Evidence for God from Science

I agree with most of what K wrote above.

K: God knows all who would accept Him and could create just those people.

And/or, he could just wipe out those who will not accept Him, upon their reaching critical mass in their rejection (at whatever point they have ALL knowledge or answers they personally, truly need, or could receive if they actually desired it, about God.

K: If God created just those people, then the choice of those who accepted God would only be a potentiality rather than actuality.

Well, as such saved persons would still, nonetheless, be making a choice to accept God, the reality that He foreknew it doesn't mean it wouldn't be an eventual actuality.

Besides all of that, God sometimes uses evil to bring about his objectives - actions and desires the perpetrators of such things mean only for evil and sinful results. And sometimes, the evil that impacts others caused many of them to seek God amidst their oppression and trials - as many would not otherwise do so.

Philip wrote:I agree with most of what K wrote above.

K: God knows all who would accept Him and could create just those people.

And/or, he could just wipe out those who will not accept Him, upon their reaching critical mass in their rejection (at whatever point they have ALL knowledge or answers they personally, truly need, or could receive if they actually desired it, about God.

K: If God created just those people, then the choice of those who accepted God would only be a potentiality rather than actuality.

Well, as such saved persons would still, nonetheless, be making a choice to accept God, the reality that He foreknew it doesn't mean it wouldn't be an eventual actuality.

Good points raised, and sure. I believe God created angelic beings more immediately in His presence. Few people it seems have also come into direct contact with God, but such was necessary for purposes of revelation (e.g., Moses, Paul).

These people and angels did not have very much freedom to accept or deny God who they were obstrusively placed in the presence of. If such were to deny God, their rebellion and consequences thereof ought to be immediate (there is little freedom to deny). If such were to accept God (as many angels apparently did), then their acceptance was based upon very little freedom since God and His glory was so in their face.

So as I see matters, a main intention for God's relationship with us, in this world, is different to that of angelic beings. God desires creatures who were largely (possibly maximally?) free to either accept or deny Him. The love between angels and God, and between us and God, therefore it seems would be qualitatively different.

As for snuffing us out, yes. When pondering why God allows evil, I am so angered by some evils I'm inclined to get all righteous and believe if God were good that He'd just cast us all down and/or snuff us all out. Isn't this what we believe God did to many angels who turned against God? Yet, God is very loving too, and patient, and wants us to choose Him and for His love to ultimately triumph over evil. Which gets back to some reasons behind our temporary world wherein we can reject or pursue and accept God, while God's love and patience can also be demonstrated. This gets me thinking that God allows and tolerates bad things in our world ultimately due to His own love for us (not because He doesn't care).

For, if it were not for God's love, then we all should be cast out or snuffed out of existence the moment an evil thought enters into our head. And, we all have had evil thoughts which means we all, all of us, first reject God. Yet, we further believe that due to God's love that He struggled with us to create another way we can accept via faith. So that we can choose God in an attainable way, and love can win out over His righteous judgement in which we ought to be snuffed out of existence.

The fact God tolerates evil, allows pain and suffering, has structured the world in such a way that we can experience to different degrees what life is like without Him shining like the Sun and protecting everyone, is ultimately because He wants us to understand love, freely choose Him and to love Him as unconditionally as possible. Such makes possible a certain type of love to be had, one based upon reciprocal freedom to express love back. Some would say a love uncoerced is even the most maximal form of love that can be had.

Nice posts Phillip and Kurieuo

Another point here is that people will often use the question of "why doesn't god heal amputees ?" as ammunition when arguing against the existence of God.

I don't know why they choose that particular question. They could just as easily say..

"why doesn't God part the red sea on a weekly basis"
"why doesn't God appear on TV every night"

Why would He? why should He?

Really, one could relentlessly ask (and we often do), "Why does God do ____________ or that __________, and why does He allow _____________???!!!" Or, "An all-powerful, unfathomably intelligent God would never do ___________, like that __________ - as it makes no sense!"

Truth is, we aren't the ALL-knowing One with PERFECT understandings and knowledge of ALL past, present and future understandings, as to how it all fits together in His plans, nor of what might be required to bring the ultimate ETERNAL good from our present, often-nightmarish, reality. So man, with the intelligence and knowledge equivalent of a worm cleverly deduces questions often produced to supposedly cast doubt upon God's love, concern, purposes, and competence. I'm sure God must have a sense of humor, as he allows us to say and do one laughable thing after another, thinking we are such intellectual giants. Not so much.

It's one of the more ridiculous arguments against God. Of course, he can heal amputees!

"Why won't God stop the glass from breaking if I throw it on the ground ???"

Ok, Ok, I got a (unverifiable) story for you all (heard it on the radio many years ago).....


---------------------

There was a science teacher (he was a staunch atheist too). Every week or so, he would take out a glass flask and throw it on the ground in front of his class and say after "See, there is no God, the flask breaks and will always break - there is nothing God can do about it because he doesn't exist - God is a useless fairy tale - we don't believe in fairy tales in this class".

So week after week, month after month, he throws a flask on the ground and it keeps breaking - "see, there is no God,there is no God !, there is no God !!!! " he would keep saying.

