Prize For Evolution Compettition Increased To 100,000 YTL!

Unless the God who is also "all powerful" with the ability to be infallible and omniscient was so "all powerful" that the God could give up some of those abilities, in the short run, so as to allow free will to exist.

After all, one is not truly "all powerful" unless one can choose not to be something as well as to be it.

In essence, the age old question is answered: "Can God make a rock so large that God can not lift it?" and the answer is "Yes, and the name of the rock is 'free will'"

You did not respond to my statement. I was not asking of free will or the all-power paradox. If god's plan is perfect there is no need to change anything.

God gave up absolute perfection in this existance or creation so that he may find beings who truly love God, which requires free will.

so god does not have omniscience?

I don't know. I am not God.

I believe that God can have omniscience but, being all powerful, can also choose not to have, or more correctly, not to use it.

If using omniscience would prevent problems in the future why wouldn't he use it?

I believe that it would subvert the use of the free will that we need to freely choose to love God.

I think you know the answer to that.

Science cannot be used to reach a conclusion that is not scientific. It's all or none.

The role of science is neutral in regards to the divine/spiritual, at least until there are claims of the supernatural affecting the physical then science can disprove those claims. Otherwise we are left to admit that the divine is an unlikely possibility, for us this means something, but for someone who prides themselves on believing things that are difficult to believe it doesn't mean much.

The role of science is neutral in regards to the divine/spiritual, at least until there are claims of the supernatural affecting the physical then science can disprove those claims. Otherwise we are left to admit that the divine is an unlikely possibility, for us this means something, but for someone who prides themselves on believing things that are difficult to believe it doesn't mean much.

Therefore anything regarding a deity, in any form or fashion, is not scientific. I'm left to admit nothing. There is no reason to take any sort of supernatural being into consideration because there never will be scientific evidence to validate their existence because the very nature of the being prohibits it.

Since no evidence can be brought to light to show the direct existence of a deity, and there are no tests or validations that can be done, there is no reason to entertain the idea of the existence of a deity or god.

Did I just see you admit that the divine is a possibility?

Don't get me wrong, I don't think science should even acknowledge such things as the divine because it is out of the realm of science. What I am saying is that whether or not a deity guided evolution is not a question that science can or even should ask.

Science never tries to ask that question... again the nature of a deity prohibits it. This is why science does not acknowledge a deity. Which brings us back to my statement that theistic evolution is scientifically vacuous. No matter how much you try to wedge science into a theistic view, the fact that you are attempting to root this with a deity makes the entire thing crumble. You can't say "We're gonna science it all the way, but once we get here, we let the train jump its tracks". It doesn't work that way.

Oh, trust me I know. People are gonna believe what they want to believe, but I'd rather have musty Hunter believe in theistic evolution than creationism.