Does a Good God Exist?

[Guest]

Call God what you like - I happen to think the Christian God makes the most sense scientifically, logically, and morally.....

It's not simply a matter of names- Zeus is not the same thing as what the Bible calls 'God'. The two have different characters, different roles, and different powers. Zeus, for example, is not omniscient or omnipotent and is not claimed to have created the universe. Your attitude towards Zeus is the same as the attitude of the average atheist towards the Christian God.

In what sense do you believe science offers evidence for the Christian God rather than Zeus (or Thor, or Ra, etc.)?

As You May Know Dear One Any Man, Scientist Or No Can Read The Papers And Report

The Truth That The God Of Abraham, Isaac And Jacob Is Alive And Well

And Still Calls The Shots On Earth Today

For

And Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and the Lord caused the sea to go back by a strong east wind all that night, and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided Exodus 14:21

Once Again

And the LORD shall utterly destroy the tongue of the Egyptian sea; and with his mighty wind shall he shake his hand over the river, and shall smite it in the seven streams, and make men go over dryshod. And there shall be an highway for the remnant of his people, which shall be left, from Assyria; like as it was to Israel in the day that he came up out of the land of Egypt. Isaiah 11;15-6

It Is Get Ready

Who hath heard such a thing? who hath seen such things? Shall the earth be made to bring forth in one day? or shall a nation be born at once? for as soon as Zion travailed, she brought forth her children. Isaiah 66:8

Get Set

Behold, I will send for many fishers, saith the LORD, and they shall fish them; and after will I send for many hunters, and they shall hunt them from every mountain, and from every hill, and out of the holes of the rocks. Jeremiah 16:16

Go

Behold, I will make Jerusalem a cup of trembling unto all the people round about, when they shall be in the siege both against Judah and against Jerusalem. Zechariah 12:2

Believe It

And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered: for in mount Zion and in Jerusalem shall be deliverance, as the LORD hath said, and in the remnant whom the LORD shall call. Joel 2:32

>>>>>()<<<<<

Like Richard Dawkins suggesting life was "seeded" here by aliens, because life creating itself from dead matter is a scientific fairy tale that the majority of evolutionary biologists still hold tight to - against all evidence to the contrary.

I doubt it wouldn't have occurred to Dawkins that if panspermia is true, it would not avoid the question of how life began. I also think it's important to distinguish questions about the origin of life from questions about the evolution of life.

As far as scientists' commitment to materialism goes, there is ample evidence to suggest that this has been a very good thing. If scientists were not committed to materialism, then the Poseidon theory of earthquakes would have sufficed and we would not have come up with the theory of plate tectonics. If scientists were not committed to materialism, then the Thor theory of thunder and the Helios theory of the Sun would reign supreme. Diseases would be understood as the wrath of angry gods- and why try to prevent God's wrath, wouldn't that be blasphemous? Mental illnesses would be understood as demonic possessions. As science advances, magic retreats, since magic can only survive in the mysterious, the unexplained. Why search for a theory of everything if the universe is being held in place by the will of God? If history has shown us anything it is that to resort to supernaturalism invariably retards progress, and obscures truth.

Ah Dear One, The Man Who Mocks And Pontificates Before The Face Of The Lord God Almighty

The wicked, through the pride of his countenance, will not seek after God: God is not in all his thoughts. Psalms 10:4

Is Both Dishonest And Unwise, Dishonest In Taking For His Own

And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. Genesis 1:26-27

The Credit For The Work Of His Creator

He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end. Ecclesiastes 3:11

And Most Unwise

Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.

For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil. Ecclesiastes 12:13-14

Don't You Think

>>>>>()<<<<<

Beloved He's Coming Back

And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousands of his saints, To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him. These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage. Jude 1:14-16

Where's Your Heart?

Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me. Revelation 3:20

Love, Joe

[wyguy]

Its not mere speculation, its an argument which casts into question the very nature of God.

You are casting aspersions at God for a world that you've given no proof exists - other than in your own imagination.

If God could not actualise the possible world where nobody chooses to sin, then He is not omnipotent.

