Evidence for God from Science

Well some of you may remember my thread a couple of months back where I asked about John 12:37-39, basically asking if someone made the choice of will not to believe (resulting in them not being able to believe), does that mean they can never believe again?

Well, I know people answered that question, but something caught my eye today and I thought the people who answered the question should take a look...

I was reading The Case for Faith by Lee Strobel today, and on the subject of making the choice of will to believe/not to believe, it says this:

"'Yes," he conceded, "and that raises the big mystery of choice and free will. But I look at it like the power steering of a car. Good luck trying to move the car's tires without it. But with one finger, you can supply the impulse of request and the power steering will empower you to turn the wheels. In a similar way, our wills make the decision to put our trust in Christ, and God empowers us.'"

A couple of paragraphs later, he applies this analogy to the aforementioned Bible verses, reading...

"'In other words, they made a decision of will not to believe the miracles... because they wouldn't pay the price... And they made this decision not to believe for so long that they dismantled their capacity to believe. Consequently, at its core, faith is a decision of the will that we keep on making but we're given that option by God's grace. We're empowered to keep making it by his spirit.'"

Take a look at those two excerts. Notice the comparision between the two.

Now, he implies that the first excert is a way of explaining how the second excert works (essentially) so with that in mind, a comparision is only natural. And with that in mind, when he says the person "dismantles their capacity to believe" it's compared to the power steering of a car no longer being able to empower you with the ability to move the car, right? And if that happens, then that - by analogy - is also saying God will no longer empower you with the ability to believe, right? I'm confused here with different possible interpretations so that's why I made the thread.

And with that being said, I re-ask: Does this mean that if you make the decision not to believe, that after a while, you lose the privleage to even be able to believe?

Thanks for the time.

Vash wrote:Now, he implies that the first excert is a way of explaining how the second excert works (essentially) so with that in mind, a comparision is only natural. And with that in mind, when he says the person "dismantles their capacity to believe" it's compared to the power steering of a car no longer being able to empower you with the ability to move the car, right? And if that happens, then that - by analogy - is also saying God will no longer empower you with the ability to believe, right? I'm confused here with different possible interpretations so that's why I made the thread.

And with that being said, I re-ask: Does this mean that if you make the decision not to believe, that after a while, you lose the privleage to even be able to believe?

Interesitng question Vash, not easy to answer. Well it really depends... does God want us to get saevd? Bible says so, so I believe God will try to make us belieeve. But i think there are cases where people did not believe, and finally believed. Maybe they realized it is a good thing to believe, an example is Rich Deem, who made this website. He did not believe and then he did. SO i guess if one really searches happiness and love then he may find God. But if one really doenst care then i guess hes sort of doomed. It is more the brain i think - if you force yourself belief is bad, lies an waste of time and convince yourself then its harder to go back, similar as with other things - if you convince yourself God loves you or so and if you belive strongly alrady i think its harder to fall off.one is true, that people can turn. But first God must want them, and they must as well. Free will has the ability to either accept belief or be stubborn and convince yourself it doesnt exost. At least my opinion on it..
Does that help??

How about drug addicts or smokers?

The smokers seem to have choice to continue smoking or abstaining themselves from smoking. If they choose the former one, they certainly feel happier than when they choose the latter one.

It just means that the smokers who fail in abstainence are tempted away to go on with their smoking lives; it doesn't mean that the smokers are unable to succeed in abstainence. Your quotation quite works; they should keep on making it so that by grace they will succeed in abstinence.

I agree with the quotations that dismantling one's capacity is true. I think some people insistence to believe may subside as time goes by. I trust that, however, stubborn people unwilling to believe can be subconsiciouly a believer. One may shout for help when they are in danger. I can't trust that that moment there is no God in their minds when their lives are at risk.

Bodily enjoyment about smoking is tempting indeed. It depends on the will a smoker can have to do away from it.

Is temptation created by God? No. Is abstinence created by God? Neither. Both are man's free will, aren't they? In case a man succeeds with his own freewill to do away from smoking, God helps at once, without hesitation as that,

"Be ever hearing but never understanding; be ever seeing but never perceiving. Make the heart of this people calloused; make their ears dull and close their eyes. Otherwise, they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed" [Isaiah 6:9-10]

In case a man fails and falls into temptation, indulging himself in it,

"God gave them over to shameful lusts" [Romans 1:26]

any thoughts?


