Evidence for God from Science

RickD wrote:

Legatus wrote:" I'm still not sure I understand the obscure way you're explaining your point though."

Not suprising, I am trying to explain how God can see an event happening today and do something about it yesterday. This isn't the sort of thing people usually think about. I seem to be the only one I know of who even tries to think, timewise, from the point of view of God, from outside the timeline, and try to imagine what that would look like, and explain it. The problem now is to explain what is effectively an alien (not human, not even of this universe and space/time continuum) point of view.

That point, doing something before it happens, is stated here "1 Pet 1:20 He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake." This indicates that God has done at least one thing, before the universe was even created, in response to mankinds sin, which in our timefram is waaaaay past the beginning of the universe. I am merely suggesting that God not only did that sort of thing in the redemption field, but also in the physical, creation type field. Specifically, in response to sin, the lamb was slain "before the creation of the world", and the curse was implemented universe wide "before the creation of the world", but was at least partly, and certainly effectivly, excluded only from the garden, by a method not specified, for Adam and Eve. Hence, the specific word 'an enclosed garden" being deliberatly used in this text here.

So, if I'm understanding you correctly, the garden was a physical place, but didn't have the physical law of entropy present like the rest of creation?

The text specifies that the garden was a specific physical place, it says that the EFFECTS of the curse were not there, it does not tell us HOW that was acheived. It could have been that the garden had the same entropy as the rest of the world, but since it was planted and weeded by God, that unwanted EFFECTS like thorns were screened out by Gods work on the garden. The exact nature of that work was not specified, so I merely suggested the two possibilities allowed by the text. See the preceeding post for a more specific explaination of how that might be accomplished without there being any difference in natural laws inside or outside the garden.

Note that I am doing something here, when the text demands ONLY something, I say that something, when the text does not say "this only is" or "this only is not" I also do not say that. The bible ONLY says no hard work or fighting thorns or thistles to have to get something to eat before the fall inside the garden where Adam was. It does not tell use what the world was like outside the garden, so that allows, but does not demand, entropy and thorns and carnivores. The specific text DOES include the word garden, however, a very specific word that clearly states that the garden was different from the non garden outside it. I merely stated the two possible explainatins of how that could be accomplished, one with different natural laws to some extent inside the garden, and the second, simply excluding things like thorns from the garden, and having it already planted with good things to eat so that no work was nessissary. The specific text, that is, the specific inclusion of the word "garden", suggests, but does not demand, the latter.

dayage wrote:Legatus,

Where do you find a curse on the universe? If you say Romans 8, you would be incorrect.

Aaaand, exactly why would I be incorrect? Lets see, the reason you gave was, um, er, well, you didn't give one did you? So why should I just take your word that it would be incorrect? If you say that it is incorrect, but give no reason, than I must assume that it is incorrect simply because you say so. The only way that can be true is if things are correct or incorrect simply because you say so. Therefore, your words must have creative power, things exist and are true, or don't exist and are false, bacause you said so. In other words, I must beleive you because you are God. So, are you God? Can you prove it?

The primary reason I say so is beacuse God tells us that we should look for evidence of God in the natural world and "the heavens", ie the universe. So I did, and I see evidence of entropy as a natural law everywhere in the universe, and I see that the effects on man, known as "the curse" are stemming from entropy. One sees evidence of entropy, that this universe is a closed system, even from light arriving here from stars that has taken millions of years to arrive, thus it started long before the fall. So either we should look at the natural world, as God said we should, or we must give up both science (observation of the natural world as God said we should) and the bible, since it demands we do science. What does that leave, exactly?

And as for Romans 8, having no REASON not to, I SHALL look at it. It specifically says "Rom 8:20 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope Rom 8:21 that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God. Rom 8:22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time." "Bondage to decay", thats entropy in a nutshell. Note also "the whole creation", not just some, the WHOLE, seems pretty clear to me. So, exactly WHY should I NOT look in Romans 8?

Legatus,

Background to Romans 8:19-23
In Genesis 1:26-30 God created man and put him in charge of the environment of earth (animals, land and plants/agriculture: see also Gen. 2:5, 15, 19-20, 4:2; Ps. 8:6-8, 115:16). God did not put us in charge of the universe, laws of physics, plate tectonics, weather, etc.

In Gen. 3:6-13 man became sinners. Not only did man disobey God, but they hid from Him and started passing the blame for their own disobedience.

Romans 1:18-3:23 makes it clear that all of humanity are sinners.

In Roman 5, Paul says that sin came to all of humanity through Adam. He then speaks of how we, who have believed, have been justified through Christ from our state of spiritual separation from God (spiritual death). This is found in Paul's other writings as well (Eph. 2:1, 5; Colossians 2:13).

