Does a Good God Exist?

[Guest]

It's interesting because we've both been assuming that the universe is extremely complex. The above program may provide evidence that complexity can result from remarkably simple initial rules....

Rules

And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

And the evening and the morning were the third day. Genesis 1:11-13

Rules

And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. Genesis 1:24-24

Rules

And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat:

But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. Genesis 2:16-17

Wasn't A Lie The Start Of All This Mess?

And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: Genesis 3:4

[MorningGlory]

I don't think it's beside the point at all. Your claim is that we live on a planet which has been created with the purpose of allowing human life to flourish. Yet our planet has between 4.5 and 5 billion years before it is destroyed (according to our understanding of the universe). This is evidence against a designer who has human interests at heart. Further evidence against this idea is the fact that the Universe contains so much 'useless space'- trillions of planets which do not affect us in any way and will never harbour life. This is not consistent with a model of the Universe which has been created by a supremely intelligent being for the purpose suggested since 99.9999% of it is inhospitable to human life.

How funny for you to assume you know the Creator's plans for the universe or why it is mostly empty (in fact YOU don't know that for a fact.)

If the ability of the planet to produce food and fossil fuels is to be taken as evidence in favour of your position, then the fact that the planet is being powered by a dying Sun which will one day destroy all life on the Earth must be taken as evidence of mine.

You have no evidence for your arrogant position. I'm obviously not Shiloh but, when I've got something to say......it's going to be said.

[Guest]

The Bible teaches that the God of creation did not just create the world, but that He is essentially the architect of the ages. He demonstrates all three qualities in relation to the world/universe He created. I realize you feel the need to oversiimplify the needs of the universe to exist and thus it helps to downplay the need for God to be all knowing, all powerful and all present, but in order to sustain every star, ever planetary and lunar body to keep them all on course to keep everything in order in this universe AND to able to sustain life on this planet, to govern everything that happens and still seek to relate to each person on earth individually and to do all of this at the same time requires a God a to be everywhere at once. It requires Him to know the entirety of the universe down to the last molecule, and to govern each moleculre. It is far, far more complex than you are willing to admit. And it requires someone like the God of the Bible to pull it off.

The Biblical description of God may well require that he is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent, but if we are just looking at the world around us, there is no need to make such assumptions. The architect of a computer program requires only those powers necessary to create the program- he does not require the ability to build a computer, for example. Similarly, the Creator of the Universe needs the power to establish a set of physical laws- he does not necessarily need the power to hear the thoughts of the people who inhabit his universe. The architect of a computer program does not have to sit at the keyboard, constantly writing and rewriting code- when he has created the program, he can let it run without any further input (sure, sometimes things break down, but The Creator of our Universe doesn't make mistakes). Similarly, it could be the case that the Creator of this Universe simply set up the laws of physics and hasn't been back to check on his creation since, or decides to observe his creation without intervention (except to tweak things at the quantum level, perhaps).

Again I must emphasise that my arguments are all aimed at the *necessity* of the Creator being all of these things. I do not claim that the Creator may not be identical to the Biblical God, my claim is that, on the basis of observation of the world alone, the Biblical God is not necessitated over and above any other deity or entity capable of creating the Universe.

Oh Mighty And Wise Grasshopper

Have ye not known? have ye not heard? hath it not been told you from the beginning? have ye not understood from the foundations of the earth?

It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers; that stretcheth out the heavens as a curtain, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in:

That bringeth the princes to nothing; he maketh the judges of the earth as vanity. Isaiah 40:21-23

God Has Shown You What Is Needed

He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God? Micah 6:8

Can You Hear Him Yet?

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16

You Will

[wyguy]

Right, but then the question becomes

[doubting_tommy]

How funny for you to assume you know the Creator's plans for the universe or why it is mostly empty (in fact YOU don't know that for a fact.)

That reply cuts both ways. The claim I was responding to was that the universe as it exists provides evidence for a Creator who has designed the universe (and the Earth in particular) with a purpose in mind and that that purpose concerns the flourishing of human life.

I could have responded to this claim by doing exactly as you have above, and arguing that this supposes that one knows the Creator

[doubting_tommy]

You may reject the Bible - but for good measure, again, God wrote His Laws on your heart that your conscience bears witness to. You will be judged either way.

