Evidence for God from Science

Kurieuo wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Sometimes it is easier to see the layers, for example, without physical laws can matter exist? Probably not.
It seems easy to see, well at least for me, and you seemed to get it so it must be somewhat clear.

So now we have physical laws that have always existed, but nonetheless they still may be contingent.
If matter depends upon a set of physical laws greater than itself, which it seems to me would be, then matter is contingent.
Is there some foundational unifying force upon which absolutely every thing is contingent, which is itself immovable, having always existed without being dependent upon anything else?
THAT, is the question. Right?

Good question, but does there have to be? Does there have to be a great something that sits on top of everything else that isn’t contingent upon anything, but everything is in one way or another contingent on it? Isn’t it possible the various types of matter is contingent upon something else, the various laws of nature contingent upon something else, everything that exist contingent upon something else?

I believe there has to be a foundational something.
Can everything be contingent, meaning that there is no necessary foundational something existing in and of itself from which all else is built upon? If a "yes" sounds logical to you, then I'd encourage you to build some arguments for such.

For me though, such goes against basic intuition.
I can also think of some logical arguments against this, but I'd be happy to entertain arguments for the flip side?

To assume something is possible doesn't require you know how it is possible, this is a position that can be taken via ignorance. To say something is impossible, this implies you know WHY it is impossible. This is not a position that can be taken via ignorance.

Ken

kenny wrote:wrote:


I read the first one and my problem with this link and the ideas behind it are that I do not believe that I am evil and guilty and I am not going to accept that I am. I will not accept that I will forever require grace and forgiveness in order to be good or considered good because I am not perfect.

RickD wrote:I must've missed it...Kenny, where in either of those two links does it say you are evil?

Perhaps I inserted the word Evil. Why would someone be tortured in Hell if they weren't evil?

know that sounds harsh, and believe me I am not trying to offend, but I don't know how to express it any other way, the fact is; I don't believe I am a bad person. I don’t believe I deserve torture. I know the good that I do by far outweighs the bad, and to focus on the bad and ignore the good in my opinion is not fair.

RickD wrote:And there's that dreaded "fair" word again, used when referring to God.
And Kenny, if you've broken any of God's commandments, even one, you're guilty of breaking them all.

And that's what trips me out; why is it if I broke 1 commandment, it gets multiplied 10 fold, but if I do something good, it isn't even noticed because you're saved by grace not works. It's almost like saying; works only count if you do bad, then it's amplified 10 fold; when you do good it does't count. To me that does't sound fair.

K

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Sometimes it is easier to see the layers, for example, without physical laws can matter exist? Probably not.
It seems easy to see, well at least for me, and you seemed to get it so it must be somewhat clear.

So now we have physical laws that have always existed, but nonetheless they still may be contingent.
If matter depends upon a set of physical laws greater than itself, which it seems to me would be, then matter is contingent.
Is there some foundational unifying force upon which absolutely every thing is contingent, which is itself immovable, having always existed without being dependent upon anything else?
THAT, is the question. Right?

Good question, but does there have to be? Does there have to be a great something that sits on top of everything else that isn’t contingent upon anything, but everything is in one way or another contingent on it? Isn’t it possible the various types of matter is contingent upon something else, the various laws of nature contingent upon something else, everything that exist contingent upon something else?

I believe there has to be a foundational something.
Can everything be contingent, meaning that there is no necessary foundational something existing in and of itself from which all else is built upon? If a "yes" sounds logical to you, then I'd encourage you to build some arguments for such.

For me though, such goes against basic intuition.
I can also think of some logical arguments against this, but I'd be happy to entertain arguments for the flip side?

To assume something is possible doesn't require you know how it is possible, this is a position that can be taken via ignorance. To say something is impossible, this implies you know WHY it is impossible. This is not a position that can be taken via ignorance.

Face-to-face with logical arguments that rule such out such, then the burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise.
That is, to prove (1) Absolutely everything is contingent and there is nothing that has existed in and of itself that isn't contingent upon something other.

