Detecting God

killinghurts,I haven't been on this forum very long, but from what I've seen, it just seems to be a meeting room for atheists, as I have seen very few proponents of the Christian faith on here...but maybe I'm wrong.Anyways, You are correct that God is not part of the measurable world. However, your logical progression fails in the second part of your sentence, because no one ever said that reality only includes the measurable world.Now the most basic problem with your view of reality is that it is homo-centric (as I like to say). Since you do not believe in God, you do not view the universe in terms of God, and thus, you view it in terms of man.But from the Christian standpoint, the universe is as far from homo-centric as it can be. The universe was created by, is based on, and is for, God. We humans are not the focal point of the universe, and we only exist as a part of God's creation. The universe is held together by God, in that it would not work was God not residing over it. So, ultimately, the purpose of the universe is not so that man can enjoy himself, nor so that man can bring glory to himself, but that glory might be given to God. For the glory can be given to no one else, just like if a potter creates a fine clay vessel, people may marvel upon the vessel, but they don't praise the vessel, but rather, they praise the potter for his fine work of art.Do you have a problem with this? Does it sound like God is greedy and selfish? To you, it probably will, because your universe is homo-centric, and you care about yourself more than you do God (obviously, because you're an atheist). But myself, I would much rather live my life for someone else (God), then live my life for myself."For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things."(!!!) (Romans 1:20-23)Is this not precisely what you are doing? That is, changing God and his glory into something detectable, such as a fourfooted beast, and creeping things? If you really thought of God as God, you wouldn't even try to change His glory into something detectable, and corruptible!!Edited by sac51495, : No reason given.

Dr. Adequate, They were indeed theists. But they were also very homo-centric, as are atheists. This is because they thought that their salvation was brought about by pleasing God via their good actions - actions that they believed to be done by their own power. "For there is no power except of God, and the powers that be are of God" - (Romans 13:1b). So if the power which they believed they were using was not of themselves (the aforementioned vs. says that the power cannot be of them), then of who was it? Was it of God, who sent His Son to earth, who while here on earth called the Pharisees a brood of vipers? And he also presumes them to be evil men ("How can you, being evil, speak good things? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks." - [Matthew 12:34])? Certainly it wasn't of God. So of who was that power then? The answer is this: it wasn't power, for their works were not good, though they thought them to be, for "Let love be without dissimulation. Abhor that which is evil, and cleave unto that which is good - (Romans 12:9)". This is saying that your love must come from the heart, that your works may be truly good; for if your works are not of the heart, then they are not good, for if they are not of the heart, then they are not for the express purpose of giving glory to God; your works then become for the purpose of giving glory to man...this is what the Pharisees did, and it is what atheists do as well - because if you do not have God to give the glory to, than to whom can the glory go but man? Then just who is higher than you? Are you admitting to us that you believe in God?... ICANT said that you will not receive a sign, nor the evil generation who was seeking after one. He didn't say Saul wouldn't receive a sign. The vs. was very pointed; at you more specifically, and all those people who seek a sign. So just what is the problem with seeking a sign? The problem with it - as is the problem with so many other things - is that it is homo-centric; the seeking of a sign attempts to satisfy man's fleshly desire to have his curiosity satisfied ("But He said to them, 'Where is your faith?' - Luke 8:25")[Also check out instances where Jesus commends their faith; Matt. 9:22; Matt. 9:29; Matt. 16:8; Mark 2:5; Mark 5:34; etc.]. For a man to be curious means that he is more concerned about himself then about his destiny, which is decided by God, who will judge all in righteousness ("God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel." - Romans 2:16b) Remember, "there is no power but of God". If an atheist quits smoking (through - he thinks - his own power), then he has done nothing good, for he did not give God the glory for his actions, and, therefore, his actions were ultimately homo-centric, and thus, they were not good works. ICANT's quitting of smoking was (by his own testimony) by the power of God, so in the end, the glory was given to God, not to ICANT. Thus, his actions were good, for they gave God the glory, not man."For God has committed them all to disobedience, that He might have mercy on all. Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out! For who has known the mind of the LORD? Or who has become His counselor? Or who has first given to Him and it shall be repaid to him? For of Him and through Him and to Him are all things, to whom be glory forever. Amen. [emphasis added] - (Romans 11:32-36)Edited by sac51495, : No reason given.Edited by sac51495, : No reason given.Edited by sac51495, : No reason given.

