Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 60 (9209 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Skylink
Post Volume: Total: 919,446 Year: 6,703/9,624 Month: 43/238 Week: 43/22 Day: 10/6 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can we be 100% sure there is/isn't a God?
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9011
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 46 of 110 (38705)
05-01-2003 11:43 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by amsmith986
05-01-2003 11:07 PM


quote:
Genisis says "In the beginning, God created..."
Does it happen to say how God created?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by amsmith986, posted 05-01-2003 11:07 PM amsmith986 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Buzsaw, posted 05-02-2003 11:14 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Inactive Administrator


Message 47 of 110 (38708)
05-01-2003 11:53 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by DBlevins
05-01-2003 11:26 PM


How to use UBB code
quote:
On a side note, how are the "quote boxes" made?
or
On a side note, how are the "quote boxes" made?
See EvC Forum: dBCodes
The code is not case sensitive.
The link to this page is to the left of the message creation box ("*UBB Code is ON").
I recommend using the "preview" button, before you post the message.
You can look at any message, your own creation or others, via the "edit" button. You just can't submit any edits of others messages. Go ahead, try the edit button at the bottom of this message.
Adminnemooseus
ps: [quote]Deliberate error - see the red in the edit mode?[quote] There is an error, because I didn't include the "/" at the end quote. That's why the "[quote]'s" appear in the final message.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by DBlevins, posted 05-01-2003 11:26 PM DBlevins has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by DBlevins, posted 05-02-2003 3:06 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 986 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 48 of 110 (38711)
05-02-2003 12:34 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by amsmith986
05-01-2003 11:07 PM


Flamingo, do you really believe in the Big Bang? The Big Bang theory
isn't even Scriptural. Genisis says "In the beginning, God created..."
To poke my nose in..... how can you get much closer to "the beginning" than the Big Bang? That was apparently when time itself unfolded, and you're entirely welcome to say "god did it" if you want. Heck, you can even say "my version of god did it!"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by amsmith986, posted 05-01-2003 11:07 PM amsmith986 has not replied

  
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7829 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 49 of 110 (38713)
05-02-2003 12:41 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by Flamingo Chavez
05-01-2003 10:28 PM


quote:
Comparing a miracle that is preformed in the physical realm isn't comparable to a interference in someone's free will.
But comparing God's willingness to perform a miracle in the physical realm to provide wine for a feast is comparable to God's unwillingness to perform a miracle in the physical realm to save a child from harm.
That both include an element of will is, as you point out, trivially true. However, you suggest that the wedding miracle is not an interefence with free will.
I think, nevertheless, that one can see quite clearly that the situation is sufficiently analogous. "While he did affect the consequences of kidnapping and raping the child, by saving her miraculously from the crime, he didn't change the kidnapper's ability to make their decision."
In other words, God could intervene in this "situation of extreme moral injustice" (as crashfrog calls it) without interfering with free will any more than his "party trick" at Cana.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Flamingo Chavez, posted 05-01-2003 10:28 PM Flamingo Chavez has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by Flamingo Chavez, posted 05-02-2003 12:58 AM Mister Pamboli has replied

  
Flamingo Chavez
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 110 (38717)
05-02-2003 12:58 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Mister Pamboli
05-02-2003 12:41 AM


Okay, now I get your point... I misinterpreted you before.
Your saying he does not have to work in the realm of free will to end your scenario. (correct me if I'm wrong)
I guess my argument would be that it is not characteristic of God to use supernatural means to serve any other purpose than to reveal himself and his will to his people. Except for these select moments he allows his natural law to unfold.
Maybe the question we should be asking is, why God holds his natural law above human suffering?... If you don't mind I'll have to ponder that.
------------------
"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Mister Pamboli, posted 05-02-2003 12:41 AM Mister Pamboli has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Mister Pamboli, posted 05-02-2003 1:15 AM Flamingo Chavez has replied

  
Flamingo Chavez
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 110 (38720)
05-02-2003 1:09 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by DBlevins
05-01-2003 11:26 PM


DB - The above is a contradiction of immense proportions. A Christian God who isn't omniscient/omnipotent and therefor able to predict an outcome or "determine" before creation what would happen at ALL TIMES is by definition NOT omniscient/omnipotent and therefor ranks along with the God's of the Greek pantheon, IMO.
I would disagree with you here, you are actually limiting God's power by saying he knows only one future. God's power is actually increased in the light of this limitation.
He therefor sets himself up to be fallible just by intervening in the universe of his creation.
Fallible, I don't think so. I would like you to expand on this point though so I can better understand it.
Doesn't intervention preclude free-will? So not only is God a fallible meddler but also a puppet-master predeterministic entity.
Intervention does not preclude free will. An example from personal experience: I came to college wanting to become a lawyer, untill I felt a strong calling to go into Biology. I'm not sure why, but it was definately there. I don't HAVE to go into Biology, I can be a lawyer if I want. I just trust in the fact that God knows whats best for me and what is closest to his will.
PS: If you ever want to know how somebody set up their post just click on the edit button bellow their post and it will show you exactly what they typed, code and all.
------------------
"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by DBlevins, posted 05-01-2003 11:26 PM DBlevins has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by DBlevins, posted 05-02-2003 3:22 AM Flamingo Chavez has replied
 Message 82 by nator, posted 05-04-2003 8:04 AM Flamingo Chavez has not replied

