Evidence for God from Science

An implausable thought experiment, short on details, but worthwhile:

Suppose I was a scientist who thought each individual should have the freedom to end the the world if he or she wanted to? Like Adam and Eve had the freedom (though in their case they did not know it) to permanently exile the human race from Eden? I sincerely demanded no one ever do it, but I provided everbody the means to do so, and was horrified to discover somone did

How should the blame, if any, be apportioned for that?

Is the only answer something on the order that God is God, and I am not? If so, I bet you cannot give much detail, can you?
Or perhaps you could but you won't

(Like my late old Aunt said there were no question marks in the Bible to "win" an argument, but that's another story)

Revelation 21:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, "Now I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away. Also there was no more sea. 2 Then I, John, saw the holy city, New Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from heaven saying, "Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people. God Himself will be with them and be their God. 4 And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away." 5 Then He who sat on the throne said, "Behold, I make all things new." And He said to me, "Write, for these words are true and faithful." 6 And He said to me, "It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. I will give of the fountain of the water of life freely to him who thirsts." NKJV


Praise be to God Almighty that he is NO Scientist !!!

B.W.

+
ultimate777
-
-
-
My question - why a scientist?

ultimate777 wrote:An implausable thought experiment, short on details, but worthwhile:

Suppose I was a scientist who thought each individual should have the freedom to end the the world if he or she wanted to? Like Adam and Eve had the freedom (though in their case they did not know it) to permanently exile the human race from Eden? I sincerely demanded no one ever do it, but I provided everbody the means to do so, and was horrified to discover somone did

How should the blame, if any, be apportioned for that?

Is the only answer something on the order that God is God, and I am not? If so, I bet you cannot give much detail, can you?
Or perhaps you could but you won't

(Like my late old Aunt said there were no question marks in the Bible to "win" an argument, but that's another story)

I'm sure Adam and Eve were given ample reason not to do what they CHOSE to do. To say otherwise is to question if Adam understood what Genesis 2:17 explains.

But anyway, if you were a scientist, words like "freedom" would hold little meaning to you anyway.

ultimate777 wrote:An implausable thought experiment, short on details, but worthwhile:


How should the blame, if any, be apportioned for that?

I suppose what I was trying to say above is, to answer this question, a "scientist" has determine what freedom is.

Suppose I was a scientist who thought each individual should have the freedom to end the the world if he or she wanted to? Like Adam and Eve had the freedom (though in their case they did not know it) to permanently exile the human race from Eden? I sincerely demanded no one ever do it, but I provided everbody the means to do so, and was horrified to discover somone did

How should the blame, if any, be apportioned for that?

A couple of misrepresentations there:

1. A scientist who thought each individual should have the freedom to end the world, should have his head checked.

2. The comparison to Adam and Eve is quite vague. First it was not the end of the world, second while they had the choice, they were aware of the consequences. They knew it was disastrous.

I think you are oversimplifying the whole thing. One could create a lot of trap questions but then most often there are pretty obvious flaws. The scriptures should not be interpreted out-of-context. That almost always end up in a question like this.

On a side note, by creating nuclear weapons, scientists have achieved a way for anyone with enough money and lack of brains, to end the world, ol' Einstein made sure of that. Compared to that God just said one thing, don't eat that fruit. I hardly think you made a worthy comparison on this.

B.W. I figured I had to be a scientist to develop the means to do what I wanted. If you weren't the moderator here....

KOGnitionIn

I suppose what I was trying to say above is, to answer this question, a "scientist" has determine what freedom is.




In my case having the ability to do the thing in question and knowing it. Are you deliberately trying to show me up by parsing words? Apparently you cannot by taking the thing head on. But you do what too many professing Christians do. I guess you all who do it had to be carefully trained

Report this postReply with quoteRe: Are we afraid hard questions around here?
by neo-x on Mon Oct 31, 2011 12:36 am
Suppose I was a scientist who thought each individual should have the freedom to end the the world if he or she wanted to? Like Adam and Eve had the freedom (though in their case they did not know it) to permanently exile the human race from Eden? I sincerely demanded no one ever do it, but I provided everbody the means to do so, and was horrified to discover somone did
How should the blame, if any, be apportioned for that?

A couple of misrepresentations there:
1. A scientist who thought each individual should have the freedom to end the world, should have his head checked.
Did I ever say different?

THIS IS HYPOTHETICAL!!!! (For those of you in Rio Linda, a what-if)

2. The comparison to Adam and Eve is quite vague. First it was not the end of the world, second while they had the choice, they were aware of the consequences. They knew it was disastrous.
It was the end of lack of intense suffering ever. And my "people" really knew their deal was disatrous.
I think you are oversimplifying the whole thing. One could create a lot of trap questions but then most often there are pretty obvious flaws. The scriptures should not be interpreted out-of-context. That almost always end up in a question like this.

I disagree. What you say is an excuse.

On a side note, by creating nuclear weapons, scientists have achieved a way for anyone with enough money and lack of brains, to end the world, ol' Einstein made sure of that.

In my thing everybody has it, all the time,can you see the difference?

