Evidence for God from Science

Paul: One of the trickiest things we have to deal with as humans is trying to understand that which is so far above our understanding.
Especially God.
Since He made us in HIS image and even became one of us, IMO, God not only has feelings, He IS feelings.
In the words of Christ:
NO greater love exists than that of self-sacrifice ( paraphrasing of course John 15:13 ).

And God proved that when He suffered and physically died with Us, for US.

While it is not correct to view God as having human feelings because that would be limiting Him, it is correct that God does have feeling because if He didn't He would NOT be God because He would be inferior to the beings He created that do.

Well, one thing about God's feelings (remember, "Jesus wept"), is that, unlike ours - which can often be based upon inaccurate data or misunderstandings - God's feelings are based upon what truly IS, as He can have no misperceptions about ANYTHING. So, His feelings come from Who He is and are always based upon the truth of things - of ALL things past, present and future.

While waiting to get around to writing a proper reply, please check on these article:

http://www.anthonyflood.com/leedoesgodhaveemotions.htm (on whether or not God has emotions)

http://augustinecollective.org/augustin ... y-emotions (a discussion on the nature of emotions)

From the second article, I want to highlight this:

• But there is a more fundamental way that the will, the reason, and desire all work together. One particular desire underlies all our other impulses: the desire for the good, for happiness. We cannot help to desire to be happy— it is our nature. If we ask ourselves why we wish to be happy, there is no answer other than “because.” Nothing transient, passing, or temporal can actually fulfill this most fundamental of desires. When we plan paths of action with our will, we are trying to fulfill this desire. Our will, as it aims at the universal good, ideally aligns the sensitive appetite (the source of desires and emotions) with the larger goal.

All emotions (whatever we mean by that) are rooted in this desire for happiness--e.g., joy is getting something that makes you happy, sadness is being denied something that makes you happy, hatred is loathing that which makes you unhappy, anger is a desire for justice to correct a wrong that prevents (or has prevented you) from obtaining what makes you happy, etc.. I think that whenever we talk about God and His "emotions," we really have to keep that in mind. Questions about what God desires for Him to be happy--what He needs in order to be complete--become terribly important and strike at the very heart of what we think it means to be God.

Again, will say more later.

Ok, Mel, so I think I can keep this under a few thousand pages. (edit: okay, maybe not, but I've tried!)

So there are several distinct issues your post touches on. I'll just touch on them briefly, and you can respond to the one(s) you think are most relevant to what you are thinking. Fair 'nuff?

1. Interpreting Isa 55:9 and related passages - I'll take it that you agree with me that the actual meaning of the text as it is written is referring to the evil nature of the thoughts of the people God is speaking to. You go on to talk about other meanings in the text and God's transcendence . . . first, I deny that there are ever "other meanings." There is always and only one meaning to any text (except and unless the author obviously intends a double entendre). There are multiple applications of any given text, and there are multiple implications of any given text (related concepts, but distinct), but there is only one meaning. Isa 55:9 is not talking about God's trascendence. There are, of course, verses that do. If you want to switch your argument to base it on one of those other texts, then that's fine. But I'd encourage you not to do the thing where rather than working out the implications of the verse you yourself cited you go and want to talk about another verse, and then just move on to another and then another and so on. The texts mean what they mean. No need to keep bouncing all over Scripture.

2. On transcendence - I agree with everything except this, "Gods transendence doesn't mean we shouldn't bother reasoning but it does mean that His ways transends our reasoning." If you mean that as you wrote it, I object, and I want you to demonstrate that from either Scripture or logic. No verse I know of says that, and if you try to make a logical case for that, the very logical case will refute your argument. I think the statement is, then, self-defeating. I'm not suggesting that we can know the reason God does anything in particular. I am suggesting that it is absurd to suggest that what God does is in some sense arational.

3. On impassibility - I think you are drawing incorrect conclusions on the matter. God is not impassible because He is a rock that cannot be effected. He is impassible because He is active and all effects proceed from Him. To suggest that God is effected (or affected) means that God is not the First Cause after all, for that which is effected by something else is in some sense dependent on that something else. If God is effected by us, He is dependent on us for His state of existence (for without us, He would not exist in the way He now does due to our effecting Him). But if God is dependent on us, then He is a contingen being, and therefore, both God and we are dependent on something that is absolutely necessary in every way, and that thing would really be God. This is important, because when we say God doesn't have emotions, we aren't suggesting that God doesn't care about us or doesn't love us. It doesn't lead to deism. It especially doesn't imply that God is somehow controlled by His emotions and still less that God's "emotions" conflict with one another.

