Evidence for God from Science

Jac3510 wrote:Or you could explain where my arguments are deficient and present me with a logical argument as to why we should believe that God does have emotions, just as I've done for why He doesn't. And what, if I may ask, do you mean by "why argue with people who already have [died]?"

Jac, prove from the bible that God does not have emotions - scripture please not commentaries, links, and human opinions... direct scripture please…

Next, again you miss my point: God is God and has his own nature and emotions and mode of doing things. His ways are not our ways. He is above all… He is God, period. Being God he was his own nature, emotions, ways of reasoning etc…that prove he is God in all he does.

We as human beings have our own nature — corrupted by sin; thus our emotions, reasoning, is stain by sin. Our emotions are NOT GOD's emotions; however, we can relate hate, wrath, anger with what God hates, is angered, and wrathful about and learn something from God about God...

Question:

Before the fall, Adam and Eve were sinlessly perfect — there was no sin. Did they have emotions? Would their emotions have been pure?

As for an apology — I apologizies but it is up to you to prove from direct scripture quotes that God does not have pure, undefiled emotions. You cannot use Links and commentaries or quotes either. I used commentaries to support what I stated without having to write endlessly what others stated concisely as I am saying much what they said.

We must measure the argument posed against who God is as the Bible describes him to be. If it does not stand against the standard of God himself — then it is in error we must be humble enough to accept correction. Are you that willing?

Again where in the bible does it specifically say — God has no emotions?

Prove it from scripture not man's ideas...
-
-
-

Why phrase it as completely beyond our comprehension when it is observable that is not so? We don't say that because we don't know everything there is to know about our planet, we can't know anything about it.

Perhaps it can be comprehended in a sense that the Bible relates the character of God to us in a way we can comprehend. Feelings. We understand feelings. We don't understand God. Yes we can understand by Him revealing Himself.
I find emotions a very insufficient word and concept to describe what is going on in the heart and mind of God. I know that God is love. I have "felt" love, but is this feeling really love? No. The emotion is a result of love. Just as God's anger towards sin in not an emotional reaction per se.

Why does the sun burn hot? That is its nature. It is hot. God's character has always been one that is angry towards evil. That is who He is. His nature.

I mean the word says, "as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and thoughts than your thoughts."

Jac, prove from the bible that God does not have emotions - scripture please not commentaries, links, and human opinions... direct scripture please…

Sure, as soon as you prove from the Bible, without using reason, that God is a Trinity, is transcendent, and timeless.

Next, again you miss my point: God is God and has his own nature and emotions and mode of doing things. His ways are not our ways. He is above all… He is God, period. Being God he was his own nature, emotions, ways of reasoning etc…that prove he is God in all he does.

How do you know God's nature includes emotions? You are just assuming it. At least I've taken the time to prove my statements.

We as human beings have our own nature — corrupted by sin; thus our emotions, reasoning, is stain by sin. Our emotions are NOT GOD's emotions; however, we can relate hate, wrath, anger with what God hates, is angered, and wrathful about and learn something from God about God...

If our reason is tainted by sin, then how can we use it know anything about God? Clearly, you are trying to use reason to prove many things about Him. Why is your "reason" (not that you've actually provided any that I've seen) any more valid than mine?

Question:

Before the fall, Adam and Eve were sinlessly perfect — there was no sin. Did they have emotions? Would their emotions have been pure?

Yes, they had emotions, and their emotions would have been pure. They were also temporal, mutible, and not simple, as required by the original argument I laid out. How does Adam and Eve's pre-Fall condition prove anything about God's having emotions or not?

As for an apology — I apologizies but it is up to you to prove from direct scripture quotes that God does not have pure, undefiled emotions. You cannot use Links and commentaries or quotes either. I used commentaries to support what I stated without having to write endlessly what others stated concisely as I am saying much what they said.

I've done that already, but for clarity, I'll do it again below.

We must measure the argument posed against who God is as the Bible describes him to be. If it does not stand against the standard of God himself — then it is in error we must be humble enough to accept correction. Are you that willing?

I've done nothing less. Your arguments, unfortunately, haven't come up to Scripture's standards.

Again where in the bible does it specifically say — God has no emotions?

Prove it from scripture not man's ideas...

AGAIN, for the sake of those reading, and in much more detail:

The great truth of Scripture is that we can know God: "Now this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God" (John 17:3), and again "Formerly, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those who by nature are not gods. But now that you know God—or rather are known by God—how is it that you are turning back to those weak and miserable principles?" (Gal 4:8-9), etc. We come to know Him by faith in Jesus Christ (John 3:16, etc.).

But what is meant by the word "God"? Who is it that we know? And it is here that another great doctrine is placed before us, namely, the doctrine of trascendence. He is the One who is Above all. He is not to be confused with "other gods." He is the True God (Jer. 10:10) beside Whom there is none other (Isa 46:9). This is stated most plainly in Genesis 1:1: "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." As the Creator, He is above all, like nothing on this earth. He is so far above all, so far exalted, that no image is to be made of Him (Exo 20:4). He is so far above mankind that Paul called Him, "God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord or lords, who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see." (1 Tim 6:13-16)

Who, then, is this transcendent God that we can know? As the heavens declare His glory (Ps 19:1), we can know Him by what He has done. The most magnificent display of His power, the thing that proves His omnipotence, is the creation itself. Who can bring an entire universe into existence by just the power of their words except God?

Thus, we know that God is the creator of all things in the universe, and of the universe itself. There is nothing in the universe that was not created by and through the Godhead: "All things were made by Him, and apart from Him, nothing was made that has been made." (John 1:3-4)

But if God is the Creator, there are other things that must be true about Him as well. If He is the Creator of all things, then He must be the cause of all things. That is to say that all things are contingent on Him; He is contingent on nothing, for if He were contingent on anything in this universe, then He would not be its Creator. That is to say, He has given everything existence, for He has Existence within Himself. The world did not have to exist, for by its nature, it may or may not exist. But God, by His nature, must exist. All this is to say that the universe is dependent on God, but God is self-sufficient. He exists because it is His nature to exist. And from this, it follows with what Scriture has said, that God is the Uncaused Cause.

Thus, whatever else we may say about God, we cannot violate this basic Scriptural revelation, that God is the Creator of ALL.

