[BlackStar]

Originally posted by CP5670
I already addressed this issue in our last argument. Science not only eliminates the need of a god, but even the possibility of a god. Conversely, a god eliminates the need as well as the possibility of a truthful science. The two are fundamentally incompatible because god in your definition cannot follow rules while scientific processes must follow rules, so they cannot both have absolute truth in the same existence alongside the logic rules. Science not only deals with metaphysics but must deal with it if it is to be fully true, because to fully understand any one aspect of the universe it is necessary to know about everything acting on it, or in other words, everything else.

Time to stop lurking for a bit and jump in with both feet.

Science does not eliminate the need for God.  People who have already decided there is no God use science and evolution as a crutch to support their ideas.  Also, many people who put faith in God choose not to believe in much that science has to offer.

Let's see if I can say this correctly:  The Theory of Evolution is not necessarily the problem.  Science in general is not the problem.  As has already been stated, there was no separation of church scholars and scientists for over 1700 years (by "church" I am refering to Christianity, but I believe this applies to other religions as well.)  Scientists who believed in the Biblical God and Creation set out to learn more about God by studying His creation much in the same way I can study the works of a certain artist to understand his or her way of viewing the world.  The Biblical God is the author of law and order, both the Jewish "Law" and the "Laws of Physics".  God does not work chaotically but through the Laws that He has created.  Now, there may be laws we don't know yet.  Quantem Physics has managed to turn the "impossible" into the "improbable".  For instance, The possibility of me walking on water is very low.  But if my molecules vibrate at the right frequency and the water molecules do the same, then I could indeed walk on water.  Or pass through a "solid" wall.  Does this diminish God's ability or His "supernatural" nature?  It certainly changes the idea of supernatural from outside the laws of nature to "using higher laws of nature".

It is only in recent history that people (in the Western culture) have tried to prove the nonexistance of God through science - which is as impossible as proving God exists.  I cannot prove that God exists.  I have "faith" he exists.  Someone else cannot prove God does not exist.  They have "faith" he does not exist.

Don't scoff at the notion that scientists must have faith in a theory. An excellent book that may help is T.S. Khun's "The Structure of Scientific Revolution"  Where he describes the "conversion" process that the scientific community undergoes whenever a new theory is accepted.  For instance, Newtonian physics wasn't an overnight sensation.  There were many scientists who disagreed with it because it didn't fit the facts.  They had lots of data to back up the old Classical physics.  Relativity had a hard time, too.  It makes no sense when looking at it from a Newtonian frame of reference.

See?  It's that "frame of reference" or to use Khun's word "paradyme" that get's us into trouble.  That paradyme acts as a filter, a set of glasses through which we view all the world.  If my glasses are tinted red, I see everything shaded differently than you who are wearing blue glasses. Even though we are looking at the exact same object, for example a white box, we will describe it differently.  We can argue forever that the box is red or blue with neither of us "winning".  Not until one of us desides to put on a matching pair of glasses will we agree.  That changing of the glasses, the "paradyme shift" or "gestalt shift" is, in Khun's view, exactly the same as a "religious conversion".

In that light, we can continue to debate Creationism vs Evolution but I doubt we'll make much headway.  I look at the fossil record as pointing to Creation.  You look at the exact same thing and say Evolution.  We're looking at the exact same thing yet we can't agree!  It is because of the frame of reference we use to interpret everything else.  

So, it's not science itself that eliminates God. It is a fundamental part of your religion that God does not exist.

I must also ask to anyone who wants to answer, Why must their be no God?  What do we have to gain or loose by making a statement one way or the other?  That, I think, is the real heart of the issue.
 

Although I must admit much of science fiction relies on the absence of God.  Christianity believes in the imminent return of Christ. If that happens then all future Sci Fi can't happen.  Therefore, no Freespace.  

So, have I succeeding in making any sense today?

Now, back to topic:  Shivan's grew up in Niven's Smoke Ring!

*Resumes lurking*

[Sesquipedalian]

Originally posted by CP5670

I already addressed this issue in our last argument. Science not only eliminates the need of a god, but even the possibility of a god. Conversely, a god eliminates the need as well as the possibility of a truthful science. The two are fundamentally incompatible because god in your definition cannot follow rules while scientific processes must follow rules, so they cannot both have absolute truth in the same existence alongside the logic rules. Science not only deals with metaphysics but must deal with it if it is to be fully true, because to fully understand any one aspect of the universe it is necessary to know about everything acting on it, or in other words, everything else.

*sigh*  I have tried to point this out to you in several different ways in the past.  Maybe you'll get it this time...