I submit argument based on the impossibility of an actual infinite
and argument based on the impossibility of the formation of an actual infinite by successive addition.
What do you have to counter these and support your (1) above ?

Further to this, I submit that something that has always existed which is not contingent upon anything else is more clear and intuitive.
So much so that my 7yo daughter gets there must be some foundation which has always been non-contingent upon anything else, not just sequentially in time but foundationally in a hierarchical structure.

And finally, I submit that you also intuitively accepted such in my argument elsewhere. I point you to this discussion.
There you submitted that matter was the thing that: "exists necessarily and is the foundational cause for other things that exist."
So it appears when no bias is at play that you opt for #2 out of:

1) God being the logically necessary non-contingent being, or
2) Some "Super Force", which can explain and unify absolutely everything. Like God minus the intelligence.

It's suspicious that you now want to change your mind to say there is no foundation to everything.
You're entitled to change your mind of course, but evidently you're trying to avoid the obvious intuitive logic behind the argument from contingency for a necessary Something.

In other words, you're letting your bias get in the way.
You appear to accept the logic, but now not the conclusion once seen.
So then, why not rest with #2? What is your repulsion, because it certainly isn't for lack of reason.

Interesting situation here...

Now to heat up some popcorn...

I hope this helps Kenny finally see.

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Sometimes it is easier to see the layers, for example, without physical laws can matter exist? Probably not.
It seems easy to see, well at least for me, and you seemed to get it so it must be somewhat clear.

So now we have physical laws that have always existed, but nonetheless they still may be contingent.
If matter depends upon a set of physical laws greater than itself, which it seems to me would be, then matter is contingent.
Is there some foundational unifying force upon which absolutely every thing is contingent, which is itself immovable, having always existed without being dependent upon anything else?
THAT, is the question. Right?

Good question, but does there have to be? Does there have to be a great something that sits on top of everything else that isn’t contingent upon anything, but everything is in one way or another contingent on it? Isn’t it possible the various types of matter is contingent upon something else, the various laws of nature contingent upon something else, everything that exist contingent upon something else?

I believe there has to be a foundational something.
Can everything be contingent, meaning that there is no necessary foundational something existing in and of itself from which all else is built upon? If a "yes" sounds logical to you, then I'd encourage you to build some arguments for such.

For me though, such goes against basic intuition.
I can also think of some logical arguments against this, but I'd be happy to entertain arguments for the flip side?

To assume something is possible doesn't require you know how it is possible, this is a position that can be taken via ignorance. To say something is impossible, this implies you know WHY it is impossible. This is not a position that can be taken via ignorance.

Kurieuo wrote: Face-to-face with logical arguments that rule such out such, then the burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise.
That is, to prove (1) Absolutely everything is contingent and there is nothing that has existed in and of itself that isn't contingent upon something other.

Absolutely everything? Does this include God? If not you might wanna change your wording.

Kurieuo wrote: I submit argument based on the impossibility of an actual infinite
and argument based on the impossibility of the formation of an actual infinite by successive addition.

Doesn’t this contradict what you just said above? What am I missing?

Kurieuo wrote: What do you have to counter these and support your (1) above ?

I don’t think (1) represents my views.

Kurieuo wrote: Further to this, I submit that something that has always existed which is not contingent upon anything else is more clear and intuitive.

Ohh! Ohh! I know this one! (Ken on the edge of his seat with his hand raised) that something is God?

Kurieuo wrote: So much so that my 7yo daughter gets there must be some foundation which has always been non-contingent upon anything else, not just sequentially in time but foundationally in a hierarchical structure.

The fact your 7 yr old daughter gets it but scientists who know more about the subject than you and I combined does not, tells me that “getting it” isn’t a result of scientific evidence. So what do you suppose it is the result of?
a. Faith
b. Christian upbringing
c. Daddy’s influence
d. All of the above

Kurieuo wrote: And finally, I submit that you also intuitively accepted such in my argument elsewhere. I point you to this discussion.
There you submitted that matter was the thing that: "exists necessarily and is the foundational cause for other things that exist."
So it appears when no bias is at play that you opt for #2 out of:

1) God being the logically necessary non-contingent being, or
2) Some "Super Force", which can explain and unify absolutely everything. Like God minus the intelligence.