.

Oriental wrote: Is temptation created by God? No. Is abstinence created by God? Neither. Both are man's free will, aren't they? In case a man succeeds with his own freewill to do away from smoking, God helps at once, without hesitation as that,

"Be ever hearing but never understanding; be ever seeing but never perceiving. Make the heart of this people calloused; make their ears dull and close their eyes. Otherwise, they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears understand with their hearts, and turn and be healed" [Isaiah 6:9-10]

So it is man who first must admit hes done wrong and it is heim who must try to turn? Will God help only if he decides so or will God try to show him and lead him onto the right path?

Oriental wrote: In case a man fails and falls into temptation, indulging himself in it,

"God gave them over to shameful lusts" [Romans 1:26]

Hm.. probably once a man decides to be evil and decides temptation is the right way, God will give it to him., But id say its more our brains, our way of thinking. Once we really like something, even if its evil its natural to do it mnore if we like it, the psychological dependecnce. And if we dont want to go away from it, and persuade ourselves, i dont think God will want and try to change it, if we dont want it ourselves. Or will he take the free will away and change our minds? I dobt know, but i think bible says god will sort of ignore our free will - or change it or so when we want to become more christian or so. I sort of think the fdree will remains, it just changes. I think its the belief itself that makes the strength and will, and then the person stops. Dont know xactly.
ANy thoughts?[/quote]

madscientist wrote: So it is man who first must admit hes done wrong and it is heim who must try to turn? Will God help only if he decides so or will God try to show him and lead him onto the right path?

Hm.. probably once a man decides to be evil and decides temptation is the right way, God will give it to him., But id say its more our brains, our way of thinking. Once we really like something, even if its evil its natural to do it mnore if we like it, the psychological dependecnce. And if we dont want to go away from it, and persuade ourselves, i dont think God will want and try to change it, if we dont want it ourselves. Or will he take the free will away and change our minds? I dobt know, but i think bible says god will sort of ignore our free will - or change it or so when we want to become more christian or so. I sort of think the fdree will remains, it just changes. I think its the belief itself that makes the strength and will, and then the person stops. Dont know xactly.
ANy thoughts?

Sometimes I am confused as well as you. I think men have free will to choose even before Adam and Eve fell and when they were in Eden.

Though I still have lacking of passages to quote, I am inclined to think that God and men is likened to "a man" and "mice in a maze" respectively.

A mouse in a maze has its own free will to choose the path it likes going. It doesn't know the consequence but keeps going the way it desires. A man, not being within the maze, and able to observe the movement of the mouse, may interfere to set free or block the way the mouse is to walk to. A mouse may go astray to blind end (it may not know it). The man outside the maze can see it in advance, and do something e.g. to block its way to stop it so the mouse has got no choice but to go back on its way to seek other outlet.

Likewise, a man can choose to live a holy life or a sinful life. God never disturbs his choice. He can, however, foresee what may happen on him in advance so, depending on how this man reacts on his way, God interfered (if he wants to, and scripturally speaking we trust that He will because in Revelation, He promises that He won't see even one man going astray). He will ordain the course of event. Therefore the man won't get lost in the end.

It doesn't mean that this man has lost his free-will. He has free will upon what he can control. Those uncontrollable things go on, and subject to God will.

While Roman Chapter 1 described some sinful men in the past that God let them be given up I think these guys were too sinful to be forgiven. And there is, and will be, probably some guys God is unwilling to let them go with the free will to where God has prepared only for the saints.

No scriptural passages I can find up till now. If anyone here got to find passages that support this idea, please express your thoughts.


.

No one is too sinful to be forgiven.

God will have mercy upon whom He will have mercy. It's not that some people are too sinful. Jesus's atoning blood would be enough for them. But somehow, God works faith in a number of people, and leaves others behind. I trust He has reasons for that, because He is not an arbitrary, whimsical God.

