Evidence for God from Science

Posted: **Tue Dec 15, 2009 12:27 pm**

Again this Part Two of Three responses for prior conversation broken into 3 parts due to length of conversation continued from above.:

12-15-2009

Proinsias wrote:
B. W. wrote: Our Mortal Flesh will die but after that comes finding the true fork in the road…
You appear to have come full circle. From denying that all roads lead to same destination to then saying that after that destination has been reached by all there is one further fork.

Not all roads lead to Heaven to be with God. When traveling whatever road in life you chosen (Again absolute Justice displayed) you will mortally die upon that road. It is there, at that moment, when you'll find out if the road you chosen is the correct one because it leads to judgment. That judgment is the fork in the road I spoke of.

That judgment is just because if you would not return to God on his terms of surrendering your ruling relativism during this mortal life, your ruling relativism will ruin what heaven is about.

At that moment you realize that you are an eternal being who has now learned enough about God's nature and character at that moment of judgment that you would exploit what you now know eternally in heaven if permitted into heaven's domain in order that your own relativism rules there, always seeking ways to entrap God to deny himself.

Isaiah 26:10, “Let grace be shown to the wicked, Yet he will not learn righteousness; In the land of uprightness he will deal unjustly, And will not behold the majesty of the LORD.” NKJV

Job 34:30, “That the hypocrite should not reign, Lest the people be ensnared.” NKJV

It is nice to know what the correct road to be on is before one's mortal frame dies so as to truly enter heaven and be with God in the only land where uprightness really is.

People think that all roads lead to heaven is an absolute — so it doesn't matter what you believe as long as you believe, all is relative, etc and etc…so goes the many mantras of this kind of philosophy.

How do you know you are on the right road?

- By the road most different than all the rest…

Christianity is different than other world religions and philosophical systems in this regards. All others are based upon some form of human effort to earn ones way to heaven, earn favor with some divinity, or achieve a positive reincarnation, through deeds and self works.

Christianity on the other hand says — surrender your works because all human self work says to God during that time of judgment that they are better than God as well as that their deeds are even Greater than God's! Imagine for a moment, if such people were allowed into heaven who think they are better than God because their works are superior to God's. How could heaven remain heaven?

God's absolute Justice will not violate the Value of life he gave, nor will he force change upon them in the afterlife because if they refused to surrender during this mortal life, they'll realize they can still manipulate and exploit God's life giving nature for selfish gain as they are now eternal beings.

Only in this mortal life is change possible proven by surrendering to God's works and deeds and changed by him himself. In this way, the Absolute standard of God's Justice violates no gift that God gives: such as independent reasoning, the very gift and value of life itself, nor violates who and what God is.

The standard of God's own absolute justice demands that He remains true to Himself and all that He is, makes, and Who He is…

Psalms 98:9, Job 4:8, Job 34:11, Galatians 6:7, Psalms 9:16, 17

A person on the wrong road will someday find that the fork (road they took) leads not to Heaven to be with God because such person relied not on the Lord's superiority but rather their own superiority. That decision is in our hands despite God already foreknowing our own outcome He still permits us to decide — that is why Absolute Justice is so important: as it removes nefariousness justly and confines it where it can no longer can do harm ( Isaiah 24:21, 22 and Revelation 20:13, 14, 15).

One must surrender their own relativism because it will always produce self justifying nefariousness in life whence it touches. Even the good it can do seeks to overthrow God's superiority of goodness with its own sense of goodness!

Proinsias wrote:
B. W. wrote: Would you like this confidence — full assurance we Christians have? …. Or will you remain confident that relativism's dead cats will save you from judgment of abandoning God in exchange so you can live out and according to a lie. Always Living life never knowing, never certain, never able to come to the knowledge of the truth...never able to decide if truth can really be truth…
I don't think so, as I said earlier complete confidence in one's opinion is not something I tend to admire. As I said earlier, with agreement from jlay, people can be wrong. Confidence and complete assurance doesn't go hand in hand with the idea that people can be wrong for me...