But if the Bible is true that God is the Creator, then we see at least three more truths:

1. God creates freely by His own choice;
2. God is completely perfect within Himself, that is, He lacks nothing; and
3. God is both immutable and not in time.

Concerning the first, consider Psalms 135:5-6, "The Lord does whatever pleases Him, in the heavens and on the earth, in the seas and all their depths." God is not forced to do anything. He is sovereign. No man commands Him. He is restrained only by His own nature (James 1:13; Heb 6:18). Again, Rev 4:11 teaches that God created by His own will. He was not forced to create. He did so by His own chioice. He created freely.

We see this also in that everything in this world is contingent. By that, we mean that it does not have to be. I did not have to exist. I do so only because my parents brought me into this world (and God allowed it). Nothing must exist. If it did, then God would not have had the option not to create it. But God creates by His will, not because He is forced to by anything outside of Himself. Only God is necessary. All other things are contingent. And if all things are contingent, then if they exist, they exist only because God freely allowed it.

Concerning the second (His perfection), we see that God must be perfect in Himself to be the Creator, for if His perfection depended on anything outside of Himself, then He would have been forced to create it. But then things in the world would not be contingent; some things would be necessary, and God does not, in fact, create freely. He would not, then be the Creator, but only the Co-Creator with that which was added to Him to made Him perfect. Indeed, the Scriptures teach this: His works are perfect (Deut 32:4); His way is perfect (2 Sam 22:31; His knowledge is perfect (Job 37:16); His Law is perfect (Ps 19:7). But perfection can only come from perfection, and thus, God Himself must be perfect, which is the testimony of Jesus Christ Himself (Matt 5:48).

But this means every perfection that exists in the world is but an echo of God's own perfection. By this, I mean that we can call one thing "better" than another only by comparing to an objective, perfect standard. That ultimate standard must be God, for if He is not, then something perfect outside of Himself exists. But nothing perfect can exist outside of God, for if it did, it would BE God, for nothing is perfect except God. Further, if something were perfect, then it would lack nothing, and if it lacked nothing, then it would not lack existence within itself; that is to say, if something were perfect, then it would exist by necessity, uncreated, everlasting, and eternal. But then, God would not be its Creator, and thus, God would not be the Creator. Again, then we see from the fact that God is the Creator that God, and God alone, is perfect.

We are then led from God's Creatorship to the third truth, that God does not change and is not in Time. This is evident from several facts: first, time exists as a part of the universe. If God were in time, then, He would be a part of the univese which He created. Since God is outside of the universe--since He is transcendent--He must be outside of Time. Further, if God were in time, then He would again be contingent, for a being that is in time exists moment to moment. I existed five minutes ago, but I no longer exist five minute ago. I will exist in five minutes, yet I do not yet exists five minutes from now. Thus, as I move through time, my existence passes in and out of one moment to the next.

But notice this! If that is true, then I do not have to exist in either the past or present, for the fact that I do not in either means that my presence there is not of necessity. Thus, I am contingent. This is especially easy to understand when one remembers that time is nothing more than a relationship between two bodies moving at different speeds. If God, then, is necessary, then He MUST fully in all points at all times. To deny this would make Him contingent, and if He were contingent, He would no longer be the Creator!

To say, then, that God is outside of time is to say that He is immutable, for if He exists wholly from one moment to the next, then there is no past or future for Him. He exists completely and totally within Himself, and thus He declares, "I the LORD do not change" (Mal 3:6). A timeless God cannot change, for change requires one to be contingent, which our God is not; He is not because He is the Creator!

Thus, again, we have seen the following truths about God:

1. He desires us to be in a relationship with Him;
2. He transcends all;
3. He is the Creator of all;
4. He is alone perfect;
5. He is immutable (timeless);
6. He is alone is necessary.


From these, we can come to the next observation, that God knows ALL. This is an attribute of His perfection (Job 37:16). But what are we to make of God's perfection and omniscience? From here, we may go in two different directions, the first I think being an error, the second true. Considering the first, some believe that God does not change and God is not perfected or fulfilled by others, since they receive all of their perfection from Him, yet despite this perfection, God is different in His being than He somehow could have been. They gather this from the fact that human beings have, apparently, free will. If I choose to do X, then God will know it; but if I choose to do not X, but Y, then God will know that instead. On this view, then, God does not have to exist as He now does, but He does so because of what I choose. For if I did something else, then God would exist in some other way, namely, the way in which He would know what I do in that case rather than this. Or again, it is argued that God freely and eternally wills for us to exist as we do; indeed, every being that has ever existed does so only because God has so willed them. But we are not necessary, and thus it seems that God could have well willed other things into existence. And from this, it seems that God's will does not have to be what it is.

What, then, are we saying? For it seems as if both God's knowledge and His will may be something other than what it is. That is, neither His knowledge or His will, by this argument, is necessary, but instead contingent on this world. But this cannot be, for we have already seen that God is the Creator, the transcendent God over all, contingent on nothing other than Himself

Put differently, I mean that it makes God into a composite. We have seen that God is the Creator of all and therefore a necessary being, contingent on nothing. He is the Uncaused Cause. But under this view, we must distinguish between the uncaused, necessary part of God and the part of Him that is contingent on how the universe is. Thus, God is composed of both necessary and contingent parts. But we must reject this for two reasons. First, it is absurd to think of a composite being as necessary, for being composed (existing of parts), then it's existence is dependent on its parts. The parts, then, may be necessary, but not the whole, and thus, the parts would be their own "wholes". But then, God would not be God, for He would be a composition of parts, which clearly our God is not! Remember, He is the Creator of all, contingent on nothing! Further, Scripture denies such a claim, saying "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one!" (Deut 6:4). God is One, not many. He is ONE substance, ONE essence, ONE being, even as He is three Persons.

We,then, turn to the second, correct, way. It begins by recognizing an evil assumption in the first view, for it declares that when God knows or wills something, He knows it or wills it in the same sense that humans do. Thus, I would say that in the same manner that I know something, that God knows something, or in the same manner that I will something, God wills something. Such arrogance! This assumes that we have apprehended the very nature of God! But remember, again, what Paul said:

• God, the blessed and only Ruler, the King of kings and Lord or lords, who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see.

