Evidence for God from Science

Canuckster1127 wrote:Taking out the personal elements of those comments which I'll simply attribute to frustration on your part,

Interesting since it was you that started with the sarcastic "question of support" knowing there is no such scripture.

Canuckster1127 wrote:you might want to consider the implications of your comments taken to their logical extreme.

...and you may want to check on whom you make the accusations of doing anything less than perfect.

Canuckster1127 wrote:You're equating "perfect" which is not stated in the Scriptures as meaning no death. What's your basis for doing that? What does the fall do to your claims here? God is omnipotent and omniscient, right?

NEVER did I equate perfection with no death. That is something you hope I'm saying...so you put words in my mouth.

Canuckster1127 wrote:Therefore, God knew when he created Satan that he would fall and further God knew when he created this world and man that man would fall. Does that threaten your faith?

Not at all! I believe God knew...prior to creation.

Canuckster1127 wrote:Yet you define the creation as "perfect", a word God didn't use and further you define that "perfection" as equal to the future state of Heaven and Earth in the future with the finished work of Christ.

Much like you define "Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day." as the Sabbath being removed from God's law, yet I assume you are still eating and drinking and not some disembodied spirit.

Canuckster1127 wrote:It appears to me, that as you're the one making the greater claim in that regard the onus is upon you to support those positions with Scripture and not simply with what you appear to want to believe in terms of how you think God should have done it.

So now my assumption that God is perfect...and thus cannot do anything less than perfect is what I "want to believe"? Maybe it is you that should prove that when God does something good...it is really not good but "almost" good. Maybe it is you that needs to show God's creation as less-than-perfect at creation.

(Portion removed by moderator for violation of Board Discussion Guidelines.)
.

BavarianWheels wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:Taking out the personal elements of those comments which I'll simply attribute to frustration on your part,

Interesting since it was you that started with the sarcastic "question of support" knowing there is no such scripture.

Canuckster1127 wrote:you might want to consider the implications of your comments taken to their logical extreme.

...and you may want to check on whom you make the accusations of doing anything less than perfect.

Canuckster1127 wrote:You're equating "perfect" which is not stated in the Scriptures as meaning no death. What's your basis for doing that? What does the fall do to your claims here? God is omnipotent and omniscient, right?

NEVER did I equate perfection with no death. That is something you hope I'm saying...so you put words in my mouth.

Canuckster1127 wrote:Therefore, God knew when he created Satan that he would fall and further God knew when he created this world and man that man would fall. Does that threaten your faith?

Not at all! I believe God knew...prior to creation.

Canuckster1127 wrote:Yet you define the creation as "perfect", a word God didn't use and further you define that "perfection" as equal to the future state of Heaven and Earth in the future with the finished work of Christ.

Much like you define "Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day." as the Sabbath being removed from God's law, yet I assume you are still eating and drinking and not some disembodied spirit.

Canuckster1127 wrote:It appears to me, that as you're the one making the greater claim in that regard the onus is upon you to support those positions with Scripture and not simply with what you appear to want to believe in terms of how you think God should have done it.

So now my assumption that God is perfect...and thus cannot do anything less than perfect is what I "want to believe"? Maybe it is you that should prove that when God does something good...it is really not good but "almost" good. Maybe it is you that needs to show God's creation as less-than-perfect at creation.

Canuckster1127 wrote:Maybe you can address the issues this time without attacking those challenging you. That's up to you however.

No attacks...just logic. It seems to me it is you with the "Maybe you..." comments as the one instigating...but then I'm not a moderator with the freedom to interpret as I please.
.
.

1. There was no sarcasm on my end intended. It's a legitimate point to make that there is no scripture to support the position being promoted and further that the definition in terms of perfect and God's plan, as you appear to have conceded, includes Satan, Man's fall and Sin. In the larger sense, while God is not the author of sin, it certainly has to be stated that in the context of His omniscience and omnipotence, that His perfect plan allowed for elements of imperfection for reasons that seemed good to God Himself. I don't pretend to understand how all that works. It's there however and the issue as to the perfect state of creation before the fall, needs to include those elements. As such, while God's plan is perfect, there certainly needs to be some care in not overstating the idea of a perfect paradise, vis a vis, no death or degenerative physical processes in the creation as part of God's original plan.

An apt analogy might be that while the Bible, God's Word is perfect, it doens't change the fact that it preserves the words of Satan as well and as such, while the purpose God intends in that preservation is perfect, it doesn't make Satan's words true. Do you see the point?

