Evidence for God from Science

neo-x wrote:i think they apple thing is pure metaphor...I have always believed so. I think humans are not perfect because they can chose to do bad. Your child is not perfect in a spiritual way, because he can do good and bad both. Its not that even, I'd say, being perfect would be not to even think of doing bad. Being perfect would be equal to being good, and all that entails. Surely no one fits the bill.

This is analogous to me giving my child some pens and then being annoyed at her because she might draw on the walls - in other words, illogical.

No its not. Scribbling on walls is harmless, committing in is not. The free will given to us is not the reason why we are not perfect. It is what we choose to freely do with it. Thats the root of trouble. There is a distinction in the two and you should see this.

DowTingTom,

how do you imagine a perfect created man would be like?

Also, not apple but fruit of the tree of knowledge.

neo-x wrote:No its not. Scribbling on walls is harmless, committing in is not. The free will given to us is not the reason why we are not perfect. It is what we choose to freely do with it. Thats the root of trouble. There is a distinction in the two and you should see this.

My walls (might) happen to be covered in hugely valuable works of art which, on my death, will be sold to fund life-saving charitable work, so it is not necessarily the case that drawing on them is harmless.

Your argument was akin to saying that simply having the choice to do 'wrong' (like, oh, slaughtering the first-born of an entire nation to prove a point, or drowning pretty much every living thing on earth, for example) is the same as actually doing wrong, which it isn't.

"The free will given to us is not the reason why we are not perfect. It is what we choose to freely do with it" - you seem to say thought that it is impossible to choose to do only good things. Even if you're a hermit or a monk spending every waking moment praising God, your religion has it you are still a sinner, even if you ask God for forgiveness in the morning, then you spend the whole day praising him and doing good works - you would still describe that person as a sinner who needs forgiveness.

Is what you're saying that we shouldn't use our free will? We are born sinners, apparently, before we've chosen to do anything - this doesn't fit with your distinction between having free will and what we choose to do with it.

1over137 wrote:DowTingTom,

how do you imagine a perfect created man would be like?

Also, not apple but fruit of the tree of knowledge.

Define perfect in a way that everyone agrees and I can perhaps start to answer your question, although it's rather unfair to ask me as I don't claim to be God.

However, God evidently does know how to create the perfect world, but he allowed it to be messed up almost immediately and, rather than step in to correct it, he's let it get worse ever since, despite loving his creation and having the power to change it. That's not how I'd choose to parent, or to show my love.

I'm not sure what value there is in correcting my use of the word 'apple' which is much easier to type that 'fruit of the tree of knowledge' Do you think that is a literal thing?

DowTingTom wrote:

neo-x wrote:No its not. Scribbling on walls is harmless, committing in is not. The free will given to us is not the reason why we are not perfect. It is what we choose to freely do with it. Thats the root of trouble. There is a distinction in the two and you should see this.

My walls (might) happen to be covered in hugely valuable works of art which, on my death, will be sold to fund life-saving charitable work, so it is not necessarily the case that drawing on them is harmless.

Your argument was akin to saying that simply having the choice to do 'wrong' (like, oh, slaughtering the first-born of an entire nation to prove a point, or drowning pretty much every living thing on earth, for example) is the same as actually doing wrong, which it isn't.

"The free will given to us is not the reason why we are not perfect. It is what we choose to freely do with it" - you seem to say thought that it is impossible to choose to do only good things. Even if you're a hermit or a monk spending every waking moment praising God, your religion has it you are still a sinner, even if you ask God for forgiveness in the morning, then you spend the whole day praising him and doing good works - you would still describe that person as a sinner who needs forgiveness.

Is what you're saying that we shouldn't use our free will? We are born sinners, apparently, before we've chosen to do anything - this doesn't fit with your distinction between having free will and what we choose to do with it.

My walls (might) happen to be covered in hugely valuable works of art which, on my death, will be sold to fund life-saving charitable work, so it is not necessarily the case that drawing on them is harmless.
Not to you, to your child. Sin does not harm God, it harms us.

I have no evidence that all first born were killed, nor do I think there is any evidence that the entire earth was flooded. If you have please prove it.

I am saying that our free will should NEVER go to evil. Since it does, as human race has repeatedly shown in the past, then yes, we are sinners because we are not perfect good. And that is because we are separated from God, and by our own choice.

neo-x wrote: I have no evidence that all first born were killed, nor do I think there is any evidence that the entire earth was flooded. If you have please prove it.

Under what circumstances does The Bible count as evidence?

DowTingTom wrote:

neo-x wrote: I have no evidence that all first born were killed, nor do I think there is any evidence that the entire earth was flooded. If you have please prove it.

Under what circumstances does The Bible count as evidence?

As I am about to go to work I'll post the relevant bits here.