Remember that God is transcendent. He is, in His essence, unapprehendible, indeed, incomprehensible. We must understand the difference, and we can. To do so, consider a blade of grass in the morning dew. If it is wet, its wetness must have a cause outside the grass itself. That is to say, it is not the nature of grass to be wet. Sometimes it is, and sometimes it is not, depending on other circumstances. On the other hand, I do not need such an external explanation as to why it is a plant. To be a blade of grass is, by nature, to be a plant.

Looking at the world, things that exist in this world do not exist by reason of what they are--they are not necessary existences--and thus they need an explanation for why they exist. It is this fact that lets us prove that God exists through such arguments as the Cosmological Argument, for God is the First, Uncaused Cause of everything. He is, as we first noted, the Creator. But the Creator Himself is different. Unlike the things in this world, He does have existence within Himself. Thus, for created beings, existence is like water on a blade of grass; it needs an explanation. For God, existence is like the grass as plant; it needs no explanation, for it is explanation within itself. And thus, God is able to call Himself "I AM!" (Exo 3:14), and Christ is able to say, "Before Abraham was born, I AM" (John 8:58).

Now, consider the created thing. Because it is contingent, we can know its essence without knowing whether or not it exists. Since existence is not part of a thing's essence, I can know the thing without knowing of its existence. Thus, I can understand what something is without knowing that it is. This is evidenced around us every day. I know what the Big Foot is, although I do not know, and in fact I doubt, that it exists. But consider the Creator. He is not like the created thing! To know what He is would be to know that He is, just as to know what a blade of grass is is to know that it is also a plant! All this comes necessarily from God's Creatorship!

But this is where we come to a great discovery!

Since everything in the world is created, then everything in the world is contingent (on God); thus, everything that we know is contingent. But if everything we know is contingent, meaning it may or may not exist; if it does exist, it only does so contingently. But since whatever God is in essence, He must exist necessarily (nothing of which in creation can match this description), it follows that any essence, quality or action that we truly understand or apprehend is not an intrinsic feature of God's essence. Again, if we understand something, then it is contingent, but nothing in God is contingent; thus, nothing we grasp can be a part of God's necessary existence. Thus, God declares truthfully "so you may know that there is no one like me in all the earth" (Exo 9:14), and again, "I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me." (Isa 46:9)

But we apprehend our knowing and our willing, therefore, God cannot know or will in the same manner we do, for if He did, then something contingent would be in His nature, rendering Him contingent! But at the same time, man is made in the image of God, in His likeness (Gen 1:26-28). Again, this follows, for since we are all effects of God's will, then we must be like Him in some respect; it is simply the case that we cannot possess His same nature, for then we too would be necessary, which we, of course, are not.

Thus, we find that we are like God, but we do not possess His nature. We know in a manner comparable to Him; we do not know like Him; we will will in a manner analogous to Him; we do not will in the same manner He does. And thus we avoid the trap of the first view, which, you remember, proved God was not the Creator but instead only Co-Creator. Here, properly understanding, we see that God truly is the Perfect Creator we saw Him to be in Gen 1:1, but that means that we are, then, only similar to God. We do not know and will things in the same manner He knows and wills things.

But if this is true, it must also be true that we do not feel things in the same way God feels things. Our emotions, like our knowledge and will, are analogous to Gods. Remember that it takes THREE THINGS to be a person: mind, emotion, and will. We are persons, so God is three Persons, and each of those Perons has a mind,emotions, and a will. But just as our mind and will are only analogous to His mind and His will, so our emotions are only analogous to His emotions. That is, they are not like our own.

And thus, we come full circle, for we have seen the three things I brought out in my original arguments:

1. God is timeless

This follows from His Creatorship. But if He is timeless, He cannot be temporal, and since emotions require temoral responses, God cannot have emotions.

2. God is immutable

This follows from His Creatorship. But if He is immutable, He cannot change His state of existence, and since emotions require a change in one's state of existence, God cannot have emtions.

3. God is simple

This follows from His Creatorship. But if He is simple, He cannot be composed of parts, and since different emotions mean different parts within the same being, God cannot have emotions.

That we have emotions means that we are SIMILAR to God in an analogous way, just as our intellect and will are ANALOGOUS to God in some way. But if we assert that God has emotions in the same sense that you or I do, then we deny that He is the Perfect, Timeless, Eternal, Necessary, Transcendent, Immutable Creator that the Bible claims that He is!

--------------------------------------------

Now, BW, I have answered your questions over and over again. If you want to continue this discussion, consider my explanation above AND ANSWER MY PREVIOUS QUESTIONS. For those who want more details on this, see the article I previously linked to, from which much of the form of my argument came.

God bless

Jac3510 wrote:You misread my argument. My second premise doesn't negate P. It negates Q. I'm saying that if P is true, Q must FIRST be true, and yet Q is not true, then it follows that P cannot be true. Thus, your fire analogy is wrong. For you do not say "If fire (P) then oxygen (Q); no oxygen (~Q); therefore, no fire (~P)" (which would be a correct representation of my argument). YOU said, "if fire (P) then oxygen (Q); no fire (~P), therefore, no oxygen (~Q)." This is a strawman, because whereas it negates P (there is no fire), I negate Q.

Thus, your rendering of my argument is: If P then Q; Not P, therefore, not Q. This is, of course, invalid.
But my argument actually is: If P then Q; not Q; therefore, not P. This is valid.

Observe again:

1. For something to have emotions (P) it must be temporal (Q);
2. God is not temporal (~Q);
3. Therefore, God does not have emotions (~P).

To put it formally, my argument is

1. p ) q
2. ~ q
3. .: ~p

Thus, you have it backwards . . .

Applying truth tables to God's essence so that you can claim the ultimate truth? I don't think so..

Ok that maybe true for a logical argument… For the record it's called a Modus Tollens. But you think that your premises are true.. But I've been telling you it isn't.. Let's look at your first statement.

1. For something to have emotions (P) it must be temporal (Q);

The statement is incorrect. First of all God is not a something, we are talking about God here not a person.. Also his ways are not our ways Isaiah 55:9. Here you are trying to invoke human reasoning into the very essence of God. As I've said before it is not a contradiction for God to have specific emotional dispositions towards different people at the same time. He is in control of all ends and means regardless of time. To have a emotional response does not imply a change of character. His character still stays the same regardless of the circumstances. Just because man missuses emotions does not preclude that God may properly use emotions. What you seem to be implying is that God is suffering from schizophrenia (a mental disorder) in order to have any emotions. I can tell you first hand that God is not a schizophrenic.