More to the point, I flatly deny that God has emotions. You make a big deal about God being able to "feel." Look very closely at your language. If God can "feel," then He necessarily is having some sort of somatic response. But that's absurd. God is spirit. All feelings are somatic. "I feel tired." "I feel bloated." "I feel sick." "I feel the keyboard." That's even true of emotions. "I feel love." "I feel angry." "I feel sad." All of those are psychosomatic responses to some external stimulus. For simple proof, think of some things that are only mental. Do you "feel" ideas? I'm not asking if you have feelings about any general idea. Think about the idea of triangularity. Do you "feel" triangularity? Of course not. What about the mental faculties? Do you "feel" imagination? Nope. Your imagination--the content of it--may make you feel something. But you don't feel imagination. It's strictly mental. Do you feel your will? No. You may feel things that lead you to will this or that, but the will is not felt, because, again, it is the body that feels, just as much as it is the body that sees, the body that hears, the body that smells, and the body that tastes.

I'm sure you recognize that God "sees," but not in the same sense we do. The word "see" is a metaphor. And just so with "feel." God doesn't feel. That's just a metaphor. As such, God doesn't have emotions. All of that is just metaphor. Which leads to . . .

4. Language about God - I don't agree that anthropmorphisms and anthropopathisms make language about God meaningless. There is something in God that corresponds to our words "love" and "hate" and so on (stictly, given divine simplicity, God's essence can be thought of in a way that corresponds with those words). We don't have a direct knowledge of that precisely because we do not have a direct knowledge of the essence of God. But we have a proximate knowledge of that essence because our metaphorical language is meaningful, even if it is in the end lacking. And lastly

5. God and time - this is a huge issue. But to answer your last question, the reason God can't have affections without implying change is because all affections, by definition, are changes. Not even God can do or be something self-contradicting, because such a "thing" is not a "thing" at all. It is a non-thing, a nothing, and thus, literally, such sentences are meaningless. We might as well ask if God can aoiawlhf2oihweowh. Just because we treat such sentences as if they have meaning, it does not follow that they do. Anyway, the logic is simple enough. If God is atemporal, as you note, then God does not change from A to B (as that would entail temporality). Therefore, God does not change at all. (Your missing premise -->) to feel is to respond to some external stimuli and all responses are changes. Therefore, God does not feel.

Look, here's the bottom line: I'm afaid you are conceiving of God as a being who is somehow "beside us." (Later, K uses that very language.) But that is incorrect. God is NOT a being. He is not "beside" us. All metaphors fail on this point. We can say God is the canvas on which we exis, but even that is insufficient, for that would imply that God has what philosophers call a real relationship with us and therefore changes to us would necessitate changes to Him insofar as He would be differently related to us after our change than He was before our change. You have to get all of that out of your mind. Please notice that the first thing God tells us about Himself in Scripture is that He is Creator. That is, He is the Cause of all that is. Try hard to let that sink in, and when you think you've got it, let it sink deeper. God is literally closer to you than your soul is to your body, for it is He who is causing your soul to be and He who is causing your body to be and He who is causing them to be united in the being that is you. But He is not somehow "outside" of you, "over there" as it were, causing you to be "over here." For both "here" and "there" are merely places that God is causing to be. Moreover, God is not "spread out" like a fog or a midst covering a field. He is entirely present--ALL THAT HE IS at every single point in space and time, because that is what God is -- God is causing that space and time to be. To suggest that God is somehow a being, that He is beside you, then, is to make a huge category error. You may as well ask what blue tastes like. You want to know what God "is"? First, realize the sentence "God is" is redundant, and second, let your mind think about anything at all, and go as deep into it, as fundamentally as you can, down to its smallest piece, and even beyond that, the very existence that holds it in being (again, notice the redundancy there) is and must be contingent and being granted by something that is "below" that--not spatially or temporally, but metaphysically. The very essence of existence subsisting in itself! Get there, and you've gotten closer to the nature of God, or as Scripture says, the "I AM." Again: I AM! No past. No present. No future. And here's the big thing: no qualifications. No predicates. God is not this or that. He just is. That's not a statement of His existece--that would be a predicate. God is not affirming His existence there. He is telling us something abotu His nature. God is the unrestricted act of being, and I would submit to you that your fundamental error, as understandable as it is, is that you are making God a restricted being. Albeit a very powerful restricted being, but restricted, nonetheless. If you can get away from that, which is so very hard because everything in our reality is restricted being--some existence being this way or that way--but realize that even that means that there must be Unrestricted Being Subsisting in Itself. And that is what we call God. Get that, and I think everything else begins to work itself out.

