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

I guess I don't know what you mean by that. I still don't see how god preventing unfortunate death somehow eliminates free will. You can't have any kind of will if you're dead. I believe in the transforming power of believing in something. A number of people believe in the Holy Spirit but do not show evidence of increased concern about their fellow person. A number of people who do not believe in the Holy Spirit do care for their fellow person. As far as I can tell, they're not related. But why is there a lack of god? If he's all-powerful, how could something occur without his tacit approval?The moral duty of responsibility and power is vigilance. If you have the power to do something moral, and don't, you are amoral. It's pretty simple, in my view. To hold your people to a code that you are not yourself bound to is to be a tyrant.

quote:

---

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.

---

I'm still a little confused as to what you mean, but let me see if I have it down.Basically, it seems that you're saying that God has a specific way he wants the universe to run. He set those laws at the beginning of the universe, and won't change them. Given that these laws are unchanging, God is unable to interfere with mankind.But doesn't it still remain God's choice? Whether by choosing to not go against his order of things now, or by setting that order from the beginning, it still boils down to God refusing to help.If I'm misinterpreting your statement, please clarify it for me.

quote:

---

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?

---

How would changing the laws of physics and nature be helping? Is God incapable of working within the system? (A system he established, no less?)------------------
-----------
Dan Carroll

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.The closest thing to working through the system he created that I can point through is through special revelation.------------------
"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein

This is in response to your inconsistency argument.Follow me here... God doesn't take away free will. Therefore you can't blame him for being inconsistant when it comes to influencing free will. The example set forth was God changing water into wine, this miracle clearly did not act upon anyone's free will. Does it make him any less powerful by letting creation follow his natural Law?Again, if he controls everything outright, then how do we have free will?------------------
"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein

I'm not familiar with this... can you give me a reference?------------------
"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein

I think there's a middle ground, where most things are left to natural law, but god intervenes when nessicary to minimise needless human suffering. I think that god, if he existed and was interested, could make things easer on a lot of people. Suffering is one thing. Suffering unto death, for no fault of one's own, doesn't preserve free will. It'd be more like welfare.

Gospel of John, 2:1-12.[Added by edit]
Please clarify the "false analogy." You used the phrase when replying to my first post, and I asked for clarification. You replied to my second post but ignored the request. Pretty please.[This message has been edited by Mister Pamboli, 05-01-2003]

FC- It seems that your contention that God "allowed" [I assume you mean "created" but if not, allowing something to happen seems to point toward a God who is just a meddler or bystander and not actually a ominpotent/omniscient creator] the Big Bang to happen and let things unfold according to his natural laws but then later changes his mind (rather humanistic idea there vs. ominscient) or dcides to "work" a few miracles makes any God rather fallible and by definition not ominscient or omnipotent, which then would make God rather ungodlike. Why would God need to tinker with his creation if he was already Godlike? Being truly omniscient(is there any other type?) would make it unnecessary to meddle in natural events as all the workings of the universe would have been decided in advance. This in itself would make all events "predetermined" and I believe you could go further and say that this would create a predetermined destiny for all creatures as well.
I am sure this has been discussed more than once here on this board but it seemed what you were saying was such a rather obvious fallacy and contradictory statement that I thought I'd point it out.

sorry about that...Comparing a miracle that is preformed in the physical realm isn't comparable to a interference in someone's free will.On to the wedding in Cana...
God didn't interfere with their free will. While he did affect the consequences of drinking all of the wine, by making more, he didn’t change their ability to make their decision.------------------
"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein

I haven't hit on this question directly, so its all good. I did say earlier that any intervention by God in the system he created would by definition be a defiance of natural law. This is because any kind of supernatural event (special revelation, turning water into wine etc..) is beyond the realm of empirical science.Now, I believe God has a quality about him that inherently strives for a relationship with his creation. Of course, to have a relationship with anyone, first they have to know that you exist. Therefore, he had to defy his own natural law so that he could be in a relationship with his creation.By the way, this is another arguement for complete free will. The highest form of a relationship is love, and I believe God strives to have mutual love between him and his creation. If God had made things that were not free, like windup toys, that said they love him, but do not have a real choice in the matter, then that would not be real love. I don't believe in a predetermined universe. I think God knows all possible futures that might be. I believe he tries to influence the world's destiny via his relationship with man.The reason why the world is not predetermined, is because free will is thrown into the mix and it is an unknown variable. I believe God has a pretty good handle on what we will choose, but I do not think he knows exactly what I will do in every instance.------------------
"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein

See, it's that influence that would be testable, but we don't find any evidence for it. I guessd that's where the whole god thing breaks down for me.Sorry I'm starting to sound like a broken record. I'll stop now.

For one, he influenced the career path I'm going in. I would consider that a direct influence, but is it testable... no.edit: I was going to be a lawyer... no offense, but I have no idea what I was thinking, lol
------------------
"Science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein[This message has been edited by Flamingo Chavez, 05-01-2003]

Flamingo, do you really believe in the Big Bang? The Big Bang theory
isn't even Scriptural. Genisis says "In the beginning, God created..."Were you there?

FC - " 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."DB- you stated above that God just doesn't mess around with his natural laws. Now wouldn't that be a contradiction for him to work miracles? see the contradiction below.FC - "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..." also "Therefore, he had to defy his own natural law so that he could be in a relationship with his creation." or even "I believe God has a pretty good handle on what we will choose, but I do not think he knows exactly what I will do in every instance."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. He therefor sets himself up to be fallible just by intervening in the universe of his creation.
Doesn't intervention preclude free-will? So not only is God a fallible meddler but also a puppet-master predeterministic entity.On a side note, how are the "quote boxes" made?

Were you?