Evidence for God from Science

smiley wrote:

Jac3510 wrote: I would like to point out, though, that any Theistic conception of God must contain an idea of plurality within the persons of the Godhead if you don't want to be self-contradictory, which excludes Modalism from being a rational choice. This is because God cannot be dependent on anything and still be God. I'm sure you would agree that if He lacks anything, then He really isn't God at all, because He would not be the First and the Last--take that something away from Him, and you defeat God, which destroys His omnipotence; it also would imply that He isn't perfect, as a perfect thing can't lack anything.

Why would a non-biblical god necessarily need to be "perfect"?

Because any god that is dependent on anything else cannot be the cause of that thing. Thus, any god that is dependent on anything else cannot be the ultimate cause of everything, meaning that god itself must need a cause.

In short, the necessity of a First Cause requires the first cause lack nothing, which is the proper definition of "perfect," and is a sufficient base for the argument I proposed above.

DannyM wrote:

Telstra Robs wrote:God is truly incomprehensible. The Bible is not meant to be fully understood, nor is God. That is what I have come to realise. I have come to believe that while the Trinity exists, God will not hold it against us if we do not understand who He is. If we understand the sacrifice of Jesus and that Jesus is the only begotten Son Of God, and we accept Him into our heart, our sins will be forgiven. I believe God understands that His nature is not comprehensible for us mere humans and if we cannot fully understand him, God would not hold it against us.

I disagree. God's nature is revealed to us by none other than God Himself through His self-revelation,

Exodus 33:18-20 "18 Then Moses said, “Now show me your glory.” 19 And the Lord said, “I will cause all my goodness to pass in front of you, and I will proclaim my name, the Lord, in your presence. I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. 20 But,” he said, “you cannot see my face, for no one may see me and live.”

Exodus 34:6-7 "And he passed in front of Moses, proclaiming, “The Lord, the Lord, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness, 7 maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation.”"

While we can not know everything about God, He has undoubtedly given us some compelling snippets of information about His nature.

Perhaps truly incomprehensible was a hyperbole. What I meant (and should have said) is that while there are many things we do know of God from the Bible, there are many things we don't. Just as Jesus spoke in Parables, there are many things in the Bible which have meaning beyond the words. When this happens, people will argue about what means what. If God does not permit a "set amount" of sin, I am sure that God will not have "a set amount" of understanding required (i.e. understanding of what is not revealed to us directly, but in a "parable" of sorts). God indeed has given us some snippets of who He is, but understanding such things as (including but not limited to) Jesus being the Son of God whose death allowed our sins to be forgiven and that Jesus rose after death should be enough. For we are required to have faith alone, not faith and comprehension.

I am reading everyones post and some very good points are being made. I'll respond later as I am battling a another bad sinus infection and need to limit my posting for a few days to only a few threads till this passes. Remember God is one, and his own oneness is vastly different than what our concept of oneness is. There remains a sense of awe in this. How he reveals himself is how he reveals himself.
-
-
-

This reply is for the subject of the thread rather than the topic we're discussing now, sorry:

Until the Council of Nicea (AD 335?), this belief (or any related doctrine) wasn't fully considered orthodox. For a while, the Bible wasn't even canonized. Different books of the bible were considered scripture, but I wonder how many lay-people could even fathom the trinity. If this belief is necessary for salvation, then I'm betting some Christians went to hell.

But I don't believe it's necessary, although I do believe it's backed by scripture.

This belief that it isn't necessary always makes me wonder whether cults of Christianity such as Mormonism are necessary to witness to. If somebody says faith alone is false, would they be forgiven by the all-forgiving Jesus?

Of course, the highly man-made doctrines in Mormonism give much credibility to the effort in the first place.

Jac3510 wrote:

smiley wrote:

Jac3510 wrote: I would like to point out, though, that any Theistic conception of God must contain an idea of plurality within the persons of the Godhead if you don't want to be self-contradictory, which excludes Modalism from being a rational choice. This is because God cannot be dependent on anything and still be God. I'm sure you would agree that if He lacks anything, then He really isn't God at all, because He would not be the First and the Last--take that something away from Him, and you defeat God, which destroys His omnipotence; it also would imply that He isn't perfect, as a perfect thing can't lack anything.

Why would a non-biblical god necessarily need to be "perfect"?

Because any god that is dependent on anything else cannot be the cause of that thing. Thus, any god that is dependent on anything else cannot be the ultimate cause of everything, meaning that god itself must need a cause.

In short, the necessity of a First Cause requires the first cause lack nothing, which is the proper definition of "perfect," and is a sufficient base for the argument I proposed above.

Would you mind to clarify how you make the leap from "independent of anything" to "lacking nothing"?

I do not see an incoherence in God being the ultimate cause of everything and, say, not having love.

smiley wrote:Would you mind to clarify how you make the leap from "independent of anything" to "lacking nothing"?

I do not see an incoherence in God being the ultimate cause of everything and, say, not having love.

I don't know how to be clearer than I've already been. If A is dependent on B, then A cannot be the cause of B. Thus, if we are to speak of the cause of everything, then such a cause cannot be dependent on anything. Therefore, it must possess all in itself. Perhaps the principle I am relying on here is that I should make explicit is this: "All effects are according to the nature of their causes." To use a silly example, that's why dogs don't produce bumble bees, or why grabbing a searing hot piece of metal doesn't produce hurricanes in the next country. Smoke comes from fire, because it is in the nature of fire to produce smoke. Pain comes from grabbing hot metal, because that is the nature of that act. Dogs produce puppies, because that is their nature.