ICANT, Love it. I also love your highlights of Scripture.Thank you very much! I enjoyed it!Edited by sac51495, : No reason given.

Phage, "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible manand birds and four-footed animals and creeping things." (Romans 1:18-23)Did you read the whole thing? If not, then read it, because it sums up my beliefs about that particular subject quite nicely.

Hello Peepul, "Cosmologists use the term Big Bang to refer to the idea that the universe was originally extremely hot and dense at some finite time in the past" - Wikipedia.org...But where did that hot, dense stuff come from? Did it come from nothing? From something? Is is eternal?...Sounds like a great, purely natural explanation for the origin of our universe, doesn't it? So I disagree quite strongly with your premise that there is good evidence for a natural universe, so the concluding question is irrelevant."For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead,..." [emphasis added] (Romans 1:18)Though the order and complexity we see in nature is quite a testament to God's existence, this is not what Paul is talking about; note that he said "invisible". These invisible attributes are clearly seen, not by our eyes, but by our heart, mind, and soul. We can even come to the point of understanding (at least to a small extent) His eternal power and Godhead. These are the invisible attributes that Paul spoke of.Edited by sac51495, : No reason given.

Woodsy, And likewise, the fact that we do not fully understand the exact nature of God is not evidence that we never will.

Taq, You appear to be a materialist, from this and other quotes, such as: My basic argument against materialism is very simple: accounting for the yourself.Now this argument entails a number of things, such as your self-awareness, your ability to think logically, your aesthetic sense, love, etc.But what I particularly want to focus on is what exactly you think "you" are. If you are a materialist, then you probably think that "you" are your brain. But before I go any further, you need to confirm that you are a materialist; and if you aren't a materialist, then we need not have this discussion.And by the way, my biggest reason for believing in an immaterial reality is not the previous argument, but this: "For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." - (Hebrews 4:12) This vs. assumes the existence of a spirit, which is immaterial. Therefore, standing firmly on the Bible and nothing else, I conclude that there must be an immaterial reality.P.S. - Try to figure out why the following statement, which is made by a materialistic atheist, is self-contradictory: "I am my brain".Edited by sac51495, : No reason given.

Woodsy, It is common for atheists to cry "religion!" when they feel that "religion" has trumped science. Firstly, what is the error in "religion" trumping science? Secondly, "religion" does not clarify that which science has failed at; "religion" makes it possible for science to clarify anything! (by the way, that was a very lengthy argument compacted into one sentence, so I can give more details if you wish) Lastly, you may notice that I have been putting quotation marks around the word religion. This is because you seem to think of religion as...well, I don't know for sure, but ultimately, you seem to equate Christianity with all the ancient, mythological religions, such as the Vikings, and the Romans, and the Greeks. But God is not religion. God is the immaterial, infinite, eternal, holy, just, merciful, loving being who is the focal point of this universe, and upon whom, and by whom, the universe is based and created. Religion is the belief in God, or the belief in false gods. So the "belief in God" does not attempt to clarify things, but God himself clarifies all, because of the impossibility of the opposite. As they always say; you learn something new everyday! (sarcasm)My use of the word "heart" was not meant to be equated with the muscle in my body. Just like if you told your spouse that you "love them from the bottom of your heart", you would not expect them to actually think you meant the blood-pumping muscle in your body...Edited by sac51495, : No reason given.

And your point is?My point was that if Woodsy can say that he does not have to understand everything about how the Big Bang worked, then why should I have to explain perfectly the nature of God, if he can't even explain the nature of the Big Bang?And besides, the nature of something must be explained to some degree before one can believe in it.

Huntard, Did you read the following arguments, which were more specific?...Taken out of context, you can make anything mean, ultimately, anything you want. Correct. I am a Christian, and if I - claiming to be a Christian - were to stand on something other than the word of God, then I would be grossly inconsistent. So if I wish to be inconsistent with my beliefs, then I would stand on something other than the Bible. But I care about what God wants me to do infinitely more than what you want me to do, so I'll take my stand on the Bible, despite what you say. Besides, your an atheist; you are opposed to my God, so should I listen to Him who I believe to be at the very core of the universe, or him (you) who is opposed to my God?..."All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." (II Tim. 3:16-17). You're on the right track. But remember that I said the statement itself is self-contradictory.