Romans 6 begins the section on sanctification where Paul instructs us not to continue to let sin rule over us. We are to die to sin (verses 1-2, 6-7, 11-12, 14-15, 22, etc.).

The second half of Romans 7 shows us that there remains a struggle between the flesh, still affected by our old sin nature, and the mind/spirit, reborn through Christ. Paul writes about this elsewhere as well (I Cor. 3:1-3; Galatians 5:17).

In chapter 8:9-10, Paul is still speaking about sanctification while again acknowledging the believer's struggle with sin (vs. 10).

In Romans 8:11, Paul mentions our future resurrection.

In Romans 8:14-17, Paul states that believers are adopted children of God and heirs with Christ.

In Romans 8:18, Paul refers to our current struggles (tribulations – Romans 5:3 and against sin – see above). He again mentions our future glory (see verse 11 above).

Legatus,
Romans 8:19-23

Romans 8:20 "For the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope"
God is the one who subjects. With the background information mentioned above, we can see that God put mankind in charge knowing that they would fall into sin. Vanity/futility (mataiotes) is emptiness as to results. When man fell, his leadership became distorted. Therefore, creation could not live up to its potential - vanity.

Romans 8:21 "That the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God."
What is "slavery to corruption?" Corruption phthoras means to be brought into an inferior or worse condition. With our past, present and future relationship to sin being the main focus of these chapters, it makes sense to me that sin must be connected with this corruption. Dr. C. John Collins points out that the LXX uses related Greek words (ephthare, katephtharmene and katephtheiren) to refer to the corruption (sinfulness) of man in Genesis 6:11-12.

A slave (something in bondage) has a master. In Genesis 1:26-30 God created man and put him in charge of the environment of earth (animals, land and plants/agriculture; see Gen. 2:5, 15, 19-20, 4:2 and Ps. 8:6-8, 115:16). In fact in Genesis 1:28 God told man to kabash (subdue, bring into bondage) and to radah (rule over) the earth and what is in it. Psalm 8:6 gives the same picture. Man was given dominion (mashal) and all things were "put under his feet" (shiyth tahat regel).

In light of the surrounding context, corruption seems to refer to mankind's sinfulness. So, creation is in slavery to man's sinfulness. We can see examples of how man's sins affect creation (Gen. 3:17-18, Gen. 6-9; Lev. 18:1-25, 20:22; Num. 35:33-34; Deut. 29:22-27; Ps. 107:33-34).

Romans 8:22 "For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now."
Here Paul refers to the groaning of this creation. Again, I believe it is the earth's environment since that is what we were given charge over. We can see how sin brings about creation's suffering in passages such as: Isaiah 24:3-7; Jeremiah 12:4, 11, 23:10-11; Hosea 4:2-3. Birth here refers to resurrection (Is. 26:16-21; Romans 8:19, 22-23; Colossians 1:18; Rev. 1:5).

Legatus,
Romans 8:23 "And not only this, but also we ourselves, having the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting eagerly for our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body."
As with the creation, here in verse 23, Paul says we (believers) also groan and are awaiting the completion of our adoption, our resurrection. We groan because, as was seen in the passages leading up to Romans 8, our flesh battles against our spirit. Our sin is the reason for the groaning of both believers and the creation.

In verses 19-22, Paul reveals that there is a future cure for creation. He says it "waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God" (vs. 19), will be "set free from slavery…into the freedom of the glory of the children of God" (vs. 21), creation is "suffering the pains of childbirth" (vs. 22). As mentioned above, birth is an analogy for resurrection. Verse 23 goes along with these verses in showing that the problem is the same for creation as it is for us, our sinfulness. Therefore, creation's cure is the same as ours, our resurrection.

When man was put in charge of the earth, he was sinless. After Adam sinned he was still in control, so now earth was subjected to a sinful ruler. In Romans 1:18-8:18 Paul has been talking about sins effects with respect to humanity (both lost and saved), now he has shown that our sinfulness affects the world around us. When believers are resurrected we will have glorified bodies, unaffected by sin. We will rule with Christ (during the millennium) as the sinless rulers we were meant to be and earth will be set free from its bondage to our sinful ways.

Some suggest that the corruption to which creation was subjected is the 2nd law of thermodynamics and that God, at creation put it in place, because He foreknew that man would fall into sin. They link this sin-caused corruption (starting at creation) to the future fall, in a similar way as the Old Testament saint's salvation came through faith in a future coming Messiah. If this were the case, then any pre-millennium view would have to show a change in this 2nd law during the millennium. This is because the Romans text shows that the resurrection of the righteous is the cure for the corruption.