Let me give you an example of another valid argument..

1. If God exists, then there is no evil. p ) q
2. There is evil. ~q
3. Therefore, God does not exist. .: ~p

Here is the formula. EXACTLY like yours.

1. p ) q
2. ~ q
3. .: ~p

Modus Tollens are valid and logical arguments.. But are they always true?? I beg to differ... And we can use scripture to disprove them.

Jac3510 wrote:and you still haven't dealt with the other arguments!

What other arguments? You have none, just as you have nothing now..

Jac3510 wrote:Do you believe that God has to discover things? Because Gen 18:21 also seems to talk about God's internal state. The fact is both internal and external references to God are usually anthropomorphic.

Do I believe that all man will die someday? We will one day you know.. I may know this, but is that going to take away the sting when I actually see someone die someday?

Jac3510 wrote:Like I said, feel free to reject it. I don't. I just wish you would be consistent, which you aren't. If you reject this position, you should stop using things like the Cosmological argument or the Teleological argument for God's existence, because they only work in a classical framework. Further, your view implies that God is contingent, which means that He cannot necessarily exist, which means that He also must have a necessary cause outside of Himself. Further, you then here say that this is all man's reasoning, which you then assert can't be applied to God. And yet your statement is self-defeating, because you have to use reason to prove that reason can't be applied to God! It's also hypocritical, because you do use reason when talking about God. All the time.

Jac, don't get caught up in the "so called" logic of it.. You and I are not God. We cannot put God in box and say, "here we have it folks. We have discovered that God has no emotions." This idea clearly breaks exegetics.. There is no scriptural basis for it. It's man's idea...

Don't worry over it. Trust me, it's ok to say that we don't fully understand God's way.. We can't take microscopes into God's heart and claim that we know Him.. We don't always have to have all the answers.

Jac3510 wrote:Like I said, feel free to reject classical theism, but be intellectually honest enough to stop using reason AT ALL when it comes to God.

This doesn't look like classical theism to me.. This very much looks like "classical deism" to me.. Don't be fooled by it.

Jac3510 wrote:Besides all that, you tried to answer one of the arguments--which you misinterpreted to do so--and yet left the other two untouched. Your argument here is tantamount to a Christian/Atheist debate in which the Christian offers the Cosmological, Teleological, and Moral arguments, along with the historicity of Jesus' resurrection, to which the atheist replies to the well known straw-man version of the cosmological argument (everything must have a cause... then what caused God?!?) as a refutation, and then doesn't bother to answer the others, and then claims victory. Still worse, you've gone so far as to say these logical arguments can't really prove anything about God, because that would be presumptuous! That's obviously, again, self-defeating, because you can't use reason to prove reason doesn't work.

Logical arguments? See my above example.

I'm sorry but I've got a hard time believing that we control God's emotions. We understand from scripture that God HATES sin.. Proverbs 6:16-19. Man on the other hand loves sin 2 Tim 3:4. There is your action and reaction. Two completely separate emotions at work here..

Jac3510 wrote:So, yes, I can, and do, claim logical victory here. And because I believe that we can use logic to prove that God exists (i.e., all the arguments we use on these boards), I conclude that my position is correct and says something abotu God. You're rejection of the conclusion is nothing more than blind faith based on your own questionable interpretation of a few verses, a method that, if consistently applied, would take away God's omniscience (as noted above).

It's your logic.. But it isn't necessarily true.. It's unscriptural. I'm sorry.

As I've stated before, if the doctrine of impassibility makes you happy to believe in it, then go for it. Since I don't know all the things of God, I would consider it, but I will not spot-weld it into my thinking as you have.. Be careful.

B. W. wrote:Again where in the bible does it specifically say — God has no emotions?

Prove it from scripture not man's ideas...
-
-
-

I'm with you on this one B.W. This seems to be devoid of any scripture.. Bordering on deism...

-
Too the reader following this thread:

The argument posed presupposes that since emotions are temporal, therefore, God being not temporal, cannot have emotions. This is very flawed logic based on human wisdom and wrangling. This is the only point of contention I have with the argument posed.

The point I am trying to make is this: God having emotions in no wise or way make God temporal. Having emotions does not disprove God's omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence in any shape or form. Why?

God is God. He is blatantly different than human beings; therefore, his nature and the expressions of his nature and character expressed by his emotions are likewise blatantly different than a human beings. Look at the following scriptures:

Deu 32:3-4, "For I will proclaim the name of the LORD; ascribe greatness to our God! 4 "The Rock, his work is perfect, for all his ways are justice. A God of faithfulness and without iniquity, just and upright is he." ESV

Job 34:10, 12, "Therefore, hear me, you men of understanding: far be it from God that he should do wickedness, and from the Almighty that he should do wrong. 12 Of a truth, God will not do wickedly, and the Almighty will not pervert justice." ESV

God has his own emotional makeup peculiar to his own nature that makes him uniquely God Almighty. There is none like the Lord, the Lord stated about himself. God's emotions belong to his own nature (who he is) and therefore his own emotions will likewise never do wickedly, never pervert justice, have no iniquity in them, and are perfect because God is perfect.

In other words, God has his own emotional makeup peculiar to his own nature. His emotions likewise lead him to act and do what he does. I can be no clearer than that. God is true to his own nature — he is God. To say God has no emotions denies what the bible states about this very subject.

Psalms 103:13, “Like as a father hath compassion upon his children, so hath the LORD compassion upon them that fear Him.” JPS

Here the Lord relates his compassion to a human father's compassion for his own child. This is blatantly stating that God indeed has emotions. God remains eternal despite having emotions as all his ways are perfect. His compassion will never will do wickedly, never will pervert justice, and never contains iniquity. His ways are beyond our ways. He is God. He has pure emotions because he is pure.

Isaiah 66:12-13, “For thus says the LORD: "Behold, I will extend peace to her like a river, and the glory of the nations like an overflowing stream; and you shall nurse, you shall be carried upon her hip, and bounced upon her knees. 13 As one whom his mother comforts, so I will comfort you; you shall be comforted in Jerusalem.” ESV

Here the Lord relates his own consoling, compassion, and comfort to a human mother's compassion for her own child. This is blatantly stating that God indeed has emotions that define the Hebrew word translated comfort in this verse. His consoling, compassion, and comfort will never do wickedly, never will pervert justice, and contains no iniquity. His ways are beyond our ways. He is God. He has pure emotions because he is pure. This has no bearing on God being eternal or timeless.

