Evidence for God from Science

Justhuman wrote:

B. W. wrote: Points to consider:

If God broke his word and cannot have it come to pass, then he is not omnipotent omniscient being.

The key to understanding the origin of evil is that it seeks to prove that God cannot be true to his own characteristics by attempting to play God's own characteristics against each other...

If God denied free moral reasoning, as you desire, then again God is not omnipotent omniscient being either and
thus incapable of actually purifying dross before perfection comes...

Are you not, then, most likely unknowingly, attempting to play God's character against each other just to prove yourself right - whose side are you on?

You ask, how do I or any Christian know what God is like: He gave us a book and put his own words in it telling us who he is, what he is like, as well as what his character traits are too.

What do you have? Materialism?

Recall, you asked this --- regarding where the material came from that made the universe...

Justhuman wrote: I don't know. How do you expect me to explain it?

My answer was: Then your adherence to strict materialism falls apart, have you considered that?

If material stuff always existed then why cannot God who would be the logical one to have created material from nothing...

Something cannot come from Nothing ... that defies logic. the very gift of reason God gave you...

You deny reason?

I think I have to clarify some:

1) as an omnipotent omniscient being God can lie and/or break his word. He may not have done so, but he is able to do so. That are two different things.
2) 'the origin of evil'? I hope you do not consider me part of that evil?
3) It's not so much my intention to 'prove' that God cannot be true to his own characteristics, but that he has a choice (free will?) in doing that. And again, see 1)
4) I'm not playing God's character against each other, because that's not the point. I must refer to 1) again.
5) I have to admit I might be wrong in my materialistic view, because I ultimately cannot verify/proof it. I think I'm more or less right though. Up to now it's all based on the physical evidence and observations of what I can see, and read in scientific literarature. What makes sense to me. That's a personal point of view.
5) You state that something cannot come from nothing, but you cannot prove that. You can reason it to be fairly true, maybe even logical, but since we just do not know what and how it happened at or before the Big Bang, it remains a philosofical issue.
It's not lack of reason, but lack of knowledge.

You forgot, God left us material, called the bible, which He reveals his own character traits and that he is absolutely perfect and perfect in all his ways. Since that is so, God cannot deny any of his own character attributes as this would indeed make him less than perfect. That is what the bible reveals, so we have material in which to build and reason off of. You do not, other than your own relativism, which proves imperfection.

You see on your first point, you say God can lie, you base that on yourself, not who God is. Fore God to lie would make him unjust and no different than you or I am.

Hate to break this to you, but it is you who seek to make God into your own image and likeness.

2) 'the origin of evil'? I hope you do not consider me part of that evil?

What is in your heart? Have you ever lied, slandered anyone? Put people on trial in your mind, mocked them, scoffed, stolen, every broke anyone's heart? Ever held anyone with contempt? Ever been bitter, ever betrayed, abandoned, rejected, or neglected anyone or they to you which served as the justification to continue these sorts of things? Have you?

3) It's not so much my intention to 'prove' that God cannot be true to his own characteristics, but that he has a choice (free will?) in doing that. And again, see 1
4) I'm not playing God's character against each other, because that's not the point. I must refer to 1) again.
5) I have to admit I might be wrong in my materialistic view, because I ultimately cannot verify/proof it. I think I'm more or less right though. Up to now it's all based on the physical evidence and observations of what I can see, and read in scientific literarature. What makes sense to me. That's a personal point of view.

God's free will is his own and to try to have him go contrary to who he is is not a wise course and that is what you are doing by saying he must be able to lie in order to support your point of view which again is flawed in its concept of God

5) You state that something cannot come from nothing, but you cannot prove that. You can reason it to be fairly true, maybe even logical, but since we just do not know what and how it happened at or before the Big Bang, it remains a philosofical issue.It's not lack of reason, but lack of knowledge.[/quote]

Can you prove that material always existed - no you cannot.

But the laws of mathematics prove that nothing cannot make a something...

Yes, it is lack of Knowledge about God that afflicts people like yourself. He exists and he created. That is self evident.