I think the context shows that Romans 8 has nothing to do with animal death or the changing of the laws of physics.

double post

This assumes you are right about this "millenium". The way the millenium is interpreted is that revelations is said to be (obviosly) symbolic, Jesus doesnt really have broze feet or a literal sword coming out of his mouth, etc. When they get to the "thousand years" part, they interpret it like this symbolic symbolic symbolic literal symbolic symbolic. The "thousand year" part is also symbolic, in the original it simply means "a long but finite period of time".

Second, the whole thing about Jesus coming again just for beleivers etc is not in the clear text, they have to do backflips to fit it in there, and it makes nonsense of the whole 'second coming" thing, since it would mean both a second coming and then a third one. It also is against the part where Jesus himself said that when he came it would be seen as far as the east is from the west, and with the sound of a loud trumpet, does that sound like a secret rapture to you? Then theres the whole idea invented that Juses'es feet don't actually touch the earth for "the rapture", and therefore that 'doesn't actually count' as a coming, I mean really, just how far are you going to twist scripture to hold on to your idea?

This whole milleniium and secret rapture thing is a recent invention (maybe 150 years tops), for most of history no one held this view. Therefor, to base this idea soley on that, which is in dispute, and not CLEARLY STATED IN SCRIPTURE, and having evidence that contradicts the idea in scripture, just shows that it is true that "error begets error".

And now, it is also seen to be in opposition to "the whole creation" as clearly stated in Romans 8, IF you say that the reason Romans 8 does not refere to the whole creation is something that is not clearly stated in scripture. If it doesn't mean "the whole creation", it WOULDN'T SAY THAT. But it DOES, so, you must either eccept what the bible actually, clearly DOES say, or go write your own bible.

I can see now that this whole "secret rapture" thing is just a part of what I call "secret operations of Satan", in spy terms, "active measures" ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_measures ), where you infilterate the other side and influence them in ways you desire. There are quite a number of them, the biggest being the whole religion versus science idea, which makes christianity look backward, stupid, causes many christians to so sperate themselves from the world that they are no longer even in it and thus are never seen by it, and causes science to be so anti religious that the clear evidence for God in nature is covered up or explained away in unscientific ways. All you have shown me here is that the rapture and millenium thing is also part of it. before, It looked like a minor side issue, now i see that it also is tied in.

Legatus,

Where did I mention a secret rapture? In Historic pre-mill the rapture and the second coming are one. We go up to meet Christ in the air and return with Him to earth to rule and reign for the 1,000 years.

You have not looked at church history, or you would know that the oldest view (1st and 2nd century) taught the pre-mill. view.

Literal Thousand Year Reign
Fragments of Papias (60’s-140?) – Fragment VI (from Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., III, 39); also see Jerome’s De Viris Illustribus (On Illustrious Men), ch. 18
Epistle of Barnabas (130-131?) – Chapter 15
Justin Martyr (100-165) – Dialogue with Trypho, ch. 80-81
Irenaeus (115-202) – Against Heresies, bk. V, Ch. 32
Commodianus (~250) – On Christian Discipline, XLIV, LXXX
Victorinus (?-303) – On the Creation of the World and Commentary on the Apocalypse, ch. 20.1-3
Methodius (?-311) – Banquet of the Ten Virgins, Discourse 9, ch. 1
Lactantius (240?-320?) – Divine Institutes, Book VII (Of a Happy Life), ch. 14, 22, 24 and 26

If your a preterist I've got more history for you. Notice that I've given you the exact references to research it yourself. If your not a preterist then good.

The only view that gives time for "creation" to be free is the pre-mill view. After, the Judgement, creation will be destroyed and the New Creation will take its place.

Where is this secret rapture?

jlay wrote:Where is this secret rapture?

The "secret rature" and a litteral "millenial kingdom" are a rather commonly believed thing in many churches now (one could say most, at least of "avengelical protestant"), and always seem to come together. They say that Jesus will come only for christians, without non christians knowing about it, and raise them into heaven (ridiculouse reasons are dreamed up as to how no one would notice something like that), that they will then spend exactly 7 years there, and then only after that jesus actually comes in the second coming with those saints and then follows the millenial kindom. It is contradicted by Jesus explicity denying any secret coming of his, and stating that absolutly everyone would both see and hear him coming.

When I see anyone mentioning the millenial kindom, I assume they believe this, I may have been wrong in this case.

I'm not aware of this being 'secret,' where others will not notice.