@Jac, almost forgot that thought I had 2 months back regarding "God's Timefulness".

For some reason, theologians decided to adopt "timelessness" after Greek philosophers, associate that with God's eternality rather than something like "timefulness".
I'm not sure I understand why this is so. While it would need fleshing out, and I now think DS creates some good rules for critiquing beliefs about God, timefulness would seem to resolve many tricky dilemmas.

For example, the issues of God's relationship to us (temporal beings), are resolved in what otherwise appears to be a contradiction.
That contradiction being: Timelessness interacting with us in time and yet remaining timeless
-- timefulness would have no such issues, since temporality is just a natural and even necessary outworking of such.

SO then, what is this timefulness. I won't attempt to take a dig at that myself, but intend to explore the idea over time.
To share a quote I came across with others here which draws upon a connection even between a Trinitarian conception of God and idea of "timefulness":

"God is not timeless, but lively, active, an event. God’s being should therefore according to
Jenson be described as temporal infinity – a term that demonstrates God’s
self-liberation from temporal contingencies without extracting God from
history. This description of God is for Jenson more biblical than the Greek
concept of timelessness, and he says that the biblical God is not timeless
but “takes time” (ST1:217).24 This temporal infinity or “timefullness” of God
is not just something ascribed to God, it is part of the being of God, it is
central to the relationships within the Trinity – it defines God. For Jenson
there is even a clear connection between the poles of time and the mutual
triune roles of Father, Son and Spirit. According to him the “Father is the
‘whence’ of God’s life; the Spirit is the ‘whither’ of God’s life; and... the
Son is that life’s specious present” (ST1:218-219). The way Jenson is thus
telling the story of the triune God is one in which he focuses very much on
the Trinity’s relation to time and eternity. With his structuring of time within
the Trinity, Jenson is trying, on the one hand, to avoid timelessness of God
and, on the other hand, to maintain God’s perichoresis.25"

http://ngtt.journals.ac.za/pub/article/viewFile/22/21

@Jac, again compare this concept to what you are saying in your last post here.
In particular, "He is entirely present--ALL THAT HE IS at every single point in space and time, because that is what God is."
Does not the term "timefulness" appear to be a better descriptor of this than "timelessness"?

I'm not trying to be difficult, K. I can't say if "timeful" appears to be better descriptor than timeless. I don't know what you or others really mean by the term. In general, the whole notion of timelessness is really just a negative attribute. It's just saying that whatever we mean by "temporal" does not apply to God. To me, "timeful" seems to have less content than "timeless," and, frankly, I don't understand the objection to the idea that God is not temporal. To insist that He is seems rooted to me in a basic conception of God as a being, a thing that is somehow beside us, that we can be in some sense compared to. But I submit that none of that is true.

More to the point, I object to some of the language that Jenson is using to describe this "timeful" God. God is not event. He does not take time. Timefulness, whatever it is, is not a part of God (indeed, neither is timelessness!). I am very worried when Jenson suggests that timefulness is "central to the relationships within the Trinity." What? The only thing central to the relationships within the Trinity are the processions, and those processions are identical to the divine essence. I'm afraid, then, Jenson's God ultimately reduces to tritheism. Further, the distinctions Jenson makes between whence, whiter, and specious present are dangerous, because that entails that something other than the relations distinguish the Persons, but all differences are in natures (either essentially or accidentally), and therefore, things that differ by nature (whether accidentally or essentially) are necessarily different natures--so once again, Jenson does not have a Trinity but tritheism. Of course, Jenson leaves us with a real relation of the so-called Trinity with time, and that real relation necessarily entails changes in God, which necessarily denies immutability, which means that God is an admixture of potentiality and actuality (which is evident, anyway, in maintaining the temporal infinity of God), and therefore God is not the First Cause.