Genesis 7
20 The waters rose and covered the mountains to a depth of more than fifteen cubits.[a] 21 Every living thing that moved on land perished—birds, livestock, wild animals, all the creatures that swarm over the earth, and all mankind. 22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23 Every living thing on the face of the earth was wiped out; people and animals and the creatures that move along the ground and the birds were wiped from the earth. Only Noah was left, and those with him in the ark.

Exodus 12
29 At midnight the Lord struck down all the firstborn in Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn of the prisoner, who was in the dungeon, and the firstborn of all the livestock as well. 30 Pharaoh and all his officials and all the Egyptians got up during the night, and there was loud wailing in Egypt, for there was not a house without someone dead.

As a Christian I presume you believe the bible to be, well, gospel. These passages are in it, so I would submit that given your beliefs you must consider these reports as factual, and therefore as evidence.

I await your reply putting them into 'context' or explaining that they are not literally true ...

sorry that is not evidence. It does not qualify in any book as evidence. What I believe is irrelevant here. The point is whether you believe them to be true or not. EDIT and then can they be used as evidence?

neo-x wrote:sorry that is not evidence. It does not qualify in any book as evidence. What I believe is irrelevant here. The point is whether you believe them to be true or not.

If I were to be a Christian, I'd have to believe them to be true, ergo I cannot be a Christian.

Do you believe the bible to be true? Are you denying your belief in it?

Red herring!
you want to discuss my beliefs, start a new thread.

believing is not evidence. you can say you believe them to be true, that does not make it true. I also believe in God, will you then accept that God exists as well? of course you won't. so either you believe those things happened or you can show that those things happened.

I only have to believe in christ to be a christian, I can do that without the bible. For centuries christians did not have the bible, still believed. the early church had no bible, still believed.

So I suggest you drop the strawman and the take back the red herring. Either we can both agree that what's written in the bible is not evidence or we can agree it is. its all or nothing.

neo-x wrote:Red herring!
you want to discuss my beliefs, start a new thread.

believing is not evidence. you can say you believe them to be true, that does not make it true. I also believe in God, will you then accept that God exists as well? of course you won't. so either you believe those things happened or you can show that those things happened.

I only have to believe in christ to be a christian, I can do that without the bible. For centuries christians did not have the bible, still believed. the early church had no bible, still believed.

So I suggest you drop the strawman and the take back the red herring. Either we can both agree that what's written in the bible is not evidence or we can agree it is. its all or nothing.

I am starting from the assumption that the bible is true, and asking questions where what the bible says is at odds with my own sense of morality or what I perceive as the widely held image of God.

So to all intents and purposes I am agreeing with you that the bible is evidence. It's disingenuous to describe any reference to the bible that is uncomfortable as a red-herring.

I am starting from the assumption that the bible is true, and asking questions where what the bible says is at odds with my own sense of morality or what I perceive as the widely held image of God.

then you should first define your morality, and I can bet no one's morality is perfect, but we'd agree on the basics atleast.

Difficult as it may be, I do not think any such problems exist. because first its never is that simple. somethings are actually metaphorical because they are poetry, genesis 1 being the prime example. God killing first born of all egypt would not be really a problem in any case, since the egyptians killed all male children too of israelites. Infact its a strong comparison exactly to show in the story that the God was with Israel. Its a war scenario. An eye for an eye scenario. In that scenario, immoral as it may sound from this point standing neutral as you and I see it. The truth is, we do not know if it happened to the extent as its written because of many daily language use. I noticed earlier that you think that explaining away problems outside of context is some sort of under the table trick that I want to apply but it certainly isn't. What if I said "All the world mourned for mother teresa," does the line actually suggests that all the world, every single creature on the planet mourned. There is a good amount of language, idioms and hyperbole which has to be taken and factored in before you jump on and literally do away with every passage you find.

As for the flood. The flood was actually local. In Fact recent scientific discoveries actually think that there was a great flood in the mesopotamian plains. I have written on the subject you can see my blog for that. Also I think the homesite here does a pretty good job to show why the flood was local. One main error that most readers do commit and I think you have as well, is that they forget the difference between earth and Earth. The former only means land, the latter means the planet. That is why in genesis 1:1 when it says "in the beginning...heavens and earth" they never use the "e" in capital because the translation only means "land" not planet earth.

DowTingTom wrote:...I am starting from the assumption that the bible is true, and asking questions where what the bible says is at odds with my own sense of morality or what I perceive as the widely held image of God...

So are you actually claiming that your own sense of morality is superior?

Maybe that is the crux of the reason why you left Christianity???
-
-
-

DowTingTom wrote:Thank you for taking the time to reply at such length.

However, for all the long words and involved explanations it boils down to:

We're all sinners
Some sort of 'price' had to be paid so God could forgive that sin
That 'price' was Jesus being killed

So we're no further on. I still don't know in what way the death of Jesus triggered God being able to forgive. I still don't know why the killing of things (be it animals or his son) makes God able to forgive.

