Can we be 100% sure there is/isn't a God?

If God intervened in situations like these, it would destroy our free will. I, being a Weslyian (theology wise), hold desperatly on to free will; not only does it account for a lot, but I just don't buy predestination.[This message has been edited by Flamingo Chavez, 04-30-2003]

Would it? My parents occasionally intervened to prevent me from starving to death from being broke. I didn't find my free will particularly compromised.How much free will can you exercise if you're being marched off to the gas chambers? If god was really into our free will he would intervene to preserve our ability to exercise it more often.

Oh!!!I think I have been suffering from 'lack-of-agreement'
syndrome too

I am not making an assupmtion on an assuption,
but a reasoned suggestion that, since none of us
do know the nature of any god or gods, that we are not
in a position to make any validated assumptions in the
first place.If the liklihood of an assumption being spot on and of
being completely wrong are the same we cannot operate
with that assumption with any degree of confidence.

You still had the ability to refuse their help. If God intervened you wouldn't have a choice. First of all, I'm not sure if I like the logic behind him taking away our free will to give us more...Its not my will that I trip and fall, by the same logic he should intervene everytime that happens. Furthermore, I see this his williness to preserve the laws that he has set in motion. If God ran around and defied his own law, much like the Greek gods did, then were would that leave things like science? You would have to have a "God-O-Meter" everytime you observed something to figure out if it was done by natural law, or God.------------------
"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein

quote:

---

You still had the ability to refuse their help. If God intervened you wouldn't have a choice.

---

Why not?God could knock down the wall and say "Go on and take off." At which point a person could easily say, "No thanks, I'm nice and comfy here among the zyklon B." (For some unknown reason.)Isn't there a contradiction when you discuss an omnipotent figure that is unable to offer his help without forcing it?

The problem for many people is not that God doesn't interfere, but that it is claimed that He does - on occasions when it suits him. He does not intervene on behalf of the kidnapped, tortured and raped nine year old (what loving being could not?) but when the bar runs dry at a wedding he's in like Flynn to top up the empties.It's the inconsistency which destroys the "intervention contradicts free-will" argument.

I see your point, but you haven't answered my point about him contradicting his natural law.------------------
"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein

False analogyThe Christ event changed the development of mankind forever. It was through the demonstration that he was the one that shaped his natural law that he had to prove himself.Furthermore, in that example he didn't act within the area of free will. There is one time when God did (at least it seems that way) that God did influence human will, and that was to influence Pharoh to not let the Hebrews leave Egypt, and again this was for a very utilitarian purpose. He had to prove himself again to the world. If God did constantly bend and shape free will throughout history, then I might buy that arguement as it stands now, I don't.edit: By the way, I was wondering who was Flynn, and how did that expression come about? I've heard it before, and I know what it means... but I guess I never really got it.
------------------
"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein[This message has been edited by Flamingo Chavez, 05-01-2003]

I don't know either and never thought about it. I'm afraid if viewed in an historical context it is probably not PC at all. My guess would be it is very anti-Irish (and I'm of Irish decent!). Flynn being the "mick" who cuts in unfairly.

quote:

---

I see your point, but you haven't answered my point about him contradicting his natural law.

---

What law is it specifically? I'm not getting the reference.------------------
-----------
Dan Carroll

Well, yeah, he should. Caring parents do. Concerned neighbors do. If someone had the ability and responsibility to prevent you from falling but chose not to act on it, we'd take him to court.I propose simply that we hold your god to the standard that he apparently holds us to - a position of responsibility and caring for those around us it is in our power to help.Therefore, either god is nonexistent, powerless, or amoral. I don't find any of those gods worth believing in.

It’s not really any one law. I see any and every law that seems to be inscribed upon creation as a part of his natural law. IMO, being an evolutionary creationist, God allowed the Big Bang to happen and let things unfold according to his natural law. It would violate God's character to just arbitrarily mess around with his natural law.Any assumption that we make in science is based on the belief that natural law does not change. After all, why research evolution if at any point in the process, God can come in and turn everything upside down? In the same way science 'believes' that natural law never changes, I assume God's natural law remains constant. There are a few exceptions to this however, any miracles talked about in the Bible for example, but in every case it seems there is an inherent purpose in them, which is to prove himself to his people and to the world.Now the question becomes "why doesn't God prove himself now?"
The only answers that I can give are (I would rather leave it up to theologians and philosophers)
1) He has already proven himself
2) He continually proves himself through people, actions and personal revelation
3) Our current worldview isn't compatible with miracles, we would explain them away.All Truth is God’s Truth------------------
"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein

You skipped my arguement about God not working within the nexus of free will. Again, God allows his natural law to unfold.This is not an example of God working within the bounds of free will. He holds us to believe in his word. The above ends will come as a result of that (yes I do believe in the transforming power of the Holy Spirit).Evil in the world is not evidence against God. I view evil as the lack of God, just as cold is the lack of hot. That would mean that God is not responsible for everything wrong with the world, but he is currently working in it bringing about all that is good.------------------
"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein

quote:

---

False analogy

---

What analogy?

quote:

---

Furthermore, in that example he didn't act within the area of free will.

---

I'm puzzled by this. In the case of the wedding at Cana there is direct interference in the consequences of human actions, actions which were freely willed. In the case of the kidnapped, tortured and raped nine year old, there is no interference in the consequences of freely willed human actions. It's no more complex than that.In other words God does not need to bend and shape human will, but can and does constantly throughout the old testament interfere in the results of willed actions.This is what C. S. Lewis refers to when he wonders whether every time someone went to hit another on the head with a hammer, the hammer could be turned to rubber. His conclusion is that God could not do so, because then the act of hitting someone on the head would not be truly free. I say fine, so far as that goes, but then we are still left with the problem of the "traditional" God's discretionary interference. It is this inconsistency - or discretion, if you like - to which I refer.BYW, I have heard four separate versions of the origin of "in like Flynn." That it comes from Errol Flynn's famously rapid seductions; that it comes from the political machinations of Edward Flynn, a Democrat campaign manager (for Roosevelt, I think); from the alleged nepotism or discriminatory employment practices of Irish-Americans (If your name's Flynn, you're in); and finally, from simple assonance, as in "starvin' like Marvin."