The problem with your argument is that it has room for only two possibilities: absolute determinism, or utter chance.  You refuse to grant the possibility of the purposeful choice of a personal entity, which is to say the possibility of will.  But you have offered no valid defense of this assertion, for every attempt has been circular, at some point assuming it to prove it.  You say "If God exists, his actions must be either determined, or chance."  I reply "Neither.  They are guided by purpose, which is a concept that does not fit into your dichotomy."  You rejoin "There is no such thing."  I ask "Why?"  You say "Because it does not fit into my dichotomy."  I reply "The validity of that dichotomy is precisely what is in question."  You answer "No it isn't."  I ask "Why?"  You reply "Because purpose doesn't exist."

You see, the phrase "god in your definition cannot follow rules while scientific processes must follow rules" is misleading.  That is your definition of God, not mine.  In my definition, he can follow rules: he created them, they have their source in him, and thus they reflect him and how he works.  By my position, the order of the universe is derived from his nature.  By yours, the order of the universe precedes his nature and holds him subject.  These two are incompatible, but you have only dogmatically asserted your position.  You have not argued to it from mutually agreed premises.

As for science and metaphysics, I remind you once again that science is a ultimately a method, a rigourous form of inductive logic.  We observe nature looking for order, and when we believe we have found order, we forge and test theories of the form "If there is no outside interference, X behaves in Y fashion under Z circumstances."  If there is outside interference, the theory is not invalidated.  But nowhere in the theory is it stated whether there is or will be any outside interference.  Neither is any explanation given for why things tend to behave in this orderly fashion if they are not interfered with.  It is only stated adn described that they do.  Scientists must also be metaphysicians because they are human, and they may sometimes let their metaphysical beliefs creep in when they are talking, but science does not speak about it.

As for the claim that "to fully understand any one aspect of the universe it is necessary to know about everything acting on it, or in other words, everything else," I would like to point out the corollary to it.  We do not know everything about everything, therefore of necessity we cannot claim to know anything about anything.  This immediately undermines all supposed knowledge we now have, sparing nothing.  The fact that I am typing this into a computer leads me to believe that we do know something, and so I am forced to reject this sophism.

And this was dealt with in that old thread too. Sure, at the moment we may not know about what came before the big bang but if the axioms of science are true, there should be some event before it and maybe we will eventually find out. There will be something before that event as well, and so on. Now just apply the ideas of infinite processes from analysis to the real world by mapping events in the universe to the integers (or reals, if you want the chain of events to be continuous). Just as for any number there is one preceding it, for every event there is another event causing it, and this sequence decreases (or increases) without limit. So asking what the first event was is like asking what the smallest number is; the range of the set is open ended and it thus has no limit.

If you read above, you'll see that mikhael and I have already discussed the possibility of an eternally existent universe.  As I said to him, "The existence of an eternal universe does not explain the existence of an eternal universe. In other words, even if the universe has always been there, I want to know why. Just because it has always existed does not explain the fact that it exists. "

Anyway, it's not the god itself that I find so strange but rather the god that thinks and operates like a human, having his likes and dislikes, paying attention to what goes on in human affairs from a human-like perspective, taking sides in these affairs and other such things.

Rather, it is human personality that reflects God's personality.  God may be more than personal, but he is certainly not less.

[CP5670]

God does not work chaotically but through the Laws that He has created. Now, there may be laws we don't know yet. Quantem Physics has managed to turn the "impossible" into the "improbable". For instance, The possibility of me walking on water is very low. But if my molecules vibrate at the right frequency and the water molecules do the same, then I could indeed walk on water. Or pass through a "solid" wall. Does this diminish God's ability or His "supernatural" nature? It certainly changes the idea of supernatural from outside the laws of nature to "using higher laws of nature".

Wait, but from what I have seen from others it seems that god is indeed chaotic, or in other words, unpredictable; that is why he is considered so great. If we could predict everything he does, that would quite diminish his seeming greatness, right? Anyway, it doesn't really matter if he can perform some so-called miracles; sure, it means that what was thought to be a law was actually not so, but there can still be another law that takes the miracle into account. But if he can do this for any law, then there are no laws and thus no science, and if there exist laws that he cannot violate, then there are limitations to his power. This is where the problem comes from.

Don't scoff at the notion that scientists must have faith in a theory. An excellent book that may help is T.S. Khun's "The Structure of Scientific Revolution" Where he describes the "conversion" process that the scientific community undergoes whenever a new theory is accepted. For instance, Newtonian physics wasn't an overnight sensation. There were many scientists who disagreed with it because it didn't fit the facts. They had lots of data to back up the old Classical physics. Relativity had a hard time, too. It makes no sense when looking at it from a Newtonian frame of reference.