It's suspicious that you now want to change your mind to say there is no foundation to everything.
You're entitled to change your mind of course, but evidently you're trying to avoid the obvious intuitive logic behind the argument from contingency for a necessary Something.

In other words, you're letting your bias get in the way.
You appear to accept the logic, but now not the conclusion once seen.
So then, why not rest with #2? What is your repulsion, because it certainly isn't for lack of reason.

[/quote]

The discussion you listed is different than what you are referring to now; in that discussion I was talking about multiple things as a first cause, (various types of matter) right now you seem to be talking about a single first cause.

Ken

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote: Face-to-face with logical arguments that rule such out such, then the burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise.
That is, to prove (1) Absolutely everything is contingent and there is nothing that has existed in and of itself that isn't contingent upon something other.

Absolutely everything? Does this include God? If not you might wanna change your wording.

That is, what you're saying
(see end of my post here where I re-quote your exact words).

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:I submit argument based on the impossibility of an actual infinite
and argument based on the impossibility of the formation of an actual infinite by successive addition.

Doesn’t this contradict what you just said above? What am I missing?

How so? You just tweak them a little to apply to a hierarchical structure where there is a non-contingent foundation to everything else that is contingent upon something prior.

Ken wrote:

Kurieuo wrote: What do you have to counter these and support your (1) above ?

I don’t think (1) represents my views.

What I wrote is simply a succinct restatement of your words:

• Does there have to be a great something that sits on top of everything else that isn’t contingent upon anything, but everything is in one way or another contingent on it? Isn’t it possible the various types of matter is contingent upon something else, the various laws of nature contingent upon something else, everything that exist contingent upon something else?

Ken wrote:

Kurieuo wrote: Further to this, I submit that something that has always existed which is not contingent upon anything else is more clear and intuitive.

Ohh! Ohh! I know this one! (Ken on the edge of his seat with his hand raised) that something is God?

Now you're just making yourself look foolish.
I've given two options, one of which excludes God:

• 1) God being the logically necessary non-contingent being, or
  2) Some "Super Force", which can explain and unify absolutely everything. Like God minus the intelligence.
  

Ken wrote:

Kurieuo wrote: So much so that my 7yo daughter gets there must be some foundation which has always been non-contingent upon anything else, not just sequentially in time but foundationally in a hierarchical structure.

The fact your 7 yr old daughter gets it but scientists who know more about the subject than you and I combined does not, tells me that “getting it” isn’t a result of scientific evidence. So what do you suppose it is the result of?
a. Faith
b. Christian upbringing
c. Daddy’s influence
d. All of the above

Did you just wave a red flag in my face?

Firstly, since when did you represent what scientists believe? I'm sure there are many scientists who see that something must have always existed in some for or another which is itself also foundational and contingent upon nothing other. They may be Atheist (believing in the physical world) or Theist (believing in God).

Secondly, scientists are not necessarily professional thinkers and logicians so they're authority in biology, physics or what have you doesn't matter. So you appeal to an irrelevant authority. Better to know what philosophers think who are professional reasoners and strict logicians.

Thirdy, look up Argumentum ad populum. You might find your face beside it as an example of someone prone to use this fallacy as far as what "scientists" believe. (sorry, I couldn't help myself with this jibe)

Fourthly, if what scientists believe settles the case then, welcome aboard Kenny. I encourage you to research because polls generally do not support what you suggest. Try 17% atheist 11% agnostic 48% believe in God and the remainder somewhere in between (according to Pew Research surveys)

Lastly, as for my daughter, yes she understood of her own accord that something must have always existed. You don't know how I probe and ask questions, so again, you're talking from ignorance. In fact, sorry to burst your bubble Kenny, but a summary of the science strongly indicate that belief in God as a creator, an afterlife and some sort of mind-body dualism is quite innate.