Now, this notion of timefulness doesn't rise or fall on Jenson's comments, still less on these comments on Jenson's comments. But these comments are absolutely unacceptable to me. The amount to a rejection of the Trinity and a rejection of the very deity of God in making Him a contingent being (for anything that is an admixture of potentiality and actuality is by nature and definition contingent).

@Jac,

I did not intend to spark debate in my last post, just highlighting an idea here that I'd previously mentioned to you.
Jenson's theological focus was more to do with exploring a possible understanding of the Trinity I think than this "timefulness".

AND before one cast a stone, I'd like that person to put forward their own Trinitarian explanation for critique.
There's not one that I've come across that doesn't seem to have limitations to some degree.
But, together, we get a foggy conceptual sense of what the Trinity -- God -- is like.

My last post aside, the issue of a timeless God's relationship with temporal beings is quite simple to state.

1. Beings located within time (temporal beings) can only relate within time.
2. Human beings are temporal beings.
3. God is timeless and cannot become temporal. (given "strong immutability")
4. Therefore, God cannot have relationship with human beings.

Now you spoke of God as "entirely present--ALL THAT HE IS at every single point in space and time, because that is what God is."

At every single point in time? In time?
Like omni-presence it seems to me you're more saying something like God is omni-temporal rather than timeless.

In fact, whenever people talk of timelessness, it seems they tend to make it a whatever they want catch-word.
As long as a person affirms "God is timeless" then great! Many are happy. Because to think otherwise would appear to be saying God is located within time.
BUT, this doesn't mean what one argues to be "timelessness" is valid in really being equivalent to "without time".

SO, I like to hark back to the actual substance and meaning of what one says rather than this or that term.
And it seems to me that the content of your "timelessness" as you describe here of God being at every single point in time
-- that such is more fitting of an omni-temporality which would likely fall in under omnipresence.

As an aside, it is interesting that all other attributes of God are often stated in positive terms.
That is we talk of God's omni-benevolence, omni-presence, all-righteousness -- but when we get to time God MUST be without rather than possessing the maximum fulness of such.
If God's other attributes do not place restrictions upon God, such that God is contained within a location, within goodness or love, then why should time?
It doesn't seem to me that the maximally powerful Supreme Being must be atemporal rather than omnitemporal.

In retrospect, I probably shouldn't have introduced Jenson's idea at all.
It is a side reflection, and even an unintentional red herring.

I understand you weren't trying to spark debate. I wasn't either. I was just sharing my concern with some of Jenson's language, and as I said, the whole idea of timefulness doesn't stand or fall on the comments you posted. I'd need to see it fleshed out more. In any case, my concern wit Jenson actually has more to do with the Trinity anyway . . .

If you're interested, my own conception of the Trinity (which I take to be the historical explanation of the Trinity, what the Church has always taught down to the present day) is described in some detail in twelve of my DS book and pp 122-27 of my thesis (both, of course, available here).

As far as your argument goes, I agree. God does not "have a relationship" with human beings. That's a standard thought in classical theism. God stands in no real relations with creation.

As far as your question, yes, God is fully present at every moment in time. And I'm fine if you want to say God is "omnitemporal" if you mean it in the same sense I mean that God is omnipresent. God is fully present everywhere just as He is fully present everywhen. That doesn't mean that God is spatial, and just so, that doesn't mean that God is temporal. You rightly want to know, then, what we mean by this or that term. As I said to Mel above, when we say that God is fully present to every point of space and time (and to really extend it, to every "point" in "immateriality" as well as aveternity), what we are saying is that "point" is precisely because God is causing it to be. There is not "a part" of God causing this point and another "part" of God causing that point, which is why the canvas analogy fails. In a canvas, this part of the painting is located here on the paper and that part of the painting is located there on the painting. But not so with God. God is not "located" here and there. "Here" and "there" (and every "thing" else) are only "there" to be spoken of because of God--the whole of His nature.

And on positive v negative attributes, some are positive and some are negative. I agree that some people think of the big omnis (omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence) are thought of as positive, but I think of them as negative. So timelessness is no different for me. But there are positive attributes--God is love, God is just, God is righteous, etc. Those are certainly positive . . . I don't think we should say that all attributes have to be spoken of in one or another way. It depends on the nature of the attribute. So omnitemporal v atemporal, I don't really feel much of a need to argue about that too much. I'm fond enough of the former to adopt it so long as we don't take it to mean that God is therefore temporal.