The real question comes: why you cannot accept there is God...
-
-
-

Kurieuo wrote:

I asked that you articulate why such is necessarily a contradiction in logical form in syllogistic form (i.e., If A then B, A therefore B), but you didn't. It isn't obvious to me that there is a contradiction, I don't see any. For, if it is God's will not to lie, then He is most certain free to express that will and powerful enough to refrain from lying.

I pondered about that for a while and ended up with:

1. Omnipotency includes the capability of free expression and lying,
   God is omnipotent,
   God has free expression and is capable of lying.

Thus for God there is a contradiction in "capable of free expression" and "cannot lie".

Now, I do not see any reason for God to lie, for what can He gain with that? But that has nothing to do with the statement in the Bible that God cannot lie (although it depends on which translation of the bible one has). Or is this mere a silly quibling?

Philip wrote: So, RANDOM things did not show up, but precisely the things needed for all that now exists. This source had the intelligence and power to instantly create all of the building blocks of all that exists,

JustHuman: Now I understand why you phrase it that way, but putting it this way rules out in advance any other possibility. You would first have to prove the presence of an intelligent creator before making such a statement.

Again, let's forget the issue of the identity of the First Source. The characteristics of that Source cannot be in doubt. That it had to be eternal is certain. That it is intelligent can not be a serious question - look at what INSTANTLY showed up - those things exponentially check every single box and parameter upon which our very definitions of intelligence are founded. There is absolutely no intelligent reason to think such things are blind, random and without an intelligence behind them. That defies all reason, all observations from our universe. As it most certainly is the Source of the universe, then it also its Creator. Now, that doesn't automatically mean that Source is the God of the Bible. But it does mean that the KNOWN attributes of the Source, from what science knows about it, per the characteristics and functions of what INSTANTLY came into existence, lines up with the characteristics of the God of the Bible. So, based upon that, it would seem logical to inventory the possible candidates that this God has communicated with man.

Notice, that of all the creatures that exist upon the earth, only ONE is a social creature of conscience, self-awareness on a deep psychological level, that capabilities are uniquely extraordinary, and of which his communications abilities are unparalleled - art, music, speech, mathematics, written words, reading, diverse creativity - all of these are the designs for creatures built to communicate. Would, out of millions of species, only one such fantastic creature exist? Is it not as if the Creature has built one creature far more important and unique than any other, per how man is built for communication and social interaction, and complex understandings? Does that not suggest that communication is important to the Creator? If so, it stands to reason that there is great purpose in our design. Would the Creator not want to communicate with a creature he built for supreme communications abilities?

OK, of the supposed followings / beliefs upon earth, what one asserts a Creator with God-like abilities? Immediately, all of the pantheistic gods of the East can be ruled out? Why? Because they all assert the entire creation is part of God. But the creation could not have created itself - and we know that all physical things once, pre-Big Bang, did not exist. Non-existing things cannot create ANYTHING. So, a god that encompasses all physical things - including earth, stars, galaxies, even space - is finite - they all had a beginning. So, they are not eternal. As mentioned, the Creator / First Cause had to have been eternal.

This means, that only a God of a belief that is eternal, could be the Creator: Of Islam, Judaism, Christianity? Those are the ones it makes sense to search. Which have any track record or history to examine, per what they teach about god or God? Only one, with any credibility - the God of Abraham - Who is also Jesus.

The laws of causality for our world/universe
1. All things have a cause.
2.All things that have a cause are caused by something else.
3.All things are willed into existence.
4.There can be no infinite regression.

Therefore there must be an uncaused first cause that kicked off everything like a chain reaction.For every action there is a reaction.

ACB: The laws of causality for our world/universe
1. All things have a cause.
2.All things that have a cause are caused by something else.
3.All things are willed into existence.
4.There can be no infinite regression.

No "gaps" in that logic, ACB!

Philip wrote:

ACB: The laws of causality for our world/universe
1. All things have a cause.
2.All things that have a cause are caused by something else.
3.All things are willed into existence.
4.There can be no infinite regression.

No "gaps" in that logic, ACB!

It is just condensed philosophy from the 13th century that is still just as revelant today that I don't believe has ever been refuted,only ignored from St Thomas Aquinas.