…Currently I believe there is much value in Zen, although that be somewhat of an oxymoron, and in Christianity. I love great minds and the insight they can give. At this stage it doesn't bother me too much if that great mind has been working within the framework of Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, science, philosophy, the arts etc....

A Re-Edit 12-16-2009 for clarity begins here:

All these other ways seek to overthrow God's superiority with/by ones own self effort of works. The way to tell if you are on the correct road is by the one vast difference it has compared to what all others share in common. The true road relies on God's grace — His superiority of works over ours.

All the other roads share that ones works/deeds earn some type of favor or entry to heaven but are in reality telling God that humanities deeds are greater than anything God can do and he better accept them or else…(he is not fair, he doesn't care). God better do things on our terms or he is not loving — many reasons impale themselves here in vain attempts to entrap God to act contrary to who he is.

All other roads do this. Broad is the way that leads to destruction and ruin and many go this route but narrow is the way that leads to life but few find it (Matthew 7:13). So the true road is one that surrenders to God and his way of doing things so that one can see that, “…everyone who does what is true comes to the light, so that all may see that his actions are accomplished through God." John 3:21 CJB

The broad way relies on self effort of works for various purposes of procuring God's favor or a better afterlife, etc. This in essence loudly proclaims that our efforts are greater than anything God can do; therefore, a blind narcissistic self justifying arrogance demands that one enters heaven on their terms. Most of us have met people like this and we sure do like to be around them — do we? Yet, we make that same demand on God no matter how nice we sound about it!

Question: Will you mortally die on the wrong road or the true road? Why would God want to inhabit eternity in heaven with those who seek there own superiority over His — trying to entrap him to deny himself in the process? Often without truly being cognizant they are doing this…but deep down know they do such as evidence by such a fuss they put up for not coming to God on His terms...

Job 34:30, “That the hypocrite should not reign, lest the people be ensnared.” NKJV

The Right road avoids this and surrenders ones own relativism for God's ways and means.
-
-
Continued Below

Posted: **Tue Dec 15, 2009 1:09 pm**

Again Part Three of Three from conversation broke into parts due to length of conversation continued from above last part —

12-15-2009

I asked you and you answered this regarding acts of mugging, robbing etc..:

Proinsias wrote:
B. W. wrote: Are you reciprocating these actions you mentioned to others — mugging, robbing, beating, swindling?
No, well trying my best not to anyway. Working for the bank I've been accused of the robbing and swindling part and not being averse to very occasionally smacking my daughter I've been accused of the beating part. Again it's about relative definitions. I don't really see what this shows. If I were a habitual violent criminal, or pursued an eye for an eye mentality, would this then strengthen my case and weaken yours? I don't think it would.

Therefore: what is keeping you from becoming a habitual violent criminal?

Next...

Proinsias wrote:
B. W. wrote: Then there is an absolute right way to build a swing set isn't there?
No. There are lots of ways and lots of opinions. If a lifelong swing builder declares a swing built by a child which breaks within five minutes wrong - it does not mean it is inherently wrong. It means a lifelong swing builder thinks it was wrong.

There is a right way to build a swing set and there is a wrong. The issue was that the knot came untied due to being the wrong knot, not that the rope breaks. However, if the wrong rope was used…then the principle still stands. Wrong is wrong…proven by the experience.

If the wrong knot used comes lose (or wrong rope used) then it is not a swing set in any useful purpose now is it? Add to this, the wrong knot untying, and causing injury to the user of the swing set:

How does the swing builder absolve himself from his responsibility of not tying the knot correctly — how? — by justifying that he only thinks it is wrong and thus not a real wrong.

Right and Wrong exist — what we ought to do sometimes is not what we should do. There is a right way to build a swing set and a wrong way. The results testify to this truth. It either works or it doesn't.

When an automobile runs out of fuel — it no longer runs as it was designed. Yes or No?

Stop running from the truth…

Proinsias wrote:
B. W. wrote: 1-Once you find it — you'll have to accept it laying your relativity aside for the absolute truth!