I sort of get that in bringing up real children as a human parent there have to be consequences for bad behaviour, but really Jesus dying 2000 years ago isn't a real hardship for me. I know it turned out ok for him, and uniquely he knew it would turn out ok for him too - he knew he'd come back to life in three days (so I don't understand how it can be claimed he was fully human either)

And real parents do forgive their children without any sort of atonement. It's part of loving them. It's fortunately very rare that real parents that love their kids require a sacrifice. It's the death bit I have most problem with, perhaps. Why choose killing people and animals as the 'price'?

And, still, it's the issue of this 'price being paid' I forgive my kids when they say sorry. You seem to be suggesting God killed Jesus so we'd all feel bad about it - guilty, I suppose. That doesn't feel like a very mature or optimal parenting choice. God could have had it that if we're sorry for something we say sorry and he forgives us. But instead he has 'I had to have Jesus killed because of you - FEEL BAD ABOUT IT - buy you're forgiven'

The idea that we'd all be evil if it was easy to forgive us and that's why Jesus had to die doesn't work because now Jesus has died, it is apparently very easy to get forgiveness - you just say sorry, God says 'well, I did kill Jesus because you're so bad, so you're forgiven' and we move on. I'm still at a loss to why the killing Jesus bit was needed. Sorry if I'm being dumb.

Remember that in all this, God knows your thoughts. I forgive my kids if they seem sorry, but they might be acting. God knows if you are genuinely remorseful. What sort of loving parent doesn't forgive their genuinely remorseful child and instead insists on making them feel worse about it first?

Price paid to whom?

As for all parents loving his/her own doesn't wash. There comes a time when one is no longer a child and that child grows up and commits horrible acts such as upon three young women holding them hostages for 14 to 20 years as sex slaves in a nice neighborhood. Yes, the parents might forgive but how is that justice?

As for just saying you’re sorry doesn't wash either because doing so only provides the means to keep repeating the wrong. The Gospel message is not like an insurance policy.

By your comments shown here shows to me that you do not really understand the gospel message. That does not surprise me at all. Most places only sell insurance, dispense milk, and have no meat substance to provide healthy spiritual life altering growth; therefore, in such places it is easy to fall away from that, maybe that was you???

Jesus died exposing sin within the heart of man so we can get a divine slap to snap us out of our ways, to reconcile us back to God instead of what we really deserve. Do you really understand this reconciliation???

I find it a contradiction that you, an atheist, can claim bible based authority of scripture, yet, use it as the means to pit the bible against itself to prove it wrong and thus your position superior.

Such act, pitting someone's good character against itself is how one games a system in order to use it for one’s personal advantage, thus, overthrow it, replacing it with their own system. Satan does that and teaches humanity to do likewise - that is the real sin of the heart. What do you think God should do with such folks that pit His Nature / Character / Word against each of these aspects of His? A simple “I’m sorry” won't wash for this reason quoted below:

Isaiah 26:10 from the NIrV "…Grace is shown to sinful people. But they still don't learn to do what is right. They keep on doing evil even in a land where others are honest and fair. They don't have any respect for the majesty of the LORD."

Why would God want you as his neighbor, a neighbor, who seeks to game him for eternity?

You may just claim that God can just simply clean you up and make you a good neighbor if he is really fair after you die. How can he when you rejected the same offer in this mortal life now?

What is absolutely just to the person - forcing them to do what their heart rejects? How is that fair to them and to the giver of free moral agency? Would not that then be pitting God's nature against itself?

Fact is, God sent Jesus to wake us up to our gaming nature and he offers an offer where and when it is possible to accept his means for getting rid of this so we stop polluting and ruining things in life, by such gaming attitudes.

You may think, in the hereafter that people will all change, but that is not true. Look at the arguments that people use to buttress this position - it is based upon gaming God. What happens if I tell you that after you die, you awake into a new reality and in the process you know more about God than you ever did before?

If you rejected his offer in this mortal life, with the knowledge you gained about God in the hereafter, how much more would you seek to game Him in an eternal state – are you not doing so now? Can a leopard change its spots?

If one refuses to behold the majesty of the Lord in this mortal life, then they will continue to do so in heaven. Is it wrong for God to give a person what they desire – reap what they have sown – not doing so, well, would meet the criteria for being absolutely unjust. God is not unjust.

Likewise, using the parent / child love argument demonstrates the human propensity to game God's system to get what they want – a I’m sorry God… if you really wuv me – you would do things (sniffle) my waay...

There are two kinds of children

1 John 3:10, "In this the children of God and the children of the devil are manifest..."

All people are children of the devil but the gospel good news is, now, you can become God's child through adoption...

What was the ransom and to whom it was paid - the price paid was coming to earth in the form of man, living in a sin wracked world, with all its craziness, sickness, with broken families, evil, schemes, backbiting, demands, to prove that He indeed knows what it is like to be human.

That was the price expressed in Philippians 2:-11 he paid. He paid to you and I. For me, I believed and am daily changed, adopted, now for you, the offer still stands. Don’t neglect so great a salvation by seeking to game God... hubris loses before God.
-
-
-