God has his own emotional makeup peculiar to his own nature of being God. The above verses state God indeed has emotions and even in Isaiah 66:13 he himself states his emotion. Let's look at the next verse:

Psalm 30:5, "For his anger is but for a moment, and his favor is for a lifetime. Weeping may tarry for the night, but joy comes with the morning." ESV

The Lord is telling those that belong to him who have strayed away “his anger is but for a moment, and his favor is for a lifetime.” He does chastise his people in order to restore them (Note Hebrews 12:5-9). Note: This verse speaks to those called his children. Bible tells us there are two types of children, His (light) and darkness (the devil). For those not his, his wrath, anger remains on them forever.

Again, in the following verse, the Lord is speaking to his people who were straying away from him:

Isaiah 54:8, "In overflowing anger for a moment I hid my face from you, but with everlasting love I will have compassion on you," says the LORD, your Redeemer." ESV

Again the Lord has the emotions of anger. His anger will never do wickedly, never will pervert justice, and contains no iniquity. His ways are beyond our ways. He is God. He has pure emotions because he is pure. God as to his nature indeed has his own emotions peculiar to him.

The argument posed asserts that the bible is only speaking anamorphic form regarding God emotions mentioned in the bible. This is like saying of the following verse…

2 Kings 22:17, “Because they have forsaken me and have made offerings to other gods, that they might provoke me to anger with all the work of their hands, therefore my wrath will be kindled against this place, and it will not be quenched.”

…That God does not really have emotions that cause anger and wrath. Where have we heard that expression of thought conveyed in writing before? (Genesis 3:1)

The argument posed denies what God himself says about exercising his own emotions as revealed within the bible. For example, God can be provoked.

Jeremiah 7:19-20, “Is it I whom they provoke? declares the LORD. Is it not themselves, to their own shame? 20 Therefore thus says the Lord GOD: behold, my anger and my wrath will be poured out on this place, upon man and beast, upon the trees of the field and the fruit of the ground; it will burn and not be quenched." ESV

Notice it states his personal anger and wrath. These are emotions leading to action. His anger and wrath will never do wickedly, will never pervert justice, and contains no iniquity. His ways are beyond our ways. He is God. He has pure emotions because he is pure. God as to his nature indeed has his own emotions unique to who and what he is.

Jeremiah 32:30, “For the children of Israel and the children of Judah have done nothing but evil in my sight from their youth. The children of Israel have done nothing but provoke me to anger by the work of their hands, declares the LORD.” ESV

Look at the following verses how God describes himself and his emotions.

Hosea 11:8, “How can I give you up, O Ephraim? How can I hand you over, O Israel? How can I make you like Admah? How can I treat you like Zeboiim? My heart recoils within me; my compassion grows warm and tender.” ESV

Here we discover God has a heart and it can recoil and have compassion! Does the Lord's plea sound emotionless to you, the reader? Below we read that God yearns — isn't that an emotion? Is not God showing mercy a display of his emotions toward Ephraim?

Jeremiah 31:20, “Is Ephraim my dear son? Is he my darling child? For as often as I speak against him, I do remember him still. Therefore my heart yearns for him; I will surely have mercy on him, declares the LORD.” ESV

Below we read God can be jealous for his holy name. Other scriptures tell he is jealous for his people (I have not listed these). Being Jealous is an emotion.

Ezekiel 39:25, "Therefore thus says the Lord GOD: Now I will restore the fortunes of Jacob and have mercy on the whole house of Israel, and I will be jealous for my holy name.” ESV

Now apply God's jealousy, yearning, recoiling, and mercy to what the bible states about His nature and character. His jealousy, yearning, recoiling and mercy will never do wickedly, never will pervert justice, and never contains iniquity. His ways are beyond our ways. He is God. He has pure emotions because he is pure.

When you read the bible, you will discover these truths recorded and uncovered in his dealing with his people. Stand on the word of God and not the wisdom of men on this matter. What does the bible say about God?

Human emotions are not like God's emotions; yet, we can relate to God's emotions because we have emotions unique to being who we are human beings. God is a different being than we are and has emotions related to his own personal nature and character. We can relate to his pure emotions because we have emotions ourselves thus granting us understanding in how we hurt God, displease him, or please him, etc and etc…

Our human emotions are related to our nature. Due to sin, these often become corrupt. Our human jealousy, yearnings, recoiling, anger, wrath, and mercies will often pervert justice, often do wickedly, and oft contains iniquity in the displays of these emotions. We have a sin nature. Our emotions are not always pure and good.

To say God has no emotions because he could not have compassion on one person and another miles away is angry with them in effect denies who God is — God who is omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, eternal. Only human logic and wisdom can come up with the idea captured in this phrase: Doth God really have emotions that cause anger and wrath?

Who is causing doubt about who God is and how he acts?

1 Co 1:20, “Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?” ESV

Now only for Jac (I think you are the Jac who I think you are but your tone is different than his but if you are then) I am surprised that you of all people would deny the Trinity! You must prove this as not being in the scripture by scripture itself - not logic trees. Next, you have not proven your logic as being flawless. Where does and in the bible --- no --- what scripture is there that proves God does not have emotions? I have given just a few that show that God does have emotions according to his nature.

Logic trees are not the final tool used for determining truth. The Lord said to humanity - Come let us reason together - he did not say Come let us use logic trees...

As for answering you line for line - I already have in prior answers - no need to repeat myself. It is up to you to lay down the scripture that blatantly states that God has no emotions…
-
-
-

Excellent work Bryan!!! Thank you very much for setting us straight...

B.W. wrote:Now only for Jac (I think you are the Jac who I think you are but your tone is different than his but if you are then) I am surprised that you of all people would deny the Trinity!

What on earth makes you think I deny the Trinity? This only demonstratres your absolute ignorance on this subject. B.W, if I deny the Trinity based on this argument, then so do Thomas Aquinas, Iranaeus, and Theodoret!

Aquinas, speaking on God's simplicity and impassibility, stated:

• But it has been shown above (Question 3, Article 7) that in God there is no composition, for He is altogether simple. Hence it is manifest that God cannot be moved.

Would you be ignorant as to argue that Thomas Aquinas denied the Trinity? Again, Theodoret in his 144th letter, stated

• And similarly when we confess the immutability, impassibility, and immortality of God, we cannot attribute to the divine nature change, passion, or death.