2-…So when you stand before God — how will he decide? What will you say?
1-Agreed, with the possible addition of 'if I find it' and 'if there's anything to be found….

2-…I don't know. I kinda figured if I ever did have to stand before God that preparing a speech might be rather pointless…

Are you not unlike the swing builder — justify yourself to absolve yourself from using the wrong knots and wrong ropes for whatever you build in relationships, work, home, whatever?

Proinsias wrote: I add that should you wish, I am quite happy to continue this discussion for as long as you wish to be part of it. I came here to to find out about Christianity and get to know Christians.

I have met many wonderful, knowledgeable, Christians here, yourself included. Having spent a large portion of my time on the net in the company of atheists and people with religious views rather far from the mainstream I had built up a caricature of Christianity that was in great need of being binned.

I have no desire to impose my point of view, only add to it and alter it.

As I've hopefully explained I don't think I have all the answers. I don't think that I am right and that you are wrong. I think I'm looking at things differently to you and I'm interested in your view.

I'm not averse to switching to your point of view but to do so at the moment I would be kidding myself on and my faith would be far from real.

Thank you for the time you have spent on this with me.

You admit you came here to alter our views — you cannot but also came to find out what Christians believe.

Next you claim an absolute — that you do not have all the answers. Question — how is that possible if all is relatively defined and explained away?

You say you do not have an aversion to switching but you do and it keeps you justifying tying the knots used in life to support life wrongly. Your faith is in relativism that seeks to absolve you for all wrongs.

Christianity has the answer for this in Christ Jesus — God's way of salvation and discovery that there is absolute truth in Christ:

John 14:6, “Jesus said to him, "I am the way (road, path), the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.” NKJV

Why not take the plunge?

What is preventing you other than your own relativism?

Why??? since in this mortal life we learn that Right and Wrong do exist - why do you keep denying it?

Maybe you, the swing builder, seeks too absolve himself from his responsibility of not tying the knot correctly — how? — by justifying that he only thinks it is wrong and thus not really wrong.
-
-
-

Posted: **Wed Dec 16, 2009 1:38 pm**

Note Post Two above was re-edited 12-16-2009 for clarity...

Posted: **Wed Dec 23, 2009 9:06 am**

Pros - you still around ????
-
-
-

Posted: **Wed Dec 23, 2009 11:01 am**

Let's hope he's still alive and not dead and in hell.

Posted: **Wed Dec 23, 2009 11:09 am**

Still here, alive and well.

Just a little busy currently. I'm checking in on the site but might be a week or so before I can put together a decent, hopefully, reply to this. Family and friends visiting from here, there and everywhere, I should be back monologuing by the new year.

Posted: **Thu Dec 24, 2009 9:38 am**

Proinsias wrote:Still here, alive and well.

Just a little busy currently. I'm checking in on the site but might be a week or so before I can put together a decent, hopefully, reply to this. Family and friends visiting from here, there and everywhere, I should be back monologuing by the new year.

Thanks Pros - look forward to discussing these issues with you again - so take your time and enjoy the Holidays and Merry Christmas to you and all your your family!

What part of Scotland are you from?

My lineage hails from around Perth around a place called Methvyn estate / woods that is if you ever heard of it…
-
-
-

Posted: **Thu Dec 24, 2009 10:03 am**

I'm in Glasgow. Can't say I know of Methvyn but I must have passed fairly close by by as I used to travel between Dundee and Glasgow quite a bit and that's pretty much on route.

My lineage hails from Ireland and Poland, we've only been in Scotland for a few generations.

Merry Christmas and I look forward to chatting soon.

The odds are looking good for a white Christmas here

Posted: **Sat Jan 02, 2010 9:48 pm**

Age

I disagree that the gamblers fallacy applies in this case. It deals with statistical possibilities, not absolute impossibilities and as I've said I'm betting on me dying. If I'm gambling on anything it would be that I will die.