I quite agree, and notice that I did not say anything about choosing either science or religion over the other. What I am saying is that the two cannot go together because of this incompatbility with their very core assumptions.

I must also ask to anyone who wants to answer, Why must their be no God? What do we have to gain or loose by making a statement one way or the other? That, I think, is the real heart of the issue.

These are the main reasons:

1: it gives us something to fight about
2: the small font sentence in your post: we are all Freespace nerds and must have Freespace at all costs





next one up...

The problem with your argument is that it has room for only two possibilities: absolute determinism, or utter chance. You refuse to grant the possibility of the purposeful choice of a personal entity, which is to say the possibility of will. But you have offered no valid defense of this assertion, for every attempt has been circular, at some point assuming it to prove it. You say "If God exists, his actions must be either determined, or chance." I reply "Neither. They are guided by purpose, which is a concept that does not fit into your dichotomy." You rejoin "There is no such thing." I ask "Why?" You say "Because it does not fit into my dichotomy." I reply "The validity of that dichotomy is precisely what is in question." You answer "No it isn't." I ask "Why?" You reply "Because purpose doesn't exist."

Exactly, because even a tiny bit of probability will introduce a non-determinstic element into the law. The essence of the deterministic law is that things must happen in a certain way no matter what; the law is either determinstic or it is not. You can't have any middle ground because anything in the middle would automatically be at the non-deterministic end by definition. As for the rest, we can use the Occam's razor thing once again. Why introduce this "will?" Not only does it invalidate the existence of laws describing everything (unless the will runs on laws as well, but then it is not much of a will), but it is not necessary to explain anything. In fact, we can carry this one step further. In addition to science laws and will, we will introduce two more governing systems into the universe; let's call them will2 and headz. Every event in the universe is governed by science, will, will2 and headz. All are mutually distinct and no two can be combined into a single idea. A will2 law says that no will laws are true and a headz law says that all laws are true. None of them control anything alone. Now all this may sound silly, but it certainly makes at least as much sense as just having the first two, as it also involves making distinctions because a unification would be self-contradictory. Mind you, a will by itself makes perfect sense (I think that's how Schopenhauer had it); it is in connection with science laws that it creates a mess.

And yeah, of course you cannot really have an absolute purpose. There is the book example I gave you before; you can use a book for reading, throwing at people, as a doorstop, or anything else you can think of. Which is the "true" purpose for the existence of the book? All of them, really. A purpose doesn't make any sense because it depends on how one interprets observations. But regardless of this, if the god's actions are guided by a purpose, then they are predictable at least to some extent (assuming he is smart enough to do things that work towards that purpose ), so that diminishes his power. If he is to be fully omnipotent, he cannot be guided by anything and must be completely unpredictable, but that means that he might work against that purpose.

You see, the phrase "god in your definition cannot follow rules while scientific processes must follow rules" is misleading. That is your definition of God, not mine. In my definition, he can follow rules: he created them, they have their source in him, and thus they reflect him and how he works. By my position, the order of the universe is derived from his nature. By yours, the order of the universe precedes his nature and holds him subject. These two are incompatible, but you have only dogmatically asserted your position. You have not argued to it from mutually agreed premises.

So he does follow rules then; I thought you said otherwise before. Can he change the rules after making them? If he can, then they would not have been rules in the first place, which invalidates the assumption that there must exist rules. The rules still hold if he had already decided to change them later when he was still making them (and thus had incorporated the upcoming change into the rules), but then he did not have the power to actually change the rules and so has limited abilities. Remember, what someone will do is part of the measure of what they can do, so unless the god actually does something, he "cannot" do it (the obstruction to his capability may be his will but it still counts). Besides, the idea that god creates laws that in turn control him is a cyclic argument of the same nature that you keep accusing me of putting forth.

As for science and metaphysics, I remind you once again that science is a ultimately a method, a rigourous form of inductive logic. We observe nature looking for order, and when we believe we have found order, we forge and test theories of the form "If there is no outside interference, X behaves in Y fashion under Z circumstances." If there is outside interference, the theory is not invalidated. But nowhere in the theory is it stated whether there is or will be any outside interference. Neither is any explanation given for why things tend to behave in this orderly fashion if they are not interfered with. It is only stated adn described that they do. Scientists must also be metaphysicians because they are human, and they may sometimes let their metaphysical beliefs creep in when they are talking, but science does not speak about it.

