Evidence for God from Science

Calvinism makes a lot of internal sense to me as a theology and its consistency with the ideas of determinism, but there are some glaring aspects of it, as well as the entire ideas of predestination and election concerning salvation.

I think the idea takes God's sovereignty completly into account while neglecting His love. Calvinists stress that God is completely sovereign and acts upon that sovereignty and nothing happens that is not according to His will. Why does He not tolerate sin then? If He has predestined everything, at the very least He has to have permitted it before it was allowed to exist. If that is true, why is He offended by it? God would have HAD to have determined that people would sin, and then not believe in Him so that they can be redeemed. Meanwhile the Bible says that He doesn't delight in the demise of the wicked. But He willingly made it that way. I perceieve a glaring contradiction there.

I don't know, it seems like under this idea, God has made everything exactly the way He determined that it should be, but then is angry about it.
Meanwhile, if it's true that God calls everyone to salvation but only some accept His call, then I think God's love and sovereignty are both in balance, and I think it's the most Biblically consistent position.

For instance, Romans 9:21 "Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?" Of course God has complete sovereignty to extend or withdraw salvation, but it doesn't imply that God has in fact made some vessels for dishonor. I read it as basically saying "God doesn't have to show the love He does, but He does". Romans 9:15-16 " For He says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whomever I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whomever I will have compassion.” is the same deal.

As long as you believe you have free will, you do.

Well not really, if people don't actually have free will but believe they do, its only the illusion of free will. Your actions might still be determined by outside factors without you knowing it.

Well, in any case if you don't believe you have free will, then you certainly don't, since you don't try to resist things. Or is even our free will determined ?

Your actions might still be determined by outside factors without you knowing it.

Which factors are you referring to?

If we don't have free will, then our actions are a result of chemical reactions that are subject to the laws of physics and chemistry. Seems to me that it would make human behaviour too predictable, as we should make the same move when we find ourselves in the same situation. I think we decide, but not always - the brain takes up some decisions for us to make things easier. For instance, you can control your breath, but most of the time it works automatically. Or, when you talk to someone or do something while walking, your "feet may take you" to your destination "by themselves". But the most important thing is that we know when we made a conscious decision. Some make a mistake by mixing conscious decisions with reflexes, which are often involuntary and happen before we can make a decision.

If we don't have free will, then our actions are a result of chemical reactions that are subject to the laws of physics and chemistry. Seems to me that it would make human behaviour too predictable, as we should make the same move when we find ourselves in the same situation. I think we decide, but not always - the brain takes up some decisions for us to make things easier. For instance, you can control your breath, but most of the time it works automatically. Or, when you talk to someone or do something while walking, your "feet may take you" to your destination "by themselves". But the most important thing is that we know when we made a conscious decision. Some make a mistake by mixing conscious decisions with reflexes, which are often involuntary and happen before we can make a decision.

Precisely and more so, if we say there is no free will then we are not sentient.

7777777 wrote:Sometimes I get angry at God for making the Bible so easy to criticize. There are so many verses in the Bible that can be interpreted as God being a "evil" God by destroying cities, ordering the killing of people..etc. Also, verses about drinking poison and not being affected is another one. And, How about the one about 2 people praying and the prayer will be answered. All of these verses can so easily be interpreted to make the point the Bible is false. Sometimes I get backed into a corner when arguing with atheists and I get angry at God for making it difficult to defend the Bible. My end position is always, and will always be, that He is God and He does what He wants and when He wants. But, somehow that doesn't satisfy the inquiring minds of an atheist. None of the verses bother me or put doubt in my faith but it makes it hard to explain to others. Couldn't of God made it easier?

Well in regards to the ordering of the killing of peoples and the destruction of cities... the Bible makes it very clear that these people were beyond hope. In the Bible, in fact, God says that He gave them thousands of years to repent from their twisted, revolting practices, paedo-sacrificial and bestial practices. I hear a lot the response of "Well how did we know that they were so wicked? We need archeological evidence to support this." Well why, may I ask, does the atheist accept the historicity of the Bible when it records that God ordered the deaths of thousands, but rejects the historicity of the Bible when it says that the people deserved it? It's like a judge saying to a defendant being tried for murder, "I'll trust you when you say you stabbed the man, but for no particular reason I don't want to trust you when you say it was in self-defense. Four life sentences!" The peoples in the land of Canaan had their time to repent. When they didn't turn away from their lifestyle, not to mention presenting a threat to God's chosen people, justice had to be served.
And it's funny, when the atheist says that it was wrong for God to kill all those people, just ask him, why? You know, the idea that murder and killing is objectively wrong makes sense only if you posit objective, transcendental human rights, the value of human life. Otherwise, what equality do humans have that killing or discrimination violates? He says we're just overgrown germs, and now he blames God for acting "immorally"? Does he even know what right and wrong are? Or does he just pick up that concept from his society, and from his parents? Encourage him to think about that.

7777777 wrote:
Sometimes I get angry at God for making the Bible so easy to criticize. There are so many verses in the Bible that can be interpreted as God being a "evil" God by destroying cities, ordering the killing of people..etc. Also, verses about drinking poison and not being affected is another one. And, How about the one about 2 people praying and the prayer will be answered. All of these verses can so easily be interpreted to make the point the Bible is false. Sometimes I get backed into a corner when arguing with atheists and I get angry at God for making it difficult to defend the Bible. My end position is always, and will always be, that He is God and He does what He wants and when He wants. But, somehow that doesn't satisfy the inquiring minds of an atheist. None of the verses bother me or put doubt in my faith but it makes it hard to explain to others. Couldn't of God made it easier?

What you should realize is that those people who were killed or turned out of their lands, practiced, witchcraft, incest, human sacrifice, child sacrifice, cannibalism, slavery, idol worship, making their children walk through fires etc etc. does that sound like a good neighbor crowd to you? would you like to live among such people? would you even think such people should be allowed to roam the streets? and then ask, is this really hard to understand?