Posted: **Sat Jan 02, 2010 9:49 pm**

jlay:

I can see where you are coming from and how it fits together nicely, I just don't buy it.
If we have God then we have REAL meaning, if we have REAL meaning, we can have objective morality. And if we make the jump from God to Christian Biblical God we have a basic guide as to how one becomes more familiar with these things. It's a nice theory and one that I cannot claim is false, I'm just not at this stage convinced it is for me although I am quite ignorant in regards to much of Christianity but this is something I'm attempting to remedy.

If life is without objective standards I don't think this means it is meaningless, it means that the meaning we give it is of the utmost importance. The value of life, be that human, animal, plant or whatever, is up to us. Also the definition of life is up to us.

I almost mentioned this in the post, but chose not to. Free will is the caveat. It is also a beacon that points to God's special creation and that which is made in his image.

I'm not sure it is a particularly reliable beacon. For me it is essentially the feeling that despite all the things you have done you could have done something else. Again I'm not saying that some sort of free will does not exist but more that I can't be sure that it does. The assumption that it does exist if fine for day to day life but its actual existence is another matter.

edit - removed a double negative

Posted: **Sat Jan 02, 2010 9:51 pm**

B.W:

The existence of value:

I do not believe that me saying I value my family shows that value objectively exists. As with me saying 'I love' does not prove the objective existence of love which I am discovering. To me it shows that people have feelings and use words to express them. Love, value or even God mean many different things to many different people. Words created by humans to describe powerful emotions does not for me prove that these words somehow exist independently outside of the minds of some humans.

Value is a convenient word to use which saves me elaborating on what things mean to me, for me it is not an inherent quality. Value is an English word that covers a lot of territory and is very versatile, it's a great invention.

God is absolutely just and in his standard of justice proven when he gave humanity the ability to think and reason independently. Deny this would prove God is not just. That is why things need to be absolutely just. To be absolutely just also involves endowing whom he created with reasoning intelligence the ability to make wrong choices as well as right choices (Isaiah 1:18).

This seems circular to me. For the current situation to be absolutely just then God must be absolutely just. If the current situation is not absolutely just then if there is a God that God is not absolutely just. How does one know that the current situation is absolutely just?

you say:

Because God is just, proven by granting humanity the ability to discover, explore, and come to one's own conclusions that life without Him remains always searching — never finding, learning but never learn, always seeking but never finding, that we'll freely return to him and his just standards.

The second part of this does interest me greatly - seeking but not finding, learning but never learn etc. But this can be accommodated nicely outwith monotheism, the dao or the everyday mind of Zen, I'm sure there are many more.

That is why absolute justice is important — without it, you could not agree or disagree that we need to surrender our relativism (which by the way is what makes life absolutely ugly) over to his absolute soul winning justice so we are sealed by him to never stray again.

The use of "which by the way is what makes life absolutely ugly" really stands out for me here. Relative ideas of beauty and ugliness make the world go round, beauty is in the eye of the beholder and all that.

Question — do you always do what you ought to do — or do you find yourself falling short like the rest of us do? Where does this 'knowing ought' come from? Why is that so inherent in all humanity? ( I know I ought to do this but I did this instead).

I don't know what I ought to do much of the time. Sometimes I decide what I ought to do and don't do it. I find myself falling short of my own expectations and those of others sometimes, exceeding them occasionally. The tendency for humans to predict and plan the future, more than any other lifeform we know of, does not for me prove God. It proves that humans don't always live up to their, possibly made up, ideals and that predictions of the future don't always come true. Why is this common in humanity? I don't know. Science, religion, the arts, philosophy etc are our means to try and get a handle on this. I don't think we have a definitive answer yet, probably never will.

Posted: **Sat Jan 02, 2010 9:52 pm**

B.W

response to part 2:

That judgment is just because if you would not return to God on his terms of surrendering your ruling relativism during this mortal life, your ruling relativism will ruin what heaven is about.

What is heaven about and how would I ruin it?

I presume my ruling relativism wouldn't ruin hell for me.

It is nice to know what the correct road to be on is before one's mortal frame dies so as to truly enter heaven and be with God in the only land where uprightness really is.