I'm sorry if I'm sounding mean here, but I have done nothing here but highlight much emptiness behind your words.
Something I would encourage to avoid looking a little silly is to actually support your words with something.

Don't get me wrong, I kind of like that we have someone here who will just take an opposite position to anything we (Christians) say almost each and every time, but at the same time, it can wear thin when it appears for sake's sake stuff is being said.

Kenny wrote:

Kurieuo wrote: And finally, I submit that you also intuitively accepted such in my argument elsewhere. I point you to this discussion.
There you submitted that matter was the thing that: "exists necessarily and is the foundational cause for other things that exist."
So it appears when no bias is at play that you opt for #2 out of:

1) God being the logically necessary non-contingent being, or
2) Some "Super Force", which can explain and unify absolutely everything. Like God minus the intelligence.

It's suspicious that you now want to change your mind to say there is no foundation to everything.
You're entitled to change your mind of course, but evidently you're trying to avoid the obvious intuitive logic behind the argument from contingency for a necessary Something.

In other words, you're letting your bias get in the way.
You appear to accept the logic, but now not the conclusion once seen.
So then, why not rest with #2? What is your repulsion, because it certainly isn't for lack of reason.

The discussion you listed is different than what you are referring to now; in that discussion I was talking about multiple things as a first cause, (various types of matter) right now you seem to be talking about a single first cause.

Different discussion? Yes, but much the same topic. Look at the title of the thread and the question posed that you answered.

There's no change in topic.
Not being caused by anything else, but causing other things is one part of what it would be to be non-contingent.
However, something also being foundational to everything else, where that something is not founded upon anything else is a second factor to non-contingency.

In that discussion, you identify "matter" as being the foundational non-contingent something that has always existed:

• So in theory; if some of the matter in the Universe has always existed, (first cause) and is responsible for the existence of other types of matter in the Universe, that would be door #1; exists necessarily and is the foundational cause for other things that exist.

This you support option #2 here above ('Some "Super Force", which can explain and unify absolutely everything. Like God minus the intelligence').

NOW you're just saying, it's not #1 and it's not #2 above. As you wrote in this thread, and I quote:

• Does there have to be a great something that sits on top of everything else that isn’t contingent upon anything, but everything is in one way or another contingent on it? Isn’t it possible the various types of matter is contingent upon something else, the various laws of nature contingent upon something else, everything that exist contingent upon something else?

The contradiction may not be clear to you, but it is clear to me.
I'm sure it is clear to others.

If you NOW believe this, that absolutely everything is contingent upon something else and there is no foundational something, then again I encourage you to offer up your arguments as to how and why. Also, it would be absolutely fantastic if you did use science to support your case, because unlike your mere opinion of what you believe science says, I really am sincerely interested in having a scientifically compatible view of the world.

But, if you wish to again re-support option #2 above (which I fully encourage you to do because it is a more logically sound position) then we can put it down to a misunderstand, confusion, or something. Let me say that I found you more logically sound when you posited matter as the necessary foundation for everything else, even if in our discussion here we've identified such is dependent upon physics.

You know, some secular contemporary physicists believe the fundamental force to everything as being energy (in positive and negative forms). I'm not saying I agree with this, since evidently I believe God is the fundamental force. HOWEVER, if you think science is on your site to postulate something so absurd as there not being a common foundation that everything is dependent upon, then you are in serious error.

Kurieuo
Since where did you represent what scientists believe?
Firstly, you do not get the argument. I'm sure there are many scientists who see that something must have always existed in some for or another which is itself foundational and contingent upon nothing other. They may be Atheist, they may be Theist.

Secondly, scientists are not necessarily professional thinkers and logicians so they're authority in biology, physics or what have you doesn't matter. So you appeal to an irrelevant authority. Better to know what philosophers think who are professional reasoners and strict logicians.