If my memory serves, there is at least one kind of sin that God will not forgive: blasphemy against the Holy Spirit.

can't give you the relevant passage but i bet.

.

Vash,

If you recall the parable of the sower. Some of the seed was sewn on stony ground. These are people whose hearts have been hardened and not willing to even listen. Its like when you try to share the Gospel with them, although they agreed to listen, they act like you are wasting their time. They might look at their watch or look past you rather than focus on the conversation.

These people are still not too sinful to be forgiven. But Their hearts, for some reason, will not let themselves be forgiven. They are not open to hearing the Gospel. Either they think they do not need it or that there sin is too great to deserve it.

But I think that anyone that has the desire to be forgiven, can be forgiven if they are presented the Gospel and trust that Jesus is the Christ that died for their sins and saved them for eternal life. This type of person does not have a heart of stone though.

Understand that this desire to be forgiven, only manifests itself at the presentation of the Gospel. I do not believe there can be desire beforehand. But there should be at least an openness to listen.

YLTYLT wrote:Vash,

If you recall the parable of the sower. Some of the seed was sewn on stony ground. These are people whose hearts have been hardened and not willing to even listen. Its like when you try to share the Gospel with them, although they agreed to listen, they act like you are wasting their time. They might look at their watch or look past you rather than focus on the conversation.

These people are still not too sinful to be forgiven. But Their hearts, for some reason, will not let themselves be forgiven. They are not open to hearing the Gospel. Either they think they do not need it or that there sin is too great to deserve it.

But I think that anyone that has the desire to be forgiven, can be forgiven if they are presented the Gospel and trust that Jesus is the Christ that died for their sins and saved them for eternal life. This type of person does not have a heart of stone though.

Understand that this desire to be forgiven, only manifests itself at the presentation of the Gospel. I do not believe there can be desire beforehand. But there should be at least an openness to listen.

Yes indeed. The parable of sower that you quoted is more succinct and vivid for showing how free will does with God's grace I think.

Concerning free will, I recall there is a thread describing two schools of thought which may interest you.

http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... highlight=

haven't finished reading it but quite interesting.
.

Turgonian wrote:No one is too sinful to be forgiven.

God will have mercy upon whom He will have mercy. It's not that some people are too sinful. Jesus's atoning blood would be enough for them. But somehow, God works faith in a number of people, and leaves others behind. I trust He has reasons for that, because He is not an arbitrary, whimsical God.

In the same way man has free will to go either way, don't you think God Himself has far much more free will to forgive or judge?

Reading the Old Testament, one can't even understand why every now and then God used sinful guy to fulfil His will, e.g. He used a prostittute to do something for Him. So obviously a guy need not be a saint in order for God to use him.

There is no hard and fast rule in what circumstance or in what fashion God should do anything that men think He should. It is a myth I am inclinded to think.

In the same way, abundance of people I run into always insist on a God of absolute mercy, killing not even an ant I don't see. It is not true in fact. Going over the passages in Old Testaments, God killed millions of people.

Is God cruel?

I mayn't be right simply wanting to draw any more input which I 'd like to have more insight.

..

Oriental -- I don't believe man has 'free will to go either way'. His free will has been corrupted, so that he is not going to use it for good on his own accord.

I doubt God killed 'millions of people' in the OT. In any case, God isn't cruel. God has shown His love on countless occasions, although that love is not sentimentality.
God loves men, but the One whom God loves above all else is His Son. Therefore, He hates people who spurn the Son.
Can you think of an example where you could see God as cruel?

Keep in mind, the fact that God is all-knowing. In The Case for Faith by Lee Strobel, the argument is made that God sometimes kills people for the overall better of other people. Perhaps the people that God kills would have went on to inflict so much pain and torture to other thousands of other people. Who knows? And in the case of the Old Testament, I think it was for the better of the people of Isreal.

Even if it wasn't for that reason, even people with no Christian life often say "This was unfortunate, but it made me a stronger person." Perhaps this type of mindset has something to do with it in some circumstances as well.

And thank you to everyone who answered my questioned.

Turgonian:

I believe that men have free will to go either way. The shining example of this is men's fall in Eden.

In Eden, Men were allowed to choose either fruits on the tree of life or those on the tree of knowledge.