I'm sure it is nice. I know many people who think they are on the correct road as far as religion goes. From committed Christians to part time Christians, Muslims, atheists, satanist atheists, agnostics, a very good friend who consults the I-Ching and I've met a fair few wonderful people online who practice magic and occult stuff. I've never gotten to known any Hindu or Buddhist people very well.

Everyone is on a different path and some are convinced they are on the right path. Even here where most are following the path of Jesus Christ there are many disputes as to where the path of Jesus Christ lies.

Posted: **Sat Jan 02, 2010 10:11 pm**

B.W:

Response to part 3:

Therefore: what is keeping you from becoming a habitual violent criminal?

I think it would make my life and the lives of others unpleasant.

I'm also a little confused as to why Christianity is not about one's deeds earning one a place in heaven but one will be judged by God's absolute moral justice before getting into heaven. Being a habitual violent criminal shouldn't affect one's chances in heaven, it's not about the deeds but more about the state of mind when acting. The Gita touches on this idea, it's not about Arjuna killing his relatives or not killing his relatives in war, it's about purity of mind - not the action which stems from it.

I am reminded of the Taoists condemning the government of ancient China for deciding that one should not kill another human being then later on adding a clause to say that killing in war doesn't count. As I've said earlier most agree that murder is wrong but many disagree on what murder is - war, meat, death penalty, abortion, euthanasia etc.

How does the swing builder absolve himself from his responsibility of not tying the knot correctly — how? — by justifying that he only thinks it is wrong and thus not a real wrong.

Why assume the swingbuilder absolves himself in the absence of objective swing building criteria? He may take responsibility for whatever injury caused, learn from it and try to do better next time without needing to admit that the swing was objectively wrong. If my daughter's swinging seat I put up falls down I won't think it was objectively wrong, I'll accept responsibility and make sure I do a better job next time. I won't absolve myself of responsibility for whatever injury caused.

Right and Wrong exist — what we ought to do sometimes is not what we should do. There is a right way to build a swing set and a wrong way. The results testify to this truth. It either works or it doesn't.

There are many ways to build a swing set, not just a right and a wrong way. Shades of grey. Different swingsets work to differing degrees. If there were just a right way and a wrong way there would only be two types of swingsets. As it is there a countless numbers of them from someone swinging on a badly tied rope which wasn't even meant to a swingset in the first place to something made by a master craftsman, where you draw the line between good and bad is relative.
My dad was appalled when I told him how I tiled my bathroom, I tiled it the wrong way and should have taken far more time, preparation and care. My wife was delighted, I was quite pleased myself. If a tile falls off and injures someone, does this mean I was objectively wrong? If it does happen I will accept responsibility and learn from it but only time will tell.

When an automobile runs out of fuel — it no longer runs as it was designed. Yes or No?

No

It was designed to move with fuel and not move without fuel. If it keeps on running when out of fuel it is then running outwith the original design, unless on an incline. When an automobile runs out of fuel and stops moving it is doing exactly what it was designed to do, if it kept running the designers would be amazed as it wasn't designed to do that.

You admit you came here to alter our views

Not at all, I said:

I have no desire to impose my point of view, only add to it and alter it.

I'm not attempting to change your views, just to listen to your views, attempt to explain my own and possibly alter them. Since arriving here I have already changed a good deal of my views regarding Christianity.

Next you claim an absolute — that you do not have all the answers. Question — how is that possible if all is relatively defined and explained away?

I said:

As I've hopefully explained I don't think I have all the answers.

Maybe I do have all the answers, I just don't know. As for relative meaning, different people require different answers - my answers, whilst answering some questions for me may not answer them for you and vice versa.

You say you do not have an aversion to switching but you do and it keeps you justifying tying the knots used in life to support life wrongly. Your faith is in relativism that seeks to absolve you for all wrongs.

I'm not trying to absolve myself of anything. If I'm thrown into hell for all eternity for following my heart, asking questions, not accepting Jesus as the only son of God and generally being in a state of wonder as to wealth of religious, scientific, artistic and philosophical out there then so be it.