Kurieuo wrote:

melanie wrote:Even when we say that God cannot 'feel' because that would produce a change in His being I think is looking at it through a lens of being human. If God can experience pleasure then a change has occured which means He couldn't have been perfect to begin with thus making Him not God. All these philosophical arguments that are using human constraints to understand the workings of God who is not limited by anything. Not limited by time. At all. Not constrained by it, not bound by it, He doesn't adhere to it, He created it and transends it.
The bible says God cannot change, so we understand it by a human experience, when we feel something we change so scripture must be saying that God doesn't feel. But scripture actually says the opposite so instead of doing linguistic gymnastics by anthropopathisms maybe it is our understanding that is flawed. So bound by time that we cannot comprehend how an experience or affections could be experienced by God and not result in change.
Change; to make or become different. To go from A to B. Completely bound within a linear time constraint.
God is not bound by a linear time constraint, He is everywhere at all time. There is no yesterday and tomorrow. Why can't God in His divine, incomprehensible awesomeness 'feel' without it actually causing any change in His being. Why can't He have affections without it implying a change from A to B?
No time
No A to B
No change
No feeling....... I don't think so.

Congrats Melanie.
Whether wrong or right, I think it's awesome that you try to wrap your mind around such things.
Your comments touch upon many deeper issues. One in particular I'd like to poke at is God's relationship to us personally in time.

In the several exchanges I've had with Jac, I haven't been satisfied with any reconciliation of God's immutability with God's personal relationship with us and time.
It seems either we must let go of what is known as God's strong immutability, or if we keep such then it seems inconceivable how God could really be personal with us in time.

This is also one reason why William Lane Craig believes God was timeless without creation, and freely chose to enter into temporality with His creative act in virtue of God's true relationship with the created order.

What is meant by those last words, "in virtue of God's true relationship with the created order"?
Well, it touches upon your words I bolded here above regarding God feeling.

Does God for example feel joy as a consequence of us coming to Christ?
If so, then to retain God's changelessness, well do we then say that God always eternally felt joy for our coming to Christ even before we existed?
OR, does God rejoice and feel joy when we come to Christ?
There seems to be only two options here.

It sounds great to give such questions quick treatment and say, "oh God felt joy forever and eternally so."
Well, "joy" is a positive feeling, but what if we explore more negative matters.
Is God eternally suffering in Christ, in some way being eternally hung of on the cross and suffering for our sins?
Or is God's suffering in Christ a thing of the past that ended at Christ's resurrection?
There again seems to be only two options here.

These issues largely surround the nature of time, in particular as it relates to God's eternality and timelessness.

There have been two options on time identified in philosophy:
1) A-Theory (which embraces time and tensed facts as real), and
2) B-Theory (which believes time is static, it's passing being more in our heads and not real).

In one of my last exchanges with Jac on time he said that he embraces neither.
But, when the options are like only "A" or only "B" then there is really no middle ground or other position.
If there is a third option, then it is one that I and many philosophers of time as I understand matters (and I'm by no means an expert here), are quite unaware to.

Time is a really hard issue for Divine Simplicity to reconcile with God who feels and is actually beside us in life.
Consider that, if God is timeless then God doesn't experience time. Therefore while God might know that Melanie came to Christ on x date, God would not know how long ago in the past from present day that would be.
And so, God remains timeless then God cannot really experience joy and touch you in the moment of your personal conversion. AND yet, many Christians report being touched by God in that particular moment they came to God. They felt God moving within. How is this possible if God isn't in the moment along side us?

Some like to say something like, God is timeless but interacts with us still in time.
This is just like me saying I've got no cake in me while eating the cake.

Contradictory words strung together may sound alright, but just because we string words together doesn't mean they make sense.
For example, "what is the shape of red?" It might makes sense strung together as a question, but such is really nonsense.

So someone might assert that God is timeless and affirm his strict immutability, that God never enters into time or becomes temporal...
BUT, to then to assert that Christ is no longer defeated by Satan in being nailed to the cross for all eternity in virtue of God's timelessness
-- well such seems to be just picking and choosing what one wants without paying complete heed to logic and reason.

Sometimes, we like to define things by what they are not.
And here, I think strong Divine Simplicity advocates like Jac do this of God.
In defining God by what He is not, it can sometimes place restraints upon God leading us to believe certain thinking of God is wrong...
By and large, such keep theological thinking largely on the straight and narrow, but then such can lead to us being trapped also and unable to affirm matters that seem quite sensible and intuitive.

