Evidence for God from Science

Hi all,

This is a question that I have been confronted with and I have been working through the issues, but would like to know people's thoughts on it.

1. God foreknew how many people would reject Him.
2. Jesus said the road to heaven is narrow and few would find it.
3. The majority of people on earth and through history have not been Christians.
4. The majority of people will spend an eternal existence in Hell suffering unimaginable torment 'weeping and gnashing of teeth'.
5. God still chose to go ahead with creation knowing he would consign billions of souls to endless torment - souls that did not even ask to be created.
6. If I was God, I would not have gone ahead with creation when the cost was so high and would entail so much suffering.
7. How can God be said to be good or to have any regard for those he has created, never mind actually love them when he will consign most of his children to Hell.

I have written it quite bluntly and included the assumptions made by atheists when they ask these questions.

Your comments would be much appreciated.

Regards,

Blacknad.

Ask them by which standard they judge God to be good or evil. They cannot simply establish an arbitrary measure of good and evil, they need to account for the basis by which they do it. If they object to this line of questioning, you can always point out that the question logically precedes any questions on the character of God, and until they account for their basis by which would judge that, there is no reason to accept their standard of good and evil, and the question is therefore illogical.

The likely answers are:
1. Society, social construct etc.....but which society has the most valid measure of good and evil? What is the social construct? Where did these standards come from in societies?
2. Common sense....why should anyone's common sense be better than yours? What is the objective measure of common sense?
3. The common law of the country or similar, almost like #1, but more formal....same response as #1. How do you decide that that specific legal system or law is the most valid to judge between good and evil?

The problem that atheists face is that they cannot account for an objective standard of good and evil, so then any moral judgment they try make breaks down into personal opinion, which, if we are to be consistent, does not matter, or everyone's opinion matters equally. Eevn if they try to come up with some transcendental measure, they still fail, there is always a contra somewhere. The only way to make sense of moral claims is in light of the Bible, so any argument against the Bible (I.e. God does not exist), assuming the truth of the Bible (objective moral values), is inherently self-defeating.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/destined.html

Here's a good answer here on the site.

I am sorry my comments will have to be brief for now, but I would start with
number 4.

4. The majority of people will spend an eternal existence in Hell suffering unimaginable torment 'weeping and gnashing of teeth'.

That belief is now taught by most I believe to be wrong.
The punishment doesn't go on for infinite,but once your judgement sends you to hell its Game over forever , no second chances left.

There is another belief being taught that after Christs 1000 year rule, that there will be a second chance resurrection . Saving them will be the job of those that shared the reign with Jesus in the 1000 years. This all being the reason Satan is let loose again for a short while.

1. Where does it say that God foreknew how many people would reject Him?

2. It was man who decided to walk away from God in the garden, knowing full well what would happen.

3. Form that point on sin has taken a grip on mankind, with most of them not wanting to have anything to do with God.

4. God is love! That can be back up by the fact that He created us in His image. something not to be taken lightly. God is a fair and just God. Man is without excuse Rom.1:20.

5/6/7. Where does it say that God still chose to go ahead with creation knowing he would consign billions of souls to endless torment?

If that were so then God wouldn't be a loving God. Not the God I serve. He loves me and the WHOLE world. And it is this love that burns within me to reach out to the lost.

Led

Yes God is Love, but lets not belittle His Righteous Judgement either.

Heb 10:28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
Heb 10:29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
Heb 10:30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.
Heb 10:31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

1Pe 4:5 Who shall give account to him that is ready to judge the quick and the dead.

2Ti 4:1 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;

Jam 5:9 Grudge not one against another, brethren, lest ye be condemned: behold, the judge standeth before the door.

Rev 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

IRQ Conflict wrote: Heb 10:29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
.

Good point. This is true, God is love, but we can't play games with His grace. God is not mocked.

And these where those who were sanctified!

If we just turn to Christ, He will shine His love on us.

Thats what the sacrifice is all about

bluesman wrote: That belief is now taught by most I believe to be wrong.
The punishment doesn't go on for infinite,but once your judgement sends you to hell its Game over forever , no second chances left.