Justhuman wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

I asked that you articulate why such is necessarily a contradiction in logical form in syllogistic form (i.e., If A then B, A therefore B), but you didn't. It isn't obvious to me that there is a contradiction, I don't see any. For, if it is God's will not to lie, then He is most certain free to express that will and powerful enough to refrain from lying.

I pondered about that for a while and ended up with:

1. Omnipotency includes the capability of free expression and lying,
   God is omnipotent,
   God has free expression and is capable of lying.

Thus for God there is a contradiction in "capable of free expression" and "cannot lie".

Now, I do not see any reason for God to lie, for what can He gain with that? But that has nothing to do with the statement in the Bible that God cannot lie (although it depends on which translation of the bible one has). Or is this mere a silly quibling?

I see that "capability" needs exploring and digging into, but I'd prefer not to do it, as I don't know how I could communicate and have you understand, without you first having a fuller understanding of God, in particular perfections that are normally ascribed to God and a correct understanding of their nature.

That said, if you see no issue with: "It is possible for God to lie, but He always decides to be honest." Then that seems to be a good enough response, and I'm happy to leave it at that...

----- almost -----

Let me try to introduce a fuller understand to you, provide you with more foundations in thinking about the nature of God. That is, if God exists, then what is the nature of God? You might surprised to know the answer actually isn't an "anything goes". Consider the question "what is the nature of a bachelor?", why the concept of "bachelor" most certainly excludes certain things, such as a female flying spaghetti monster. Similarly, like with "bachelor", there are actually fixed conceptions attached to "God". If there wasn't, then we couldn't discuss God in any meaningful sense.

You might have heard about Anselm's ontological argument? While many might reject it or consider it a weak argument for God's existence, I see that it is most beneficial to helping us conceive of who/what God is (God's ontology). Consider a main premise that "God is that which nothing greater than can be conceived."

As it applies to your own issue of lying, let's filter it through the idea that God is that which nothing greater can be conceived. That is, if God can lie, is such greater than God being always truthful? If it is greater for God to lie than to be truthful, then perhaps there is nothing logically wrong with merely leaving it at: God can lie where He sees such is is appropriate to do so.

But, I don't want to leave it there. It is important to understand more groundwork. Here I wish to introduce the Euthyphro dilemma. That is, Plato asked the question concerning the nature of goodness: Is a thing good because God says it is good, or does God say it's good because it is good?

Now, many theologians will respond that the question is a false dilemma (meaning there aren't just two options, but a third option exists). The third option presented is that God is good, because goodness is ultimately a "perfection" that is found in God's very nature. (side note: by "perfection" I mean certain attributes we accept as existing in the world, which we could maximise when reflecting upon Anselm's conceiving of the greatest being possible i.e., God. For example, if God exists, we would believe God is all-powerful, also that God is all-righteous, God is all-good, omni-present, eternal existing and at all-times and the like. Yet, it's not that such are really found "inside" God, like say our heart is found beating inside our chest, it's rather that all these perfections together in their totality and at their foundation represent God Himself, God's very nature, God.)

To help clarify this third option, consider by analogy our Sun and its rays. What are these rays that we observe? It'd be silly to say there is no source, that they just exist in the world in and of themselves. Rather, we understand the source of sun-rays are clearly the Sun. Now, the sun-rays themselves aren't necessarily the Sun, but when reduced sun-rays are dependent upon the very nature of the Sun.

Similarly, our observation of "good" in the world is similar to how we observe "sun-rays". Some people say that the "goodness" we perceive in the world just exists. There is no source needed! Yet, theologians argue that to believe there is no real source of good is just silly. Instead they believe God is good, therefore goodness beams into our world in varying ways, such that we ourselves are influenced to readily understand what is good as opposed to bad. Goodness then, ultimately boils down to God Himself, who God is, God.

Now then, with some logical groundwork laid, let's revisit lying. Can we think of a situation where it might be greater to lie? One that comes to mind is an example I've heard in the past:

• Nazis storm into your house. You are hiding Jewish people. They ask you whether you've seen a group of people, some of which you are protecting. Is it better to lie to them?