2. I went to a great deal of effort in our previous conversation to point out what I believed to be flaws in your presentation including several scriptural references demonstrating, among other things, the presence of 9 out of 10 of the original 10 commandments being reinstated in the New Testament but the Sabbath not being one of them. You don't agree with that, which is your perogative. Further, I gave you the final word before closing that thread as a courtesy to you. Attempting to reenter the conversation on another thread which involves other issues is not necessary.

3. I accept your clarification that you were not attempting to say there was no death in the creation before the fall and apologize for thinking otherwise. If you wish to clarify further, please feel free.

4. I've addressed as have others the idea of "perfect" and what is included or not included and why. As you appear above to have stated you believe death was present in some form in the original creation, it appears we both agree that the presence of death in some measure doesn't invalidate the idea of perfection in terms of God's execution of what is ultimately a plan focused upon the redemption of mankind and the creation in the future. Do you disagree?


Regards,

Bart

Canuckster1127 wrote:1. There was no sarcasm on my end intended. It's a legitimate point to make that there is no scripture to support the position being promoted

A legitimate point (non-sarcastic) would be made, “I've not found scripture to support…if there is, I'd be happy to rethink my position in light of...”
A sarcastic point is worded,

Canuckster1127 wrote:I'm still waiting for somone to answer the original question of pointing to the Scripture where the claim of a "perfect" creation before the fall is established.

However if I am wrong...I can follow your example quite easily.

Canuckster1127 wrote:and further that the definition in terms of perfect and God's plan, as you appear to have conceded, includes Satan, Man's fall and Sin. In the larger sense, while God is not the author of sin, it certainly has to be stated that in the context of His omniscience and omnipotence, that His perfect plan allowed for elements of imperfection for reasons that seemed good to God Himself. I don't pretend to understand how all that works. It's there however and the issue as to the perfect state of creation before the fall, needs to include those elements.

If by “allowed for elements of imperfection…” you mean anything other than freewill I would disagree. I don't believe God “allowed” for anything. If God made/left anything less than perfect, sin would be His fault and thus make Satan's claim true (God is unfair). Sin is a direct result of freewill…and not of God's making. God allowed freewill…but sin entered by choice and not by design. I believe that our heavenly life will be perfect, yet freewill will not be removed.

Canuckster1127 wrote:As such, while God's plan is perfect, there certainly needs to be some care in not overstating the idea of a perfect paradise, vis a vis, no death or degenerative physical processes in the creation as part of God's original plan.

Again…I'm not entirely sure what you are saying here. God created in Eden, His perfect creation. GOD said it was good. I believe His word. If God said it was good…then it was good for eternity. Had sin not entered through deception (by freewill), our first parents, Adam and Eve, would still be around and we'd still be in Eden.

Canuckster1127 wrote:An apt analogy might be that while the Bible, God's Word is perfect, it doens't change the fact that it preserves the words of Satan as well and as such, while the purpose God intends in that preservation is perfect, it doesn't make Satan's words true. Do you see the point?

I see your point, but reserve the right to disagree with details within this point as they manifest themselves.

Canuckster1127 wrote:2. I went to a great deal of effort in our previous conversation to point out what I believed to be flaws in your presentation including several scriptural references demonstrating, among other things, the presence of 9 out of 10 of the original 10 commandments being reinstated in the New Testament but the Sabbath not being one of them

…ignoring Christ's actions (life), His customs, His claim of being Lord of the Sabbath, the Sabbath being made for man and not man for the Sabbath, which clearly puts the Sabbath at creation and not a “Jewish” or “Israel” only precept.

[Kurieuo: Rest of post removed as off-topic and inappropriate to make a public scene regarding past moderating. Please take your issue up privately with a moderator if you have any issue.]

1. Repeating your claim as to my intent when I've stated my intent was not to be sarcastic adds nothing more to the discussion and simply illustrates my point that you're becoming increasingly personal in your responses which is your perogative, but is duly noted.

2. I think the elements I noted do tie into Free will but I reiterate that I do not claim to have those issues resolved in my own mind to my own satisfaction and I believe there is an element of mystery that precludes them being such.

3. It appears to me that the issue arising here is one of a definition of terms. The operative word appears to be "perfect". To make things simpler, would you care to clarify how you see the term being used in this regard? To clarify mine, I don't see the text supporting the idea that there was no death and I believe the idea of perfect relates to the plan God had in place which has future fulfillment as achieved by the Atonement of Christ. Perfect in the sense of Eden appears to me to mean mature, whole and with all elements God intended. I do not believe that Eden equates to the future state that will be achieved in the new heaven and new earth we look forward to.

