Evidence for God from Science

jerickson314 wrote:Felgar, some of your points can be shown to be flawed by assuming (albeit a false assumption, but my purpose is more theoretical than practical) that materialistic determinism is true. It's possible that you are materialistically determined to share the gospel with someone, and they are materialistically determined to accept as a result of your sharing the gospel.

Sure, if you start making false assumptions you can be led to a lot of seemingly logical conclusions like the one you posted above. But without that assumption, we have are left to decide what makes more sense: That God calls us to witness, in order to save select people independent of their own choices, or that God calls us to witness to all people so that each of them might learn about God's love and then make a fully informed decision about whether to accept His grace?

Felgar wrote:But without that assumption, we have are left to decide what makes more sense: That God calls us to witness, in order to save select people independent of their own choices, or that God calls us to witness to all people so that each of them might learn about God's love and then make a fully informed decision about whether to accept His grace?

This seems like a false dilemma. In fact, the "materialistic determinism" model is consistent with the second (better) option even though it can be falsified elsewhere. Sometimes when one counterexample is shown, it reveals the possibility of others.

jerickson314 wrote:This seems like a false dilemma. In fact, the "materialistic determinism" model is consistent with the second (better) option even though it can be falsified elsewhere. Sometimes when one counterexample is shown, it reveals the possibility of others.

You are so caught up in your intellectualism that you can't see the forest for the trees. Besides, your entire argument here is only at best vacuously true, based on your own admission that you've started with a false assumption.

I'm not interested in constructing a perfect mathematically-sound proof against determinism. What I'm doing is asking the basic fundamental question: How much sense does it make that we should be trying to help each other follow God, if we have no say in the matter to begin with?

Felgar wrote:I'm not interested in constructing a perfect mathematically-sound proof against determinism. What I'm doing is asking the basic fundamental question: How much sense does it make that we should be trying to help each other follow God, if we have no say in the matter to begin with?

I'd expect that a believer in predestination would say that we were predestined to help each other follow God. Nonetheless, your free will explanation does make more sense to me, and I do agree with it. I was just pointing out what might be a flaw in your understanding of the other view.

Fair enough.

jerickson314 wrote:Now the moment God chose to create this world based on His foreknowledge of everything that would happen, was not everything you would freely do in this particular world, time and place already set? Therefore God predestined you to be saved by choosing this world out of all the other possible worlds He could have created within which He foreknew you would freely choose Him.

Suppose that in every possible world where God creates free creatures, that those creatures freely choose to do evil (i.e., go against God). Unless God removes free will, all God can do is create the circumstances that enable a person to make free decisions, and then stand back and watch.

Kurieuo.

kateliz wrote:Taking an unbiased look at these verses alone you get predestination, and free-will is thrown in the garbage. God actively controls all of His Story (history.)

It is sometimes wrong to read a passage alone (more so verses), and Paul never discards free will. It seems clear that Paul's purpose is to put those in their place who would challenge God from their limited human perspective. Infact when we come to Romans 9:22-23 at the end of the same passage, Paul is quite clear that he is being hypothetical:

• 22What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory... (note the "what ifs")

Now Exodus 3:19 is quite clear Pharaoh was responsible for his own choice in not letting Israel go: "19 But I know that the king of Egypt will not let you go unless a mighty hand compels him." The fact the Pharaoh became hardened even more through God's intervention with the wonders He performed in Egypt, to the point Pharaoh cracked and then not only sent Israel on their way, but sent them on their way with wealth... such does not mean God overrode Pharaoh's choices. Instead God used Pharaoh's free choices to preduce an outcome that He predetermined at the beginning of creation.

Kurieuo.

Kurieuo wrote:Suppose that in every possible world where God creates free creatures, that those creatures freely choose to do evil (i.e., go against God). Unless God removes free will, all God can do is create the circumstances that enable a person to make free decisions, and then stand back and watch.

Hmm... If God creates a free world, and 100% of creatures turn from him, is that really freedom?