I think because of the mortal nature of our flesh - the pleasures and sins of flesh - making our free will tending to do sinfully. Wasn't Paul telling us the laws that battles in our soul?

Roman 7:21-25
So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. For in my inner being I delight in God's law; but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? Thanks be to God - through Jesus Christ our Lord!

Isn't it?

As regards God's striking people, it is the men's viewpoint to label God with "cruelty" while men's viewpoint may not match God's. I think Vash talked about the right thing - God's purpose for men's sake may not be fully understood in men's viewpoint unless men are wise enough to get it out of this. I trust that, upon this, Vash, you and I concur.

What I think arguable is: God whimscal nature which a lot of people do not agree upon, was sometimes shown in the past. I recall some passages in Old Testament God struck a guy who stretched his hand to support a falling Covenant Box; One of the Ten Commandments in Exodus stated vividly that God Himself admited that He is a God of jealousy, against idolatry and He convicts people up to a number of generations with punishment. These shows His whimscal nature; I also think that it is a myth God would never be furious. God's wrath is quite punishing.

The whimiscl nature, in my definition, refers to something acting only to please one party and only his good self exploiting others' desire for pleasures. for example if God loves us no matter what we do, He might simply have allowed idolatry - what harms does it do to Him, while idols are simply a piece of wood or statue? If God loved men to such unlimited extent, He would've understood men's anxiety and feeling of helplessness, and their need for reliance. He would've let go their idolatry and personified Himself in form of the idols that they were blindly worshipping, wouldn't He? When they were worshipping a statue of snake, God simply appeared Himself in the form of snake, speaking His own revelation. Why not? It is simply a change of images, from an invisible God to a divine snake-form creature. On the contrary, God didn't do so, but kept clear-cut Himself and the wooden idols to let people know such a distinction, and convicting them with punishment for their disobedience (disregarding the men's idolatry pleasing the men themselves). The whimiscal, arbitrary lawly discipline is the very form God used to show His jealousy as stipulated in the Ten Commandments.

I think now a day, since Cruxificion God's grace has been more abundant than before so we hardly talk about God's wrath any longer; it doesn't mean that God is of absolute mercy which I have heard of for thousands of times arguably doubtful to me.




.

Oriental wrote:I believe that men have free will to go either way. The shining example of this is men's fall in Eden.

In Eden, Men were allowed to choose either fruits on the tree of life or those on the tree of knowledge.

In Eden, yes...but with the Fall, our wills became enslaved to sin. Hence, no more 'free' (in the real sense).

Oriental wrote:I think because of the mortal nature of our flesh - the pleasures and sins of flesh - making our free will tending to do sinfully. Wasn't Paul telling us the laws that battles in our soul?

I don't think it has to do with the 'mortal nature'. Sinful desires originate in the spirit. 'Flesh' (sarx) is used as a metaphor for human weakness in general.

Oriental wrote:What I think arguable is: God whimscal nature which a lot of people do not agree upon, was sometimes shown in the past. I recall some passages in Old Testament God struck a guy who stretched his hand to support a falling Covenant Box...

After many, many regulations had already been transgressed. It was just the final straw. Nothing whimsical here.

Oriental wrote:One of the Ten Commandments in Exodus stated vividly that God Himself admited that He is a God of jealousy, against idolatry and He convicts people up to a number of generations with punishment.

Three, four generations. In other words, the whole family suffers, just as a family today suffers from a drunken (grand)father.
Jealousy is 'a passionate commitment to someone, and their well-being'.

Oriental wrote:These shows His whimscal nature; I also think that it is a myth God would never be furious. God's wrath is quite punishing.

True, but it is also eternal, unchanging, steady and intense, not whimsical.

Oriental wrote:for example if God loves us no matter what we do, He might simply have allowed idolatry - what harms does it do to Him, while idols are simply a piece of wood or statue?

Worshipping them often leads to sexual perversity, sacrifice of children and other abhorrent practices.

Oriental wrote:If God loved men to such unlimited extent, He would've understood men's anxiety and feeling of helplessness, and their need for reliance.