I should here say, I've not read the to and fro exchanges between you and Jac, but just caught your last post.
So I'm not taking the side of anyone here, I'm not even really sure what those sides would be, but you touched upon something that I thought of adding further reflections to.
I must say I'm happy to see someone else rambling on other than myself or Jac. So happy to contribute to some ramblings to your own ramblings. Welcome to the club.

The rambling club, happy to be a part of it
You bring up some really great points K. When I say that God is not bound by time I don't mean that He has no relationship with time, just that He is not set by its linear parameters.
Time is relative to us here on earth. As physical beings we bound to the laws of the universe, Gravity, time ect. But it is relative, change Gravity and/or velocity then time is perceived differently. So for God to be omnipresent He must exist in all time across the universe, not just how the clock ticks here on earth. Just because God is not bound by our earth clock doesn't mean He is apart from time, not experiencing the moments we have with Him. The Holy Spirit which dwells within believers is God moving within them, in that moment, very real and only subject to time because we are experiencing it within our physical bodies bound by the physical laws of nature. How does God experience these moments? To be honest I am not entirely sure. Is he stoic and not 'experiencing' anything? If He is then does this timelessness mean that He experiences it across eternity and not in the given moment?
I think that a relationship is never one-sided, it takes 2 people for a relationship to exist. Scripture tells us that we can and do enter into a relationship with God when we trust in Christ for salvation. That relationship grows and blossoms, we feel God working within us sometimes in the most life changing ways. I know have. The Holy Spirit/God that is living and working within us has to be communicating in our time. In our moments with God, He is right there, by nature of the HS.
But scripture tells us in revelation 'the lamb that was slain from the creation of the world', in Jeremiah God says I knew you before you formed in the womb, Psalms and 2Peter both say 'a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years like a day'. We also have the prophecies throughout scripture.
God transcends time. He is not bound by time in a linear sense, I don't think that means that He can't relate to us within our framework.
I look at it like this, the most common event in a NDE is when the person is 'floating' above their body. It seems that when we leave our physical bodies we also leave behind those laws that govern the physical. Gravity being the first to go. In that moment we are still 'existing' within this world just spiritually not physically. People who have expereinced NDE also say that time is percieved differently, they can have an expereince that lasts for a long time but are 'dead' for only minutes.
My point being that if we in the spiritual are not bound by physical laws then perhaps it's not just a phenomenem that is attributed to God but by the very nature of how in the spiritual realm things work differently. We have people claiming to not be bound by Gravity, slip in and out of the physical and spiritual realm, experience time distortion and they are mere humans experiencing the spiritual.
I don't think its that radical to say that God can exist both within and outside of time.
I have heaps more to waffle on about but I gotta go and get the kids ready for their sports.

@Jac, I will get back to you, hopefully tommorow

ConfusedMan wrote:Hello everyone. Just in case anyone wanted to know, my former username was ManofGod and some of you might have read my posts in the various forums, but my account got messed up so now I am ConfusedMan. The name change is fitting because I have come to a point where I am seriously doubting my Christian faith. Now, there's no need to freak out...I'm not one step away from atheism or anything like that, but last year I did consider becoming a Deist (not that Deism provides many answers either). Before I state my inquiry in detail, I will let you all know that I want to make this topic an interactive conversation and I will be asking some very tough questions and responses. Well, here goes: First I want to establish that, according to the Bible, God is omniscient and knows everything that has happened and what will happen. That being said, it is then reasonable to conclude that God knew before creating man that man would choose to rebel against Him. He even (at least in a literal interpretation of Genesis) layed the choice right before Adam and Eve with the Tree. In knowing that mankind would rebel, He also thus knew that He would have to send hundreds upon hundreds of millions of souls to eternal punishment. Yes, It is mankind's fault (at least in most cases), but God still knew beforehand that mankind would become self-destructive. The Bible says that God wishes that none would perish, and in the Old Testament it says God takes no pleasure in crushing the wicked. If that is true, why did God create beings with which He would have to see perish and actively crush and punish? I understand that many people go to heaven, but if He had never created mankind in the first place, He would not have to send anyone to Hell, which He supposedly does not want to do. So, if He does not want to do that, why create beings that choose to damn themselves? I know that means that some of those same beings don't go to heaven, but if they were never created in the first place, they would obviously not be deprived of any joy since they never existed theoretically. Someone can not be deprived of anything if they don't exist.
I would greatly appreciate any responses. Please understand that I am not here to challenge anyone or be confrontational about the matter. I just want to see if this can be resolved. I will have more posts like this in the future, so put on your philosophy caps.