Nobody said God could not do it, I'm simply saying He didn't. Scripture makes it clear that God made only the Earth for man (Psalm 115:16), and the drama is being played out here. Being omnipotent doesn't mean God is required to do everything one can imagine. It's like the old, "can God make a rock too big for Him to lift" nonsense. Being omnipotent means you have access to all power. There are plenty of things God can't do that I listed before. Such as "sin," "will Himself out of existance," "lie," etc.

Why? A man may create a gun, but that does not give him the right to use it as he sees fit without any restrictions. A mother may sustain her child, but she may not kill it. Why does the fact that God creates and sustains me give Him the right to command me?

That's like if you were in the Army and said to your superior officer, "Just because you have authority over me by law, what gives you the right to command me?"

Or saying to your parents, "Why does the fact that you two made me, and sustain me with food, clothes, and a roof over my head, give you the right to tell me how to behave?"

A man may not use his gun to sin, but he still might. A woman may not murder her child, but she might still sin and do so. God, however can not sin. Because He is a sinless creator, only He has the right to make the rules and expect obedience. Don't take this the wrong way, but you sound just like a spoiled child.

By saying that something must already exist youre implying that the something comes first, and then causes something else. But when you go back to the beginning of the universe causality may not work this way- our current understanding of causality is based on inductive reasoning stemming from our observances of causes preceding effects. If time itself has a beginning, then, by definition, nothing can precede it.

The law of causailty states that whatever comes into existance must have a cause. The Universe came into existance, and thus must have a cause. A cause cannot be nothingness. You are claiming the law of causality may not work this way when it comes to the beginning of the Universe - prove it. Tell me where the singularity came from.

Is He subject to the laws of logic?

Human logic? Hardly.

God is only subjected to His own unchanging nature.

Since these are simply suggestions and possibilities, I dont see where faith comes into it.

Until you offer one shred of evidence for your assertions - faith in the ideas of man is all you are left with.

But how can time itself be created? Every single other example we have ever seen where something is created involves a temporal process- X does not exist at time T-1, some action is taken at time T and at time T+1 X exists and has been created. How can you create something which is itself an essential component of creation as we know it?

Matter, Energy, Time, and Space, were all created at the exact instant by God. ("In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth" - Genesis 1:1) One (M,E,S,T) did not "need" to be here before the other.

Even Stephen Hawking said time itself was created at the Big Bang. Read his lecture, "The Beginning of Time."

[wyguy]

Continued...

It

[doubting_tommy]

You are casting aspersions at God for a world that you've given no proof exists - other than in your own imagination.

I think you

[doubting_tommy]

Science may not favor the Christian God, but science supports a Universe that was created.

We agree on the first point, at least. But all you have shown with regard to the second, is that scientists do not yet know how the universe was created (and may never know). If we were having this discussion a few thousand years ago, would it be true to say that science supports the claim that Poseidon causes earthquakes, simply because we had no naturalistic explanation as to how earthquakes occur?

A. Universe creating itself from nothingness? Nope. Violates First Law of Thermodynamics.

As does your claim that God created energy. Have you considered the possibility that the law may be incorrect? The law itself was derived from observations of the universe which do not go as far back as the very beginning, so there may be one giant exception to the rule, for all we know.

B. Eternal Universe? Nope. Violates Second Law of Thermodynamics.

See above.

C. Created? Scientifically plausible/probable

The ontological leap required to make room for an entity with the power and complexity required to intentionally create the universe is probably one of the most unscientific moves you could make. Scientific evidence does not support the existence of supernatural substances or entities, nor is it plausible to suppose that an omnipotent, omniscient entity would bother creating so much useless space.

Again, compare the Biblical creation account to the ones found in those mythologies. Which one is the most scientifically logical?

Are you suggesting that a talking serpent and creating a woman from the rib of a man are scientifically sound features of the Genesis account? A literal reading of Genesis is not scientific, and a metaphorical reading is hardly superior to creation myths of other ancient cultures.

I

[wyguy]

On what basis do you believe that God would not be able to will Himself out of existence or lie if He desired to?

The Bible makes it clear God is eternal, and will remain as such. And to lie is to sin, which God cannot do. The Bible is the basis for why Christians believe those things - and common sense.

No, that simply begs the question. And it’s a bad analogy for at least two reasons. Firstly, for soldiers who have not been conscripted, they have consented to join the army, and the authority of their officers can be derived (in part) from this consent.

For the sake of argument, you were conscripted.

I do not consent for God to have authority over me.