Canuckster1127 wrote:I'm still waiting for somone to answer the original question of pointing to the Scripture where the claim of a "perfect" creation before the fall is established.

There is none...God by definition is perfect and so it would seem logical to assume all that He is and does is perfect.
.
.

The whole concept of scripture is that the fall brought death and groaning of nature. Genesis does not c;early say there was no death before the fall but it is greatly implied in Genesuis and all scripture leads to this conclusion. I would also add there could be no evidence of death before the fall as all evidences of creatures that once lived is in a fossilized state. The only way they were fossilized was by the flood or events after.
Rob byers

Robert Byers wrote:The whole concept of scripture is that the fall brought death and groaning of nature. Genesis does not c;early say there was no death before the fall but it is greatly implied in Genesuis and all scripture leads to this conclusion. I would also add there could be no evidence of death before the fall as all evidences of creatures that once lived is in a fossilized state. The only way they were fossilized was by the flood or events after.
Rob byers

I don't think so... One of the main reason's God implemented death was to curb overpopulation. Are you saying that God first created man and beast without the concern of overpopulation and then implemented death after the fall of man? I thought that God was perfect? Why didn't he get it right the first time?

Also, apparently from scripture God feeds the carnivores their prey. Is God now imperfect for feeding his animals meat?

Psalm 104:21 The lions roar for their prey and seek their food from God.

Job 38:41 Who provides food for the raven when its young cry out to God and wander about for lack of food?

BavarianWheels wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:Taking out the personal elements of those comments which I'll simply attribute to frustration on your part,

Interesting since it was you that started with the sarcastic "question of support" knowing there is no such scripture.

I respectfully find it odd to see you write this, when the issue of the Sabbath being obligatory has been discussed with you in the past with many different posters (including myself) who offered up sound Scriptural arguments. For example: http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... f=13&t=279

If you have complaints with moderating please take them up privately rather than making a public scene.

Any further off-topic discussion in this thread not dedicated to the issue of death before the fall will be removed.

Gman wrote:I don't think so... One of the main reason's God implemented death was to curb overpopulation.

God "implemented" death? Is there some scriptural proof of death being brought about to "curb overpopulation"?
.
.

BavarianWheels wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:I'm still waiting for somone to answer the original question of pointing to the Scripture where the claim of a "perfect" creation before the fall is established.

There is none...God by definition is perfect and so it would seem logical to assume all that He is and does is perfect.
.
.

Agreed. It would seem that way. But that doesn't answer the many unanswered questions in this thread. Given that sin exists at the very least by God's allowance, and further, given that it is clear that a future state is going to be introduced that doesn't exist now, is it a contradiction to differentiate between the perfection of God's plans and purposes and the less than perfect state of the creation now and at the time of its inception given that God's plans themselves allow for imperfection?

Is it proper to project the attribute of perfection of the Creator upon the creation when it is obvious that the creation is limited and doesn't share the immutable characteristics of the creator? Isn't that a form of pantheism?

Requests for a definition of terms have been ignored by those objecting to those pointing out that the word perfection in this context isn't used by God Himself in the Bible.

Why is it threatening to point out an overstatement of this nature? Is there something resting upon this foundation that is in turn threatened?

Canuckster1127 wrote:

BavarianWheels wrote:

Canuckster1127 wrote:I'm still waiting for somone to answer the original question of pointing to the Scripture where the claim of a "perfect" creation before the fall is established.

There is none...God by definition is perfect and so it would seem logical to assume all that He is and does is perfect.
.
.

Agreed. It would seem that way. But that doesn't answer the many unanswered questions in this thread. Given that sin exists at the very least by God's allowance, and further, given that it is clear that a future state is going to be introduced that doesn't exist now,

Yes, we agree here.

Canuckster1127 wrote:is it a contradiction to differentiate between the perfection of God's plans and purposes and the less than perfect state of the creation now and at the time of its inception given that God's plans themselves allow for imperfection?