That is just the manner in which we look for the science laws; it shouldn't have any bearing on their existence. As with any method science uses its own assumptions, one of which is obviously that such laws exist in the first place, or else we would not bother to look for them. This is about the absolute existence of the laws and is not really related to whether or not they have been or even can be discovered. If the law can be violated in any way, then it is no longer a law. Of course, we can probably make a new law which is similar to the obsolete one but also takes the violation into account, but if the god is totally powerful then he should be able to violate this one as well, so it wouldn't be a law either. He could do this with any law in theory, so there would be no laws and only his will running things, which is no problem, but it's not science.

As for the claim that "to fully understand any one aspect of the universe it is necessary to know about everything acting on it, or in other words, everything else," I would like to point out the corollary to it. We do not know everything about everything, therefore of necessity we cannot claim to know anything about anything. This immediately undermines all supposed knowledge we now have, sparing nothing. The fact that I am typing this into a computer leads me to believe that we do know something, and so I am forced to reject this sophism.

I'm not sure where you got that "of necessity" corollary. We can certainly know some things about everything without knowing everything about everything; not knowing everything is definitely not the same as knowing nothing.

If you read above, you'll see that mikhael and I have already discussed the possibility of an eternally existent universe. As I said to him, "The existence of an eternal universe does not explain the existence of an eternal universe. In other words, even if the universe has always been there, I want to know why. Just because it has always existed does not explain the fact that it exists. "

Well, like I said, split the universal event up into multiple parts, so for each event you will have another event causing it even if the train of events is circular, so causality is still maintained. Actually, it doesn't even have to be circular; it can be simply open-ended, as with the number line thing I said before. Besides, you are taking apart your own argument there, since this eternal existence is exactly what you have been saying about god; if god has always existed, how does one explain the fact that he exists?

Rather, it is human personality that reflects God's personality. God may be more than personal, but he is certainly not less.

Wait, but if he is like us, then that really undermines his image of superiority. Even the theists would agree that there are quite a few things "wrong" with humans, so if god basically acts like humans do, there is not much special about him. Also, what does more and less mean in this context?

Well, that's all I have time for today; I'm going to be pretty busy for the next couple of days and probably will not have time to reply to anything here. Thanks for the fun anyway.

[JudgeMental]

Hehehe, now we're getting around to ANOTHER favorite topic of mine: theology:D  I'm noticing some inaccuracies and misconceptions going on...

First, is the assumption that in science, laws are absolute.  That is based on another asumption that science yields absolute truth.  Both are wrong.  I'll address the second point first...

A key part of science is observation of something, directly or indirectly, and gleaning useful information that could be used.  Whether these observations result in a prediction or the ability to reproduce an observation varies.  Optimally, both happen, you can both reproduce an event and make a prediction.  Some events ALWAYS seem to happen, and are thus called laws.

However, science does not yield absolutes, but probabilities.  The law of gravity is not an absolute.  As far as we know it is, but as far as we know, all of a sudden, gravity might not work.  We trust that it will, because all we've ever seen it do is work.  Because EVERYBODY has observed gravity, and nobody has seen it not work, science tells us that the probability of gravity to continue working moment to moment is extremely good.  There, are other laws similar, but you get the point on this particular issue.  I think this may be realised and implied, but it needs to be stated clearly.

You (CP5670) say that if God were running things, that would void science.  I don't see how that could be true.

Have you ever played chess?  I have, I enjoy it (though I'm not very good at it) because the rules are well defined, and chance doesn't have much bearing (unless, of course, both players are rank amateurs...).  But wait, since it's possible for me to move my King anywhere I want, that must mean the rule that the King can move only one space in any direction, and never into danger, is void!  Well, strictly speaking, that's true.  But, if this is possible, how is it that chess can still be played and enjoyed?  Because both parties playing the game agree to abide by the rules.  

Just because God set the rules, and can change them, doesn't mean that he will.  Yes, if science were grounded in utterly unchanging and unchangable rules, then it would be baseless.  But, science isn't, it is based on the probibility that things will continue to operate the way they are.  And as long as God doesn't permanently change any of our established laws, science can operate with the rules it has determined.  If the rules were to all of a sudden change, then science could be used to determine what these new rules are.  It is not science that claims absolutes in anything, but your worldview, the glasses you see the world through.

As for God resembling us, I think that's putting the cart before the horse.  God resembles us, because he made us to resemble him!  Because of this, it IS possible to understand God.  Oh, we could NEVER hope to understand him completely, but we CAN understand him in part.

Why does it matter if God is predictable or not?  He does, after all have Ultimate Free Will.  That's not to say that God can do anything.  He can't lie, he can't ever do evil, and other things.  This, however, isn't because there are limitations inherent in being God.  It is not the "rules" that define God, but God that defines the rules!  It is difficult to follow, but it's still simpler than the topic of the Trinity...  