Ken
I was not claiming what individual scientist may believe, I was talking about what science have discovered via scientific methods. As I said before, I don’t know how things got the way they are, all I am talking about are possibilities.


Kurieuo
Not being caused by anything else, but causing other things is part of what it would be to be non-contingent.
However, something being foundational to everything else, such that everything else is built upon that something is a second factor to non-contingency.

Ken
I think I was disagreeing with the second factor of non-contingency


Kurieuo
In that discussion you refer to matter being #2 above:

Ken
No, #2 says “Some "Super Force", which can explain and unify absolutely everything. Like God minus the intelligence.
I was not referring to matter as a “super force” nor was I referring to it as like God minus his intelligence; I was referring to something like rocks, soil, etc.

Kurieuo quotes Ken
So in theory; if some of the matter in the Universe has always existed, (first cause) and is responsible for the existence of other types of matter in the Universe, that would be door #1; exists necessarily and is the foundational cause for other things that exist.

Ken
Yes that’s exactly what I said. When I said matter, I meant various types of matter, not matter as a singular thing; that is responsible for all other things that exist.
To use colors as an example; multiple primary colors that are responsible for various other colors that exist; (by mixing them) not one single color that caused all others to exist. (not a very good example but the only one I could think of at the moment)


Kurieuo
Here you're just saying, it's not #1 and it's not #2 above. You wrote in this thread, and I quote:

Does there have to be a great something that sits on top of everything else that isn’t contingent upon anything, but everything is in one way or another contingent on it? Isn’t it possible the various types of matter is contingent upon something else, the various laws of nature contingent upon something else, everything that exist contingent upon something else?

The contradiction may not be clear to you, but it is clear to me.

Ken
I think you see it as a contradiction because you assume I assert this position. All I am doing is listing possibilities. I recognize the possibility of multiple first causes that are contingent on each other, or multiple first causes that are not contingent upon each other, but may have caused other things via contact with other first causes.


Kurieuo
If you NOW believe this, that absolutely everything is contingent upon something else and there is no foundational something, then offer up your arguments as to how and why. However, please do use science to support your case, because unlike your mere opinion of what you believe science says, I really am sincerely interested in having a scientifically compatible view of the world.

Unless of course, you wish to again re-support option #2 above, which I do encourage you to do because it is a more logically sound position. You were more logically sound when you posited matter as the necessary foundation for everything else, even if in our discussion here we've identified such is dependent upon physics.

You know, some secular contemporary physicists believe the fundamental force to be energy in positive and negative forms. I'm not saying I agree with this, but if you think science is on your site to postulate something so absurd as there not being a common base that everything can be reduced to, then you are in serious error.

Ken
I don’t think I can give you the discussion you are looking for. You are looking for me to make an argument based upon what I believe to be true and back it up with scientific evidence. I can’t make a case for something I am not convinced it true. If someone says the only choices are (a) or (b) I can come up with a (c) or (d) choice but it doesn’t mean I believe (c) or (d) it just means I believe it is possible.

The idea that multiple uncaused causes (matter) being responsible for various other things that exist; though not something I claim to be true, I do suspect it to be true only because it makes sense to me, but I know of no scientific claims to back it up, thus I am unable to give you the argument you are looking for.


Ken

Kenny wrote:The idea that multiple uncaused causes (matter) being responsible for various other things that exist; though not something I claim to be true, I do suspect it to be true only because it makes sense to me, but I know of no scientific claims to back it up, thus I am unable to give you the argument you are looking for.

To tone things down a little, I'll give benefit of doubt and try to process what you've said
-- since I can pick up on several additional thoughts that I think are valid, but don't really affect the conclusion I'm aiming for.

That is, when all is said and done you are then affirming the non-contingency of something.
You think a possibility for a non-contingent foundation could be "matter", however you describe such.

If so, then this means that you do agree with the logic that says there must be a foundational something.
A foundational something (i.e., possibly matter) that exists.*

* Qualifications being that:
i) there could be multiple foundations, rather than a singular unitary foundation; and
ii) while a "foundation" may be non-contingent in itself, such a foundation could actually be a system comprised of a multiplicity of internal relationships which have mutually co-existed as one whole.