I'm afraid those man made concepts are wishfull thinking by those deluded by spirits (the bad kind). Just think of how many souls Satan could aquire if he gets peopl to believe either (1) There is no hell. (2) God is love and no God of love is going to burn me forever. (3) insert your fantasy here. ad nauseum.

Mat 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
Mat 7:22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
Mat 7:23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Mat 22:13 Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
Mat 22:14 For many are called, but few are chosen.

IRQ Conflict wrote: Just think of how many souls Satan could aquire if he gets peopl to believe either (1) There is no hell. (2) God is love and no God of love is going to burn me forever. (3) insert your fantasy here. ad nauseum.

IRQ - This argument may be null because it can be argued either way. How many souls has Satan aquired because people cannot reconcile the idea of a loving God with a God who will forever torment billions of people who did not ask to exist? To many it seems utterly incoherent and makes belief in such a God problematic.

So no eternal torment = Devil aquires many souls.
Eternal torment = Devil aquires many souls.



Nothing I have read in these posts or the links helps me to go back with any confidence to debate with my atheist friend who seems to have thought these things through more thoroughly than most Christians. He will simply counter much of what has been said here, as he has already when I have argued the same points.


The point remains that (as my atheist says) - If I knew that the majority of people I create would reject me and because I am righteous I would be forced to torment them for all eternity, then I simply would, out of mercy, not create them. I would give up on the whole idea of creating anyone because the price is too high. I would do as I have asked humanity to do (restrain ourselves) - forego the indulgence of doing what I desire (creating), because it will end with the eternal pain of so many.

The idea that God did not foreknow what was going to happen can be countered by the fact that as people started to reject Him and the soul count started to mount up (including destroying the whole of humanity in a flood), at what point would God not decide, 'this is a disaster - the cost is far too high - I must end this. For every moment that creation is allowed to continue the eternal torture count is increasing.

It can be argued that God knew what was going to happen, and if He didn't then He would have a pretty good idea of the possibilities, and He still chose to go ahead and risk it despite the immense cost of even one soul who did not ask to exist being forever tormented because they reject God.

Can we say that God is righteous to punish sin, but not righteous enough to avoid creating people that He will have to punish eternally? Can we say that God is merciful enough to send his Son, but not merciful enough to avoid the situation where he would be forced into damning people (who again did not ask to be made and knowing where they were going to end up would have said 'please do not create me')? We require psychologists to get 'informed consent' from subjects of experiments, but we accept that God brought into existence billions of people who if fully informed of what is in store for them, would probably have said do not create me.




I believe that Christianity is going to come under a massive concerted attack from anti-theists over the next few decades and beyond. You only need to look at the internet to see how it has galvanised atheists and is allowing them an effective forum to exchange ideas and bring their collective knowledge together to reinforce what they believe (infidel.org and 'church of reality etc.). It is the reversal of the 'Tower of Babel'. Mankind is being reunited and barriers to communication are being removed and the net will eventually provide universal translation allowing the exact situation that forced God to 'confound their language because their wickedness will know no bounds.

'And the Lord said, See, they are all one people and have all one language; and this is only the start of what they may do: and now it will not be possible to keep them from any purpose of theirs.
Come, let us go down and take away the sense of their language, so that they will not be able to make themselves clear to one another.'

I mean, it is even called Babelfish -

'BabelFish is a leader in the translation and globalization industries, providing multilingual certified / accredited human translation '.

So the atheists are finding a unified voice and will set their cannons against the church. One of the ways they will do this is by showing Christianity to be intellectually incoherent and a completely unreasonable religion (not to mention bloodthirsty if you look at our history) - hence the 'loving' God who torments his children for all eternity argument.

We need to have coherent answers to the questions that are coming because if we do not and remain open to the charge that we believe in an intellectually bankrupt mythology, then we will be seen as an abberation of human thought and problematic to humanity's future progress.

Regards,

Blacknad.

God created mankind in His image. something not to be taken lightly. God is a fair and just God. Man is without excuse

Romans 1:18-20
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse

I don't see this being hard to deal with. Minkind is withou excuse. If they really want the truth, then they will find it.
Seek and you shall find. Matt. 7:7
If you seek Him, He will be found by you; but if you forsake Him, He will forsake you. 2Ch 15:2

The question should be... do they really want the truth?

