Why Earth?

[redeemed098]

Your questions ponder the "fairness" of how God operates. They seek to find reason as to why God would work in such a way that cannot be made sense of...!!

God is not about "fairness".....He is about perfect justice. Whether you think its unfair or not makes no difference at all.

I keep getting misunderstood on this point. Let me put it another way. The Bible describes God in a certain manner. The Bible is as close a thing as Christians have to tangible proof of his existence. So if what the Bible says about God is in doubt, does that in turn cast doubt on God's existence? This is what I'm ultimately asking, not whether or not he is "fair."

My question to YOU is this. Knowing all of this, why do you choose to rebell instead of repenting..???

I don't believe in God, so I don't "know" all this and choose to rebell. I don't believe he exists to rebel against. For me, the question is hypothetical, an intellectual excericse, but it can only be answered by Christians, because it must be answered from within the parameters of belief - which, as I just said, I lack.

What does the bible say about God that puts God in doubt.....?????

Your own perception of what is Just...??? You dont like how the bible portrays God because you do not see as God sees. You see only from a sinful perspective because you are a sinner. Once again your views of compassion and mercy are not Gods views. You are evil...You will have a clouded mind and a seared conscience on what is right and what it wrong. You would say let the world be as one no matter what belief....Lets be tolerant.

God has said " you shall not have any god beside me." He stands as God alone. There is no other creator..Only the creation...Though you have dominion and rule as given by God, you have also been given parameters within which to exercise that dominion and rule.

How can you say that the bible casts doubt on Gods existence when you dont even acknowledge Gods existence in the first place...? The bible is not PROOF of Gods existence..It is his WORD, his revelation of who he is to the ones he created. You simply do not LIKE God..You do not agree with what he has said or how he goes about fulfilling his will and purpose through the free will of men.

Show me one solitary scripture that casts doubt in Gods existence, and I will show you a man who simply doesnt like what he sees. Gods word is a mirror. It reflects the truth of who we really are in the sight of God. Sinners who need to repent.

Regards

[dakota190]

Secondeve has brought up excellent points that underscore the illogicality of the concept of God as we have been taught. To say, in effect, "that's just the way it is", in response to legitmate questions about the logicality of God is not convincing.

I believe that it can't be overemphasized that it is impossible to "believe" in the illogical. If I tell you that "A" exists and "A" doesn't exist, you won't know what to believe about A. This holds true for a deity that is supposedly omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. There are major contradictions with this concept in what we know about the world. Ergo, what am I supposed to "believe"?

sylvan3, you are correct, in that it is impossible to believe in the illogical, that is why we don't believe in you. God, on the other hand, is completely logical, if you have the knowledge and have been called to the son by the father. you obviously have not, therefore we don't expect you to understand. as before you continue to kick against what you have not taken the time to study, if you have studied, your knowledge is incomplete. as for the points you feel are so good, made by secondeve, don't get too excited. she sits up nights dreaming up this stuff, we are used to it.

[sylvan3]

Secondeve has brought up excellent points that underscore the illogicality of the concept of God as we have been taught. To say, in effect, "that's just the way it is", in response to legitmate questions about the logicality of God is not convincing.

I believe that it can't be overemphasized that it is impossible to "believe" in the illogical. If I tell you that "A" exists and "A" doesn't exist, you won't know what to believe about A. This holds true for a deity that is supposedly omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. There are major contradictions with this concept in what we know about the world. Ergo, what am I supposed to "believe"?

sylvan3, you are correct, in that it is impossible to believe in the illogical, that is why we don't believe in you. God, on the other hand, is completely logical, if you have the knowledge and have been called to the son by the father. you obviously have not, therefore we don't expect you to understand. as before you continue to kick against what you have not taken the time to study, if you have studied, your knowledge is incomplete. as for the points you feel are so good, made by secondeve, don't get too excited. she sits up nights dreaming up this stuff, we are used to it.

You have no trouble believing in 950-year-old men? That's sounds about right to you? No problems, huh? This 950-year-old man couldn't possibly be the product of some human's imagination, could it? It's guaranteed evidence of God to you. I guess the people 2000 years ago didn't have imaginations.

When was last time you heard a snake talk? For me, it was probably a Disney animation. Couldn't possibly be the product of a human's imagination, could it?

