If only by definition.
Since God is timeless, or âtimefulâ â omnitemporal, any questions putting him within the constraints of time, including âtravelingâ with respect to the speed of light, are really non sequiturs.š That also includes anything involving tensed verbs² like predestination, foreordained, foreknew, chosen, etc.
Of course he can violate âthe prevenient laws of physicsâ and he is obviously not â bound by them â hence we have the existence of the word miracle (deniers deny, believers enjoy 
).
š âTravelingâ is a non sequitor in itself, since God is omnipresent and immanent everywhere (or is that redundant? ).
² Is there any other kind? But we have no language that can encompass the totality of what God is.
1 Like
I think your conclusion is backwards here. What people need is a firm moral base which doesnât change in order to deal with people, cultures and situations which change constantly. Subjective morality or ethics will be wrong the majority of the time because there is no single standard. Doing the right thing for the wrong reasons may be an accidental result, but when morality is subjective, youâre more likely to do the wrong thing for the wrong reason, because it feels right.
So say the people who want to keep beating their wives and slaves.
Well, well. Now I know where your mind is. Tell me more about beating your wife and how many slaves you think we should own.
He obviously is bound by them if He wants to create anything. That He can perform statistically insignificant overrides is a given. That cannot be denied of God.
I donât think anyone can refute the argument for a prime mover. I think we can only refute personal Gods who claim to love us, to be all powerful and yet not answer any prayers of their followers. I guess if you could refute Santa Clause then you can refute personal Gods. Thatâs my opinion.
Try this. How can someone bound by the laws of physics create the laws of physics? It would be like saying the one who created time is also bound to time. It doesnât make sense.
That appears to be a change. Heretofore, you have denied Godâs power and ability to intervene providentially. Statistical significance rather depends on the population size, doesnât it. For the individual involved, itâs 100%. Think Maggie.
Agreed. It doesnât make sense. The laws of physics are prevenient as I keep saying. They are instantiated, not created, from eternity.
You have the right idea. Population in statistics refers to events in general not people. So in this case we are referring to the incidents where God intervenes. They are at least small or rare enough that they are miraculous interventions rather than just a law of nature.
In saying you had the right idea, I was thinking that obviously a population of 1 rules out the possibility of statistical significance. But that is not quite what you said. I thought it pretty well known that in order for statistics to have any significance the population must be high.
How can someone be bound to the laws of morality if they have free will?
By choice. We choose to uphold a moral law for a variety of reasons and I think God has good reason to uphold the laws of nature which He created since I think He had important reasons for creating them. See while you may think God has a magic wand to wave at anything so that it will spring to life like in the sorcererâs apprentice, I am certain there is no such magic and life is a self-organizing process that requires the laws of nature in order to exist.
Well since you request guidance on this matter, I shall provide. You shouldnât own any slaves and you should not beat your wife.
In any case, the point was that in the past this was different. But thankfully we now require a higher standard of morality. And this is one of the many many many reasons why morality should not be fixed. The world changes. Circumstances change. We encounter question of morality that would never even have occurred to people a thousand years ago. That is why we need more than a set of rules. We need reasons and principles to guide our choices in such a manner. This is one of the ways in which Jesus did better in Matthew 22:36-40.
Yes, if the laws of nature could change willy-nilly as YECs imagine (the speed of light, radionuclide decay rates, gravity, friction⌠â the latter necessary for âflood geologyâ), then nothing would be dependable and we could not even recognize miracles. (They more than seem to be miraculous, they are. 
)
It does also refer to people, as in opinion polls and election exit polls.
God is incapable of creating any other kind of physics or atomic chemistry?
No. Like time, gravity, and all the rest, physical laws were created for a physical universe. There is no need or use for them outside space, matter and time.
Now youâre changing the whole premise that has been discussed here. Can God be bound to anything? No. Actually, yes. He can bind himself to his word. The problem with many on this board is that they donât believe his words as spoken, which kind of destroys their credibility when it comes to anything spiritual. If God lied (or misled us) about the small stuff, we canât trust him with anything.
So the lawyers would like to believe, so they can tie God up in a package they can rule and control. Problem is that these are ALL human words of human languages that people constantly change the meaning of and constantly twist to their own ends. Yes God speaks to people but no I donât think it is ever to offer any contracts by which the lawyers can hold Him. The liars are the scribes and Pharisees (whatever they may call themselves) thinking they can lord it over people by speaking for God. So⌠God binding Himself to human words? I DONâT THINK SO!
You had better hope so. How much do you know about the covenant God made with Abraham in Genesis 15? Abraham, like every other man was not able to keep covenant with God. God is the guarantor of all covenants with man, because he alone can never break them.
I have every confidence in the integrity and faithfulness of God. I certainly believe that He will follow through on His intent. But I have no confidence in the words of human languages, nor in the lawyers, or scribes, or religion mongers who use religion to lord it over others. The story told by the Bible gives no reason to have any confidence of that sort. They have always sold the same dubious product, give us your gold and we will control the gods for you. The biggest scam on earth.
I know what the Bible says. But I havenât the least bit of interest in what people are selling it as. I also know what people were selling in the time of Jeremiah, and he warned them that the entitlement they had manufactured from scriptures at that time was also misguided. I suggest you attend to that lesson.
1 Like
No. There has always been the physical; space, matter and time and the prevenient, deterministic, fixed, minimal, logical, convergent laws of nature that delimit them by Godâs humble instantiation.