And you just may find that the atheist has past issues with God that need to be dealt with, which causes him to resist the truth.

Led

Blacknad wrote:IRQ - This argument may be null because it can be argued either way. How many souls has Satan aquired because people can reconcile the idea of a loving God with a God who will forever torment billions of people who did not ask to exist? To many it seems utterly incoherent and makes belief in such a God problematic.

1Co 1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

Nothing I have read in these posts or the links helps me to go back with any confidence to debate with my atheist friend who seems to have thought these things through more thoroughly than most Christians. He will simply counter much of what has been said here, as he has already when I have argued the same points.

At the end of the day those that refuse to believe in Christ won't. It really is that simple, the truth is that most don't want God interfering with whatever sin it is they refuse to give up.

Mat 7:6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

2Pe 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
2Pe 3:4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
2Pe 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
2Pe 3:6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished.
2Pe 3:7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

The point remains that (as my atheist says) - If I knew that the majority of people I create would reject me and because I am righteous I would be forced to torment them for all eternity, then I simply would, out of mercy, not create them. I would give up on the whole idea of creating anyone because the price is too high. I would do as I have asked humanity to do (restrain ourselves) - forego the indulgence of doing what I desire (creating), because it will end with the eternal pain of so many.

So your friend has the market on righteousness cornered? We dare to think we know the depths of God?

1Co 13:11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
1Co 13:12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
1Co 13:13 And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

It can be argued that God knew what was going to happen, and if He didn't then He would have a pretty good idea of the possibilities, and He still chose to go ahead and risk it despite the immense cost of even one soul who did not ask to exist being forever tormented because they reject God.

We all have the choice, in fact God not only sacrificed Himself on a level that no man will ever experience to save us but also told us how to obtain it. The onus is on man not God.

Mic 2:1 Woe to them that devise iniquity, and work evil upon their beds! when the morning is light, they practice it, because it is in the power of their hand.

Can we say that God is righteous to punish sin, but not righteous enough to avoid creating people that He will have to punish eternally?

No, we can't.

Rom 9:19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
Rom 9:20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
Rom 9:21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonor?

Can we say that God is merciful enough to send his Son, but not merciful enough to avoid the situation where he would be forced into damning people (who again did not ask to be made and knowing where they were going to end up would have said 'please do not create me')?

We damn oursselves to hell. If you kick a brick wall, and you continued to kick at it knowing full well the consequences of your actions, will you continue to kick at it all the while blaming your mother for bringing you into the world? This is what people do spiritually.

I believe that Christianity is going to come under a massive concerted attack from anti-theists over the next few decades and beyond. You only need to look at the internet to see how it has galvanised atheists and is allowing them an effective forum to exchange ideas and bring their collective knowledge together to reinforce what they believe (infidel.org and 'church of reality etc.). It is the reversal of the 'Tower of Babel'. Mankind is being reunited and barriers to communication are being removed and the net will eventually provide universal translation allowing the exact situation that forced God to 'confound their language because their wickedness will know no bounds.

This shouldn't supprise anyone.

The battle lines will become clearer and clearer as time goes by.

Mat 13:49 So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just,

Dan 12:4 But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

2Ti 3:1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
2Ti 3:2 For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
2Ti 3:3 Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good,
2Ti 3:4 Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God;
2Ti 3:5 Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
2Ti 3:6 For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts,
2Ti 3:7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Isa 5:20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
Isa 5:21 Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!
Isa 5:22 Woe unto them that are mighty to drink wine, and men of strength to mingle strong drink:
Isa 5:23 Which justify the wicked for reward, and take away the righteousness of the righteous from him!
Isa 5:24 Therefore as the fire devoureth the stubble, and the flame consumeth the chaff, so their root shall be as rottenness, and their blossom shall go up as dust: because they have cast away the law of the LORD of hosts, and despised the word of the Holy One of Israel.

So the atheists are finding a unified voice and will set their cannons against the church. One of the ways they will do this is by showing Christianity to be intellectually incoherent and a completely unreasonable religion (not to mention bloodthirsty if you look at our history) - hence the 'loving' God who torments his children for all eternity argument.

Yes, Hitler was a bad man.