That's not what you said in the past. Your contention was that God's creation was imperfect and wanted scripture to back a claim that God's creation was "perfect". Now you're saying God's plan allows for imperfection. I could more agree with that, however it still seems to me that your giving God an underlying attribute of imperfection. God's creation was perfect, but affording sin to enter wasn't "imperfect" on His part. If God had made creation "perfect" (I'm assuming you would say perfect being without the possibility of choice since it is choice that brought about sin) then God's creation would be nothing more than a set of Lego's in which every piece of the "game" is manipulated solely by Him at His pleasure. This runs akin to Calvinism (I think) where it is believed that a person's salvation was determined long before and is ONLY a result of God's good pleasure...us having no choice in the matter. Had creation been made in this manner, there would be no sin. There would be no death. But also there would be no true love.

Canuckster1127 wrote:Is it proper to project the attribute of perfection of the Creator upon the creation when it is obvious that the creation is limited and doesn't share the immutable characteristics of the creator?

Is it proper to say God is imperfect?

Canuckster1127 wrote:Isn't that a form of pantheism?

I don't understand how so.

Canuckster1127 wrote:Requests for a definition of terms have been ignored by those objecting to those pointing out that the word perfection in this context isn't used by God Himself in the Bible.

Not ignored...I've said at least twice it's not used by God...but God's nature is and thus His work is also. Or do you deny God's nature?

Canuckster1127 wrote:Why is it threatening to point out an overstatement of this nature? Is there something resting upon this foundation that is in turn threatened?

Please elaborate, I don't know what you're alluding to.
.
.

That's not what you said in the past.

Actually it is. It's why I've been pressing for a definition in terms because it appears the term is being used differently here by us.

Your contention was that God's creation was imperfect and wanted scripture to back a claim that God's creation was "perfect".

My contention, to be clear, is that the Biblical Creation account doesn't even include or introduce the idea of "perfect" in the context of the state of the original creation or the Garden. The idea that there was no death prior to the fall, is a platform of the YEC position and explains in part why the claim is made that the earth couldn't be older than 6 - 10 thousand years. The idea of perfect is appealed to as the original state of creation, to which we will return when the new Heaven and Earth are ushered in. I can see a strong basis perhaps in the creation accounts for the idea that physical death entered into man's experience in terms of his own existence at the fall, but I see no basis for it in the context of the creation account for itself, that the cycle of life and death in terms of plants and animals was a new concept or not an observed phenomena in the Garden.

Now you're saying God's plan allows for imperfection.

I've stated it several times in this thread. Go back and reread it and suspend your reaction to the definition of perfect that you appear to be having. Again, that's why I defined the term earlier and asked others to do the same.

I could more agree with that, however it still seems to me that your giving God an underlying attribute of imperfection. God's creation was perfect, but affording sin to enter wasn't "imperfect" on His part.

Agreed. It wasn't and isn't. However God's perfection in terms of his personal Holiness in that regard is His and doesn't apply to the creation, meaning that it would not be, nor is it, a contradiction in terms to recognize that a self-sufficient, eternal, perfect God could create something that was dependent upon earthly systems, finite in terms of physical life and not perfect, in the sense that it doesn't share in the immutable attributes of God.

If God had made creation "perfect" (I'm assuming you would say perfect being without the possibility of choice since it is choice that brought about sin) then God's creation would be nothing more than a set of Lego's in which every piece of the "game" is manipulated solely by Him at His pleasure. This runs akin to Calvinism (I think) where it is believed that a person's salvation was determined long before and is ONLY a result of God's good pleasure...us having no choice in the matter. Had creation been made in this manner, there would be no sin. There would be no death. But also there would be no true love.

You're beginning to see it. I'm not focusing so much upon Calvanism and choice although that can apply as well. I'm focusing more upon the YEC appeal to a "perfect" garden with no death as contradictory to God's nature and plan. Says who? That's a pretty strong claim to be bringing to the table without drawing it directly from the Biblical account itself.

If it's not coming from the Bible then where is it coming from?

Perhaps something like this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_cave

.
.
I don't know that I'm arguing for a YEC detail. My whole point in this thread is that God is righteous (perfect) and His work is an extension of Him. I'm not sure how you attribute the allegory of the cave to this. Are you saying the allegory of the cave is how I'm coming up with God being perfect? Or are you saying God is the sun, creation is the fire, the puppet holders are the Bible writers, the puppets their words, the shadows are our interpretations of those words, and we (thinking God is perfect and thus His work also) are those against the wall fixated on the shadows?

I feel more lost than before this allegory thing.
.
.

BavarianWheels wrote:.
.
I don't know that I'm arguing for a YEC detail. My whole point in this thread is that God is righteous (perfect) and His work is an extension of Him. I'm not sure how you attribute the allegory of the cave to this. Are you saying the allegory of the cave is how I'm coming up with God being perfect? Or are you saying God is the sun, creation is the fire, the puppet holders are the Bible writers, the puppets their words, the shadows are our interpretations of those words, and we (thinking God is perfect and thus His work also) are those against the wall fixated on the shadows?