I'm not surprised. You have that free will right to refuse God's authority - just like Lucifer did. And as you are unsaved, you actually belong to the Devil. He is your father, you are of the same mind, and you do as he wills. (1 John 3:10, John 8:44)

John 21:14 says, "Therefore they (the wicked) say unto God, 'depart from us, for we desire not the knowledge of your ways.'"

if an officer orders you to murder innocent women and children, you ought not obey him.

The Bible says pretty much the same thing. If our rulers tell us to do what is against God's laws, we are to refuse and obey God instead. (Acts 4:19, 5:29)

This doesn’t beg the question, but it still doesn’t work since a parent’s authority over their child is not absolute. It is conditional on the parent behaving in a certain way- a child is not bound to obey a parent who commands him to do evil, or who abuses him in some way. It is not sufficient for the parents to say ‘we made this child, therefore we have authority over him’- there are additional conditions which must be met. But being the creator of a child is not even a necessary condition- a parent who adopts an orphan has no role in the child’s creation yet may still exercise authority over the child identical to that exercised by a biological parent.

Yet again, I'm not surprised you would favor breaking the 5th commandment. It's your wicked nature.

As long as your parents do not order you to do evil, (breaking God's Laws), you are to obey them. Whether you like it or not.

What does it mean to say that ‘X committed a sin’? If the definition of a sin is an action which contravenes the will of God, then God cannot sin. But this eliminates any moral dimension to the concept of sin. Sin becomes nothing more than whatever God happens to will at any particular moment in time. Without an external measure, God can will anything He wants, sin is entirely arbitrary, and thus fails to ground a moral obligation to obey Him.

Wow, you really haven't read the Bible much, have ya?

There's a reason why God set His 10 Commandments in stone. God just doesn't sit up in Heaven making one thing a sin, then changing His mind and making it okay. The Bible says God's word is unchanging (Isaiah 40:8, 1 Peter 1:23, Luke 16:17).

What He says is a sin, remains a sin forever.

I simply don’t agree with the reasons you have given as to why we would have such a duty.

And I suspect you never will. I'm 99% convinced I'm wasting my time with you. Your heart may already be hardened to the point of no return. That's between you and God on Judgment Day. But I am certain of this; When/if you enter Hell, you will remember every word of our debate, and you will remember every single time a Christian tried to witness to you. You will play over every word of this, of every witness encounter, of every attempt to get you to leave the broad path of destruction you are on, in your mind. Over and over throughout an eternity of regret.

The only reason I am sticking with this debate, even though we are pretty much going over and over the same stuff, is because I don't want to be a witness to your damnation when you stand before the Lord - who, instead of being your savior, must then be your judge on that terrible day. But if it must be so, and your eyes meet mine, my conscience will be clear and your blood will not be on my hands. (Ezekiel 33:8)

What I am disputing is the assumption that causes must always occur prior to their effects. Causality as we understand it comes from our observances of events within the universe. There is no reason to assume that the same laws apply to the coming into existence of the universe itself.

A cause or an event doesn't need a witness to occur.

What other kind of logic is there?

Logic inspired by the Holy Spirit. Again, the very reason all of this baffles you.

"But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God.... Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God. ... But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." (1 Corinthians 2:1-14)

"He opened their understanding, that they might comprehend the Scriptures." (Luke 24:45)

"I now send you, to open their eyes, in order to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who are sanctified by faith in Me.'" (Acts 26:17-18)

[wyguy]

Continued...

The implication of Hawkings claim is that the question what happened before the Big Bang? is as meaningless as asking what is the colour of curiosity?. You have not explained how creation can occur in the absence of time. Every single instance of creation which we have ever observed has been creation-in-time. You need to explain why the concept of creation can make sense in the absence of a temporal structure to facilitate it. If time does not exist, how does God manage to do anything?

God doesn't need time, matter, energy, or space in order to create. You demand that time be involved in any kind of creation because you (and everyone else) are finite and live in a finite Universe that is coming to a cold end.

Your insistence that a timeless God is required to act within time is ludicrous. God is a supernatural being that isn't bound by naturalism.

We agree on the first point, at least. But all you have shown with regard to the second, is that scientists do not yet know how the universe was created (and may never know). If we were having this discussion a few thousand years ago, would it be true to say that science supports the claim that Poseidon causes earthquakes, simply because we had no naturalistic explanation as to how earthquakes occur?