Anyway, within the self defined rules, God can very literally do anything.  As it so happens, when He created our universe, He gave it rules to follow.  Though He could change the rules, I think He designed it so that he wouldn't have to in order for it to operate smoothly.  Because He created us in His image, and inherent in that is logic (which is defined by God, not by us), we are capable of diserning the rules He has set up.  

I think that one reason we can continue to predict the "laws" He has set into motion is because He DOES have a purpose.  And this purpose would not be served by changing the rules in the middle of the game.

Note, we are created in His IMAGE, but we are not created like Him.

We are somewhat like God as in our reflection in that mirror is like us.  True, the reflection LOOKS like us, it has some of the same apparent abilities, but it is NOT us, it is much more limited than us (please ignore the breakdown of the analogy in the point of free will).

Does the fact that we have a reflection that resembles us in some ways, reduce us?  Hardly.  We are far more complex and incredible than a simple reflection.  Just so is our relationship to God.  Just because we are designed with similarities to God, does not reduce him.

Yet, there is another point.  Yes, humans have errors, and weaknesses, but have you ever seen a reflection in a mirror that has gotten dirty?  That image still bears resemblance to you, but it has lost some of that resemblance.  Perhaps an eye has been covered up.  If this reflection was an entity of itself, it would no longer have binocular vision.  That doesn't change the fact that you still have binocular vision (assuming that you haven't lost an eye or two in an accident:p).

The fact that God chooses not to do various things (like change the laws of gravity), doesn't mean he can't.  Indeed, the intent to do something is just as important as the ability to do it, because even if the ability is there, nothing will happen if the will to do it isn't present.  

But, there is an out.  What if his will is to NOT do it? I know that this has been mentioned, but let me continue.  I have a deck of cards in front of me.  Is it within my power to pick them up?  Unless something drastic happens, yes.  Am I going to pick them up at this point in time?  No.  Indeed, it is a limitation, but it isn't imposed by an outside power (remember, I believe in free will).  It is perfectly possible for me to later decide to pick them up, and then proceed to do so.

The only way for God to TRULY be limited in that way is if the limitation is imposed by an outside power.  But it isn't, it is imposed by the nature of God, which includes choice and free will.  A self imposed limitation of action is no limitation of abilities.  CP5670 is simply trying to trap God into a corner that has him needing to actually DO everything in order to demonstrate true omnipotence.

Well, I am done.  There is SOOOO much more I wish I could say, but I can't for now.  At least I stuck to theology:-P  I know I wander a lot of places, and I'm not the best writer.  If there are any questions, just ASK!  I don't guarantee that I can provide an answer, but I will do my best.

Thanks for the most fun writing I've had in a month:)

[Grunt]

Shivans are The Great Mystery in Freespace which differentiates the game from other "commodities", and makes it live after 5 years.

Any suggestions that create a "third race with somewhat different features" out of them would instantly ruin this atmosphere and the game itself.
Any exact answers to "where they come from, how they live, what they eat, how they mate ..." drive towards this direction.

I would say the appearance V designed for them (intentionally or not) is absolutely perfect, 'cos its entirely different from anything we have seen before.

IMO story writers should avoid trying to clarify the details about them, 'cos that would spoil the mystery.

Keeping this in mind, the events of FS1 and 2 make me feel that they did not come to exterminate races, nor to extend territory, so they must be something different.

Though a "hive mind" theory seems reasonable if I purely see their combat tactics.

Does it make any sense ?

[TrashMan]

I agree....
That's why you won't find out practicly anything about them in the DOTA mod...

[Sesquipedalian]

It will be easiest to answer your post, CP, by making a basic statement, and then by going through and picking out salient bits of your post that warrant specific comment:

Laws are not "things."  They are descriptions of what we observe as tending to happen.  A great deal of your difficulties lie in the assumption that "natural laws" are some sort of actual metaphysical entities.  Essentially we are rehashing what David Hume and Immanuel Kant covered long ago.  Hume pointed out that all of these laws are not, in fact, things.  Nowhere can you discover any thing out there called the law of _____.  Kant finished the job in reply to Hume, pointing out that these laws are our interpretations of what we experience.  In other words, scientific laws are not "out there" for us to discover: reality is out there doing its thing.  Our scientific laws (a somewhat misleading term, I suppose) are descriptions of what order we see in those goings-on.