Is that a good summary of your thoughts?

If so, then I see that you accept an argument of contingency as I'm presenting it -- NOT for God (let's be clear there!),
BUT, to the point of showing a foundation of some sort must exist from which contingent things outside of such foundations are derived.

I don't want to put words in your mouth, or use terms that you're uncomfortable with (e.g., an unintelligent "Super Force" which I can see carries some theological flavour although such was unintended). So feel free to rewrite in your own words anything you feel is amiss.

Kurieuo wrote:[
You think a possibility for a non-contingent foundation could be "matter", however you describe such.

If so, then this means that you do agree with the logic that says there must be a foundational something.
A foundational something (i.e., possibly matter) that exists.*

* Qualifications being that:
i) there could be multiple foundations, rather than a singular unitary foundation; and
ii) while a "foundation" may be non-contingent in itself, such a foundation could actually be a system comprised of a multiplicity of internal relationships which have mutually co-existed as one whole.

Is that a good summary of your thoughts?

That is a good summary of that makes sense to me. I say that with the understanding that the real answer may be something none of us has ever thought of, or that some law of the Universe could be in place mankind has yet to discover and is responsible. But if I had to, using my limited knowledge of the Universe; "pick a belief" it would be something akin to what you said.

Ken

Ok, so I guess we've got some progress.

So how does this logical need for a foundation non-contingent upon anything external to itself -- how is such relevant to the previous discussions of this thread? That, is what I want to try and now identify and wrap up in this post.

Notwithstanding, that I think more can be said of a hierarchical order and identifying that which stands on top something else (i.e., identify that which is contingent). In particular, something that can be ordered or arranged in this or that way. BUT, that can be left for some future discussion perhaps. I'm actually thrilled that we could reach some agreed summary here.

All the more, because you identified one possibility for the non-contingent something as being a mutual relationship between two or more things dependent upon the other for existence that have together always co-existed:

• Kenny: I recognize the possibility of multiple first causes that are contingent on each other, or multiple first causes that are not contingent upon each other, but may have caused other things via contact with other first causes.

Interesting insight there Kenny and it's something I thought of, only I was working back from my theology to contemplate it.

This is just more of an interesting logical reflection, and certainly not evidence that it is the case. AND, you were no doubt thinking in terms of matter and the physical world. BUT, as a Christian, I readily identify such a possibility as something akin to the Trinity. Not that it proves such... however, if all share in that foundation, it starts showing how three persons co-existing eternally in relationship are foundationally one.

Did Kenny just help understand the Christian's Trinity enigma? It's at least an interesting parallel and possibility, right?


NOW, going back to posts three whole pages ago, you wrote: "To the Atheist, God is an extraordinary claim as well."

I responded: "Belief in God really isn't an extraordinary claim at all, but rather there is a logical necessity that needs explaining."

Nessa responded: "What if the dinosaur was eating icecream " (err, ignore that one)

Rick responded: "I agree K. Belief in God is not an extraordinary claim at all. God is logically necessary.

With all our above exchanges identifying a logical foundation to everything we see in existence, removing God from the picture, it isn't really extraordinary that a Foundation exists. Really, the only thing that needs identifying is whether or not such possesses intelligence.

You know, for all the arguments and hoo-ha fussing made over a belief that God exists, it really doesn't seem far-fetched to believe in an intelligent foundation. It is even less far-fetched given we already witness matter and intelligence in the universe.

Here is an interesting possibility, based upon your prior thoughts as to one possibility of many non-contingent foundations. I'll momentarily entertain that you are right in allowing for multiple independent foundations. Now, we see that the universe has both matter and sentience. We scientifically understand that something comes from its own kind or type, right? So perhaps matter comes from some foundational material (matter), and intelligence some foundational intelligence. An interesting possibility, maybe a middle ground, right?

