Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Misc Discussion Boards => Religious Debates & Threads => Topic started by: OzmO on February 10, 2011, 01:03:29 PM
-
Please explain why yes or no...
-
if someone believes in an omnipotent God, by definition, God would have had to landed the plane in the river
just like God would have had to land all other planes that have landed, or taken off, or crashed, etc
right?
-
I thought "Sully" did it.
-
I thought "Sully" did it.
but who enabled sully to do it?
Cosmological argument ;)
-
but who enabled sully to do it?
Cosmological argument ;)
You mean who created him and gave him a brain and body that works?
Or are you saying you don't think a person has the ability to land a plane of that size on water?
Or are you saying that God intervened on that specific day?
???
-
You mean who created him and gave him a brain and body that works?
Or are you saying you don't think a person has the ability to land a plane of that size on water?
Or are you saying that God intervened on that specific day?
???
yes to the first (i'm using Aquinas's cosmological argument). Yes to the second (in an indirect way, God had to move the mover that moved something (Aristotle's unmoved mover/uncaused cause).
No to the third. God, by definition of him being God, had to already be involved in that situation (in any situation), so him "intervening" implies he was originally not involved, which is not possible.
-
yes to the first (i'm using Aquinas's cosmological argument). Yes to the second (in an indirect way, God had to move the mover that moved something (Aristotle's unmoved mover/uncaused cause).
No to the third. God, by definition of him being God, had to already be involved in that situation (in any situation), so him "intervening" implies he was originally not involved, which is not possible.
So by all those statements then the answer would be yes.
So then would you consider an ant moving a crumb across the street being that God moved the crumb?
(Do you want me to split Swede's topic on O'Reilly for you and tony? Oh and my text box jumps too if my post is long. >:( )
-
So by all those statements then the answer would be yes.
So then would you consider an ant moving a crumb across the street being that God moved the crumb?
(Do you want me to split Swede's topic on O'Reilly for you and tony? Oh and my text box jumps too if my post is long. >:( )
1. Yea it would. I said in the first reply i typed "by definition God would have had to landed the plane in the water."
2. Yea I would also consider that to be God moving the crumb. The crumb was moved by the ant, God moved the ant (of course this could be broken down in many more steps but Aristotle's unmoved mover always arrives at God (or in Aristotle more specifically, I think he believed in 47 or 55 Gods, I dont remember) at the end of the regression). My hands type on a keyboard, my brain tells my hands to type, signals tell my brain what to tell my hands to do, God "tells" my signals to tell my brain to tell my hands what to type on this keyboard, etc. Each cause needs a cause before it, and so on, until there is a first cause (the uncaused cause) to cause the secondary cause, to cause the next cause, etc.
3. Yea you can split up that topic if Tony keeps posting in it, if not then I wouldn't worry about it. I hate the jumping text box thing.