The bible certianly preaches a millennial reign. Whether it is 'literally' 1,000 earth years is another issue. I'd like to hear your views on why it isn't literal. You can't simply say that there are symbolic things in Rev. so everything is symbolic. It may be symbolic, but you need more of an answer than this.

In Historic pre-mill the rapture and the second coming are one. We go up to meet Christ in the air and return with Him to earth to rule and reign for the 1,000 years.

Actually what is stated by Dayage is not the view of all, as you probably already know. That the rapture and second coming are one event. In fact many believe the mill reign will be the coming of the Kingdom on Earth in the restoration of Israel to her Messiah. And it will happen after the tribulation, which is after the rapture.


http://www.theopedia.com/Millennial_kingdom

jlay,

Secretly I hope the pre-trib. rapture is correct. If it happens in my lifetime, I'd rather not go through the Tribulation.

Here is the propblem " If this were the case, then any pre-millennium view would have to show a change in this 2nd law during the millennium, This is because the Romans text shows that the resurrection of the righteous is the cure for the corruption."
God made entropy because non entropy requires God to be intimatly present at all times everywhere, as he adds energy and especially information, making the universe an open system. However, man decided they did not want God running everything when they decided they wanted to run things on their rules, such as the new rule "eating this fruit is ok". God gave them what they wanted, a universe that they can try and rule. However, they then discover that they are not God, and cannot rule everything as God did (they do not have creative power, therefor cannot counteract entropy except through hard work), and also discover that their rules often don't work, and result in pain. God will not change the universe to an open system untill everyone in it accepts that, which cannot happen during any millenial kindom as non christians exist then. During the millenium, at least they find out what happens (peace and prosperity) when they at least follow the basic rules God gave them, even if they do not become believers. Many still do not, despite all that evidence, and eventually fight against God. God, therefor, gives them exactly what they want, a world without God always giving them good things that only the creater can (being the only creater there is), hence, hell, the place without any of the good we want and need.

It is only after that, The Judgment, that there exists in this universe only those who have volintarily accepted God as rulemaker. It is then that God says he will bring about "the new heavens and the new earth", the descriptions of which sound like an open system. For God to do this while non christians are around would force on them exactly what they most do not want, God noticably present everywhere at all times and running things. It is not mankind who does this by being sinfull or not, mankind doesn't have the power to make any kind of universe, open or closed. Thus, there is no requirement for God to change the entire universe just because some, and only some, of the people on it are beleivers in the millenium. If he can make it a closed system from the biggining of time, as nature very clearly shows he did, in response to mankinds sin much later, than he can also say that he will remake it as an open system, but not nessisarily at the same time he resurrects. He is outside of time, and does not have to follow linear time, or do things on our time, or when we expect it or want it.

The above idea, equating mans "dominion" over the earth as apperently changing it if they sin to become also sinfull ("its bondage to our sinful ways"), and changing it again when some, but only some get ressurected, gives far too much power to man. This universe is not our slave, it is Gods slave, he decides how it will start, how it will end, and how a new one will start and go on. We do not, and cannot, because we do not have creative power. We cannot make something from nothing. It is God who did "the curse" (entropy), on his time (which is different than ours, as I have explained above, time is related to matter etc) and not on our time, and God who is the only one who can or will remove it. The universe doesn't change when we change, it changes when, and only when, God is good and ready to change it. He is, after all, the only one with the power to do so. So this idea that mans "dominion" over the earth equates to some sort of magical power over it is, in fact, the same old sin mankind first sinned, thinking THEY had the power to decide ANYTHING creation wise. The bible, and the whole universe, teach one simple truth at basic
1) There is a God.
2) Your not it.

I should also point out that "the resurrection of the righteous is the cure for the corruption" indeed, but may, at first, only be for the currution that the righteous (or, more properly, the forgiven and esteemed righteous) see in their own bodies ( "our adoption as sons, the redemption of our body"). Their own bodies becoming an open system (which they must to rise from the dead) does not nessissarily have to be at the same time as the "ressurection" of the univers in the new haeavens and earth. God will do that when he is good and ready, and not one second before. The text indicates that he will do the rest of the universes "ressurection" AFTER the end of the millenium, and after the judgment decides who will be in it (those who accept the idea of God being always noticably present, ie those who CHOOSE God). I should also point out that the above phrase "is the cure for" is false, God is the only one who has the power either to make a curse, or to cure it.