It seems to me, that it would be morally better i.e., "greater good" to tell a bald-face lie to the Nazi soldiers. Yet, what if you could simply allow them to be mislead through carefully crafting your words in a manner that would provoke their minds to be mislead in entirely the wrong direction. Which is now "greater" -- to directly lie and protect, or to mislead through a fault of their own making in order to protect?

It might seem to be splitting hairs here, like what's the difference, the Nazis don't deserve any truth because they have bad intentions. Whether or not they deserve the truth though, if on a scale of 1 to 1000 of "the greatest good" lying to save the Jewish people scores a 900 (justifiable I believe), and letting would-be evil doers be mislead by their own evil desires scores a couple points more, then accordingly it would be greater to not lie.

If true, it is therefore proven to not lie (or honesty) is better than lying so-far-as goodness is concerned. Therefore, God conceived of as the greatest being logically ought not lie. Add into the mix that if God is all-powerful, then God must be able to outsmart any lesser created being while remaining consistent to His very own nature, to Himself. Should a creature like us be able to make God lie, then in a way we have defeated God.

As another side note here, I'd recommend reading over Jesus in the Gospels - Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. You don't have to worship Jesus to see how well He crafts His responses to those who challenge and oppose Him. And, many times Jesus turns the tables and embarrasses His opponents.

In any case, perhaps you can think of a situation where it would be greater for God to lie, rather than not. I hope you can at least now see that there is much deeper thought and issues that lay beneath this one apparently small and simple question. That's all I hope to do here. I hope you'll also notice I didn't invoke the Bible once to make any argument, only mere reason.

Justhuman wrote:Am I the only atheist here?

There are a few others who come and go - most have not been very active lately.

Kurieuo, how do you find the time for such awesome posts? I find it hard to even keep up with discussions - not that I'd have much to say anyway

Nicki wrote:Kurieuo, how do you find the time for such awesome posts? I find it hard to even keep up with discussions - not that I'd have much to say anyway

Thanks, I try my best, but am naturally drawn to such topics any how as a matter of interest.

I've also started seeing some merit, like my posts are a deposit of my thoughts to my four precious kids. They can read their Dad's thoughts as they get older and start asking questions, search Dad's mind. That seems kind of cool, especially if heaven forbid, I'm not around to answer their questions.

That said, writing that post meant I had to spend 2 hours into the night finishing off some work I didn't get through.

Justhuman wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Justhuman, can you give us your definition of God or at least which/what God you are talking about?

A God that would come close to a materialistic God? That would be an oxymoron. It would 'just' be a highly advanced being/species, with powers beyond current imagination or understanding. No God there.

On this forum we are talking about the Biblical God. An omnipotent omniscient being, creator of the universe, of Earth, and life. Watchful and caring over us humans, always listening to our prayers, mostly leaving us to our free will, occasionally intervening on individual level.

If, then, you are referring to the biblical God then issues with Omnipotence and such are non-issues.
Biblically speaking ( both scripturally and traditionally), Omnipotence refers to being able to do all that is POSSIBLE to do.
In short, as an example,one can't create a square circle because it would be a square and Not a circle.

The notion that an omnipotent God can do ANYTHING is NOT biblical.

K: if God is all-powerful, then God must be able to outsmart any lesser created being while remaining consistent to His very own nature, to Himself. Should a creature like us be able to make God lie, then in a way we have defeated God.

As for God lying - WHY would he even have to? He created all, sets the parameters of them, intervenes as He wishes, when He wishes, or not. He controls all parameters and things. Think about the very nature of lies. What is the motivation and strategy behind a lie? It is to bring about a desired result or response via the lie. God is all powerful. He doesn't need to be lie to get His way.The only thing He won't do is force a person's will. He'll influence it, but won't choose for them. When they choose evil, as K says, He can influence those intent upon a particular evil, so as they believe a false thing per their own false understandings and motivations - ultimately of which are evil to begin with. But God doesn't lie to them. God can use evil as a tool for good - even though the evil persons involved do not mean their actions for good. He can even manipulate evil persons to punish or bring about objectives He desires against other evil entities. God does not need to lie, nor does He.