Mat 12:34 O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh.

Mat 12:33 Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit.

Can you not dicern those that claim to be Christians and those that truly are? Yet are able to tell God His ways are unrighteuos? Many are called but few are chosen.

Rev 3:9 Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee.

We need to have coherent answers to the questions that are coming because if we do not and remain open to the charge that we believe in an intellectually bankrupt mythology, then we will be seen as an abberation of human thought and problematic to humanity's future progress.

Isa 5:20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
Isa 5:21 Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!
Isa 5:22 Woe unto them that are mighty to drink wine, and men of strength to mingle strong drink:
Isa 5:23 Which justify the wicked for reward, and take away the righteousness of the righteous from him!
Isa 5:24 Therefore as the fire devoureth the stubble, and the flame consumeth the chaff, so their root shall be as rottenness, and their blossom shall go up as dust: because they have cast away the law of the LORD of hosts, and despised the word of the Holy One of Israel.

Blacknad wrote:Nothing I have read in these posts or the links helps me to go back with any confidence to debate with my atheist friend who seems to have thought these things through more thoroughly than most Christians. He will simply counter much of what has been said here, as he has already when I have argued the same points.

BN, these are not new arguments. Atheists have argued these points forever, and they keep bringing them up as if they have finally found the ultimate disprove of God, when it is all just a house of cards.

Did you not understand the point I was making? Atheists have no objective foundation by which to judge right or wrong, so if they are making moral judgments, they must account for the foundation by which they do so. You grant them a "neutral" middle ground by trying to debate morality on their terms, when there is no neutral ground, i.e. you are assuming their worldview in order to answer them. As Christians, we are specifically warned in the Bible not to do that, we should approach everything from a Christian perspective. The Christian perspective is that God cannot be judged by His creation. The options are to either approach it from a relativistic perspective, as atheists do, or from an absolutist perspective, as Christians do. If the approach is relativistic, it collapses on itself, and there is no foundation by which the atheist can claim to make moral judgments. If he appeals to an objective measure of morals, then he has to account for what that is, but you cannot account for absolutes outside of a religious worldview.

Before your atheist friend can reasonably expect answers to these questions, he must first account for how he can ask them from an atheist worldview. If he attacks Christianity in this way, he must have a logical basis from which to do so, and it is perfectly appropriate for Christians to ask him to account for his worldview in the same manner that he is asking us to account for ours.

No matter what you answer to his questions, you are "answering the fool according to his folly", and it will not be productive. Ultimately these questions will lead to your underlying basis or worldview, so why not just go there immediately without the charade of back and forth on these types of questions?

If you have more questions, please pm me. I have some personal experience I can share.

Did you not understand the point I was making? Atheists have no objective foundation by which to judge right or wrong, so if they are making moral judgments, they must account for the foundation by which they do so.

- I understood the point you were making and I agree that Atheists have no objective moral foundation.

However, here the Atheist is not judging us by his non-existent moral framework. He is judging us by ours. He is quite rightly (logically speaking) asking us to present a coherent account of ourselves. He is accepting, for the sake of the argument, that our moral framework is real and then he is applying that moral framework to make a judgement about the God we profess. He is entirely consistent, and uses our framework to understand the nature and actions of God. We have defined what is evil, and we would consider an earthly Father to be evil if he continually tortured his children if they refused to obey or follow him.

Now the assumption that we must be coherent is not where the problem lies. The problem lies in the assumption that what is evil for an earthly Father to do is also evil for our Heavenly Father. God is not subject to the moral law that he makes us subject to in the same way that an earthly Father is permitted to do things that would be wrong for his children (engage in sex - consume alcohol etc).

The real problem we face is one of sentiment and emotion. It feels wrong that a loving God creates people only to assign them to Hell. We, as Christians, far more easily understand that we can not trust our emotions and sentiment, especially as human sensibilities change throughout history - for example when God asked the Israelites to put entire cities to the sword, including children, I can guarantee that they did not feel it was abhorrent in the same way that people do now. We cannot judge it from our affluent and comfortable existence that is so far removed from the raw struggle of humanity. We also do not have any immediate concept of evil acted out on a large scale as the Israelites did — i.e. Baal worship where it was customary to sacrifice children in the fire.