What does all this mean?  It means that statements of the form "If there is no outside interference, X behaves in Y fashion under Z circumstances" can quite happily survive the existence of a God who is not constrained by natural laws.  So long as God is keeping things ordered according to his usual fashion, things behave according to the usual fashion.  If he decides to change that temporarily, it is functionally equivalent to a case of outside interference.  If he were constantly changing it, we would not say that the usual fashion was the usual fashion, of course, but rather that the alternative that he was constantly changing it too was the usual fashion.  But he does have his usual fashion, and it is what it is, and that is what science investigates and describes.  So long as one thinks of scientific laws as independent metaphysical entities, there is a problem when God walks onto the scene, but even Hume the atheist has already shown that they are not entities at all.


Chaotic is not the same thing as unpredictable.  Chaos is utter confusion, incapable of being understood, for it is reasonless.  Unpredictable means unable to be determined beforehand, but not necessarily reasonless.  The two are not equivalent terms.

Something that is not deterministic may still be capable of being understood.  Even if someone who believes that all human choices ultimately are predetermined is correct, it remains true that he does not claim to be able to unerringly predict the behaviour of another person.  He believes that with sufficient knowledge he could, but right now he cannot.  And yet, he is still able to understand his fellow human beings, to empathise with them, to see the reasoning underlying their behaviour, and so on, even without thinking he could have predicted their behaviour or can predict it now.


Your book illustration is flawed in that it assigns purpose (or more precisely, telos) to objects instead of events.  A book is just a book.  Reading it is teleological, throwing it is teleological, writing it is teleological, using it as a doorstop is teleological.  When there is change, process, action, development, the opportunity exists for a telos.  A noun cannot be teleological, only a verb can.
  If a person says that an object is teleological, they are really just being lazy and sloppy in their speech.  If I say "The universe is teleological," that is just sloppy language in place of the more precise "God created the universe for a telos," and/or "Events in the universe occur teleologically."

Originally posted by CP5670

Wait, but from what I have seen from others it seems that god is indeed chaotic, or in other words, unpredictable; that is why he is considered so great.

So he does follow rules then; I thought you said otherwise before. Can he change the rules after making them? If he can...[/b]

No, no, no.  You misunderstand me.  1) He is not great because he is unpredictable, he is great, at least in part, because he is personal.  2) As for the rest, basically, you are raising Plato's "Euthyphro Dilemma."  The Euthyphro Dilemma assumes that either the principles of reason precede and bind the gods, or the gods precede the principles of reason, undoing them.  The answer to the dilemma lies in pointing out that neither option is correct.  Specifically, when monotheists come along and posit a single Creator, the principles neither precede nor follow the God, but inhere within him.  Their expression in the created order is a reflection of their existence in the Creator.  (NB: technically, they are not things to exist.  They are merely abstractions of facets of the Creator's nature, he being the actual metaphysical entity in existence.)   Moreover, they are expressions of the Creator's will.

...He could do this with any law in theory, so there would be no laws and only his will running things, which is no problem, but it's not science.

Essentially, that is what I am saying, except for the last clause.  Science investigates and describes the order with which his will runs things, and is therefore not killed by God's existence (see above).  Laws are not things to exist.  However, God does maintain order quite consistently for our sake, and our "laws" describe that order.  (By the way, very rarely does he contravene his usual order; that's why we call it a miracle if he does.  And in fact, most, or perhaps all, of his miracles could probably be cases, not of patterns of orderly behaviour being revoked, but of the Creator God adding or removing bits of matter and energy from the material universe and letting the usual patterns of behaviour run their regular course on them.)

We can certainly know some things about everything without knowing everything about everything

is in contradiction with

it is necessary to know about everything acting on it, or in other words, everything else.

Well, like I said, split the universal event up into multiple parts, so for each event you will have another event causing it even if the train of events is circular, so causality is still maintained. Actually, it doesn't even have to be circular; it can be simply open-ended, as with the number line thing I said before.

Whether it is circular or an infinite line makes no difference.  I am not asking for an explanation of any of the events within the system, I am asking why the whole shebang is there at all.  In essence, I am asking why there are any golden retrievers at all, but you keep talking about golden retriever great-great-grandparents and great-great-great-grandparents, as if they weren't the very things to be explained.

Besides, you are taking apart your own argument there, since this eternal existence is exactly what you have been saying about god; if god has always existed, how does one explain the fact that he exists?

Ultimately, one does have to come to an inexplicable explanation, to something that is "just there."  The difference is, God's existence by definition is inexplicable (if someone had made him, he wouldn't be God, but that someone else might be), whereas the material universe's is not (explaining the material universe's existence does not negate its being the material universe like explaining God's existence negates his being God).  The theist carries his line of explanation as far as it can go.  The atheist stops short of the final step.

Wait, but if he is like us, then that really undermines his image of superiority. Even the theists would agree that there are quite a few things "wrong" with humans, so if god basically acts like humans do, there is not much special about him.