In any case, to wrap up my thoughts, I think it is clear given the need for some non-contingent foundation, God being a possibility for fulfilling that logical need is very different from the whimsical, anthropomorphic and obviously contingent (i.e., they aren't necessary for anything really) gods of mythology. Therefore, while it has good rhetorical value to bundle "God and gods" together, it really isn't fair given their great dissimilarities.

Ken wrote:

Perhaps I inserted the word Evil. Why would someone be tortured in Hell if they weren't evil?

Just thinking out loud here, but maybe the "torture" comes from within the person experiencing it?

And that's what trips me out; why is it if I broke 1 commandment, it gets multiplied 10 fold, but if I do something good, it isn't even noticed because you're saved by grace not works. It's almost like saying; works only count if you do bad, then it's amplified 10 fold; when you do good it does't count. To me that does't sound fair.

K

No Ken. I'd say good works are very important in a believer's life. In fact, the bible says that we were created for good works:
Ephesians 2:10
For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.

It's when we think that our good works get us salvation, that there's a problem.

RickD wrote:

Ken wrote:

Perhaps I inserted the word Evil. Why would someone be tortured in Hell if they weren't evil?

Just thinking out loud here, but maybe the "torture" comes from within the person experiencing it?

And that's what trips me out; why is it if I broke 1 commandment, it gets multiplied 10 fold, but if I do something good, it isn't even noticed because you're saved by grace not works. It's almost like saying; works only count if you do bad, then it's amplified 10 fold; when you do good it does't count. To me that does't sound fair.

K

No Ken. I'd say good works are very important in a believer's life. In fact, the bible says that we were created for good works:
Ephesians 2:10
For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.

It's when we think that our good works get us salvation, that there's a problem.

Yeah that's what I was talking about; bad works will keep you out of heaven, but good works will not get you in. Sorta like the only time works makes a difference is when they are bad works

Ken

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:

Ken wrote:

Perhaps I inserted the word Evil. Why would someone be tortured in Hell if they weren't evil?

Just thinking out loud here, but maybe the "torture" comes from within the person experiencing it?

And that's what trips me out; why is it if I broke 1 commandment, it gets multiplied 10 fold, but if I do something good, it isn't even noticed because you're saved by grace not works. It's almost like saying; works only count if you do bad, then it's amplified 10 fold; when you do good it does't count. To me that does't sound fair.

K

No Ken. I'd say good works are very important in a believer's life. In fact, the bible says that we were created for good works:
Ephesians 2:10
For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.

It's when we think that our good works get us salvation, that there's a problem.

Yeah that's what I was talking about; bad works will keep you out of heaven, but good works will not get you in. Sorta like the only time works makes a difference is when they are bad works

Ken

Bad works don't keep anyone out of heaven, Kenny.

One doesn't go to heaven because one doesn't have everlasting life. And one has everlasting life, when one trusts In Christ.

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:

Ken wrote:

Perhaps I inserted the word Evil. Why would someone be tortured in Hell if they weren't evil?

Just thinking out loud here, but maybe the "torture" comes from within the person experiencing it?

And that's what trips me out; why is it if I broke 1 commandment, it gets multiplied 10 fold, but if I do something good, it isn't even noticed because you're saved by grace not works. It's almost like saying; works only count if you do bad, then it's amplified 10 fold; when you do good it does't count. To me that does't sound fair.

K

No Ken. I'd say good works are very important in a believer's life. In fact, the bible says that we were created for good works:
Ephesians 2:10
For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.

It's when we think that our good works get us salvation, that there's a problem.

Yeah that's what I was talking about; bad works will keep you out of heaven, but good works will not get you in. Sorta like the only time works makes a difference is when they are bad works

Ken

Bad works don't keep anyone out of heaven, Kenny.

One doesn't go to heaven because one doesn't have everlasting life. And one has everlasting life, when one trusts In Christ.

Are you saying if an evil man trust in christ but because of his character flaws, he goes about committing every atrocity imaginable, he still get into heaven?

Ken