Lying is a device from a position of weakness, as those lying have no other recourse in trying to get their way. Because if they could achieve their objectives otherwise, they wouldn't need to lie, nor would they - as they would merely compel their victims to their objective. A person that thinks God lies - or even needs to - is a person who doesn't know what God is, or His Holy characteristics described in Scripture.

Kurieuo wrote:

Justhuman wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

I asked that you articulate why such is necessarily a contradiction in logical form in syllogistic form (i.e., If A then B, A therefore B), but you didn't. It isn't obvious to me that there is a contradiction, I don't see any. For, if it is God's will not to lie, then He is most certain free to express that will and powerful enough to refrain from lying.

I pondered about that for a while and ended up with:

1. Omnipotency includes the capability of free expression and lying,
   God is omnipotent,
   God has free expression and is capable of lying.

Thus for God there is a contradiction in "capable of free expression" and "cannot lie".

Now, I do not see any reason for God to lie, for what can He gain with that? But that has nothing to do with the statement in the Bible that God cannot lie (although it depends on which translation of the bible one has). Or is this mere a silly quibling?

I see that "capability" needs exploring and digging into, but I'd prefer not to do it, as I don't know how I could communicate and have you understand, without you first having a fuller understanding of God, in particular perfections that are normally ascribed to God and a correct understanding of their nature.

That said, if you see no issue with: "It is possible for God to lie, but He always decides to be honest." Then that seems to be a good enough response, and I'm happy to leave it at that...

----- almost -----

Let me try to introduce a fuller understand to you, provide you with more foundations in thinking about the nature of God. That is, if God exists, then what is the nature of God? You might surprised to know the answer actually isn't an "anything goes". Consider the question "what is the nature of a bachelor?", why the concept of "bachelor" most certainly excludes certain things, such as a female flying spaghetti monster. Similarly, like with "bachelor", there are actually fixed conceptions attached to "God". If there wasn't, then we couldn't discuss God in any meaningful sense.

You might have heard about Anselm's ontological argument? While many might reject it or consider it a weak argument for God's existence, I see that it is most beneficial to helping us conceive of who/what God is (God's ontology). Consider a main premise that "God is that which nothing greater than can be conceived."

As it applies to your own issue of lying, let's filter it through the idea that God is that which nothing greater can be conceived. That is, if God can lie, is such greater than God being always truthful? If it is greater for God to lie than to be truthful, then perhaps there is nothing logically wrong with merely leaving it at: God can lie where He sees such is is appropriate to do so.

But, I don't want to leave it there. It is important to understand more groundwork. Here I wish to introduce the Euthyphro dilemma. That is, Plato asked the question concerning the nature of goodness: Is a thing good because God says it is good, or does God say it's good because it is good?

Now, many theologians will respond that the question is a false dilemma (meaning there aren't just two options, but a third option exists). The third option presented is that God is good, because goodness is ultimately a "perfection" that is found in God's very nature. (side note: by "perfection" I mean certain attributes we accept as existing in the world, which we could maximise when reflecting upon Anselm's conceiving of the greatest being possible i.e., God. For example, if God exists, we would believe God is all-powerful, also that God is all-righteous, God is all-good, omni-present, eternal existing and at all-times and the like. Yet, it's not that such are really found "inside" God, like say our heart is found beating inside our chest, it's rather that all these perfections together in their totality and at their foundation represent God Himself, God's very nature, God.)

To help clarify this third option, consider by analogy our Sun and its rays. What are these rays that we observe? It'd be silly to say there is no source, that they just exist in the world in and of themselves. Rather, we understand the source of sun-rays are clearly the Sun. Now, the sun-rays themselves aren't necessarily the Sun, but when reduced sun-rays are dependent upon the very nature of the Sun.

Similarly, our observation of "good" in the world is similar to how we observe "sun-rays". Some people say that the "goodness" we perceive in the world just exists. There is no source needed! Yet, theologians argue that to believe there is no real source of good is just silly. Instead they believe God is good, therefore goodness beams into our world in varying ways, such that we ourselves are influenced to readily understand what is good as opposed to bad. Goodness then, ultimately boils down to God Himself, who God is, God.