When was the last time that demons were considered legitimate phenomena? When was the last time that you heard the American Medical Association or the American Psychological Association talk about demons being a legitimate concept? This couldn't be the product of a human's imagination either, could it?

[SoulGrind]

If the world has been so rotten for so long - why wait? And why send more souls into the world in the meantime?

I'm going to go out on a limb here... humor me on this one, ok

Let us assume for just one moment that this particular passage it literal:

"But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."

[2 Peter 3:8 - KJV]

Now, if I didn't know better, I'd swear there was a math word problem in here!

1 Day (God's Time) = 1000 Years (Man's Time)

Interesting.

So let's consider what we know about Christ. Christ lived approximately 2,000 years ago (Man's time). That makes it approximately 2 days ago (God's time).

Now let us look at the Bible. The Bible was written over the course of 1,500 years (Man's time). That's about 1.5 days (God's time).

God also says He created the Earth in 6 days (God's time) and rested on the 7th day (also God's time). This would mean God created the Earth in 6000 years (Man's time) and rested for 1000 years (Man's time).

For the sake of argument, let's not go into the whole "carbon dating" menagerie and the "Earth is X-Billions of years old" argument. We're playing in my hypothetical sandbox right now and limiting ourselves the equation given us by scripture. Just keeping things simple to start with - we can start compounding data once we've analyzed the initial premise.

Now before someone goes off the deep end and starts getting all excited over this...

Let's compare this analogy to things we have observed:

If we look at Dog years compared to Human years, we have the urban legend that 1 human year is equal to 7 dog years.

Of course, if you ask your vet, he'll tell you that the formula is 10.5 dog years per human year for the first 2 years, then 4 dog years per human year for each year after.

In any case - it's a ratio. If we also look at other organisms, we can see similar rates of decay that are not lined up with our (Man's) own timeline-clock.

So with all this in mind, let's look at outselves (mankind) as specimens in God's labratory petri dish.

Is it really outside the realm of reason that we (mankind) are really, only a few minutes, maybe even hours old according to God's divine clock?

Assuming that this is true - then how are we able to ask the question - "Why hasn't God done this yet? Or why hasn't God done that yet?" when we (mankind) are not even sure what God's time table is? We know the base formula He is working with, but not the timeline for maturation.

If we're God's divine "cake" - how long have we been in the oven and how much longer do we have until we're done?

Unfortunately, the Bible does not tell us this. It just sets the measure of units for God's clock, nothing else.

I hope you have enjoyed reading through my hypo-speculative playground!

Cheers,

Edited July 14, 2006 by SoulGrind

[whiteeagele0]

1 Day (God's Time) = 1000 Years (Man's Time)

Thats Right

[sylvan3]

Please remember: God is omniscient. God therefore knows who will accept him and who won't prior to their creation. If he then creates that person, knowing that the person would need the "consequence" of hell, he is, in effect, sending them to hell. This, therefore, is actually determined prior to the person being born.

Ah - but this is where you, Sylvan are in error.

Under your own presuposition, then, and based upon your "viewpoint" towards God, then you are destined for Hell.

However - this is where your argument fizzles out - because now you have been made aware of the "circumstances" (cause and effect) regarding God, Heaven, Hell, Salvation, etc.

Ergo...

You now have a CHOICE.

So if you end up in Hell - it's now by your own volition, not predetermination.

Predetermination presupposes that you have no knowledge of the future outcome and therefore have no option to change that outcome.

But you are now in a position to make such a choice, therefore, no predetermination exists, only pure CHOICE.

And you are held accountable for that choice.

Peace,

All of your logic is not valid because it begins with a supposed fact--that being that the Bible is the word of God. There is not a shred of evidence that this is true. Your religion itself says that it requires "faith" to believe this.

You cannot argue by using legitimate logic if you start with a supposed fact. For example, if I say:

"Eating Wheaties will make you strong enough to lift up a car."

"You don't eat Wheaties".

Conclusion:

"You won't be able to lift up a car"

This is not valid logic. It is based on a supposed fact.

Therefore:

"The Bible is the word of God"

"The Bible says you must accept Jesus to go to Heaven."

"You don't accept Jesus."

Conclusion:

"You won't go to heaven."

This is invalid logic that has as much weight as the Wheaties example. They are both based on a supposed fact that has no evidence to support it.