The word "passion" here is the old word for "emotion." Is he denying the Trinity? And Iranaeus says

• By their manner of speaking, they ascribe those things which apply to men to the Father of all, . . . they endow Him with human affections and passions. But if they had know the Scriptures, and been taught the truth, they would have known, beyond doubt, that God is not as men are; and that His thoughts are not like the thoughts of men. For the Father of all is at a vast distance from those affections and passions which operate among men. He is a simple, uncompounded Being, without diverse members, and altogether like, and equal to himself, since He is wholly understanding, and wholly spirit, and wholly thought, and wholly intelligence, and wholly reason, and wholly hearing, and wholly seeing, and wholly light, and the whole source of all that is good— even as the religious and pious are wont to speak concerning God. (Against Heresies, II.13.3)

I could provide quotes from Augustine, Anselm, Athenasius, and dozes of others. The immutability, impassibility, and simplicity of God have been defended since the formulation of the Trinity. In fact, the position I am trying to explain to you is the position of those who first formulated the doctrine!

Now, recant of this absurdity. How can you speak so forcefully on a subject you clearly know nothing about? This, my friend, is a matter of forum guidelines:

• Knowledge: It is not expected that you should be thoroughly educated on an issue before commenting about it. At the same token, it is impossible for us to know everything. So if a topic is new to you or you don't know much about it, then it is good to spend some time researching to increase your knowledge before writing.

The mere fact that you would assume that anyone who holds to my position must also deny the Trinity shows your complete and total lack of understanding of this. I don't hold that against you. What I do hold against you is your pretending to know this subject when you don't, and further, of accusing me (not to mention the Church Fathers) of so blatent a heresy as denying the Trinity.

In fact, if Iranaeus is to be believed, it is YOU who fall into heresy, for it is you who "By [your] manner of speaking, [you] ascribe those things which apply to men to the Father of all" thereby robbing Him of His transcendence.

What, then, is the point of any further discussion with you? I have answered all of your questions and have done you the courtesy of considering all of your arguments in full. And what do I get in return? You answer none of mine, ignore the propositions I put forward, offer now words of response of any kind to my extended arguments, and REFUSE to answer ANY of my questions. This is not a discussion. This is a case of me trying to reason with you from Scripture, and you closing your ears and screaming that I am a heretic.

I hardly think that type of behavior is appropriate for a board moderator.

Gman wrote:Applying truth tables to God's essence so that you can claim the ultimate truth? I don't think so..

On the contrary, if you had read my post, you would see that I've spoken nothig of God's essence beyond to say that it us unknowable.

Ok that maybe true for a logical argument… For the record it's called a Modus Tollens. But you think that your premises are true.. But I've been telling you it isn't.. Let's look at your first statement.

1. For something to have emotions (P) it must be temporal (Q);

The statement is incorrect. First of all God is not a something, we are talking about God here not a person.. Also his ways are not our ways Isaiah 55:9. Here you are trying to invoke human reasoning into the very essence of God. As I've said before it is not a contradiction for God to have specific emotional dispositions towards different people at the same time. He is in control of all ends and means regardless of time. To have a emotional response does not imply a change of character. His character still stays the same regardless of the circumstances. Just because man missuses emotions does not preclude that God may properly use emotions. What you seem to be implying is that God is suffering from schizophrenia (a mental disorder) in order to have any emotions. I can tell you first hand that God is not a schizophrenic.

Observe the part bolded above. Responses OF ANY KIND are, by nature, temporal. To respond to something is to do something AFTER something else. Put differently, a response is a temporal action. Thus, the first statement is true.

Let me give you an example of another valid argument..

1. If God exists, then there is no evil. p ) q
2. There is evil. ~q
3. Therefore, God does not exist. .: ~p

Here is the formula. EXACTLY like yours.

1. p ) q
2. ~ q
3. .: ~p

Modus Tollens are valid and logical arguments.. But are they always true?? I beg to differ... And we can use scripture to disprove them

Obviously, not all valid arguments are true. Consider yet another:

1. I have met all women;
2. I have never met a blond woman;
3. Therefore, blond women do not exist.

This is logically valid, but the conclusion is false because (1) is false. Likewise, your argument about God is false because . it is NOT true that if God exists, then there is no evil.

What you are distinguishing between is what is called a valid and a sound argument. Validity deals with form. Soundness deals with the correctness of the premises. Obviously, all three of my arguments are valid. The question is if they are sound. Regarding mine, the question is if the major presmise (1) is true (To have emotions one must be temporal). You've shown nothing that they are not. To the contrary, your refutation above strengthens my point, as demostrated.

What other arguments? You have none, just as you have nothing now..

I've provided three. One from simplicity, one from timelessness, and one from immutability. In my detailed response to B.W., I added twp more: an argument from God's necessity and one from His perfection. Shutting your eyes to them doesn't change the fact that they are there.

Do I believe that all man will die someday? We will one day you know.. I may know this, but is that going to take away the sting when I actually see someone die someday?

Why didn't you answer my question? Do you believe God must discover things?

Jac, don't get caught up in the "so called" logic of it.. You and I are not God. We cannot put God in box and say, "here we have it folks. We have discovered that God has no emotions." This idea clearly breaks exegetics.. There is no scriptural basis for it. It's man's idea...

We've talked about this already, G. If we can't use logic when it comes to God, then we can't believe in the Trinity. We can't prove He exists. If we can't use logic when it comes to God, why are you trying to have any logical discussions about Him at all? You are being inconsistent.

Don't worry over it. Trust me, it's ok to say that we don't fully understand God's way.. We can't take microscopes into God's heart and claim that we know Him.. We don't always have to have all the answers.

What makes you think I'm worried? This is all rather elementary.

This doesn't look like classical theism to me.. This very much looks like "classical deism" to me.. Don't be fooled by it.

I'm sure Aquinas, Athenaseus, Anselm, etc. would be more than surprised to hear you call their position deism.

Logical arguments? See my above example.

I'm sorry but I've got a hard time believing that we control God's emotions. We understand from scripture that God HATES sin.. Proverbs 6:16-19. Man on the other hand loves sin 2 Tim 3:4. There is your action and reaction. Two completely separate emotions at work here..