To suggest, then, that something could arise that does not have its ultimate origin in the first cause is to suggest that, somewhere along the way, effects were produced that were not according to the nature of their causes, which is absurd. Again, that means that the first cause must actualize in itself all perfections, of which love is one such example. Thus, your "god" that has no love is, philosophically speaking, no god at all, and would leave love itself requiring an ultimate explanation in a first cause prior to your "god."

The conclusion, then, is unavoidable. Either follow the logic and admit that a First Cause exists that is characterized by a plurality of persons within itself or reject the notion of a First Cause entirely. The latter will land you in a heap of trouble in other places, but I find that non-believers are incredibly willing to adopt absurd points of view and insane difficulties to maintain their disbelief.

Okay Jac - if I'm being a nuisance, feel free not to respond. But most likely because I'm philosphically illiterate, I'm having trouble making sense out of your position.

Jac3510 wrote: I don't know how to be clearer than I've already been. If A is dependent on B, then A cannot be the cause of B. Thus, if we are to speak of the cause of everything, then such a cause cannot be dependent on anything. Therefore, it must possess all in itself. Perhaps the principle I am relying on here is that I should make explicit is this: "All effects are according to the nature of their causes." To use a silly example, that's why dogs don't produce bumble bees, or why grabbing a searing hot piece of metal doesn't produce hurricanes in the next country. Smoke comes from fire, because it is in the nature of fire to produce smoke. Pain comes from grabbing hot metal, because that is the nature of that act. Dogs produce puppies, because that is their nature.

So - you are saying that in order to create something, He must possess it within Himself?

What, then, about hatred, evil, arrogance, pride and so on? Or the universe, planets, stars, humans, angels, etc? Surely God does not possess all these things in Himself? As I see it, He simply creates them through HIs infinite power/ability. I don't, again, see why being independent of A must mean that you need to possess A within yourself.

Not only that, but I don't see how 'love' (ignoring the Bible) is anything more than a metaphorical concept. It is not something that is 'created', it is manifested.

smiley wrote:Okay Jac - if I'm being a nuisance, feel free not to respond. But most likely because I'm philosphically illiterate, I'm having trouble making sense out of your position.

There are nuisance's not worth responding to. You don't seem to be one of them in that your questions appear to be honest and you are engaged in rational dialogue. That's all I ask for

So - you are saying that in order to create something, He must possess it within Himself?

Technically, no, although you could possibly say that is true in popular terms. I am saying that effects - whether from people or inanimate things - follow the nature of their causes. It is in the nature of fire to produce heat. That is just what fire does. If fire didn't produce heat, then it wouldn't be fire, would it? Ok, so if you stick your hand in a fire, what is going to happen to your hand? Shy of protection, you are going to be burned. Why? Because a burn (the effect) follows the nature of fire (the cause). So it isn't that fire possesses burns. It's that fire has a certain nature. Certainly, you wouldn't sit next to a fire to cool off. That would be contrary to its nature.

What, then, about hatred, evil, arrogance, pride and so on? Or the universe, planets, stars, humans, angels, etc? Surely God does not possess all these things in Himself? As I see it, He simply creates them through HIs infinite power/ability. I don't, again, see why being independent of A must mean that you need to possess A within yourself.

Hopefully, the above makes clear that for an effect to follow the nature of its cause does not mean that the effect in itself is already existent within the cause in itself. What is true is that all effects follow from the nature of their causes. As far as your examples go, hatred, evil, arrogance, and pride are not things in and of themselves. They are privations--lack of things. Consider coldness and darkness. Do they exist? Technically, no. Cold is the lack of heat. Dark is the lack of light. Likewise, hatred is the lack of love, evil the lack of good, arrogance and pride the lack of humility. Love, good, and humility are all really existent attributes that are found within God.

Considering the universe, planets, stars, humans, and angels, again, those things in and of themselves did not already exist within God. However, all of those things have natures (being effects), and all of their natures follow the nature of their Cause - God. Of course, to define the nature--the essence (essentia in scholastic philosophy - for more, I'd recommend Thomas Aquinas' On Being and Essence) -- of each of those examples would require a deeper discussion than we need to get into here that would involve parsing out the various genus, species, and differentia of each. Suffice it to say, for the sake of discussion, that all of those things have as their basic nature that they are created things--beings--which is exactly the nature of an effect that would come from a First Cause that is properly understood as Being Itself.

Not only that, but I don't see how 'love' (ignoring the Bible) is anything more than a metaphorical concept. It is not something that is 'created', it is manifested.

Well that's a question you have to answer on your own. Tell me, what is love? Is it nothing more than biology? Is it any different from eating large quantities of chocolate? Is it just bare instinct, albeit expressed in a rather complicated way?

Part of the problem I have with atheism generally is that it really does create a dark, cold, lifeless, colorless, purposeless world. If it is true, then there really is no such thing as love, is there? All emotions are just biology. Love doesn't exist. It's just an illusion we've conjured up to entertain ourselves while we wait to die (or if you don't like that reason we conjured it up, replace it with your own - either way, love is still just an illusion). Now, if you want to live in that kind of world, then be my guest. But I would wager that you don't. I would wager that you really do think that love is real, that it isn't just an illusion. You may well be like many atheists who argue that it's just biology, but I'd be right in betting that you live as if love is real, wouldn't I? You do the same for many things: morality, beauty, purpose, and reason, just to name a few.

I happen to think those things really do exist. Love is real. Good is real. Beauty is real. Purpose is real. Reason is real. They aren't just figments of our imaginations that we pretend really do exist. We act like they exist because they do. So you tell me. Does love exist? Or is it just an illusion? If the former, then are you willing to accept with it the logical conclusion that God exists as I've been arguing in this thread? And if love doesn't exist, why do you live as if it does?