  
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7829 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 52 of 110 (38722)
05-02-2003 1:15 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by Flamingo Chavez
05-02-2003 12:58 AM


quote:
I guess my argument would be that it is not characteristic of God to use supernatural means to serve any other purpose than to reveal himself and his will to his people.
I understand, but there remains the problem that God does not just act miraculously to reveal his will but to fulfill his will.
Think of OT interferences such as Sodom, Lot's wife, the crossing of the Red Sea, the destruction of Sennacherib - ok that was an angel, but you know your theology well enough not to quibble, I'm sure.
So it is not God's will that the kidnapped child should be spared? But you're right, this is very similar to the issue you need to consider. No one with half a heart finds this issue easy, I know.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by Flamingo Chavez, posted 05-02-2003 12:58 AM Flamingo Chavez has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Flamingo Chavez, posted 05-02-2003 1:26 AM Mister Pamboli has not replied

  
Flamingo Chavez
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 110 (38723)
05-02-2003 1:18 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by amsmith986
05-01-2003 11:07 PM


Flamingo, do you really believe in the Big Bang? The Big Bang theory isn't even Scriptural. Genisis says "In the beginning, God created..."
Yes I think this interpretation of the universe's origins is correct. I don't really BELIEVE in it, but in the same sense I don't believe in photosynthesis, gravity etc. I'm not sure if a person can really believe in science. Theories can be proven untill there is just a symantic difference between fact and theory, but I don't think its right to become to attached to any one theory. For example, if someone was to bring up proof that can't be explained away for scientific creationism, then I would be the first to jump on board with them.
Were you there?
Did Ken Ham tell you to ask that? I've been on the Scientific Creationist side of the fence too.
You don't have to witness something to prove it happened. Take forensic science for example.
------------------
"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by amsmith986, posted 05-01-2003 11:07 PM amsmith986 has not replied

  
Flamingo Chavez
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 110 (38725)
05-02-2003 1:26 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Mister Pamboli
05-02-2003 1:15 AM


Think of OT interferences such as Sodom, Lot's wife, the crossing of the Red Sea, the destruction of Sennacherib - ok that was an angel, but you know your theology well enough not to quibble, I'm sure.
another good point... now I have more to ponder, thanks alot MP , (I'm not entirely sure I will have quite the same view when I post again about this)
------------------
"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Mister Pamboli, posted 05-02-2003 1:15 AM Mister Pamboli has not replied

  
DBlevins
Member (Idle past 4027 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 55 of 110 (38737)
05-02-2003 3:06 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by Adminnemooseus
05-01-2003 11:53 PM


Re: How to use UBB code
Ahh thanks admin. I guess I should have realised what those thingies were on the side of the post box were.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Adminnemooseus, posted 05-01-2003 11:53 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

  
DBlevins
Member (Idle past 4027 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 56 of 110 (38741)
05-02-2003 3:22 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Flamingo Chavez
05-02-2003 1:09 AM


FC-
quote:
I would disagree with you here, you are actually limiting God's power by saying he knows only one future. God's power is actually increased in the light of this limitation.
DB - Actually God's power is limited by the definition of being a supreme God. If a God is omniscient then he would know ALL futures not one. If you hold God as being anything other than omniscient/omnipotent then he is by definition fallible and a fallible God by definition is able to make mistakes. This ability to make mistakes by itself would be a decrease in his power because an all-powerful God would be omniscient.
Expanding on his fallibility. I think I'm beating a dead horse here but...If a God has to intervene or perform miracles after the fact of his creation then he would NOT be omniscient because if he was omniscient then he should have known at the beginning of creation how things would have worked out and set them in motion at the primal moment.
FC -
quote:
I just trust in the fact that God knows whats best for me and what is closest to his will.
DB - If what you are doing is his will, then how can it be yours? Does his will become yours, or does your will become his? Will must be exclusive if it is to be considered "free-will".
DB - Thanks, for the advice. Admin also pointed me in the right direction, hehe
[This message has been edited by DBlevins, 05-02-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Flamingo Chavez, posted 05-02-2003 1:09 AM Flamingo Chavez has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Mister Pamboli, posted 05-02-2003 11:30 AM DBlevins has not replied
 Message 63 by Flamingo Chavez, posted 05-02-2003 7:05 PM DBlevins has not replied