Why not take the plunge?

What is preventing you other than your own relativism?

Why??? since in this mortal life we learn that Right and Wrong do exist - why do you keep denying it?

I can't take the plunge, I have little faith in it, presuming we are talking about Christianity. Also that in this mortal life we create right and wrong, we don't discover it. On a very basic level the words right and wrong are human creations in the English language, not absolutes - they are subject to change and we argue about then all the time. I don't think they convey an inherent quality, they are used to convey subjective emotions.

I was brought up Christian and abandoned it along with all religion many years ago. For the past ten years or so I've been realising the value in religion. Maybe one day I will go back to my roots and accept Christianity but at the moment it seems a little like me beginning to appreciate the arts and being told I should commit to Da Vinci at the exclusion of all else so help my eternal soul.

Sorry for the delay in replying.

And for the ridiculous amount of post in a row

Posted: **Mon Jan 04, 2010 1:13 pm**

Proinsias wrote:B.W:

Response to part 3:

Therefore: what is keeping you from becoming a habitual violent criminal?
I think it would make my life and the lives of others unpleasant.

He asked what is keeping you from being that way, not what your judgment of it is. From what you're saying, you mean that you are better somehow than the violent criminal. Maybe the violent criminal sees his actions as totally morally justifiable.

I'm also a little confused as to why Christianity is not about one's deeds earning one a place in heaven but one will be judged by God's absolute moral justice before getting into heaven. Being a habitual violent criminal shouldn't affect one's chances in heaven, it's not about the deeds but more about the state of mind when acting.

It's not about your deeds, except for the one (if you want to call it that) of accepting the salvation offered by God, and His Lordship once again. We fell through disobedience, and to be saved is to have our previous sins not counted against us and for us to acknowledge the Lordship of your creator.

I am reminded of the Taoists condemning the government of ancient China for deciding that one should not kill another human being then later on adding a clause to say that killing in war doesn't count. As I've said earlier most agree that murder is wrong but many disagree on what murder is - war, meat, death penalty, abortion, euthanasia etc.

So are you seriously telling me that if an aggressor started a war and invaded your town, that you would not defend your family?? Killing should be avoided, even in these circumstances if possible, but sometimes it can't be helped.

You admit you came here to alter our views
Not at all, I said:
I have no desire to impose my point of view, only add to it and alter it.
I'm not attempting to change your views, just to listen to your views, attempt to explain my own and possibly alter them. Since arriving here I have already changed a good deal of my views regarding Christianity.

You say you do not have an aversion to switching but you do and it keeps you justifying tying the knots used in life to support life wrongly. Your faith is in relativism that seeks to absolve you for all wrongs.
I'm not trying to absolve myself of anything. If I'm thrown into hell for all eternity for following my heart, asking questions, not accepting Jesus as the only son of God and generally being in a state of wonder as to wealth of religious, scientific, artistic and philosophical out there then so be it.

I'd like to recommend a book that touches on some of what you write of, anyway. It's not too long and pleasant to read as well. It's called: Five Sacred Crossings: A Novel Approach to a Reasonable Faith, by Craig J. Hazen (2008 Harvest House Pub.s).

The website associated with this book is conversantlife.com. It's a great site with lots of dialogue about modern issues, the bible, other religions, etc. This is from the Questions and Answers page: http://www.conversantlife.com/the-bible ... -the-bible

Posted: **Tue Jan 05, 2010 1:16 pm**

Post 1 of 3..

Hi Pros, we may have debated on other forums. There was a person who was from Poland and now living in Scotland. So let me ask: are you the person who came from Communist Poland during that time period to escape communism? If so, then we debated before on another forum. If you are, then hello again!

Let's continue…

Proinsias wrote: B.W: Response to Part One

The existence of value:

I do not believe that me saying I value my family shows that value objectively exists. As with me saying 'I love' does not prove the objective existence of love which I am discovering. To me it shows that people have feelings and use words to express them. Love, value or even God mean many different things to many different people. Words created by humans to describe powerful emotions do not for me prove that these words somehow exist independently outside of the minds of some humans.