I should also point out that the phrase "is the cure for" is not in the bible, therefore, we should not say it. If God had ment to say that, he simply would have used those exact words. he did not, therefore he did not mean to say that. Understanding the bible is actually pretty easy, God always says EXACTLY what he means, and means exactly what he said. There is no reason to jump around from isolated verse to isolated verse, and equate mankind being given dominion over the earth to some sort of magical power over it, due to sorta "expanding" the word slavery to mean that. That is the way many false ideas start, take a single word, expand the meaning to the maximum possible, take one possible meaning, and then run completly off the page with it to make up a whole big idea around that one small possible meaning. Dominion means dominion, ownership, I own things but do not have magical power over them, I certainly do not have power over this universe.

I should also point out, again, that God said we should look at the natural world. In it are fossils. Fossils are dead. Most of those fossils were dead loooong before any man walked the earth (such as, say, tribolites). Clearly, then, there WAS entropy before man. The bible also says God made entropy BECAUSE OF man. Therefor, God clearly did the curse, entropy, BEFORE (in our time frame, but not Gods) mankind sinned. Therefore you have two choices, ignore the fossils, and thus not look at the natural world, which God said show him, and thus close our eyes to what God said to open them to, and therefor close our eyes to God, or admit the fossils (VERY VERY DEAD) and admit that entropy existed "before" mankind. It is Satan who wants you to close your eyes to the natural world, and thus to God, and thus not see, and show others, the truth of God in it. He also wants to stop christians from being associated in any way with science, both because they might discover God, but also to be able to say "oh, those christians, they reject science, and therefore reality, they are living in a fantasy world, minds still in the dark ages before science". So far, he has been very successful at that.

In short:
Mankind didnt bring about the curse, God did (he chose to, and used his creative power).
And God will end it in exactly the way he wants (not nessisarily all at once) and only when he is good and ready.
This is because God is God.
And we are not.
To say that mankinds sin was itself the cause of entropy is to say that mankind has creative power, and is therefor God.
So, are you God?
Can you prove it?

Legatus,

If I had not recognized a few of my phrases, I would not have known that you were responding to me. I clearly stated that the 2nd law had nothing to do with Romans 8. So why are responding as if I claimed that Adam had cotrol over entropy? I clearly showed how far man's dominion reached, using the Bible.

Romans 8 says nothing about a curse. Read my discussion of Romans 8 again and the verses that support each point. Then respond to the points. You claim that the Bible means what it says and says what it means, but is Jesus a wooden door? No, the Bible means what it means. You must interpret it based on the type of literature, language and context. You can not always just read English and say, I've got it. By the way, I'm waiting for you to support your position with Bible quotes. I do not recall one in this last response.

I should also point out that the phrase "is the cure for" is not in the bible

I hope you can express a concept without using the exact word. Romans 8:21, 23 do that nicely. By the way, as the Bible points out, Christ rules with us on earth. It is not just a handfull of resurrected believers. Read the verses. Trinity is not in the Bible, but the concept clearly is.

It is only after that, The Judgment, that there exists in this universe only those who have volintarily accepted God as rulemaker.

Judgement does not take place in this universe, so this has no bearing on my position. You still have not shown a time when creation will be set free INTO our freedom. This only happens in a pre-mill view.

Much of what you said makes it seem as though you are unaware that I believe in a 13.7 Billion year old universe and a 4.56 Billion year old earth.

Did God set this universe up in advance to be only temporary? Yes! There is lots of Biblical support for that, but that is not what Romans 8 is about. As I tried to show, the context does not support your position.

Legatus,

You claimed that because Romans 8:22 uses the phrase "whole creation, " that corruption came to the entire universe. Whole creation is pas (whole, all) and ktisis (creation, creature). These words are combined only three other times in the NT.

Mark 16:15 "And He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all (pas) creation (ktisis)."

Is the gospel to be preached to rocks and trees? If we translate ktisis to mean creature, is it to be preached to dogs, cows, birds, etc? All means all, right? Pas ktisis just means all people.

Colossians 1:15 "And He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all (pas) creation (ktisis)."

Here it really does mean the whole universe and more (Colossians 1:16-17; John 1:1-3).

Colossians 1:23 "if indeed you continue in the faith firmly established and steadfast, and not moved away from the hope of the gospel that you have heard, which was proclaimed in all (pas) creation (ktisis) under heaven, and of which I, Paul, was made a minister."

Had the gospel spread around the whole planet? No! "All Creation" here means the Roman Empire.

In Romans 8:22 pas ktisis refers to all of creation which is under the influence of sinful man. God put the earth in subjection to man, knowing that we would fall, so that is all that the text is referring to (Romans 8:20, Gen. 1:26-30; 2:5, 15, 19-20, 4:2; Ps. 8:6-8, 115:16). Paul is drawing on his extensive knowledge of the Old Testament, as a former Pharisee. So I doubt that he would have given man's influence a greater range that the OT permits.