Which only He can fill. And His not being whimsical is the one great thing that sets Him apart from the pagan gods. It means that when people worship the true God, they do not need to be afraid of the numinous anymore.

Oriental wrote:He would've let go their idolatry and personified Himself in form of the idols that they were blindly worshipping, wouldn't He? When they were worshipping a statue of snake, God simply appeared Himself in the form of snake, speaking His own revelation.

God never appeared as a snake. The devil did.

Oriental wrote:Why not? It is simply a change of images, from an invisible God to a divine snake-form creature.

An invisible God is not an image. One should constantly be reminded that God transcends everything on earth. Besides, an 'image' in the ancient world served as 'a focal point for the presence and power of a deity' (see here), which means that people would get the idea they could 'control' God by carrying those images around. Conversely, they would be weak when those images would be taken away. Do you see how people would start seeing themselves as dependent of images, rather than God's eternal covenant?
(An example of the Israelites trying to 'control' God is Eli's sons bringing the Ark to the battle -- where it was captured. They trusted in the Ark rather than in God.)

Oriental wrote:The whimiscal, arbitrary lawly discipline is the very form God used to show His jealousy as stipulated in the Ten Commandments.

I hope I've been able to show you why that isn't true.

Oriental wrote:I think now a day, since Cruxificion God's grace has been more abundant than before so we hardly talk about God's wrath any longer; it doesn't mean that God is of absolute mercywhich I have heard of for thousands of times arguably doubtful to me.

He showers mercy only on those who believe in Him, that's correct -- and probably a number of people who never had the chance of hearing about the true God. But people like Richard Dawkins (if he doesn't change his ways) will not escape judgement, that's true. God still has mercy upon him, but that mercy is not absolute.

Turgonian wrote: ..

The following words were written after the Men's fall in Eden.

Exodus 20:3-6
3 "You shall have no other gods before me.
4 "You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below.
5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,
6 but showing love to a thousand [generations] of those who love me and keep my commandments.

God's love on us is a conditional one, in which we have to make a choice. The consequence is: we are either to be blessed, or to be punished, depending on how we react to God.

I think you are arguing about the "term" that one should use in respect of God and the "attitude" that one should go on to talk of the Lord. Reverence is the essential quality. Thats true. If "term" and "alttitute" doesn't sound with awesome respect, the content going with them should be wrong, is this what you presume?

I delete the term "snake" and replace with "dove". Also I relace the term "whimsical" with "arbitrary". I replace the "divine God" with "Jesus Christ". How do you think now? Words in red color are those supposedly deleted to show our usually-supposing-to-have reverence to the Lord.

Quote from myself but remodified:
The arbitrary (whimsical) nature, in my definition, refers to something acting only to please one party and only his good self exploiting others' desire for pleasures. for example if God loves us no matter what we do, He might simply have allowed idolatry - what harms does it do to Him, while idols are simply a piece of wood or statue? If God loved men to such unlimited extent, He would've understood men's anxiety and feeling of helplessness, and their need for reliance. He would've let go their idolatry and personified Himself in form of the idols that they were blindly worshipping, wouldn't He? When they were worshipping a statue of dove (snake), God simply appeared Himself in the form of dove (snake), speaking His own revelation. Why not? It is simply a change of images, from Jesus Christ (an invisible God) to a divine dove (snake) -form creature. On the contrary, God didn't do so, but kept clear-cut Himself and the wooden idols to let people know such a distinction, and convicting them with punishment for their disobedience (disregarding the men's idolatry pleasing the men themselves). The (whimsical) arbitrary lawly discipline is the very form God used to show His jealousy as stipulated in the Ten Commandments.

Does Devil appear in form of dove? contrary to what you presume?

2 Kings 18
3 He did what was right in the eyes of the LORD, just as his father David had done.
4 He removed the high places, smashed the sacred stones and cut down the Asherah poles. He broke into pieces the bronze snake Moses had made, for up to that time the Israelites had been burning incense to it. (It was called Nehushtan. )

This He is a famous Israel king: Hezekiah. The bronze snake Moses had made was some sacred thing in Exodus times. People those days mistook it as something to worship. God disliked it very much.

Is there anything you may find more to think about than the superfacial value about our religion?


.