Evidence for God from Science

BryanH wrote:

1lover137 wrote: Believers seek God. They admire Jesus and want to be like him and please him.

So God has a personal interest. He wants to be admired and pleased...

I would not say it that way. Sounds like his is childish or what. When we strive to have some qualities we admire those who have such qualities. It's connected. What we strive for and what we admire.

BryanH wrote:

1lover137 wrote:Nonbelievers do not seek God and do not want to please him. Now imagine what would God have to do with a nonbeliever to get him into heaven. He would have to change his personality, change his likes and dislikes.

I imagine how hard that must be for God. I mean, he is only God and he has limited powers and stuff. A non-believer is the limit for him... Now about being righteous and stuff, people can be good without actually seeking God. As I said earlier, it seems that believing is more important that actually being good because nobody is good. What is the point of the moral law then? There are some contradictions which don't make any sense...

***By the way, personality and human psychological traits have a bipolar nature. You know that right? It doesn't matter if you are a believer or not. So God would have to change both believers and non-believers in the same way, but it would take a little bit longer for non-believers. Since he is a timeless being, I think time is not the issue here.

1. Only 'limitation' for God is that he is consistent. Otherwise he does not have limited powers. You say that nonbeliever is a limit for him and I say that since God is consistent in what he says and does non-believer will end where he will end.
2. You say people can be good without seeking God. Then I ask what does it mean to be good? How do you define that in absolute way?
3. What do you mean? Which contradictions?
4. So, you think with enough time all non-believers would finally believe. Bible teaches this is not the case. I cannot now find the exact verse, but it was about jews for whom even having prophets is not enough. Well, how much longer do you think it would take non-believers? Imagine you have now 1000 years to live on the Earth. What would you do to find out whether there is Christian God?

It seems we don't understand each other... You can't have a property that God doesn't have... So you can't be evil and good and God just good. God is the origin point for all things. No matter if you actualize or not... The nature of God can't exclude evil... logically speaking. The fact that you try to explain how people came to having a choice between good and evil is perfectly valid. I am not arguing against that. I am simply asking about the existence of evil. And you can't say that evil is a conceptual notion described by the lack of good. I can describe good as the absence of evil. Dichotomies can't be defined individually without one another.

I suggest you read up on Aristotilean and Thomists philosophy. It's a fairly nuanced subject and it is obvious by your comments that you do not understand the philosophical groundwork. You are just making arbitrary statements, when the arguments regarding good and evil are well argued and defended.
This has already been touched on in this thread. The nature of God most certainly excludes evil,....logically speaking. God is the ultimate end of all things, and by nature good. God is not merely 'acting' good or choosing good. He is goodness manifest. And you couldn't even begin to discuss the issue without smuggling in definitions that presuppose an objective standard.

I'd suggest reading Feser's intro to Aquinas.

jlay wrote:

It seems we don't understand each other... You can't have a property that God doesn't have... So you can't be evil and good and God just good. God is the origin point for all things. No matter if you actualize or not... The nature of God can't exclude evil... logically speaking. The fact that you try to explain how people came to having a choice between good and evil is perfectly valid. I am not arguing against that. I am simply asking about the existence of evil. And you can't say that evil is a conceptual notion described by the lack of good. I can describe good as the absence of evil. Dichotomies can't be defined individually without one another.

I suggest you read up on Aristotilean and Thomists philosophy. It's a fairly nuanced subject and it is obvious by your comments that you do not understand the philosophical groundwork. You are just making arbitrary statements, when the arguments regarding good and evil are well argued and defended.
This has already been touched on in this thread. The nature of God most certainly excludes evil,....logically speaking. God is the ultimate end of all things, and by nature good. God is not merely 'acting' good or choosing good. He is goodness manifest. And you couldn't even begin to discuss the issue without smuggling in definitions that presuppose an objective standard.

I'd suggest reading Feser's intro to Aquinas.

I think many non-believers want answers directly from us and not to look into some books. Perhaps telling them which couple of pages to read would be good. They do not want to read whole books. My 2 cents.

BryanH wrote:@Byblos

There is no such place as pure evil. Nothing can be outside god'S reach. That would imply a limited god. So hell can't exist outside of god so therefore hell can't be pure evil. It is illogical to say such a thing.

According to whom, master philosopher BryanH? Like Jlay suggested, you need to study up on Aquinas, Feser's book is an excellent start. But I won't hold my breath.

I think many non-believers want answers directly from us and not to look into some books. Perhaps telling them which couple of pages to read would be good. They do not want to read whole books. My 2 cents.

