Evidence for God from Science

But seeking perfection is wrong. If we ourselves became perfect- we would succeed God in your opinion correct? But if we don't become perfect, we are condemned anyway. So everyone goes to hell. Which would make sense with the we are all sinners stuff. But then Heaven in a sense would have no reason for existence all all.

And God would still be imperfect for creating anything imperfect... and needing anything at all. Especially worship.

God is not imperfect because there are things we see as imperfect in creation. That would be saying the creation is a mistake. Although I understand you might think that, because our view is extremely limited. If however, God has a perfect end result that all this leads to, then it is a perfect plan.

Seeking perfection? Wrong? That is a moral judgment. By what standard are you making this judgment?
First you can't make yourself perfect. You and I are already flawed.

Reading your post, I think you are making some faulty assumptions in regards to how you ascribe certain emotions to God.

Also, all the examples you give don't really prove or disprove anything. It is a failure to see what is being accomplished by God in the world. Christ did not come to make bad people good. He came to make dead people live. It is absolutely futile to argue this way. Christianity isn't true or untrue because a Christian does something bad or an atheist does something good. It is either true or false. Even if no one on the earth practiced the Christian faith. I have seen people 'change' their lives in numerous ways. Will power. As a Christian, I do believe that God can provide deliverance that is beyond the human will.

Jonouchi Katsuya wrote:Currently I volunteer at a teen suicide prevention center. I find that my inner strength, meditation, looking at all options rather than the on that is right in front of me has prevented me from making too bad of decisions.

That also makes a moral assumption. Bad, based on what?

I think I have gone through a few periods of laziness particularly when I was in middle school and I felt no one really cared if I lived or died. But I started volunteering and it gave my life meaning as well as friends!

Gave your life meaning? Life either has inherent meaning, or you are being fooled by arbitrary emotions. If life has inherent meaning, then this points directly to the Judeo-Christian God.

I find this helps keep me on a realitively good path.

Again, a moral statement. Good, based on what? If you are just the result of non-guided material processes, then why is one path better than another?

So to say just because someone is Christian it makes them good..

This statement really sums up how you are missing the message. You have stated a lot of arguments as to why you are a 'good' person. That is called self-justification. "I do this, I do that. I do 'good' things." It assumes a morally objective standard to aspire to, yet has no reason to do so.

BUT! I feel that many Christians are good people even great people! and that Christianity can be good for some people!

How so? If Christianity isn't true, then those people are living a lie. And they are trying to, by the tenets of their faith, persuade others to live said lie. How can that be good for some people? If Christianity is true, then it is good for people. If it is false, it is a superstition, and is either wrong, or has no value good or bad.

There is a great book if you are really interested in understanding some of the difficult things in the OT. It is called, "Is God a moral monster," by Paul Copan. Either you are interested in finding these answers, or you will settle for something less, which is where you are now.

Murray wrote:Buddist do not believe buddah is god, More a man with extreme spiritual understanding. Some buddist are in fact atheist and only believe in a spirit, while others are deist and some worship gods similar to that of hinduism. Many different forms it can be practicied and I must say from what I have learned about it, it is very calm and peaceful religon based around spiritual understanding.

I'm just asking Katsuya what she thinks. I want to know who her god is.

She believes in "a god",

My personal beleifs incline me to believe all monotheist worship the same god but believe's he wants different things and has diferent philiosophies ect..

I can tell you however that god is not budah because no buddist worship him as such,

she most likely is a deist buddhist, but I guess we will not know until she answers

Murray wrote:She believes in "a god",

My personal beleifs incline me to believe all monotheist worship the same god but believe's he wants different things and has diferent philiosophies ect..

I can tell you however that god is not budah because no buddist worship him as such,

she most likely is a deist buddhist, but I guess we will not know until she answers

I've spoken to a Buddhist before who told me Buddha is "a god". So, while orthodox Buddhism doesn't teach this, it doesn't mean that some Buddhists don't believe it.

There is a great book if you are really interested in understanding some of the difficult things in the OT. It is called, "Is God a moral monster," by Paul Copan. Either you are interested in finding these answers, or you will settle for something less, which is where you are now.

I suggested her to read that book few days ago but she replied with this, without reading the book (I assume)

"Well... I think... I think I am done. I have come to terms with my
feelings on the Christian God...
1. He is imperfect as nothing is. Either that or the words written
down by the mortals he contacted totally wrote it down wrong.
2. Nothing after that matters.

I just feel... God would be above killing anything or decreeing
anything get killed. He would be above judgement... and above anything
petty like a human emotion like jealousy or wrath....

if that is wrong to you I am sorry.... but if there were a real
perfect God (like the one I believe) he would be above all of that. No
judgement, no jealousy, no fury, no wrath, no killing, no smiting, no
damnation,

Only love... peace...happiness and knowledge. There would be no bad
because after all... he/she is perfect and as invisible as the
trusting bonds of friendship."

I have reached what I think to be a pretty good idea as to how.... I want God to be... and that maybe the Christian God just isn't the way to go for me.

I feel that God should be above petty things like anger, wrath, jealousy, judgement (all kinds), grudges, smiting, killing, decreeing and infringing.

God would be at peace... one with the universe... filled with love.... filled with knowledge... and filled with joy.