[/b]Even in the beginning, we were but dim reflections of him.  And of course theists would agree that there are "quite a few things 'wrong' with humans": Christianity is basically the story of the problem and solution.  But how it came to be that humans who once were finite and dim, though flawless, reflections of God are now plagued by many things "wrong" with them is a matter of history, not philosophy.  Basically, we choose the path of corruption, and so ceased to be flawless, and warped and marred the reflection of God in ourselves.  He remains perfect,  but our reflection of him is more like that of a cracked, mud-covered fun house mirror than a clean smooth straight one.

Also, what does more and less mean in this context?

They mean that personality is one facet of God's nature, but that isn't all there is to be said.  Gravitation is one facet of the behaviour of the material universe, but there is more to it than that.  Thus I could similarly say that the behaviour of the universe may be more than just gravitational, but certainly not less.

[Sesquipedalian]

Originally posted by JudgeMental
*Long and enjoyable post*

Hey, a fellow theologian!  Up till now I thought I was the only one on HLP.  It is good to meet you.  May the Lord bless you!

[Grunt]

Originally posted by TrashMan
I agree....
That's why you won't find out practicly anything about them in the DOTA mod...

Well, that's the case, where saying nothing is the best concept for a story.

Btw, I'm following (almost) the same rule in TCP.

[mikhael]

... a low grav arboreal world for naturally evolved tree dwelling nocturnal arthropods. Why? Because it would be cool if they weren't some mysterious bull**** created elemental force that everyone is trying to make them out to be.

(see? Sandwich and I can agree. Sometimes "cuz its cool" is valid. )

[tEAbAG]

Wow!  thats one of the coolest ideas about shivans I've ever heard.

Originally posted by JudgeMental

Note, we are created in His IMAGE, but we are not created like Him.

Thats the one thing I find most upseting about the western religions.  You're telling me that out of all the planets, all the stars, all the myrid races that may have existed or exist in the billions of years of the universe existed before and will exist after we're gone, that we were the ones created in his image?  I not only find this hard to believe, but the most egocentric ideas to grace this planet.  Unless, of course, god looks like everything?

Oh, and Sesq, I am a bit of a nihilist, but thats just a product of being an American teenager:D

[JudgeMental]

Thats the one thing I find most upseting about the western religions. You're telling me that out of all the planets, all the stars, all the myrid races that may have existed or exist in the billions of years of the universe existed before and will exist after we're gone, that we were the ones created in his image? I not only find this hard to believe, but the most egocentric ideas to grace this planet. Unless, of course, god looks like everything?

Egocentric?  Perhaps, if man came up with the idea, but man isn't the one who came up with the idea!

(NIV) Genesis 1:26 - Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, in Our likeness...

Now, who's saying that our universe is billions of years old?  I have done bit of research in that area, and the reasoning behind giving the universe such an old b-date is flimsy.

Also, I have NEVER met any Christian who has said that we are the ONLY creatures in His image.  We are just the only ones that I (and pretty much every other person I know) have ever seen.  And I believe that we are the only creatures in His image that exist as a part of this universe.

While the Bible doesn't give us extensive knowledge about angels, I think it is clear that they are made in His image, in many of the same ways we are.  They communicate, they have intelligence, free will (after all, how else could Satan have pursuaded a third of them to going him?) etc.

I don't think God looks like everything.  Because He is infinite (actually, He's probably beyond infinite), there are likely MANY other ways that a creature could mirror Him.  While there are some basic attribute they may all have, they could be quite different compared to us.  But, I don't want to speculate too much, because the Bible doesn't talk much at all about God's creations other than this universe and us.  My guess is that we'll (we being Christians) get to meet at least some of His other creations.

We ARE special in one case, though.  We are the only creature that the Bible describes (even though, as I have already said, describtions of other creations are limited) for which God has died.  

Is THAT egocentric?  Perhaps.  But, you know what?  It doesn't fill me with pride.  It doesn't give me any ideas of man's "greatness."  Instead, it humbles me.  First, we must be REALLY messed up if it takes nothing short of God Himself dying to save us.  Second, He's got to love us A LOT to die for us.  We're utterly incapable of earning that kind of love.  The only way for Him to love us that way is if He wants to.

We aren't special by anything we are, or we've done.  That would be another extremely arrogant statement to make.  We're special because God made us that way, and wants us that way.

In summary, I would agree that it would be EXTREMELY arrogant and egocentric to claim to be the ONLY creatures made in his image.  But I haven't met any Christian who has made this claim.  We ARE made in His image, but it's not us telling ourselves that, it's God.