I would say more, but this is acting up can't even erase the below

Compared to that God just said one thing, don't eat that fruit. I hardly think you made a worthy comparison on this.
Tat's wh

Ev

I disagree. What you say is an excuse.

I don't think, an answer to a straw man question like this is an excuse, you have to show me, HOW it is an excuse.

In my thing everybody has it, all the time,can you see the difference?

I would say more, but this is acting up can't even erase the below

Compared to that God just said one thing, don't eat that fruit. I hardly think you made a worthy comparison on this.
Tat's wh

can you elaborate as to what this means, cuz I failed to understand the point, you apparently made here.

ultimate777 wrote:KOGnition

I suppose what I was trying to say above is, to answer this question, a "scientist" has determine what freedom is.




In my case having the ability to do the thing in question and knowing it. Are you deliberately trying to show me up by parsing words? Apparently you cannot by taking the thing head on. But you do what too many professing Christians do. I guess you all who do it had to be carefully trained

You limited yourself in your hypothetical (maybe intentionally?) by determining yourself as a scientist. So the question I ask myself when reading this hypothetical (before I even get to "How should the blame, if any, be apportioned for that?"):
What is the nature of this scientist who thinks each individual should have the freedom to end the world?

Am I parsing words because what we define as a scientist is not important to this discussion?

ultimate777 wrote:was horrified to discover somone did

Is what we define as "discover" not also important to the hypothetical?

How do you assume I am "professing Christianity" by my two posts above?

I suppose I would hypothetically "appoint" blame unto the scientist. But I must profess; I have a hard time trying to reconcile your hypothetical to anything contextually accurate in the bible.

First of all, although meant to be a comparison to the Biblical story, the setup of the scientist's scenario is an extremely poor parallel:

The scientist is obviously this scenario's supposed parallel of a God figure. Supposedly very intelligent because he is a scientist, he sets up a scenario any kid would know would be disastrous and would end very quickly (just as soon as anyone became angry enough at someone or something and/or suicidal and deranged enough - give them about a week).

God is all-knowing and in complete control of events, as in Him all things hold together. Nothing can happen without Him allowing it to, and He limits and at times directly intervenes in events, preventing and altering the plans of man. He knows all outcomes of all people's every decision and has an ultimate plan that He will assure ends exactly as He so desires it to. So God's world is one in which evil is allowed (for a season), but He ultimately controls and limits it, and guides and moves the world toward an outcome He has authored. And in God's scenario, THIS world and THIS life, as bad and scary as it can at times be, is but a blink of the eye in the eternity He has promised those who will follow Him. And God's plan has a way out (through Jesus) of a TEMPORARY nightmare into an ETERNITY of bliss - for ALL so WILLING to follow HIM.

God has given man free will to choose His way or our own way. Plus, through Christ, God has provided a way out of the nightmare that merely choosing our own selfish ways leads to. As God ultimately controls world events, installs all leaders, etc., HIS outcome is never in doubt, as opposed to the randomly chaotic, horrific and PERMANENT end that the scientists' scenario leads to. We do have free will, but within God's parameters and under His ultimate control. He knows, can and does sway events even though men still freely choose their own evil ways. But God didn't create robots who have no choices (to sin or not; to choose God's way or their own ways). God knows free will is worth it because 1) without it, only He would be responsible for their actions (and also thus their sins); 2) That the beautiful outcome (for those who choose to love and obey Him) is worth the very temporary trials and difficulties they will experience in THIS life; 3) That there is much about this life that apparently is important to Christians' NEXT life (in Heaven); 4) The outcome, even with our free will and the temporary reign of evil on the EARTH is never in question - because it's not dependent upon OUR decisions, but upon GOD'S; 5) God knows that forced love is not true love, and thus He doesn't force us to love Him but out of His love, mercy and grace, gives us a beautifully and powerfully contrasted choice to do so.

So, in Ultimate777's scenario, his question of who do we assign blame to is obviously pointing to a parallel of God having set up our present scenario - as if our present, temporary and awful scenario is the FINAL one (as is the scientist's). But note that 1) our present scenario is temporary and 2) that all sin and evil are due to MAN'S sin and evil acts - and MEN are the ones who have thus chosen and acted in such horrific ways. Who in heaven will look back and blame God for anything? Who in heaven will have anything but enormously grateful praise of God? We can ALL choose God and heaven, yet who but we are to blame for our own individual contributions of sinful acts to our fallen world?

Free will is God's beautiful gift, but it can be used to choose our own ultimate disaster - one's own permanent punishment and separation from God. In the end, everyone will ultimately get what they want (per how God has framed the choice and results thereof - glorious vs. eternal misery). In the scientist's scenario, the fate of all is dependent upon whomever first decides to exercise his right to end the world - a disastrous and PERMANENT end. In GOD'S scenario, NO one's ULTIMATE fate is dependent upon anything but their OWN, mercifully and loving-provided (through Jesus) GOD-GIVEN choice - which, if they choose Jesus/God - results in Paradise forever in the very presence of the Lord (as B.W. so gloriously notes from Revelation).

*

Again, why a Scientist?

Why use such an imperfect fallible specimen?

God is No Scientist...
-
-
-