Edited July 14, 2006 by sylvan3

[SoulGrind]

You cannot argue by using legitimate logic if you start with a supposed fact. For example, if I say:

"Eating Wheaties will make you strong enough to lift up a car."

"You don't eat Wheaties".

Conclusion:

"You won't be able to lift up a car"

This is not valid logic. It is based on a supposed fact.

Therefore:

"The Bible is the word of God"

"The Bible says you must accept Jesus to go to Heaven."

"You don't accept Jesus."

Conclusion:

"You won't go to heaven."

This is invalid logic that has as much weight as the Wheaties example. They are both based on a supposed fact that has no evidence to support it.

Just because someone DOESN'T do something, doesn't make the FACT any less factual. That is CONSEQUENCE.

FACTS:

1 + 1 = 2

Blue is opposite of red

Gasoline is flamable

FALACIES:

1 + 1 = 20

Blue is the opposite of brown

Gasoline won't ignite

When you stated

"The Bible is the word of God"

"The Bible says you must accept Jesus to go to Heaven."

"You don't accept Jesus."

Conclusion:

"You won't go to heaven."

You described CAUSE and EFFECT.

FACT: The Bible is the Word of God

FACT: The Bible says you must accept Jesus to go to Heaven

FACT: You don't accept Jesus

FACT: You won't go to Heaven

OR

FACT: The Bible is the Word of God

FACT: The Bible says you must accept Jesus to go to Heaven

FACT: You DO accept Jesus

FACT: You WILL go to Heaven

If I was a programmer (and I have been), this is how I would express this LOGICALLY:

} Accept_God() {

} Bible == Word_of_God {

} if Accept_Christ == True {

GOTO Heaven

} else Accept_Christ == False {

GOTO Hell

}

}

}

As you can see from the logic flow outline in the statement above, there is no "contradiction" - it's based on the presuposition that the Bible is TRUE.

Just as you stated about your Wheaties...

If the statement "Eating Wheaties will make you strong enough to lift up a car" were a true statement, it doesn't matter whether you eat them or not. That fact that you chose not to eat them does not change the FACT that they will make you strong enough to lift up a car - that is the inherited properties of wheaties - not the consumer.

However...

If you said "Eating Wheaties will make you strong enough to lift up a car" and I ate wheaties and I could not lift up a car afterwards, then the statement "Eating Wheaties will make you strong enough to lift up a car" would be FALSE.

When it comes to the Bible and we look at the statement "The Bible is the Word of God", we must accept that as fact - because technically, that is what the book is called.

Here is what we really want to know...

IF we put our faith (belief) in Christ AND we GO to Heaven, then we have PROVED that the Bible is indeed the true Word of God.

If we put our faith (belief) in Christ AND we DO NOT GO to Heaven, then we have PROVED that the Bible IS NOT the true Word of God.

These are the only two conditions you can test against (you could substitute Heaven for Hell if you like, the test is the same).

The problem is, the only way to test this is to die.

Care to take the challenge and hope for the best?

How sure are you that the test will fail and the Bible will be false?

If that's the case, then what?

You're dead and there's nothing more?

That's rather dull.

But what if there is more?

Well that would be something, now wouldn't it?

And if that something we're Heaven or Hell depending on how you voted...

Hmmm...

Something to consider.

[sylvan3]

You cannot argue by using legitimate logic if you start with a supposed fact. For example, if I say:

"Eating Wheaties will make you strong enough to lift up a car."

"You don't eat Wheaties".

Conclusion:

"You won't be able to lift up a car"

This is not valid logic. It is based on a supposed fact.

Therefore:

"The Bible is the word of God"

"The Bible says you must accept Jesus to go to Heaven."

"You don't accept Jesus."

Conclusion:

"You won't go to heaven."

This is invalid logic that has as much weight as the Wheaties example. They are both based on a supposed fact that has no evidence to support it.

Just because someone DOESN'T do something, doesn't make the FACT any less factual. That is CONSEQUENCE.

FACTS:

1 + 1 = 2

Blue is opposite of red

Gasoline is flamable

FALACIES:

1 + 1 = 20

Blue is the opposite of brown

Gasoline won't ignite

When you stated

"The Bible is the word of God"

"The Bible says you must accept Jesus to go to Heaven."

"You don't accept Jesus."

Conclusion:

"You won't go to heaven."

You described CAUSE and EFFECT.