Your faith that man will abandon the Laws of Thermodynamics (and all the others that are derived from them) in the future, is duly noted.

As those Laws at this point in time favor Creation - you are at a loss.

Have you considered the possibility that the law may be incorrect?

Take it up with the world's physicists and cosmologists.

The law itself was derived from observations of the universe which do not go as far back as the very beginning, so there may be one giant exception to the rule, for all we know.

Keep hope alive.

Scientific evidence does not support the existence of supernatural substances or entities, nor is it plausible to suppose that an omnipotent, omniscient entity would bother creating so much useless space.

Uh, weren't you the one that was saying atheism and supernaturalism can be compatible?

Science is supposed to follow the evidence wherever it leads. If it leads to a supernatural explaination - and you dispute the findings simply because of your personal bias, it doesn't change the conclusion.

Are you suggesting that a talking serpent and creating a woman from the rib of a man are scientifically sound features of the Genesis account? A literal reading of Genesis is not scientific, and a metaphorical reading is hardly superior to creation myths of other ancient cultures.

First, we talking about the creation of the Universe, but if you want to talk about Satan using a serpent to deceive, or God creating man from the soil, or a woman from the man, we can do that.

If God created a Universe by the power of His word alone, creating a man from the same elements that are found in the soil of the Earth, (which man possesses, by the way), if hardly a difficult or unscientific feat.

But we do not have a complete understanding of physics at the moment, which demonstrates that sciences view of the universe is in some sense incomplete. It might well be a mistake to assume that laws which are derived from our observances which do not stretch back to the moment of the Big Bang, apply to the Big Bang itself. It could be the case that whatever happened at that moment created the laws of thermodynamics, which would mean that those laws did not govern the cause of their creation.

Science as understood, propagated, and taught today doesn't favor you.

But like I said before, keep your faith fires burning.

The problem with mixing science and religion, is that it is often the case that when the two conflict, evidence-based science is rejected in favour of faith-based religious beliefs. This does not pose problems for the vast majority of scientific endeavours, but we have seen in the past, with Galileo and Copernicus and in the present, with evolutionary theory, that science which contradicts religious claims often finds itself in the middle of controversy. That is not to say that there arent plenty of Christian who never had a problem with the heliocentric model of the solar system, or with evolution, claims about the age of the Earth etc. etc.

You are (incorrectly) of the mind that religion is all faith, and not evidence, based.

So far in our debate, I've given you solid scientific evidence that supports my position, whereas you have offered little but "maybe we don't understand," or "perhaps in the future the Laws will change."

I have the science on my side. It is your position that is "faith based."

[doubting_tommy]

The Bible makes it clear God is eternal, and will remain as such. And to lie is to sin, which God cannot do. The Bible is the basis for why Christians believe those things - and common sense.

There is a difference between believing that God *will* do something and that God *could* do something. The Bible may say that God will remain in existence for eternity, but that is not the same thing as a logical proof that God could not do otherwise. As for the idea that to lie is to sin, and God cannot sin, could God simply decide tomorrow that it is not a sin to lie?

For the sake of argument, you were conscripted.

Okay. Let

[doubting_tommy]

A cause or an event doesn't need a witness to occur.

I know some philosophers who would disagree with you on that In any case, the point is that our understanding of causality is derived from our observations. With insufficient observational information about causal conditions at the beginning of the universe, we may not be justified in assuming that causes occur prior to their effects as the universe comes into being.

Logic inspired by the Holy Spirit. Again, the very reason all of this baffles you.

Have you considered the possibility that it is baffling to me because it doesn

[doubting_tommy]

God doesn't need time, matter, energy, or space in order to create. You demand that time be involved in any kind of creation because you (and everyone else) are finite and live in a finite Universe that is coming to a cold end.

It is not simply the fact that there is no scientific evidence for non-temporal creation which counts against you here, the very concept of non-temporal causation is incoherent. You have not explained why God should be exempt from the rules which apply to *every* single instance of creation which we have ever observed. On the one hand, you use observational data to claim that nothing can create anything, yet on the other you want to throw out the entire rulebook in making God exempt from the very laws you invoke in attempting to prove His existence. It seems like you