Hana, Bryan was offered answers. Specfically how evil is not a property in and of itself. He made an arbirtary statement that he could say that good is just the absence of evil. Now, he could humbly claim that he doesn't understand and would like more information. Does he? No. He has been on this forum a good while. He isn't interested in the answers. He chooses willfull ignorance.

Byblos wrote:

BryanH wrote:@Byblos

There is no such place as pure evil. Nothing can be outside god'S reach. That would imply a limited god. So hell can't exist outside of god so therefore hell can't be pure evil. It is illogical to say such a thing.

According to whom, master philosopher BryanH? Like Jlay suggested, you need to study up on Aquinas, Feser's book is an excellent start. But I won't hold my breath.

Or, he can check chapters that would be of his interst here: http://m.ccel.org/ccel/aquinas/summa.toc.html

1over137 wrote:

jlay wrote:

It seems we don't understand each other... You can't have a property that God doesn't have... So you can't be evil and good and God just good. God is the origin point for all things. No matter if you actualize or not... The nature of God can't exclude evil... logically speaking. The fact that you try to explain how people came to having a choice between good and evil is perfectly valid. I am not arguing against that. I am simply asking about the existence of evil. And you can't say that evil is a conceptual notion described by the lack of good. I can describe good as the absence of evil. Dichotomies can't be defined individually without one another.

I suggest you read up on Aristotilean and Thomists philosophy. It's a fairly nuanced subject and it is obvious by your comments that you do not understand the philosophical groundwork. You are just making arbitrary statements, when the arguments regarding good and evil are well argued and defended.
This has already been touched on in this thread. The nature of God most certainly excludes evil,....logically speaking. God is the ultimate end of all things, and by nature good. God is not merely 'acting' good or choosing good. He is goodness manifest. And you couldn't even begin to discuss the issue without smuggling in definitions that presuppose an objective standard.

I'd suggest reading Feser's intro to Aquinas.

I think many non-believers want answers directly from us and not to look into some books. Perhaps telling them which couple of pages to read would be good. They do not want to read whole books. My 2 cents.

There is nothing wrong with wanting a direct answer But what I always ask skeptics is what evidence do you consider evidence?
IT does amaze me that many of them are willing to accept what they criticize in believers as long as it happens to THEM.

danieltwotwenty wrote:If a man invents a car, it goes from being a concept to an actual, before it was actual it did not exist, so conceptual ideas do not exist until actualised.
Think about what your saying, your saying the car existed when it was only a concept, which we know is not logical.

BryanH wrote:And before something becomes a concept, it needs to be INVENTED first... My point exactly.

Man wants to invent car (conceptual) man invents car (actualises), that is the order I wrote the first time, I can however see how you read it wrong as the sentence structure wasn't that great. So no you don't invent it first, firstly it is a concept and then it is invented (actualised).

danieltwotwenty wrote:No God does not have to be good and evil, evil is the absence of good and is only conceptual, conceptuals do not actually exist until they are actualised by a free moral agent. Because good was not chosen evil is actualised bringing it from conceptual to actual. I don't believe you. sorry.

BryanH wrote:It seems we don't understand each other... You can't have a property that God doesn't have... So you can't be evil and good and God just good. God is the origin point for all things. No matter if you actualize or not... The nature of God can't exclude evil... logically speaking. The fact that you try to explain how people came to having a choice between good and evil is perfectly valid. I am not arguing against that. I am simply asking about the existence of evil. And you can't say that evil is a conceptual notion described by the lack of good. I can describe good as the absence of evil. Dichotomies can't be defined individually without one another.

God is good, evil by it's very nature is a lack of good, so by definition if God is good then he can't be evil, evil is only conceptual and does not exist until actualised.
I can and will say it, you have not proven it not to be the case.

danieltwotwenty wrote:If you had read what I wrote, I said free moral agents, Lucifer is a free moral agent. So I don't see any grounds for suing, case dismissed.

BryanH wrote:You can't invent something that was already invented... Lucifer was the first evil doer. You said that humans invented evil by free choice. They were second...

For the second time I said free moral agents, lucifer was a free moral agent. Is there a face palm smiley because it would be appropiate here.

danieltwotwenty wrote:This comes back to the heat analogy, there is no such thing as cold, there is only a lack of heat.

BryanH wrote:There is no such things as heat, there is only the absence of cold. There is no such thing as beautiful, but the absence of ugly...
I have to repeat myself, but dichotomies can't be defined individually... You can try and pretend you are doing that, but the reality is a little bit different.

