Evidence for God from Science

Short1 wrote:
One example of one of his posted inconsistencies:
GE 1:31 God was pleased with his creation.
GE 6:5-6 God was not pleased with his creation.
(Note: That God should be displeased is inconsistent with the concept of omniscience.)

How would you respond to that?

Easy... Man has free will, man in his sin corrupted the world so much that it displeased God.

I've seen things like this brought up before, and frankly I don't get it at all. Let's say the parents of a child are "pleased" that the child is born and is a cute little baby and all of that. Later on let's say the kid disobeys his parents, and his parents are "displeased" with him. The parents are perfectly aware of what the kid has done through his own free will and is displeased with it. In the same way, God gives all of us free will, he knows when we do wrong and is displeased with our disobedience. I see no contradiction here whatsoever, unless I'm really missing something.

An argument that I see pop up every once in a while that is equally baffling and somewhat similar is that God is saddened in the Bible, and if he's omniscient he shouldn't feel those types of emotions. From where I'm sitting that's utter nonsense. I can know a family member will die some day and still feel great sadness when it happens, a couple can break up and "know" that they broke up and still be sad. The emotion has nothing to do with omniscience. The same applies here, God can know everything and be displeased, and I've never seen any argument to make me think otherwise.

Got a friend who recently went from Christian to anti-Christian, and its funny because he'll pull the same thing (I don't know if he knows better or not, but it is pure ignorance on flaunted display).

I think the best way to deal with it in many cases is to ignore it. We are to be the light of the world and to reach out to those who are lost, but Jesus didn't spend much time around the people who thought they had everything together. He spent time with people honest enough to admit they didn't. Sometimes its just a matter of wisdom: know when it would be wise to make an attempt to spread the Gospel. People hide behind all sorts of things, science being one of them, even though they know behind the charade that they don't have all the answers. But, until someone is willing to leave their cover, anything you try will generally be absorbed by it, leaving you exhausted and them bitter and angry.

Heh... just realized that probably isn't very uplifting, but its been my experience that I need to spend my energy in the best way if I can help it... and some people are just talented at turning someone else's energy into frustration instead of fruitfulness. I guess it might make sense in those cases to let God do His work and just be ready when He's softened them up a bit.

His latest:

"One website is offering $10,000 to anyone who can square the conflicting accounts of the events directly following the resurrection. Of course, it can't be done, because they're completely opposed to one another..."

Any articles you know of that explain the problem and have a rebuttal for it?

Short1 wrote:His latest:

"One website is offering $10,000 to anyone who can square the conflicting accounts of the events directly following the resurrection. Of course, it can't be done, because they're completely opposed to one another..."

Any articles you know of that explain the problem and have a rebuttal for it?

Much has been written by the past, imo this is just another example of an argument that atheists will push and push even if it's been debunked numerous times.

Here's one article on it.

http://www.gotquestions.org/resurrection-accounts.html

Is there really anything you can do about them? It's so hard to sway people on the internet.

Have you ever heard the term "Don't feed the trolls."?

If you haven't been on the internet long enough, it means "Don't argue with people trying to start arguments." in layman's terms. Avoiding people on the internet is easy unless they're constantly harassing you. During which, it's quite difficult. I doubt a few people who make fun of Christians on their free time will stalk you, though. It's not like they're hurting anyone.

Conflicting accounts of the ressurection, not, actually, according to logic, which shows what is, and what is not, a contradiction. If all of the statements can be true at the same time, it is not a contradiction. One account mentions Mary, another Mary and some other women, andother names some of those other women. The account with just Mary does not state that she was alone, neither do the others state that certain other women were NOT there. It concentrates on Mary because she is the one who led the group, the prime motivator of the whole affair, and because she was the cheif one talking, since Jesus talked directly to her (BECAUSE she was the prime reason they were all there). If the part that mentioned mary said ONLY mary went to the tomb, that would be different, it does not. Therefore, all the statements can indeed be true at the same time, no contradiction.

These two statemets can be true at the same time:
Mary went to the tomb.
Mary and some other women went to the tomb.
These cannot:
Mary went to the tomb alone.
Mary and some other women went to the tomb.
The bible has the first two staements, not the last two.

Compare it to "president Obama went to Mumai". The papers concentrate on Obama, they do not mention the many many others who also went. if they don't mention the pilot of the plane he is in, does that mean the plane flew itself? This account of the ressurection is just exactly like that. Some mentioned that there were also other women there, some were named, other accounts do not mention them, or do not name them, but instead concentrate only on the principle speaker, exactly as they do with obama, and for the same reason.

Lastly, if different people recall the same event differently, that shows that it was witnessed by different people. If all the acounts were word for word the same, we would be suspicious, it would look like a contrived, made up story, not like a real happening wintessed by different people who, like people always do, remember if differently.

So, in reality, seeing "differences in the ressurection" is really just an excuse for believing what you want to believe. If you were to closely examine your reasoning, you would find it faulty, since the "differences" are not true contradictions at all.