Now then, with some logical groundwork laid, let's revisit lying. Can we think of a situation where it might be greater to lie? One that comes to mind is an example I've heard in the past:

• Nazis storm into your house. You are hiding Jewish people. They ask you whether you've seen a group of people, some of which you are protecting. Is it better to lie to them?

It seems to me, that it would be morally better i.e., "greater good" to tell a bald-face lie to the Nazi soldiers. Yet, what if you could simply allow them to be mislead through carefully crafting your words in a manner that would provoke their minds to be mislead in entirely the wrong direction. Which is now "greater" -- to directly lie and protect, or to mislead through a fault of their own making in order to protect?

It might seem to be splitting hairs here, like what's the difference, the Nazis don't deserve any truth because they have bad intentions. Whether or not they deserve the truth though, if on a scale of 1 to 1000 of "the greatest good" lying to save the Jewish people scores a 900 (justifiable I believe), and letting would-be evil doers be mislead by their own evil desires scores a couple points more, then accordingly it would be greater to not lie.

If true, it is therefore proven to not lie (or honesty) is better than lying so-far-as goodness is concerned. Therefore, God conceived of as the greatest being logically ought not lie. Add into the mix that if God is all-powerful, then God must be able to outsmart any lesser created being while remaining consistent to His very own nature, to Himself. Should a creature like us be able to make God lie, then in a way we have defeated God.

As another side note here, I'd recommend reading over Jesus in the Gospels - Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. You don't have to worship Jesus to see how well He crafts His responses to those who challenge and oppose Him. And, many times Jesus turns the tables and embarrasses His opponents.

In any case, perhaps you can think of a situation where it would be greater for God to lie, rather than not. I hope you can at least now see that there is much deeper thought and issues that lay beneath this one apparently small and simple question. That's all I hope to do here. I hope you'll also notice I didn't invoke the Bible once to make any argument, only mere reason.

To add a few more thoughts to K's awesome post, inherent in lying is lack of foreknowledge. One lies because one is expecting a different outcome than if they didn't lie. The expectation of a different outcome implies (actually demands) lack of knowledge pertaining to future events. But by definition the God of the Bible is omniscient, knowing the end and the beginning. Now it can be said (as Justhuman did exactly) that even if God does not lie for He knows all outcomes, that doesn't necessarily mean he couldn't lie if he wanted to. And that, on the surface at least, sounds plausible. Until we examine further God's nature as not just the greatest maximal being but being itself, lacking absolutely nothing. For if God lacked anything he would then be dependent on whatever it is He is lacking. Hence, a dependent god is no god at all. There are absolute ideals (well, secondary ones at least but I'll let that go for now) such as pure love, pure goodness, pure truth. Lying is a privation, lacking pure truth. And a god who is capable of lying even if he does not, is lacking pure truth and therefore, dependent, and no god at all.

Yes Kurieuo, you're post is impressive. I'm getting the hang of what God is about. Have to read it again though.

But... a quick thought on Byblos' respons:

Byblos wrote:

... And a god who is capable of lying even if he does not, is lacking pure truth and therefore, dependent, and no god at all.

If God is so utterly 'incapable' of lying, can/does He know/realise what lying is/means? I still see a dilemma there.

He would have to 'think': "Those humans I created are lying (sometimes). I can never do that!"

Justhuman wrote:Yes Kurieuo, you're post is impressive. I'm getting the hang of what God is about. Have to read it again though.

But... a quick thought on Byblos' respons:

Byblos wrote:

... And a god who is capable of lying even if he does not, is lacking pure truth and therefore, dependent, and no god at all.

If God is so utterly 'incapable' of lying, can/does He know/realise what lying is/means? I still see a dilemma there.

He would have to 'think': "Those humans I created are lying (sometimes). I can never do that!"

You are having a very hard time understanding that God not being "able" to do something outside His nature is NOT a LIMITING factor.
God can't do evil because evil is the ABSENCE of Good and lying is the ABSENCE of truth and God CAN'T be absent of ANYTHING.
God doesn't need to be able to lie to know and understand a lie because He IS truth and understands, of course, what the lack of truth is.