When did I ever say that we control God's emotions? Seriously, why do you people insist on attributing to me things not only that I have not stated, but that I have denied in writing in this very thread? How can we control God's emotions if He doesn't have them? Further, in my extended proof for BW, I expressly talked about two ways of reconciling God's perfection and omnscience, one of which is impossible because it would mean that we control God's emotions, making Him contingent on us.

I've already addressed this, Gman. Are you, like B.W., going to refuse me the courtesy of reading my arguments? Are you going to continue to assume I hold to positions that I don't and all the while assert that I do?

It's your logic.. But it isn't necessarily true.. It's unscriptural. I'm sorry.

As I've stated before, if the doctrine of impassibility makes you happy to believe in it, then go for it. Since I don't know all the things of God, I would consider it, but I will not spot-weld it into my thinking as you have.. Be careful.

There's no such thing as "my logic." Logic is logic. If I'm wrong, point it out. Regarding impassibility, it's the classical position, and if you bothered to read my explanation of it, you would see that it necessarily follows from God's Creatorship. If you deny it, you deny that God is the Creator. To deny it is to deny that God is, in fact, God.

1. The Creator must be impassible;
2. Gman says God is not impassible;
3. Therefore, Gman says God is not the Creator.

Scary position to take, G. Now, obviously, I know that YOU, personally, do not deny that God is the Creator. You believe He is. But what I am saying is that your position necessarily entails such a denial, and, as such, should be reconsidered.

God bless

I think emotions are flying high and a little break might be in order. May I suggest everyone take a breather, think about this issue (as it is rather complex). Above all (and for all), please keep on topic and steer clear of unfounded accusations and ad homonyms.

Logic lays fairly strict guidelines to evaluate the processes by which knowledge is obtained. A large number of rational assertions and objections stem from logically faulty deductions, incomplete information/understanding, and/or bias. One can very logically deduce a falsehood. Attempting to use logic to deduce an unscriptural position like God is completely devoid of feeling or emotion merely interfacing with the emotions of His creation would be an example of such imo. Even if you know all there is to know, making correct deductions depends upon many factors. If any of these necessary factors is missing, then in all probability the deduction will be wrong.

For example, it would be an unscriptural fallacy to argue that angels cannot spiritually experience feelings or emotions because they do not possess a biological body with an endocrine system. Yet I could certainly logically show this to be either true or untrue by stating the premise and then deducing whichever deduction I am aiming for.

In my opinion, that is what we have seen here in this deduction that God is a spirit being devoid of feeling or emotion.

I will concede; however, that jac is a smart fellow and good for discussion.

One thing to keep in mind, though, is that classical theism was borne out of necessity to combat a new gnostic movement of sorts (atheism) seeking to discredit Christianity and God in general, precisely through the use of logic and reason. Atheism was met with a very effective counter-argument (i.e. classical theism) using the very methods with which it was attempting to discredit Christianity, i.e. logic and reason. If we are to discredit classical theism we, in effect, would be cutting our nose to spite our face. Let's all be careful how to proceed from here.

Jac3510 wrote:Observe the part bolded above. Responses OF ANY KIND are, by nature, temporal. To respond to something is to do something AFTER something else. Put differently, a response is a temporal action. Thus, the first statement is true.

No... This is where we disagree. God can be loving toward us, but still hate the sin in us.. God can still love us but also have jealously toward us.. Love is an array of emotions. That is the problem, God perhaps doesn't change who He is even though he expresses himself to us in different ways. We cannot spot-weld emotions into one single meaning just as we can't spot-weld others... Especially when we are dealing with God's emotions. God is love 1 John 4:16 and that love is expressed in ALL the emotions..

Jac3510 wrote:Obviously, not all valid arguments are true. Consider yet another:

1. I have met all women;
2. I have never met a blond woman;
3. Therefore, blond women do not exist.

This is logically valid, but the conclusion is false because (1) is false. Likewise, your argument about God is false because . it is NOT true that if God exists, then there is no evil.

Exactly my point, the conclusion is false... Or the argument "every swan I have seen is white, so it must be true that all swans are white." This observation is solely by the observer.. Obviously he can not have seen all swans.

Let's look at your conclusion again...

3. God cannot have emotions.

Is this scriptural? According to scripture it isn't.. We must use the Bible as our source for truth.. Not what man says. Let's see then what the Bible says about God's emotions..

Gen 6:6 The LORD was grieved that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was filled with pain.

Exod 20:5 "you shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth genera¬tion of those who hate me, 6but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments."

Deut 32: 35 "It is mine to avenge; I will repay. In due time their foot will slip; their day of disaster is near and their doom rushes upon them."
36The LORD will judge his people and have compassion on his servants when he sees their strength is gone and no one is left, slave or free. 37He will say: "Now where are their gods, the rock they took refuge in, 38the gods who ate the fat of their sacrifices and drank the wine of their drink offerings? Let them rise up to help you! Let them give you shelter!
39"See now that I myself am He! There is no god besides me. I put to death and I bring to life, I have wounded and I will heal, and no one can deliver out of my hand. 40I lift my hand to heaven and declare: As surely as I live forever, 41 when I sharpen my flashing sword and my hand grasps it in judgment, I will take vengeance on my adversaries and repay those who hate me. 42 I will make my arrows drunk with blood, while my sword devours flesh: the blood of the slain and the captives, the heads of the enemy leaders."
43Rejoice, 0 nations, with his people, for he will avenge the blood of his servants; he will take vengeance on his enemies and make atonement for his land and people.

Neh 9:31 "But in your great mercy you did not put an end to them or abandon them, for you are a gracious and merciful God."

Job 19:II "His anger burns against me; he counts me among his enemies."

Ps 5:5 The arrogant cannot stand in your presence; you hate all who do wrong. 6You destroy those who tell lies; bloodthirsty and deceitful men the LORD abhors.

Ps 11:5 The LORD examines the righteous, but the wicked and those who love violence his soul hates.

Ps 104:31 May the glory of the LORD endure forever; may the LORD rejoice in his works ....

Ps 111:4 He has caused his wonders to be remembered; the LORD is gracious and compassionate.

Isa 1:24 Therefore the Lord, the LORD Almighty, the Mighty One of Israel, declares: "Ah, I will get relief from my foes and avenge myself on my enemies."