So judging God by the standards of the morality we are subject to is erroneous and our emotional judgement of God is null and void, but the last is still a potent force for the unbeliever, and less easy for us to appeal to.

You grant them a "neutral" middle ground by trying to debate morality on their terms, when there is no neutral ground, i.e. you are assuming their worldview in order to answer them.

- This is not the case — we are both settled firmly in the Christian worldview, but the unbeliever is making certain assumptions and is subject to the argument by emotion.

As Christians, we are specifically warned in the Bible not to do that, we should approach everything from a Christian perspective.

- As stated, we are not meeting them on their ground. We are engaging with them on our ground and we have some answers. But those answers are not effective in persuading the militant and entrenched unbeliever, and for such people we are effectively 'throwing pearl before swine' and they will be trampled underfoot.

And this is where the issue lies. I thoroughly believe that conversion happens at the level of the heart. It is about the Holy Spirit breaking down the barriers and presenting the choice to the unbeliever. The unbeliever will either accept or reject. There may be a parallel movement happening at an intellectual level also, but intellect alone will not be enough to lead the unbeliever to accept Christ. In fact reason will never get anyone to the point of acceptance and submission to Christ because we are fallen. That means that intellect and reason are fallen also and will not lead us directly to God. This is why it was necessary for God to reveal himself to us, because even with the Glory of Creation attesting to his existence we can not reason our way to Him — it is not enough.

So the unbeliever makes a choice and will then use their fallen reason to intellectually rationalise their choice in their favour. So at that point we battle not against intellect but against the perversity of the rebellious human heart and maybe even demonic powers.

The Christian perspective is that God cannot be judged by His creation.

- Spot on, but where we can present a cogent explanation of God's actions then we should do.

The options are to either approach it from a relativistic perspective, as atheists do, or from an absolutist perspective, as Christians do.

- Again, the atheist is quite reasonable in expecting us to defend our position from our own moral framework.

The sad fact is that the atheist will be unable to accept the truth — the fact that we cannot presume to understand God's actions in their entirety. We just do not have all of the variables and we also have a limited capacity to understand the eternal. We see through a glass darkly.

When we get to the point where we have to simply say, 'we do not know', the Atheist will likely accuse us of following a religion that is intellectually incoherent because it asks us to abandon our reasoning at certain points. Well they are right — we do have to abandon our reasoning at times, but it isn't the case that we are not engaging our reason; it is just that we have reached reason's fundamental limitation. This is always going to be unsatisfying for the modern empirical rationalist because they assume that all things are capable of being reasoned.

If the approach is relativistic, it collapses on itself, and there is no foundation by which the atheist can claim to make moral judgments.

- The atheist can quite reasonably piggy-back on our moral framework — but we understand they bring certain assumptions to the party.

If he appeals to an objective measure of morals, then he has to account for what that is, but you cannot account for absolutes outside of a religious worldview.

- He borrows ours for the sake of the argument.

Before your atheist friend can reasonably expect answers to these questions, he must first account for how he can ask them from an atheist worldview.

- He doesn't ask them from an Atheistic worldview - he asks from an atheistic perspective - there is a difference.

If he attacks Christianity in this way, he must have a logical basis from which to do so, and it is perfectly appropriate for Christians to ask him to account for his worldview in the same manner that he is asking us to account for ours.

- It is certainly not appropriate to ask this. We will be seen to be dodging the question and the Atheist will be left feeling vindicated because we have not been able to present a coherent case.

No matter what you answer to his questions, you are "answering the fool according to his folly", and it will not be productive.

- For the entrenched atheist, yes — for the honest agnostic, no.

Ultimately these questions will lead to your underlying basis or worldview, so why not just go there immediately without the charade of back and forth on these types of questions?

- Yes - it is certainly helpful to examine the assumption of each worldview..

If you have more questions, please pm me. I have some personal experience I can share.

- I appreciate that August and I appreciate you taking time to respond to my questions. I do think I want to stay in an open forum to explore these issues, because Christians face these questions and we should bring our collective wisdom together to help understand the issues.


Many thanks for engaging on this,

Blacknad.

Blacknad, are you a parent of any children?