See other peoples repsonses. Icthus's response below answers this.

danieltwotwenty wrote:Maybe in your mind but not in mine, evil only existed as a conceptual idea until free moral agents actualised it, that is when it began to exist. No dodging, just using logic and reason, seems to me your trying to dodge your own evil and put the blame onto God, which in itself is an evil act, how ironic.

BryanH wrote:The only place where EVIL could exist as a concept before we humans actualized it was within God. And in order for a concept to exist someone must invent it. The only inventor at that point was God.

Yes it was a concept with God, but we invented it when we/Lucifer/whoever actualised it, before that it was only a concept and as we know concepts don't actually exist.


I think everyone else answered you well enough, maybe go read some books or something so you understand God's nature a bit more.



Dan

BryanH wrote:There is no such things as heat, there is only the absence of cold. There is no such thing as beautiful, but the absence of ugly...
I have to repeat myself, but dichotomies can't be defined individually... You can try and pretend you are doing that, but the reality is a little bit different.

I don't want it to seem like I'm battering you about the head with this heat/cold analogy, but your objection here doesn't (scientifically) make sense. You act as though you can redefine heat as the absence of cold, but that is impossible; you don't seem to appreciate the nature of the dichotomy. The two components of a dichotomy do not have to be ontologically similar. Heat IS real. That isn't something that you can argue with. Heat is a measurable form of energy the existence of which is a scientific fact. There is, strictly speaking, no such thing as cold. There is no type of energy that is "cold" energy, only smaller quantities of heat.

Similarly, there is such a thing as water. When something has water on it, we call it wet. There is not a form of matter that is the opposite of water that is "dry", just differing states of wetness, and when something has little or no water on it, we call it dry.

The same applies, I think, to good. God is good. It is an inseparable part of his existence. Because he is good, and the original source of goodness, it is sometimes said (though not exactly rightly) that he invented it. Evil is not the same order of thing. To say that because God is good he must either be evil or the source of evil as well is like saying that because God is God he must also not be God and the source of everything ungodly.

I think...

Icthus wrote:God is good. It is an inseparable part of his existence. Because he is good, and the original source of goodness, it is sometimes said (though not exactly rightly) that he invented it.

I liked your post, just wanted to offer a little comment on the underlined above, you're absolutely right that that statement is incorrect. God didn't invent 'good' as if 'good' is separate and apart from God. The proper way to state it is that God IS goodness, the same way God IS existence. I.e. there is no such thing as goodness or existence apart from God.

jlay wrote:He isn't interested in the answers. He chooses willfull ignorance.

Byblos wrote:According to whom, master philosopher BryanH?

Guys no offense, but your remarks are not worth that much... Since I have been on this forum I did ask some questions for which I didn't get any answers...

You on the other side, and I am talking about both of you, have no courage to admit when you are wrong because sometimes you substitute your reasoning and logic ( both of you are smart and informed people) with faith. I am not saying that is wrong, but please while you do try not to say offending things about others who do not have the faith you have.

Although the two quotes here are not that important, this is not the first time this happens. Just so you know that I do pay attention to what is happening here on this forum and I do have a good memory.

@Ichtus

I know what you mean with the heat example. That was a mistake from my part. Mainly when I talked about dichotomies, I was referring to the human personality and traits.

@Now coming back to the original discussion

1) I did ask one question here which got no answer:

The story of Lucifer, the fallen angel.

He was banished because he wanted to be the equal of God. This story leads to a logic paradox:

"Can God create another God?"


2) If we follow the logic saying that God is only good, then he can't actualize evil... At the same time, God is not a free moral agent because he is only good.

Here I have 2 dilemmas:

a) How does Hell exist without evil being a separate characteristic? As mighty and power as Lucifer might be, he is only a creation of God. Lucifer can't exist independently of God. As Byblos said, the judgement day will place people in one place or another: pure good or pure evil(hell).


b) There is also the story with he forbidden tree. God said to Adam and Eve that eating or even touching a fruit of that 'single' tree will kill them. Actually the one who actualized evil was God himself by not keeping his promise. If he would have kept his promise, Eve would have died the moment she touched the fruit and Adam would have never eaten. He lied. (we have already seen that God kills people as a form of punishment)

BryanH wrote:

jlay wrote:He isn't interested in the answers. He chooses willfull ignorance.

Byblos wrote:According to whom, master philosopher BryanH?

Guys no offense, but your remarks are not worth that much... Since I have been on this forum I did ask some questions for which I didn't get any answers...