If the Christian God exists... then he is most certainly not perfect from my eyes as he is still dealing in petty things.

He is either not perfect or not the way described in the Bible.

*Sigh* I just don't think this is really my religion... I want to explore everything... Christiantiy seemed to make sense... till I got up close and looked at it... really looked at it... and it does not fit my model of peace above all... love above all, knowledge above all... I was hoping for more noble causes than wrath and smiting.

After that I stopped answering her questions because she had decided before understanding anything. The real obstacle is her "model" of a God.

I've spoken to a Buddhist before who told me Buddha is "a god". So, while orthodox Buddhism doesn't teach this, it doesn't mean that some Buddhists don't believe it.

There are two models of Buddhism, one is an atheist kind of Buddhism, that does not believe in a God. The other is a theistic kind of Buddhism,

Jonouchi Katsuya wrote:
But seeking perfection is wrong. If we ourselves became perfect- we would succeed God in your opinion correct? But if we don't become perfect, we are condemned anyway. So everyone goes to hell. Which would make sense with the we are all sinners stuff. But then Heaven in a sense would have no reason for existence all all.

And God would still be imperfect for creating anything imperfect... and needing anything at all. Especially worship.

You keep talking about "seeking perfection". This is exactly the problem. Humans cannot become perfect by seeking perfection... they have already sinned and deviated from the Lord, thus we are stained and forever imperfect. It, therefore, is our own choice to put our faith in God, and through that choice God will clean our imperfections. It is not a matter of seeking perfection, it is a matter of seeking God. We cannot make ourselves perfect, but through God we can wipe out our stains and become clean. Think of angels... they have not sinned, and they are what you might call "perfect" (take the term lightly), but God is still greater than them. To choose God is to one day choose to become similar to the angels.

And it is also not that God created anything imperfect... he created us whole and we were the ones who sinned. God did not sin for us. It was our choice to sin... we, in essence, created sin (as a further point, sin is not an entity that is created, but rather the separation from God's holiness; just as darkness is not created, it is merely that absence of light).

neo-x wrote:There are two models of Buddhism, one is an atheist kind of Buddhism, that does not believe in a God. The other is a theistic kind of Buddhism,

I don’t think you’ll find many Buddhists who believe in a personal creator God. The Buddhist gods are more powerful and they live longer than we do, but they are still a part of the cycle of "death and rebirth." I guess you could describe some forms of Buddhism as polytheistic, others as atheistic, and yet others as agnostic. It really does get ambiguous here.

If you define a model of who you want God to be before you meet God, you're guaranteed to be disappointed. However, as all of you have been saying, what moral standard is being used to define this God? It sounds like her Buddhist beliefs are inspiring her definition. It is not a difficult thing for me to accept that the true Christian God does not fit the description of any Buddhist deity. So I'm confused why that's an expectation going in.

MarcusOfLycia wrote:If you define a model of who you want God to be before you meet God, you're guaranteed to be disappointed. However, as all of you have been saying, what moral standard is being used to define this God?

It sounds like her Buddhist beliefs are inspiring her definition. It is not a difficult thing for me to accept that the true Christian God does not fit the description of any Buddhist deity. So I'm confused why that's an expectation going in

Very good point.

If God is temporal, then he is created, and thus not really 'god.'

If God is eternal and changes, then he has had eternity to work toward perfection. This creates many other problems.

Ravi Zacharias talks about this issue of talking to Buddhist. You simply can not use a western apologetic. It doesn't make sense to the lens they view the world through.

If the Christian God exists... then he is most certainly not perfect from my eyes as he is still dealing in petty things.

There you go. "from my eyes." Not only that it is a judgment, but it's based on nothing more than your opinion. It is a "too me" example. To me, God should___________. Fill in the blank. Is it no wonder that idolatry is such an evil sin. An anarchist can say, 'too me there should be no government.' But any claim to say how things should be is a claim for government. An atheist can say, God shouldn't, or should, based on their opinion. It is idolatry and pride. Forming a god in one's mind to better suit their worldview. Everyone wants to go to heaven, they just don't God want to be there.

And God would still be imperfect for creating anything imperfect... and needing anything at all. Especially worship.

God lacks nothing. Creation is not an example of God's need, but of His heart beat. And you have yet to explain how creation isn't a perfect demonstration of His complete plans. I understand there are things in creation you don't like. Oh, you are part of it by the way. Have you ever contributed anything to the imperfection? You claim is saying, God must submit to your ideas. And it offers no humility to consider that you are just flat wrong, and need to repent, or have your mind changed. Which is exactly the opposite of what you put in your signature. You have very settled ideas, and are unwilling to examine them in the same critique you half-heartedly do with God and the Bible.

God would be above killing anything or decreeing
anything get killed. He would be above judgement... and above anything
petty like a human emotion like jealousy or wrath....

Maybe that is because you don't want to be judged.
You are ascribing your understanding of jealousy and emotions onto God. When the Bible says God is a jealous God you are taking your feelings and imposing them onto the text. That is normal. But could it be that you are wrong, and need your perspective corrected?

God should be above judgement? ....think about the implications if God didn't judge. Also you've judged God as imperfect, so i don't understand, the greatest possible being is not allowed to judge perfectly and Justly but you are?