Woodsy, Have you ever heard of "the impossibility of the opposite"? Visit the Underlying Philosophy thread to see more details on this argument.Also, a laboratory could not exist were it not for the metaphysicist. This is because for any epistemological beliefs to be put in place (as in science), metaphysical beliefs must be put in place first. As an example, if a scientist wishes to determine what the nature of a ladybug is, and he thus determines the best way he should go about doing that (epistemology), he must first have a number of metaphysical beliefs in place, e.g., he can determine the nature of a ladybug, and other such things.So having established where epistemological reality stems from (it stems from metaphysical reality), the question remains; from where does metaphysical reality stem from? "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth" (Gen 1:1); "For in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day." (Exodus 20:11); "For by Him all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers. All things were created through Him and for Him. And He is before all things, and in Him all things consist." (Col. 1:16-17).

jar, "But we know that the judgment of God is according to truth against those who practice such things." (Romans 2:2); "For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor principalities nor powers, nor things present nor things to come, nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing, shall be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Romans 8:38-39) "The eternal God is your refuge,And underneath are the everlasting arms; He will thrust out the enemy from before you, And will say, ‘Destroy!’" (Deut. 33:27)..etc., etc. Are you arguing against the Muslim god? Are you arguing against the Hindu "god"? Are you arguing against the Buddhist god? Are you arguing against the mythological Greek gods? The Roman gods? The Norse gods? The Egyptian gods? Are you an atheist? What is the positive position held by some on this forum that you are arguing against? If you are arguing against the Christian faith as an atheist, then you get to argue against it, and other religions are irrelevant. If I followed your logic, then I could cite all the other inherently atheistic worldviews that are out there, many of which you probably do not subscribe to, such as Behaviorism, Existentialism, Platonic Dualism, Monism, Deterministic Atomism, Pragmatism, or Egoism.And if that argument didn't satisfy you, then I'll give another one, which is one that I find to be most satisfying: "Now I know that the LORD is greater than all the gods; for in the very thing in which they behaved proudly, He was above them. (Exodus 18:11); "yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live." (1 Cor. 8:6); "And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent." (John 17:3).Edited by sac51495, : No reason given.

Taq, Then why exactly do I need to prove to you that there is an immaterial reality, if you already believe there to be one?Edited by sac51495, : No reason given.

Theodoric, And your point is what? That because he doesn't worship the Big Bang, he doesn't have to provide evidence for it, even though he insists that I provide evidence for my claims? I repeat; the epitome of hypocrisy.

jar, Firstly, if you believe your anecdote about Tawa and Spider woman to be as equally foolish as Genesis, then why are you arguing against the Christians, as if their beliefs had some meaning to them? Why don't you argue against the believers in Tawa and Spider woman? Secondly, why shouldn't the Bible be believed? The earliest manuscript we have of Julius Caesar's history of the Gallic Wars is from around 900 A.D. - about 1000 years after the Gallic Wars were fought. Also, Plato's famous work "(the) Republic" was written around 400 B.C., and the earliest manuscript we have is dated 900 A.D. - over 1200 years after the fact.But what about the Bible? The Dead Sea Scrolls were composed sometime from 150 B.C. to 70 A.D., and the oldest copy we have of them is from...150 B.C. to 70 A.D. So why shouldn't we trust the accounts of Jesus given by New Testament writers? Do we ever doubt Julius Caesar's history of the Gallic Wars? Or do we doubt whether or not Plato really wrote The Republic? So if we have 4 accounts of Jesus by 4 different writers, why should the accounts be doubted, particularly in their historical sense? But their history is all based on the Genesis account, so why shouldn't we trust the Genesis account?But, most importantly: "As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed." (Gal. 1:9) This vs. establishes the infallibility of the Gospel story, which itself refers back to the Genesis account of our earliest history (about 6000 years ago) as though it were also inerrant. Edited by sac51495, : No reason given.