You on the other side, and I am talking about both of you, have no courage to admit when you are wrong because sometimes you substitute your reasoning and logic ( both of you are smart and informed people) with faith. I am not saying that is wrong, but please while you do try not to say offending things about others who do not have the faith you have.

Although the two quotes here are not that important, this is not the first time this happens. Just so you know that I do pay attention to what is happening here on this forum and I do have a good memory.

You're just going to have to forgive our snarkiness Bryan because, honestly, how many times do you expect us to go through this with you? 3, 4, 10 times, 100 times? After a while it gets very frustrating and we start talking past one another and neither is listening. What we (Jlay and I) are trying to tell you is that your objections are answered completely and thoroughly and if you bother to pick up some material that we've recommended and read up on them, at a minimum, you will be able to see that there indeed are rational answers to your objections even if you still come away with a disagreement.

BryanH wrote:@Now coming back to the original discussion

1) I did ask one question here which got no answer:

The story of Lucifer, the fallen angel.

He was banished because he wanted to be the equal of God. This story leads to a logic paradox:

"Can God create another God?"

You are the one who's putting forth this argument, no one else. The answer is no, God cannot create another god, so where's the logical paradox? The fact that lucifer wanted to be like God, doesn't mean he is capable of becoming like God.

BryanH wrote:2) If we follow the logic saying that God is only good, then he can't actualize evil...

That's absolutely correct, a being who is pure love and pure goodness cannot actualize evil, it would be contrary to His nature (to say nothing of the fact that it would violate the law of non-contradiction and, therefore, becomes absurd).

BryanH wrote:At the same time, God is not a free moral agent because he is only good.

And here's where you fall into self-fulfilling problems. How in the world did you come to that conclusion? How exactly does it follow that a being who is pure goodness is not a free moral agent? He is a free moral agent that is true to his nature and therefore is not self-contradictory.

BryanH wrote:Here I have 2 dilemmas:

a) How does Hell exist without evil being a separate characteristic? As mighty and power as Lucifer might be, he is only a creation of God. Lucifer can't exist independently of God. As Byblos said, the judgement day will place people in one place or another: pure good or pure evil(hell).

How about if you think of hell as not a particular place but a particular state of mind, does that help resolve your 1st dilemma in any way?

BryanH wrote:b) There is also the story with he forbidden tree. God said to Adam and Eve that eating or even touching a fruit of that 'single' tree will kill them. Actually the one who actualized evil was God himself by not keeping his promise. If he would have kept his promise, Eve would have died the moment she touched the fruit and Adam would have never eaten. He lied. (we have already seen that God kills people as a form of punishment)

There are 2 ways you can think of this:

1. The death spoken of is a spiritual, not a physical death
2. Adam and Eve were created immortal and due to the fall became mortal (and therefore marked for death)

Does that help resolve your 2nd dilemma in any way?

You're just going to have to forgive our snarkiness Bryan because, honestly, how many times do you expect us to go through this with you? 3, 4, 10 times, 100 times?

It doesn't matter Byblos. You need to understand and accept that you might be wrong about some things.

@Byblos

How about if you think of hell as not a particular place but a particular state of mind, does that help resolve your 1st dilemma in any way?

Well no because although I do not believe in God as you do, if God exists, there is no state of mind that can exclude him literally. I can choose not to believe, but my mind is still God's creation. So any state of mind can exclude God by choice, but the mind itself is the creation of God, so there is no total exclusion. That is my point.

1. The death spoken of is a spiritual, not a physical death
2. Adam and Eve were created immortal and due to the fall became mortal (and therefore marked for death)

***If you use that interpretation yes, you can explain, but I think this is one the things we have argued about in the past as well. Which interpretation is the correct one?
***But the major problem is that Eve was corrupted in the Garden Of Eden by the devil. If Devil/Satan/Etc etc is the total absence of God, how could he even be there in the first place?

Where did you get the idea that The Devil is the total absence of God ?

Where did you get the idea that The Devil is the total absence of God ?

Byblos said that hell is pure evil(total absence of good).

My POV:

Therefore the total absence of God which is pure good. Satan is the symbol/ruler of Hell. Automatically he is the total lack of God.

I was arguing against the fact that Hell is pure evil.

@Byblos

I missed this one:

And here's where you fall into self-fulfilling problems. How in the world did you come to that conclusion? How exactly does it follow that a being who is pure goodness is not a free moral agent? He is a free moral agent that is true to his nature and therefore is not self-contradictory.

A free moral agent means that you can choose between doing right and doing wrong. If God is goodness manifest as you said, how can he choose to do wrong? God can't make moral choices because he is morality itself... the moral law giver... He is the source of morality.