Perhaps you could explain how people wouldn't really be free within a world wherein everyone chose to turn away from God?? I can see that this might raise some questions about God, such as why would He create such a world if it were possible for Him to create a world wherein people would choose Him? However, I'm actually inclined to believe it isn't possible for God to create a world wherein a person would freely choose "not" to go against Him, that is, unless that world is directly influenced by God's direct and immediate presence (as with the angels, and then a large portion apparently still turned away!). Therefore I believe in any world God created wherein He wasn't direct and immediate, all would go against Him by failing to add up to His moral perfection.

As you might have guessed, I therefore believe He did create a world within which all turned away from Him—ours . Only He made a way through which He could draw people back to Himself, allowing them the choice to turn around and be accepted despite their imperfections.

Kurieuo.

Kurieuo, you fail to look at the context of those Romans verses! And he was quite obviously not being hypothetical in the sense that you meant.

11Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God's purpose in election might stand: 12not by works but by him who calls—she was told, "The older will serve the younger." 13Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."

God didn't even give them a chance to choose Him, He chose "in order that God's purpose in election might stand." He had a purpose in His pattern of choosing Isaac and Jacob, the second-born, for Himself. That purpose was to show that it is not according to man who comes to God, but God Himself. The first-born Ishmael and Easau were the ones who were supposed to get the birth-rights and the blessings, but God had the second-born get them to show that it's all about God's choice. God chooses who follow Him.

14What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15For he says to Moses,
"I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." 16It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy.

"I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."

God does what He pleases, and who's to question it?

19One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" 20But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' " 21Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?

God does what He pleases, and who's to question it? He's a Good God, and yet He can still choose not to have mercy on whomever He chooses.

23What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy

What if His whole purpose in predestination was so that those whom He would choose would resultantly know the riches of His glory? You can't know warm if you don't know cold! God chose that some would be separate from Himself so that those whom He would have close to Himself would have this certain kind of knowledge about Him. He had to create cold so that we would know warm! And there's nothing unjust in this!

19One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" 20But who are you, O man, to talk back to God?

God can "blame" us for not choosing Him even though it was Him who ultimately caused it! But remember, God cannot sin, and so He causes it to happen by merely allowing it. I like to think of God allowing evil to happen like this: you have a sheet of paper which represents God's block against evil. God strategically punches holes in the paper according to His will so that evil gets through only where He wants it to, and only the certain kinds of evil He'd choose. This is fair because He can choose to take away the mercy of blocking evil. He doesn't have to block the evil, and He sometimes doesn't for His own purposes. There is nothing wrong with this, and God is still Good even though He does it.

Kurieuo wrote:Perhaps you could explain how people wouldn't really be free within a world wherein everyone chose to turn away from God?? I can see that this might raise some questions about God, such as why would He create such a world if it were possible for Him to create a world wherein people would choose Him? However, I'm actually inclined to believe it isn't possible for God to create a world wherein a person would freely choose "not" to go against Him, that is, unless that world is directly influenced by God's direct and immediate presence (as with the angels, and then a large portion apparently still turned away!). Therefore I believe in any world God created wherein He wasn't direct and immediate, all would go against Him by failing to add up to His moral perfection.

From what I gather, you mean to say that people will freely turn from God if he does not show himself in some way. I'm inclined to agree.

However, if God never showed himself, is that again really freedom? If the choices are either "for God" or "against God" and the option "For God" is deleted, is there any real choice?

Well taking Adam and Eve as an example, they knew God in a much more personal way before their sins. God had revealed Himself to them, but the way He was revealed wasn't entirely direct and immediate. What I meant by "direct" and "immediate" is that at every point of your conscious life, God thoroughly surrounds you. I conceptualise God's direct and immediate presence as similar to being in a thick mist.

Now with regards to choices, we make them every day. And whether or not God's existence was obvious, if we choose to hurt others for no good reason then we're still going against God for such is against God's nature.

Kurieuo.

kateliz wrote:Kurieuo, you fail to look at the context of those Romans verses! And he was quite obviously not being hypothetical in the sense that you meant.

He was in the passage I was dealing with, which was just after the portion that deals with Pharaoh (which is the only part I was focusing on).

kateliz wrote:

11Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God's purpose in election might stand: 12not by works but by him who calls—she was told, "The older will serve the younger." 13Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."