Value is a convenient word to use which saves me elaborating on what things mean to me, for me it is not an inherent quality. Value is an English word that covers a lot of territory and is very versatile, it's a great invention.

Words help describe what already exist. If you exist and experience love then love can exist. Now, if God exist, then his love exists because we were fashioned by God in order to experience emotions in which we can relate to his love. It is his love that exists outside ourselves and he designed us capable of coming to an understanding of love so we can understand what love is and how it works.

Our assigning a human word such as love to describe love does not disprove that love comes from a source that already exists. It would rather demonstrate the wisdom of the Creator in assigning us the emotional and intellectual make-up in order to learn how to govern in his stead on this earthly realm.

What I mean is this...

In the Genesis account, humanity was fashioned to be a reflection of God's image and likeness. Not another God but rather created beings who are capable of taking care of things, governing, as God would on this earthly plane. In other words you could view it as humanity was designed as governing staff governing on God's behalf as God would, governing according to love, justice, equity, without iniquity, etc and etc.

We have God's reflection and capabilities to love, reason, think, etc, as God has due to the image we were designed to reflect. We even have a limited creating ability as well. This all was perverted due to what is known in the Genesis account as the fall of humanity where we no longer govern according to God's ways but now govern by our own ways and made a muck of it to say the least due to relativism.

If God does not exist — then neither would love. The value you discover about love toward your own family simply is the means to discover that indeed a thing called love indeed exists outside ourselves and should be the highest absolute moral value in which to govern the world by. Assigning human words does not disproves such never existed - only proves someone with just moral capabilities created us and gave us the tool of language to use and come into understanding.

Also we discover that we fall short of governing correctly and need someone to restore order back into this world as we fall short of loving perfectly — loving perfectly even justice - and are in need of a savior to save us from our own shortcomings because we cannot love perfectly and screw things up nicely because as you point out - all is only relative...

The value we discover is that God has value and is perfect in his justice to let us discover that we need his values and what he values. What is justice if it denies equity? Even when such equity leads to the possibility of rebellion — how could loving justice deny such equity and still be called just if it denies liberty?

Love exists because God exist. We fell away from that love and perverted it as evidenced clearly by how we treat each other where ever we are at governing in this world. We fall short...

B. W. wrote: God is absolutely just and in his standard of justice proven when he gave humanity the ability to think and reason independently. Deny this would prove God is not just. That is why things need to be absolutely just. To be absolutely just also involves endowing whom he created with reasoning intelligence the ability to make wrong choices as well as right choices (Isaiah 1:18).

Proinsias wrote:This seems circular to me. For the current situation to be absolutely just then God must be absolutely just. If the current situation is not absolutely just then if there is a God that God is not absolutely just. How does one know that the current situation is absolutely just?

you say:

B. W. wrote: Because God is just, proven by granting humanity the ability to discover, explore, and come to one's own conclusions that life without Him remains always searching — never finding, learning but never learn, always seeking but never finding, that we'll freely return to him and his just standards.

How do you refine precious metals to make them pure? Answer: By fire and removing of dross...

If God denied choice to his intelligent beings he created then how could that be perfectly just? Without choice, how could anyone justly respond? Freedom to reason and discover can not be denied as that would make God absolutely unjust. You do exist and can you reason independently so that you can discover things that exist: things like love through your treatment of your own family. How many times have fallen short of loving them?

You have the first principle of OM actually in you because how we human beings were fashioned. We spend a lifetime abusing the morality of love and justice for our own personal gain. You stated prior, that we learn wrong from how it affects others as well as how it affects us personally. How do you know what wrong is if wrong doesn't really exist?

Who is guilty of creating enslavement, hardship, and pain? A just Creator who gave the gift of independent reason to us or us who uses reason to immorally to blame God, accuse God, misuse God's goodness for selfish gain? Denying that God exists in order to be sure that there is absolutely no existing objective morality outside ourselves that can objectively judge us! And it is we, humanity, that continues to spread the pain - yet we blame God for not stopping it!