Look at it from my perspective- I examine my conscience and I discover that it is in agreement with some aspects of the Bible. The Biblical prohibition against murder and theft, for example, I find reflected in my own conscience. However, there are other aspects of Biblical morality which seem repulsive to me- for example, the notion that people who are alive today are held morally responsible for the actions of Adam, or the notion that thoughts rather than actions may be sinful.

At this point, I consider that there must be at least two options. One option is that the Bible is not what it says it is, and this may explain why certain aspects of it are repellent to my conscience. Another option is that certain aspects of my conscience have been corrupted such that my moral compass is somehow askew (it would definitely be arrogant of me not to seriously consider this possibility).

How would you proceed at this point, if you were in my position?

You are responsible for breaking all of God's Laws - as is every human being. The Bible says there is none righteous, not even one (Romans 3:10). And all of your "good actions" apart from Christ are "filthy rags" to God (Isaiah 64:6).

All I can do is repeat that I cannot comprehend how a newborn baby is capable of being responsible for breaking laws.

The curse of God is passed to every generation - that is the sad result of Adam's rebellion. And because of that, no human being, baby or otherwise, is free from sin. The problem is, you are trying to make God conform with your human ideas of what morality is. Only God can decide what is moral or not. And so, your standard means absolutely nothing.

But you have already said that my conscience comes from God. If get my ideas of morality from my conscience, and the actions of the Biblical God do not conform to these ideas- then either my understanding is flawed, or the Biblical account is not to be trusted. How am I to know which is the case?

Again, if there is no God and evolution is the beginning and end-all - your adding "meaning" to a meaningless cosmic accident is pure folly. But hey, whatever helps you sleep at night.

That

[Guest shiloh357]

However, there are other aspects of Biblical morality which seem repulsive to me- for example, the notion that people who are alive today are held morally responsible for the actions of Adam, or the notion that thoughts rather than actions may be sinful.

The Bible does not say that. That is a a misunderstanding. God is not engaging in collective punishment. Man, as the result of Adam's sin, has inherited a sin nature that by default is at enmity with God. By nature, man is God's enemy.

No one is going to hell because of Adam's sin, but because they choose continued seapration and continued enmity with God. You go to hell solely for your rejection of Christ, not because of Adam. It is your choice to accept or reject Christ and the consequences that follow are the result of that choice. You are responsible for your choice and not for the choices or actions of anyone else.

All I can do is repeat that I cannot comprehend how a newborn baby is capable of being responsible for breaking laws.

He isn't. Most Christians believe, in keeping with God's moral character, that a newborn is held in a state of innocence until they mature to a later age, where as child or young adult, the are capable of understanding their spiritual condition are able to make decision for or against Christ.

This is really a side issue though, and has no bearing on your ability to accept or reject Christ.

But you have already said that my conscience comes from God. If get my ideas of morality from my conscience, and the actions of the Biblical God do not conform to these ideas- then either my understanding is flawed, or the Biblical account is not to be trusted. How am I to know which is the case?

Who says you get your ideas of morality from your conscience???

wyguy, on 19 December 2010 - 08:28 PM, said:

Because God made you, and has the right to demand that you obey them.

Weve been over this above: I dont understand why the fact that God created me would give him the right to demand that I obey Him.

That is like a child telling his parents that he doesn't understand why the fact that they brought him into the world gives them the moral right to raise him and expect him to obey them.

[Guest shiloh357]

shiloh357, on 18 December 2010 - 08:54 PM, said:

It appears that you are still operating from the incorrect view that they these questions were meant to determine canonicity. Rather these questions were meant to examine what had already been accepted long before Constantine.

You claimed originally that

[doubting_tommy]

The Bible does not say that. That is a a misunderstanding. God is not engaging in collective punishment. Man, as the result of Adam's sin, has inherited a sin nature that by default is at enmity with God. By nature, man is God's enemy.

Whence the suffering caused to newborn infants by

[doubting_tommy]

There is no criteria they could have chosen that you would not sit here and find fault with. You are bent on rejecting the Bible and there is no amount of evidence, no set of criterion air tight enough to satisfy someone like yourself because your unbelief rests on your need to find ways to poke holes in everything. Not even Jesus was able to satisfy His enemies. No amount of proof would satisfy someone who refuses to be convinced.

Could I not say the same of you? That there is nothing which would convince you that there is a flaw in your position, because you are determined not to be convinced? It