Isa 62:4 No longer will they call you Deserted, name your land Desolate. But you will be called Hephzibah, and your land Beulah; for the LORD will take delight in you, and your land will be married. 5As a young man marries a maiden, so will your sons marry you; as a bridegroom rejoices over his bride, so will your God rejoice over you.

Jer 31:3 The LORD appeared to us in the past, saying: "I have loved you with an everlasting love; I have drawn you with loving-kindness."

Lam 2:3 In fierce anger he has cut off every horn of Israel. He has withdrawn his right hand at the approach of the enemy. He has burned in Jacob like a flaming fire that consumes everything around it.
.
Ezek 5:13 "Then my anger will cease and my wrath agamst them will subside, and I will be avenged. And when I have spent my wrath upon them, they will know that I the LORD have spoken in my zeal."

Zeph 3:8 "Therefore wait for me," declares the LORD, "for the day I will stand up to testify. I have decided to assemble the nations, to gather the kingdoms and to pour out my wrath on them-all my fierce anger. The whole world will be consumed by the fire of my jealous anger." "

Rom 9:13 Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.

2 Cor 9:7 Each man should give what he has decided in his heart to give, not reluctantly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver.

Eph 5 6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God's wrath comes on those who are disobedient.

Phil 2:27 Indeed he was ill, and almost died. But God had mercy on him, and not on him only but also on me, to spare me sorrow upon sorrow.

James 5:11 As you know, we consider blessed those who have persevered. You have heard of Job's perseverance and have seen what the Lord finally brought about. The Lord is full of compassion and mercy.

1 John 4:16 And so we know and rely on the love God has for us. God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him.

John 11:35 Jesus wept.

And yet we have a passage that Jesus wept.... So if you are saying that Jesus didn't cry, what exactly did he do??

Jac3510 wrote:What you are distinguishing between is what is called a valid and a sound argument. Validity deals with form. Soundness deals with the correctness of the premises. Obviously, all three of my arguments are valid. The question is if they are sound. Regarding mine, the question is if the major presmise (1) is true (To have emotions one must be temporal). You've shown nothing that they are not. To the contrary, your refutation above strengthens my point, as demostrated.

Again I have clearly shown that emotions do not change God's character... Your premises and conclusions are not sound, just like the guy states the argument "every swan I have seen is white, so it must be true that all swans are white." That is according to one's perception... As you can see one can make a logical argument and still be biased in his premises and conclusions. They maybe logical, but logical to oneself..

Jac3510 wrote:I've provided three. One from simplicity, one from timelessness, and one from immutability. In my detailed response to B.W., I added twp more: an argument from God's necessity and one from His perfection. Shutting your eyes to them doesn't change the fact that they are there.

We've already addressed this. God can be all knowing and still have emotions..

Gman wrote:Do I believe that all man will die someday? We will one day you know.. I may know this, but is that going to take away the sting when I actually see someone die someday?

Jac3510 wrote:Why didn't you answer my question? Do you believe God must discover things?

No... As I've stated before.... I may know that someone may die someday. But does that actually take away the sting when I finally witness the event? I don't think so.. I've still witnessed police officers crying at a car accident even though they are going to happen. It's called being human..

Jac3510 wrote:We've talked about this already, G. If we can't use logic when it comes to God, then we can't believe in the Trinity. We can't prove He exists. If we can't use logic when it comes to God, why are you trying to have any logical discussions about Him at all? You are being inconsistent.

Because I want to be consistent with scripture and sound logical arguments.. I believe our relationship is a personal relationship with Him. This involves everything about God whether it is emotional or even unemotional. It's everything about God, the whole enchilada..

Also this argument has nothing to do with the Trinity. The Trinity IS scriptural, this argument is unscriptural..

Jac3510 wrote:What makes you think I'm worried? This is all rather elementary.

We don't have all the answers, it's ok to admit that we cannot grasp all the things of God. We simply have to be truthful about it...

Jac3510 wrote:I'm sure Aquinas, Athenaseus, Anselm, etc. would be more than surprised to hear you call their position deism.

So? If we take a survey is it always right? So was the Roman empire, but it eventually fell too.. I would say it's very close to deism where God is separated from His flock. An emotionless tree stump.. I say that God is a PERSONAL God. We can understand Him and that comes through various emotions...

Jac3510 wrote:When did I ever say that we control God's emotions? Seriously, why do you people insist on attributing to me things not only that I have not stated, but that I have denied in writing in this very thread? How can we control God's emotions if He doesn't have them? Further, in my extended proof for BW, I expressly talked about two ways of reconciling God's perfection and omnscience, one of which is impossible because it would mean that we control God's emotions, making Him contingent on us.

Not exactly... In your own words, "It is very fair to describe God as being angry or sad or happy or whatever. But those words are based on our emotions, and our emotions are analogous to God in that way." So we can attribute to God as being angry or sad or happy but those words are based on our emotions. In other words, it is MAN who is basing the emotion, not God. It's man's belief not God's.. God, it seems, does not care which get's back to deism.. Please see my above scriptures.. Because I believe this not to be based on the Bible..

Jac3510 wrote:I've already addressed this, Gman. Are you, like B.W., going to refuse me the courtesy of reading my arguments? Are you going to continue to assume I hold to positions that I don't and all the while assert that I do?

Likewise Jac.. Are you going to negate what the Bible says??

Jac3510 wrote:There's no such thing as "my logic." Logic is logic. If I'm wrong, point it out. Regarding impassibility, it's the classical position, and if you bothered to read my explanation of it, you would see that it necessarily follows from God's Creatorship. If you deny it, you deny that God is the Creator. To deny it is to deny that God is, in fact, God.

But you've already agreed with me that not all valid arguments are true.. They maybe valid, but not always true..

Jac3510 wrote:1. The Creator must be impassible;
2. Gman says God is not impassible;
3. Therefore, Gman says God is not the Creator.

Scary position to take, G. Now, obviously, I know that YOU, personally, do not deny that God is the Creator. You believe He is. But what I am saying is that your position necessarily entails such a denial, and, as such, should be reconsidered.

God bless

Ok that is going too far Jac... You cannot say that my logic denies the creator.. And, I'm not totally saying that you are wrong either.. I've already told you that your case is a possibility. I can't say that I know God through and through, so I can't dismiss what you are saying entirely. What I'm against here is spot-welding arguments, and closing conversations. That is not what this forum is about..

Thank you..

sorry cslewislover. the phrase triggered memories is all.