How can you make perfectly pure without first removing dross in an all powerfully just manner?

Being a former atheist, I used to misuse God's goodness and gifts of reason to accuse him and blame him so I could deny him and exalt myself and human knowledge / wisdom above God. You have the first principle of OM actually in you (liberty of discovery, reason, intelligence) and yet you seem to desire enslavement and Tyranny over the rule of grace's liberty of reason by stating:

“If the current situation is not absolutely just then if there is a God that God is not absolutely just. How does one know that the current situation is absolutely just?”

Who is guilty of creating enslavement, hardship, and pain? A just Creator who gave the gift of independent reason to you or the one who uses it immorally to blame God, accuse God of being unjust, misusing God's goodness / love for selfish gain? God gave his word to us that we should govern our little earthly realms. What have we done to that honor he promised? If he took it back — then how could he really be a God who keeps and performs his own words he speaks?

Again, how does a person refine precious metals to make them pure?

Proinsias wrote: The second part of this does interest me greatly - seeking but not finding, learning but never learn etc. But this can be accommodated nicely out with monotheism, the dao or the everyday mind of Zen, I'm sure there are many more.

B. W. wrote: That is why absolute justice is important — without it, you could not agree or disagree that we need to surrender our relativism (which by the way is what makes life absolutely ugly) over to his absolute soul winning justice so we are sealed by him to never stray again.
The use of "which by the way is what makes life absolutely ugly" really stands out for me here. Relative ideas of beauty and ugliness make the world go round, beauty is in the eye of the beholder and all that.

B. W. wrote: Question — do you always do what you ought to do — or do you find yourself falling short like the rest of us do? Where does this 'knowing ought' come from? Why is that so inherent in all humanity? ( I know I ought to do this but I did this instead).
I don't know what I ought to do much of the time. Sometimes I decide what I ought to do and don't do it. I find myself falling short of my own expectations and those of others sometimes, exceeding them occasionally. The tendency for humans to predict and plan the future, more than any other life form we know of, does not for me prove God. It proves that humans don't always live up to their, possibly made up, ideals and that predictions of the future don't always come true. Why is this common in humanity? I don't know. Science, religion, the arts, philosophy etc are our means to try and get a handle on this. I don't think we have a definitive answer yet, probably never will.

Since you stated that “Sometimes I decide what I ought to do and don't do it,” then how are you judging that you are falling short if there is nothing to solid — objective — letting you know, personally, how you fall short?

Again you pointed out this: “…humans don't always live up to their, possibly made up, ideals and that predictions of the future don't always come true. Why is this common in humanity? I don't know. Science, religion, the arts, philosophy etc are our means to try and get a handle on this. I don't think we have a definitive answer yet, probably never will.”

Our own human efforts of science, religion, the arts, philosophy etc fall short of the glory of God and can never assure us or earn us salvation from our failures. You raised children so you learned that children need to learn what NO and YES is because you love them. From this they learn right from wrong.

God, through perfect love teaches us what NO and what YES is. Yet we find fault with God for doing this but justify our teaching our young what makes NO — no and Yes — yes! Hmmm...

Is it a NO — NO to touch an open flame or hot stove top? Is it a NO — NO — to pick up that big paper clip off the floor and put it in your mouth — little child?

There is right and there is wrong. We dare teach our own children but how dare God ever teach us as we would prefer to be thrown in hell than have God teach us! How dare he!!!

Again, how does a person refine precious metals to make them pure?

Continued below...
-
-
-

Evidence for God from Science

Morals without god/the bible

Re: Morals without god/the bible

Re: Morals without god/the bible

Re: Morals without god/the bible

Re: Morals without god/the bible

Re: Morals without god/the bible

Re: Morals without god/the bible

Re: Morals without god/the bible

Re: Morals without god/the bible

Re: Morals without god/the bible

Re: Morals without god/the bible

Re: Morals without god/the bible

Re: Morals without god/the bible

Re: Morals without god/the bible

Re: Morals without god/the bible

Re: Morals without god/the bible