FACT: The Bible is the Word of God

FACT: The Bible says you must accept Jesus to go to Heaven

FACT: You don't accept Jesus

FACT: You won't go to Heaven

OR

FACT: The Bible is the Word of God

FACT: The Bible says you must accept Jesus to go to Heaven

FACT: You DO accept Jesus

FACT: You WILL go to Heaven

If I was a programmer (and I have been), this is how I would express this LOGICALLY:

} Accept_God() {

} Bible == Word_of_God {

} if Accept_Christ == True {

GOTO Heaven

} else Accept_Christ == False {

GOTO Hell

}

}

}

As you can see from the logic flow outline in the statement above, there is no "contradiction" - it's based on the presuposition that the Bible is TRUE.

Just as you stated about your Wheaties...

If the statement "Eating Wheaties will make you strong enough to lift up a car" were a true statement, it doesn't matter whether you eat them or not. That fact that you chose not to eat them does not change the FACT that they will make you strong enough to lift up a car - that is the inherited properties of wheaties - not the consumer.

However...

If you said "Eating Wheaties will make you strong enough to lift up a car" and I ate wheaties and I could not lift up a car afterwards, then the statement "Eating Wheaties will make you strong enough to lift up a car" would be FALSE.

When it comes to the Bible and we look at the statement "The Bible is the Word of God", we must accept that as fact - because technically, that is what the book is called.

Here is what we really want to know...

IF we put our faith (belief) in Christ AND we GO to Heaven, then we have PROVED that the Bible is indeed the true Word of God.

If we put our faith (belief) in Christ AND we DO NOT GO to Heaven, then we have PROVED that the Bible IS NOT the true Word of God.

These are the only two conditions you can test against (you could substitute Heaven for Hell if you like, the test is the same).

The problem is, the only way to test this is to die.

Care to take the challenge and hope for the best?

How sure are you that the test will fail and the Bible will be false?

If that's the case, then what?

You're dead and there's nothing more?

That's rather dull.

But what if there is more?

Well that would be something, now wouldn't it?

And if that something we're Heaven or Hell depending on how you voted...

Hmmm...

Something to consider.

Thanks for the logic sequence, but you still start with a supposed fact that the Bible is the word of God. You say, "FACT-the Bible is the word of God", and then you run a logic sequence. You have no evidence for your initial claim. You even later state that you start with a "presupposition that the Bible is true". You admit that your evidence can only be verified after you die.

Yours should say:

FAITH-The Bible is the word of God

FAITH-The Bible says you must accept Jesus to go to heaven

FACT-You have not accepted Jesus

FAITH-You will not go to heaven (kind of weird having "faith" in that, huh?)

My logic sequence:

FACT--Christians say their God is perfect (omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient)

FACT--Christians say their God created the world

FACT--Christians say the world is full of sin or imperfection (no argument from me)

FACT-BASED DEDUCTION--God is either imperfect or he wants sin, which would then be "Perfect Sin" or "Perfect Imperfection"

FACT-Perfect imperfection is contradictory and thus incomprehensible

CONCLUSION--The Christian God is incomprehensible

I see more facts on my sequence and the deduction and conclusion are quite reasonable.

Edited July 15, 2006 by Matthitjah

[SoulGrind]

I see more facts on my sequence and the deduction and conclusion are quite reasonable.

All you're doing is twisting things around. Because, to the believer, it starts of as faith (as you say) and through that faith, and spiritual growth, becomes fact.

Besides, the point we we discussing was your lack of ability to string logic statements together or to use the law of "non-contradiction" correctly.

We cannot effetivly argue any topic, whether it is religious or otherwise without the appropriate ground rules which you seem to ignore at every opportunity.

Even in your last post, you fall into the same logic based facts once again.

If you are going to attempt to work from deduction, that's fine. But keep in mind, you must still adhere to the appropriate logic path.

The Law of Non-Contradiction:

A thing cannot be both "a thing" and a "non-thing". In other words, it cannot be both raining in your backyward and not raining in your backyard and the same time.

This is a contradiction and is logically impossible It is like saying a = b and b != a (in English, this is a equals b and b is not equal to a).

Also, we must look at the laws of true and false as it applies to a sentence.