God didn't even give them a chance to choose Him, He chose "in order that God's purpose in election might stand." He had a purpose in His pattern of choosing Isaac and Jacob, the second-born, for Himself. That purpose was to show that it is not according to man who comes to God, but God Himself. The first-born Ishmael and Easau were the ones who were supposed to get the birth-rights and the blessings, but God had the second-born get them to show that it's all about God's choice. God chooses who follow Him.

Kateliz, I'm not arguing against predestination. I'm arguing that Pharaoh did make his own free decisions, as is evident in the Exodus 3:19 verse.

Now with Jacob and Esau, based upon what knowledge would God have chosen Jacob? Wouldn't you agree that God would have foreknown a different set of circumstances that would have attained in a different world where He chose Esau over Jacob? I believe so, and so if God in His divine wisdom chose Jacob, we can assume that Jacob was better suited for His purposes.

kateliz wrote:

14What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15For he says to Moses,
"I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." 16It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy.

God does what He pleases, and who's to question it?

To place a boundary around your words, God does what He pleases as is consistent with His nature. If you just leave it as "God does what He pleases" it can sound like you believe He can even be capriciously malicious. You don't believe this do you?

As for the passage just quoted, I agree that God has mercy upon whom He had mercy, and compassion upon whom He has compassion. I especially agree that it does not depend upon man's desire or effort, but upon God's mercy. However, I also believe (and I think Paul would have also) that we make our own free decisions.

Now you wrote earlier of my position: "No offense, but that's just silly! In other situations the other people who would now refuse God would be the ones saved, and so you're saying that God still chose particular people for salvation, (by choosing this situation verses others.)"

You are right of course, although I'd eliminate the silly part since I believe it successfully brings together both Biblical doctrines of predestination and accountability. Now I believe we are all sinners and undeserving of God, so it is only at God's mercy any of us are chosen (as in Romans 9:15-16 above). And so, if God selects one set of people in this world over a different set of people in another possible world, God's decision was based upon His divine foreknowledge and wisdom so who are we judge from our limited human perspective? To push the point further, I also think God would be entirely justified in not selecting even one of us since we are all opposed to Him (although within such a scenario one may call into question God's love for us).

kateliz wrote:

19One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" 20But who are you, O man, to talk back to God?

God can "blame" us for not choosing Him even though it was Him who ultimately caused it! But remember, God cannot sin, and so He causes it to happen by merely allowing it. I like to think of God allowing evil to happen like this: you have a sheet of paper which represents God's block against evil. God strategically punches holes in the paper according to His will so that evil gets through only where He wants it to, and only the certain kinds of evil He'd choose. This is fair because He can choose to take away the mercy of blocking evil. He doesn't have to block the evil, and He sometimes doesn't for His own purposes. There is nothing wrong with this, and God is still Good even though He does it.

Sounds like we're really not that far apart, since you also accept we are accountable (can be "blamed"). What I've provided earlier is to explain how it is possible we can be held responsible for our action, even though it was God who predestined some to be saved and others not.

Kurieuo.

If God ordained the sin I've done, then He's not the kinda God I wanna serve, because I've done some down right horrible things. God does not orchestrate our sin, He abhores it. Although He will use it to advance His Kingdom.

And I really don't get the part that some folks think we never had a free will to choose God, and why Jesus still had to suffer and die even though His death couldn't change a thing in anyone's life. That's just a waste of a great Savior's blood?

We are all sinners, we all have the capacity and the free will to commit awful atrocities, we all have the free will to come to God, through Jesus.
I can't imagine taking the free will out of it and it still making sense.

I can't imagine taking my daughter's free-will from her, or creating her just to torture and damn her to eternal torment. And it seems like God created that father/child relationship to help us to understand our relationship with Him.

I'm definately not as smart as most of the foks out on this board, and sometimes I think that is a great gift from God.

Kurieuo wrote:Now with regards to choices, we make them every day. And whether or not God's existence was obvious, if we choose to hurt others for no good reason then we're still going against God for such is against God's nature.

I agree, bud. I just think a hypothetical world where all choose anti-God isn't a world of free choice. I don't think it's possible.