One day, a mother of one of the students' comes to the class on the morning of this grand, flask-breaking experiment. She lifts up her hands and pray's - "Dear Lord, if it be your will, stop this glass flask from breaking". Of course, the whole class heard this and it infuriated the teacher. So, the teacher picks up the flask and throws it as hard as he can onto the ground.

The flask bounces around like a yoyo, but it did not break. And the teacher never did that experiment ever again.

A similar question is why doesn't God end evil right now, or why not destroy Satan when he first rebelled?
There is a plan and reason, though we might not like the bad parts.

thatkidakayoungguy wrote:A similar question is why doesn't God end evil right now, or why not destroy Satan when he first rebelled?
There is a plan and reason, though we might not like the bad parts.

PaulSacramento wrote:Why would He? why should He?

I've noticed that people come up with all sorts of arguments against God' existence. What do you do ?

For example, if one get's confronted with an atheist spouting out all sorts of crazy arguments, Is it best to :-

(a) Ignore the atheist's rants and go eat a waffle

(b) Slap the Atheist a couple of times in the face and start a crusade all over again

(c) Take a genuine interest in the atheist's arguments and give counter-arguments for God's existence in the hope the atheist might see the light

(d) Be a Christian troll, and give the atheist a whole bunch of preposterous, counter-arguments for entertainment purposes only

(e) You find the atheist rather attractive, and so you continue to weakly argue with the atheist in the hope of getting to know the atheist a lot better, perhaps go on a date later, get married and live a lifetime in wedded bliss

(f) Try and acquiesce to the will of God, follow the promptings of the holy spirit and act accordingly when dealing with the atheist's arguments

(g) some or all of the above

(h) none of the above, something else, please specify......

(i) Ignore this post (since i'ts getting towards the end of the week and you know.....)

Mmmmm, waffles...

PaulSacramento wrote:Mmmmm, waffles...

or (h) Recommend to have a discussion on a forum such as this one. I really enjoy some of the debates here. A "God exists versus God don't exist" thread could go on for at least 10,000 posts

Found a possible example:-

https://churchpop.com/2016/01/12/god-cu ... f-calanda/

Even if the guy had an Iphone and Instagram in the 17th century, people today would still doubt it actually happened.

"Fake News" ?

Rich Deem uses the example of Jesus healing a persons ear as God regrowing a "limb"

Kurieuo wrote: ↑Thu Jan 04, 2018 7:18 pm There are many points I believe, which if you add together, provide a powerful case for why God doesn't (or rarely) intervenes in the world He created us within. Why God allows suffering. Why God tolerates bad things happening. Why God doesn't intervene to stop evil being commited against somone else. Why God doesn't routinely heal us.

It is difficult to structure all these thoughts, but if you add them all together they provide an accumulative understanding. Whether or not some or all are satisfactory to a person, well each of us decides for ourselves. BUT, when I question "why God" allows this or that, and have gotten upset with God and His apparent lack of intervention to stop evil, many thoughts like this I've reflected upon.

1)

• God desires creatures who are largely free to accept or deny Him.
• God created a stable and temporary world for this purpose, to test the hearts of human beings towards Himself.
• God's constant intervention is contrary to a stable world.
• God's constant intervention thwarts testing the hearts of human beings towards Himself (since who could then freely and largely reject an obtrusive God if we can't bury His existence?).

2)

• God is love.
• True love between God and a human requires the freedom of that human to either accept or reject God.
• True freedom to accept or reject is only had where both can be truly enacted upon.
• Only where someone accepts God, and God accepts that someone, can love truly exist between both parties.
• Without a world that gives us a choice to freely accept or reject God, love between us and God only remains a potentiality.

3)

• God is good.
• To go against God (good) necessarily results in evil.
• Due to God's love, he tolerates evil so that some might accept Him, and love can be had between us and Himself (#2 above)
• Those who reject God, going against what is good, is tolerated by God in order to allow true love to be had.
• Evil is therefore tolerated for a time until the full number He desires comes in.

4)

• God is omniscient.
• God knows all who would accept Him and could create just those people.
• If God created just those people, then the choise of those who accepted God would only be a potentiality rather than actuality.
• This leads to the contradiction that such people didn't actually choose God, but God is only creating people according to Himself (foreknowledge of what would be potentially the case). Without having actually chosen God, such people were not free to choose God, and therefore true love cannot be had.
• Thus, God must create humans in a world with the potentiality to actually choose Him rather than upon his foreknowledge of what they'd do where their choosing Him doesn't actually happen.

5)

• God is omnipotent, which entails He can do all that which is logically possible (logical impossibilities aren't "things" but "nothings", and as CS Lewis articulated, God is a God of sense not nonsense).
• God could stop evil in the world, but this would logically thwart points in #1, #2 and #3 above.
• God MUST at some point stop evil, but so long as our world serves His purpose (#1 above) then He will tolerate and allow evil to be had for many reasons stated above -- evil is ultimately due to a rejection of God who is the source of all good.
• God could heal amputees (and will restore us some day), but to do so immediately in this world would infringe upon God's main imperative for this temporary world and life that we live within it.

Well said.