I don't see anything wrong with doubting one's faith, after all, we have brains. What could be wrong with changing one's mind after being exposed to something different? Since God knows what is in our hearts, and what we will do, I'm sure He's aware of all that is going on in your mind. I don't think it would come as a surprise to Him.

Of course that's a reasonable conclusion. That is why I believe the concept of hell, is man-made. Perhaps what we do here on earth, good or evil, just isn't seen as good or evil to Him?

I do not believe that any man, has or ever will, know why we were created. After all, how could a live man ever prove it, one way or another? I personally have no idea why we are here, but I certainly try to enjoy every day that He gave me.

ConfusedMan wrote:Hello everyone. Just in case anyone wanted to know, my former username was ManofGod and some of you might have read my posts in the various forums, but my account got messed up so now I am ConfusedMan. The name change is fitting because I have come to a point where I am seriously doubting my Christian faith. Now, there's no need to freak out...I'm not one step away from atheism or anything like that, but last year I did consider becoming a Deist (not that Deism provides many answers either). Before I state my inquiry in detail, I will let you all know that I want to make this topic an interactive conversation and I will be asking some very tough questions and responses. Well, here goes: First I want to establish that, according to the Bible, God is omniscient and knows everything that has happened and what will happen. That being said, it is then reasonable to conclude that God knew before creating man that man would choose to rebel against Him. He even (at least in a literal interpretation of Genesis) layed the choice right before Adam and Eve with the Tree. In knowing that mankind would rebel, He also thus knew that He would have to send hundreds upon hundreds of millions of souls to eternal punishment. Yes, It is mankind's fault (at least in most cases), but God still knew beforehand that mankind would become self-destructive. The Bible says that God wishes that none would perish, and in the Old Testament it says God takes no pleasure in crushing the wicked. If that is true, why did God create beings with which He would have to see perish and actively crush and punish? I understand that many people go to heaven, but if He had never created mankind in the first place, He would not have to send anyone to Hell, which He supposedly does not want to do. So, if He does not want to do that, why create beings that choose to damn themselves? I know that means that some of those same beings don't go to heaven, but if they were never created in the first place, they would obviously not be deprived of any joy since they never existed theoretically. Someone can not be deprived of anything if they don't exist.
I would greatly appreciate any responses. Please understand that I am not here to challenge anyone or be confrontational about the matter. I just want to see if this can be resolved. I will have more posts like this in the future, so put on your philosophy caps.

What would you do, if you did know why God created us?

At the end of the day, "in Him Jesus" all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form.
I must admit it is difficult to try to understand this Thomist' view of God. I must submit myself to the only way i know to relate to God, and that is through the person of Jesus. Jesus wept, felt anger, passion and love. He was and is related to us. What ever the incarnation is, in regards to time (and that's all i have to go by at the moment), it wasn't and then it was.

jlay wrote:At the end of the day, "in Him Jesus" all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form.
I must admit it is difficult to try to understand this Thomist' view of God. I must submit myself to the only way i know to relate to God, and that is through the person of Jesus. Jesus wept, felt anger, passion and love. He was and is related to us. What ever the incarnation is, in regards to time (and that's all i have to go by at the moment), it wasn't and then it was.

Jesus is what we see when we think "God".
See, as Christians we believe that The Creator of ALL is perfectly represented in His Son that is Fully Him ( God) and also fully Us ( human).
So when a person says that God should do A) or B) then all we have to do is look to Christ and see if HE did A) or B).

As Christians we know that God isn't a God of anger and hate and violence for Christ was none of those things.
We know that God IS a God of Love and self-sacrifice because Christ was all those things.
We know that God forgives because Christ forgives BUT was also know that God wants us NOT to sin again because Christ wants us not to sin again.

When we say Jesus is God we are stating that Him and Our Father share the same nature and and to see Christ is to See Our Father.

In Christ ALL that God is, is shown to Us so that we may know that God loves Us and wants us to know HIM.
And we know Him through He that is ALL that God is, Christ.