I feel more lost than before this allegory thing.
.
.

Stay with me on this.

God is righteous and perfect. No question about it.

His work is a reflection of Him, but it is not an extension of Him; not in the sense that his work takes on qualities that reside only in Him.

God is Holy. That doesn't mean that anything He creates is equally holy.

God is Eternal. That doesn't mean that anything He creates is eternal.

God transcends time. That doesn't mean that anything God creates transcends time.

God is perfect. That doesn't mean that anything God creates is perfect in the same sense that He is. What makes a thing the way it is, is what God intends and declares it be. And what He declares and intends it to be, is a product of His purpose and His plans. When a thing fulfills the purpose God intends for it, that is what makes it perfect, not because of any inherent quality it has, but because it is fulfilling its purpose and functioning or existing in the manner God intended it to. It's a reflection of God's purpose, not an extension of His immutable characteristics.

That may seem to be a nit-pick but it's important and has implications in terms of how we view things.

Plato's cave is a Western concept which is what I was alluding to earlier when I stated that we in the west look at things differently than how an eastern mindset, like the Hebrews have, looks at things.

We think in terms of "perfect" as meaning without any quality that we see as detrimental. We see "perfect" as meaning optimal, the epitomy of all it can be, with no flaws, no negative attributes. Of course, we then see that definition from our perspective, which may be God's perspective, but not necessarily.

The Hebrews see the idea of perfect meaning that it is whole, timely, completely suited to the purposes of God.

Plato's cave illustrates the idea of western perfection. There's an ideal. Make it something as simple as a chair. There may not be a perfect chair in this world but every chair that exists in this world has meaning and can be measured in terms of perfection by the standard of that "perfect" hypothetical chair that exists in principle if not reality. So the chairs we see in this world, are the shadows, or poor reflection of that perfect chair in the heavenly realm.

The western mind looks at the chair, analyzes it, comes up with a theory as to why it's a chair and how it matches up to that perfect chair that is the measure of all chairs, takes the chair apart, analyzes the parts, puts it back together, improves it if possible. You get the idea.

The eastern mind looks at the chair, and says "Great! A chair" and sits down.

That's part of what I think is happening in this conversation that is causing the confusion. It's something we do almost without thinking about it.

I think many conflicts like what we're seeing here, are a result of talking past one another because we're not meaning the same things even when we use the same words.

You're hearing me say, "God created something that is not perfect" because, at least in part, you're using that western concept of perfect.

I'm saying, wait a minute, this whole creation account is inspired by the Holy Spirit and written by Moses but it is written through a Hebrew to other Hebrews and this western idea of perfection or paradise is first of all, not in the text at all in terms of the word perfect and the idea that there was no death in the whole creation is a concept thrown back from a passage in Romans which was speaking primarily of Spiritual Death and not attempting to shed light on the Genesis creation account.

Does this help to make it any clearer?

.
.
I totally agree! I do, believe me. How could I not agree. Alluding to what got me in trouble here recently, God created the days...not all of which are holy. I don't want to side track the conversation...just show I do understand your point.

However (don't roll your eyes) , as Isaiah writes:

Isaiah 45:7 NIV wrote:I form the light and create darkness,
I bring prosperity and create disaster;
I, the LORD, do all these things.

Is this to mean God created (or willed) sin into the world? I would think not. I'm saying God's creation was perfect...as perfect could be incorporating choice into His work. A creation involving animated mud made to be companions of and honor God wouldn't have perfect love for their Creator if it wasn't their own choice...apparently something God's will was for His creation. (human or angelic)

What is the point of carnivores? Is death an inevitable part of "perfection"? I think so. While I believe death will be overcome, swallowed up, I don't believe the possibility of sin is obliterated. As the text above alludes, if light exists, darkness is a result. I think the heaven experience will be without sin and death, but not because it doesn't exist, but because there isn't anyone left to promote it. Had Satan not been in the Garden of Eden, it might never have entered into that creation. (I can't assume Adam, Eve or any of their offspring would EVER have selfish thoughts...I need only point to Lucifer in heaven for this.)

2 Samuel 22:31 NIV wrote:As for God, his way is perfect;
the word of the LORD is flawless.

I hope you're understanding my point of view...I think the above texts best describe this thinking.
.
.