Of course, if you don't believe the Bible to be true, then it's all moot anyway.  I, however, sincerely hold it to be true, in all respects.

On a side note, the Bible also says that we'll still be around even AFTER this universe is destroyed.  We all may be in different places (heaven or hell), but we'll still be around.

Originally posted by Sesquipedalian

Hey, a fellow theologian! Up till now I thought I was the only one on HLP. It is good to meet you. May the Lord bless you!

Yes, indeed:D  I am lucky to have many friends who share my interest in theology.  Are you a Christian theologist?  I don't want to assume you are:p  Either way, may God bless you too.

[Sesquipedalian]

Oh yes. Right now I am in Vancouver attending Regent College, halfway through a Master of Christian Studies degree.  I should get your ICQ number; I'd like to get to know you more.

[JudgeMental]

Hehe, cool:)  I don't have ICQ, but I'm looking at it.  I do have AIM though.

Yes, I think we could have some interesting conversations.  Well, I'll see how this ICQ thing goes...

And I can't believe I used the word "theologist" instead of theologian...  Is theologist even a word?  LOL  Well, either way, you knew what I meant:P

[Sesquipedalian]

Ah.  I don't have AIM, just ICQ and MSN.  (What a preponderance of acronyms!)  I like ICQ, it's the mother of all instant messengers, and still the best.  

And no, theologist is not a word.  

[Woolie Wool]

Originally posted by J3Vr6
So how would you explain the Terrans snagging one and making it into a terran fighter?  I don't think they're born as ships.  I can believe maybe they're bred in the ships, so they fit, but not that they're actually the ships.

That's an interesting suggestion, considering the hugely varied shapes of the Shivan ships, and how some do not appear to be able to accomodate a being the size and shape of the Shivans seen in Hall Fight, the tech room, and ST. The configuration of small Terran and Vasudan ships is usually somewhat consistent to accomodate accomodate the pilots' bipedal, humanoid physiology.  However, Shivan fighters and bombers have massively varying configurations, some of which cannot hold a large, tripedal, insectoid being like the Shivans we have seen. Therefore, the pilots of these ships may be specially bred to fit their ships. An SB Shaitan pilot would not be nearly as tall, and a Manticore pilot would be quite narrow, because it looks like it would best accomodate a being like a Terran, and said humanlike pilot might have to stand up while flying because the central "pod" that sits between the two "arns" is quite short as well as narrow and there's a thruster at the rear of the pod that would eat into usable space. A Seraphim pilot might have a similar shape, but a different body shape might not be necessary because the Seraphim is rather large. A Dragon is just plain too damn tiny to accomodate a typical Shivan (at 12.4 meters long, it's probably the smallest fighter in the game), so smaller or juvenile specimens would be needed to fly them. The Nephilim looks like it would fit a "normal" Shivan quite nicely.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Woolie Wool
A Dragon is just plain too damn tiny to accomodate a typical Shivan (at 12.4 meters long, it's probably the smallest fighter in the game), so smaller or juvenile specimens would be needed to fly them.

The Dragon is 12m long and 6m high and you're trying to tell me a shivan couldn't fit in there? Most of a shivan is basically arms and legs anyway. Fold them in against the body and you've got a much smaller package.

[Woolie Wool]

There's also the engines, 5 (!) gun mounts, a small missile bank, sensors, nav, communications equipment, maneuvering thrusters, all kinds of assorted electronics and displays, fuel tanks, power generators, and what have you. The smallest Terran fighters are around 16m long and 7m high. And you think you can shrink it to 12m by 6m and stick a Shivan in there?

[Knight Templar]

err.. yes. 12m by 6m is a lot of space. And your saying that the shivans in all the wisdom and evilness and age, would build ships that couldn't fit thier pilots?

then again there's my favorite answer to the question, which would be "it's a game. they fit."

[karajorma]

Originally posted by Woolie Wool
There's also the engines, 5 (!) gun mounts, a small missile bank, sensors, nav, communications equipment, maneuvering thrusters, all kinds of assorted electronics and displays, fuel tanks, power generators, and what have you. The smallest Terran fighters are around 16m long and 7m high. And you think you can shrink it to 12m by 6m and stick a Shivan in there?

The shivans are technologically ahead of the Terrans. Your comment may make as much sense as comparing the size of 1970s computer with a modern PC with the same computing power.

For all we know shivan technology could be pretty small leaving most of the space for shivan itself.

Besides it seems like you're either scaling the shivans up too large or not realising how large a dragon would actually be. We aren't talking the size of a large car here. Try bus instead. It's easy to get the scale wrong in FS2 cause the game makes things seem much smaller.