood, concentration camps, ethnic cleansing etc, etc........ Or  could God not prevent these even if he wanted to? (That's a 'Have you stopped beating your wife' question, isn't it?)
• Nicholas Beale 25 May 21:15

If all the evils of the human race were visited on 2 children then that would be a bit much, and I agree it would be much harder to believe in God!  We all know that's not the case.  Of the 8 evils you list 3 are clearly the results of evil human choices 5 are the consequences of the laws of physics and biology by which we came to be (and which as we have seen are very finely balanced to allow life at all).  So if God stopped all these things He would also be stopping the free development of humanity, which is the greater good.
BTW God did subject His Son to the pain and suffering of all these and more besides, and He still loves Him.

Other God & Science

See separate page

Other Star Course

Other

A fascinating (to those interested) discussion on Biblical MS initiated by Steven Carr has now gone here.
• Shane Hoffman 31 July, 1998  hoffman@earlscourt.u-net.com [but posted 10 Aug - I have been away]Does God suffer because he made such a mess of creation.  The ball is now rolling and God cannot stop it?  Was Jesus a sacrifice offerred by God as  a way of seeking the forgiveness of mankind for His creating of such a mess.  Big bang equals Chaos from which can develop order and higher potentials. But is the creation of chaos the act of a moral and responsible God? Especially when it has the potential to create innocent sufferring. Why are we always trying to excuse God? Does mankind need to forgive God for what He has created?  Shane.
• George williams 15 July 1999 george.williams2@sympatico.ca The Existence of God..the Creator God of all the Universe should be readily obvious to the simplest of your readers. There is no mystery in the heavens , they (the planets, galaxies, and endless space filled with the stars) describe a wisdom and power that is beyond our understanding ; hence the efforts of your contributors to explain free will and cause in terms of human intelligence is laughable . I believe that each and everyone could learn a great deal about wisdom , knowledge and the mercy and grace of our God as described in the stories penned for us by HOLY MEN OF OLD whose records are available to anyone who is concerned about such things..." Then the light will dawn in your souls and Christ the Morning Star will shine in your hearts. For NO PROPHECY RECORDED IN SCRIPTURE WAS EVER THOUGHT UP BY THE PROPHET HIMSELF. IT WAS THE HOLY SPIRIT WITHIN THESE GODLY MEN WHO GAVE THEM THE TRUE MESSAGE FROM GOD." 2 PETER 1 : 19- 21 N.T. Why do I say this ? Because Jesus the SON of GOD has revealed it to me , after I invited HIM into my heart some 40 years ago ....when I first heard that " as many as invited Him (Jesus) into our heart (received Him) , to them He gave the power (authority) to become sons of God , and joint heirs with Jesus Christ " John 1 : 12 This act on my part has enabled me to live a life that was honouring to God , made me a better husband and father of my children and grandchildren . It made me a better citizen and human being than I would have been otherwise. I would never return to my life prior to my conversion ..there is not enough money or anything else that would influence me to leave Chist`s fellowship.....I have His promise of Eternal life when it`s time to leave this place ....which I`m looking forward to ! So let`s leave the Spongites and their foolishness and look to Jesus ...the Author and Finisher of our lives. George Williams

 

 
 
 

How can uncertainty be compatible with faith?

see separate page.
 

Omniscience

• Steven Carr Mon 4 May 1998 06:23

God knows everything.
  Some people get pleasure out of torturing babies for fun. God certainly knows that some people get pleasure out of torturing babies for fun. Even I know that and I am not omniscient.
  However, I do not know what it is like to personally feel the pleasure out of torturing babies for fun. I am not omniscient. I have second-hand knowledge that some people get pleasure from that, but not first-hand knowledge.
  God not only knows what sin is, and knows at second-hand what sinners experience,  but also knows what it personally feels like to enjoy sinning, as God knows everything.
 Or perhaps God does not know everything?
 Perhaps God does not know things which some humans know?
 Or perhaps the idea of omniscience is self-contradictory?
• Nicholas Beale Tues 5 May 98 12:19

No, but it is tricky and Christians do disagree about it.  I would define God's omniscience as "God knows everything (that can be known) that he chooses to know".  This is clearly not self-contradictory, and. more importantly, resolves the potential contradictions between God's omniscience and His love and respect for our freedom. Taking "God knows everything"  literally leads to all kinds of absurdities - it has only every been a shorthand for Christian doctrine.