  
Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 110 (38762)
05-02-2003 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by Flamingo Chavez
05-01-2003 6:42 PM


quote:
Like I said before, he did it to show us supernatural signs that he is real. I'm confused as how you would expect him to act physically in this world at all without bending natural law. By definition, any action he takes will be supernatural and therefore out of the realm of natural law.
Unless he allows us to understand it, making it a natural law.
------------------
-----------
Dan Carroll

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Flamingo Chavez, posted 05-01-2003 6:42 PM Flamingo Chavez has not replied

  
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7829 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 58 of 110 (38764)
05-02-2003 11:30 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by DBlevins
05-02-2003 3:22 AM


quote:
Expanding on his fallibility. I think I'm beating a dead horse here but...If a God has to intervene or perform miracles after the fact of his creation then he would NOT be omniscient because if he was omniscient then he should have known at the beginning of creation how things would have worked out and set them in motion at the primal moment.
The problem here is that if God is eternal and omniscient, then "after the fact" is largely meaningless when talking of her actions. Creation and miraculous interventions are not a sequence of actions by an eternal God but - from an eternal viewpoint - a single undifferentiated action.
Sure, to us they appear like a sequence of actions, but for an eternal God they would be but a single expression. Expression of what? I don't know - love, godliness, existence, all of the above?
(There's a big clue in here for Flamingo ...)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by DBlevins, posted 05-02-2003 3:22 AM DBlevins has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Paul, posted 05-02-2003 3:45 PM Mister Pamboli has replied

  
Paul
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 110 (38789)
05-02-2003 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Mister Pamboli
05-02-2003 11:30 AM


Her?
The material universes were created by God to be inhabited with intelligent, free moral agents, to whom God could reveal himself, and who would enjoy His infinite blessings and goodness through a personal relationship with Him.
All miracles have the same purpose, that being to manifest the glory of God(Jn.2:11), as to both draw mankind unto himself, as well as develop a deeper belief, respect and commitment to Him.
Yes God has a will. What was described above has been revealed as part of that will and plan for the ages. However, mankind has been given a free will and is a free morale agent, and it is quite obvious that choices are made within that free will that are nothing but presumptuous Sinful acts, done wilfully and deliberately against light, law and conscience. The onus for acts of sin is Not Gods. The question is not whether it's God's responsibility to intervene in matters, but, why is mankind the only species that is so pathetically addicted to making wilful and deliberate sinful choices, such has been described by you ?? The answer lies within the individual free will itself. Is it wicked or is it good? That's a choice that's made by the person that owns it, Not God. God is the giver of free wills, not the controller of them. Wickedness is a manifestation of choices made from within the free will and since God has no control over the free will and turns his face from sin, I see it then as very difficult for God to intervene in situations, even ones as you have described.
When the awesome Orca risks its own life and rushes the beach to capture and kill a seal pup, is that survival or murder? It's survival of course! When a 45 year old man captures, rapes and kills a 9 year old boy, is that survival? No It shows a deeply depraved species with a free will that's racked with Sin, and desperately needs forgiveness and a Spiritual transformation from the Living God.
The ball is Not in Gods court, it's in ours... Whether we like it or not, all Humans are Spirit beings with a free will.
The Human species and the spiritual state we see that it is in, is total proof that God exists and our desperate need of him.
A hard topic indeed... Keep truckin Flamingo
Respectfully, Paul.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Mister Pamboli, posted 05-02-2003 11:30 AM Mister Pamboli has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by crashfrog, posted 05-02-2003 4:00 PM Paul has not replied
 Message 62 by Gzus, posted 05-02-2003 6:42 PM Paul has not replied
 Message 65 by Mister Pamboli, posted 05-02-2003 7:50 PM Paul has replied
 Message 83 by nator, posted 05-04-2003 8:10 AM Paul has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1718 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 60 of 110 (38790)
05-02-2003 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Paul
05-02-2003 3:45 PM


Her?
You maintain that god is male? Could you demonstrate evidence of his penis? God is clearly without sex. Therefore god is an "it". Or perhaps, "Shim."
It shows a deeply depraved species with a free will that's racked with Sin, and desperately needs forgiveness and a Spiritual transformation from the Living God.
That's a great philosophy for the the man, but what about the boy? What sin did he need forgiveness for? Getting killed? But then, he's dead. "Let the dead bury their own dead", eh?
The Human species and the spiritual state we see that it is in, is total proof that God exists and our desperate need of him.
In your view. In another's view, it might be total proof that mankind is locked in the cycle of karma. In yet another view, that men are just pawns for vast, incomprehensible games played by distant, uncaring gods. In my view, it's total proof that humans alone are responsible for their decisions - and that ultimately, the basis for any moral code must be judged by how it maintains the quality of life for all persons, not how many books its in or how many times its aherents say "god is on our side with this."
I mean, I could just as easily say "The Human species and the immoral state of our breath is total proof of our need for the redemptive power of The Great Mint." I'm basically proving my religion by recourse to elements of my religion, which is circular.
[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 05-02-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Paul, posted 05-02-2003 3:45 PM Paul has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024