Postulate 1: If an entire statement is found to be true, then it is TRUE

Postulate 2: If an entire statement is found to be false, the it is FALSE

Postulate 3: If part of a statement is found to be true, and remainder is false, then the entire statement is found to be FALSE.

These are all things most Jr. High Students have learned through English and Mathematics and are required to know before graduating on to High School. We're not even at the College level yet. So I fail to understand why you find them so difficult to adhere to.

Thanks for the logic sequence, but you still start with a supposed fact that the Bible is the word of God. You say, "FACT-the Bible is the word of God", and then you run a logic sequence. You have no evidence for your initial claim. You even later state that you start with a "presupposition that the Bible is true". You admit that your evidence can only be verified after you die.

Yours should say:

FAITH-The Bible is the word of God

FAITH-The Bible says you must accept Jesus to go to heaven

FACT-You have not accepted Jesus

FAITH-You will not go to heaven (kind of weird having "faith" in that, huh?)

My logic sequence:

FACT--Christians say their God is perfect (omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient)

FACT--Christians say their God created the world

FACT--Christians say the world is full of sin or imperfection (no argument from me)

FACT-BASED DEDUCTION--God is either imperfect or he wants sin, which would then be "Perfect Sin" or "Perfect Imperfection"

FACT-Perfect imperfection is contradictory and thus incomprehensible

CONCLUSION--The Christian God is incomprehensible

I see more facts on my sequence and the deduction and conclusion are quite reasonable.

Once again, you are twisting things.

Yes, it is Faith - but Faith = Fact to the Christian.

Let us use some euclidean geometry as an analogy using a triangle.

First, let's describe a triangle's properties as seen in non-euclidian geometry:

Acute - all angles measure less than 90

[sylvan3]

I see more facts on my sequence and the deduction and conclusion are quite reasonable.

All you're doing is twisting things around. Because, to the believer, it starts of as faith (as you say) and through that faith, and spiritual growth, becomes fact.

Besides, the point we we discussing was your lack of ability to string logic statements together or to use the law of "non-contradiction" correctly.

We cannot effetivly argue any topic, whether it is religious or otherwise without the appropriate ground rules which you seem to ignore at every opportunity.

Even in your last post, you fall into the same logic based facts once again.

If you are going to attempt to work from deduction, that's fine. But keep in mind, you must still adhere to the appropriate logic path.

The Law of Non-Contradiction:

A thing cannot be both "a thing" and a "non-thing". In other words, it cannot be both raining in your backyward and not raining in your backyard and the same time.

This is a contradiction and is logically impossible It is like saying a = b and b != a (in English, this is a equals b and b is not equal to a).

Also, we must look at the laws of true and false as it applies to a sentence.

Postulate 1: If an entire statement is found to be true, then it is TRUE

Postulate 2: If an entire statement is found to be false, the it is FALSE

Postulate 3: If part of a statement is found to be true, and remainder is false, then the entire statement is found to be FALSE.

These are all things most Jr. High Students have learned through English and Mathematics and are required to know before graduating on to High School. We're not even at the College level yet. So I fail to understand why you find them so difficult to adhere to.

Thanks for the logic sequence, but you still start with a supposed fact that the Bible is the word of God. You say, "FACT-the Bible is the word of God", and then you run a logic sequence. You have no evidence for your initial claim. You even later state that you start with a "presupposition that the Bible is true". You admit that your evidence can only be verified after you die.

Yours should say:

FAITH-The Bible is the word of God

FAITH-The Bible says you must accept Jesus to go to heaven

FACT-You have not accepted Jesus

FAITH-You will not go to heaven (kind of weird having "faith" in that, huh?)

My logic sequence:

FACT--Christians say their God is perfect (omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient)

FACT--Christians say their God created the world

FACT--Christians say the world is full of sin or imperfection (no argument from me)

FACT-BASED DEDUCTION--God is either imperfect or he wants sin, which would then be "Perfect Sin" or "Perfect Imperfection"

FACT-Perfect imperfection is contradictory and thus incomprehensible

CONCLUSION--The Christian God is incomprehensible

I see more facts on my sequence and the deduction and conclusion are quite reasonable.

Once again, you are twisting things.

Yes, it is Faith - but Faith = Fact to the Christian.

Let us use some euclidean geometry as an analogy using a triangle.

First, let's describe a triangle's properties as seen in non-euclidian geometry:

Acute - all angles measure less than 90