Evidence for God from Science

Note: I am sorry for posting so many threads and making it seem like I'm abandoning them. I am not an Atheist, but merely a Christian who has finally found a forum that has the philosophical and scientific intelligence to answer them. I am also quite busy, so although I read your posts in my threads, I probably won't answer them since I am in high school and have many standard tests to study for coming up. I still really appreciate them!!

Anyway, my main point is, I've been reading up on this site as well as William Lane Craig about the whole thing about God pleading that we change our ways because He wants us to go into Heaven and not to suffer eternal damnation. But why, if He knew that more than half the human population would end up going to Hell or whatever place that is alternate to Heaven, would He create the human race in the first place. In one of Richard Deem's articles, he notes the main reason is because:

"Since God created spiritual beings for the purpose of expressing love, those beings must have complete free will in order to express that love. "

So God wanted love, but as far as I understand it, the majority of the human race will not experience that love but instead reject Him and burn eternally or at least, for quite the long period of time. To add to this, apparently God mourns these lost souls greatly. Therefore the question arises: was it worth it? If God knew the intense emotional pain that would occur, why would he create the human race in the first place?

Are you a parent?

Like I said in the OP, I am indubitably an inquiring High School-er.

Mariolee wrote:Like I said in the OP, I am indubitably an inquiring High School-er.

So I assume that you are not a parent. Perhaps you could ask your parents why they had you knowing your life would be filled with difficulties, scraped knees, crying, not-wanting-to-eat-your-vegetables, meeting jerks, possibly getting drunk, doing drugs, going into prostitution...

I mean...what were your parents thinking? ...why did they bring you into this world?

FL

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:

Mariolee wrote:Like I said in the OP, I am indubitably an inquiring High School-er.

So I assume that you are not a parent. Perhaps you could ask your parents why they had you knowing your life would be filled with difficulties, scraped knees, crying, not-wanting-to-eat-your-vegetables, meeting jerks, possibly getting drunk, doing drugs, going into prostitution...

I mean...what were your parents thinking? ...why did they bring you into this world?

FL

You see, this line of thinking is what I had in mind. But whereas a couple of parents are armed with the guise that having a child will be alright as long as they are under their care, but God has the advantage of knowing exactly that most of the human race would be condemned to Hell, and thus wouldn't an all-loving God weigh his options and simply decide that creating us wouldn't be worth all the agony and pain most of us would eventually endure for all eternity? Unless you partake in the theory that people can get out of Hell, of course.

Mariolee wrote: You see, this line of thinking is what I had in mind. But whereas a couple of parents are armed with the guise that having a child will be alright as long as they are under their care, but God has the advantage of knowing exactly that most of the human race would be condemned to Hell, and thus wouldn't an all-loving God weigh his options and simply decide that creating us wouldn't be worth all the agony and pain most of us would eventually endure for all eternity? Unless you partake in the theory that people can get out of Hell, of course.

God's decress are soveriegn. God isn't 'weighing' His options. He is acting out of His perfect nature. He isn't gambling with humanity. Obviously it is worth it.
Your implication is that God couldn't do things this way and be all-loving. Yet you've failed to show how one human, some or most of humanity being condemned would result in God not being all-loving.

I appreciate that the question is an honest one, but can I suggest that it doesn't really mean anything? Therefore, there is no answer, because the there's no question to answer. Let me explain what I mean.

First, it helps to understand that some strings of words look meaningful but in the end we realize that they aren't. The most famous example of this is Chomsky's 1957 sentence, "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously." We can understand each one of the words. They violate no grammatical or synactical rules. And yet, it's obvious that the sentence is actually meaningless. If I asked you if you agreed with it, you couldn't say yes or not. You'd just stare at me, blankly, and probably think some rather rude things about my intelligence level. The same goes with some theological questions. For instance, "Can God create a rock so big He can't lift it?" That's a meaningless sentence, because it is inherently self-contradictory. In fact, when you get really deep into classical (Thomistic) philosophy, you'll find out that the question "Does God exist?" is in some ways just the same, because the notion of God's non-existence is irrational at a definitional level. But that aside . . .

Second, if you agree that some questions looks meaningful but are really meaningless, the question becomes, what about yours? I'm sure you think it has meaning, but may I suggest it doesn't? The reason is actually rather simple. It's based on a comparative . . . the idea seems to be, given all the evil and suffering in the world (or in the next world . . . Hell for many), wouldn't we be better off if we never existed? But whenever you compare A and B, you are presuming, by definition, that there are both As and Bs to be compared. But in this case, the A (our non-existence) is to not exist. So when you ask if we would be better off not existing, you are suggesting something inherently self-contradictory. How could "we" be "better off" if there is no "we" to begin with?!?

So for these reasons, I just reject the question. It's nonsensical. It's sincere, but some people who ask whether or not God could forget His existence are asking sincerely, too. They're just sincerely nonsensical. I'm not at all attacking your intelligence or motivation. I'm just trying to point out that if you ask a nonsensical question, it turns out to be impossible to provide a sensical answer.

Mariolee wrote:

Furstentum Liechtenstein wrote:

Mariolee wrote:Like I said in the OP, I am indubitably an inquiring High School-er.

So I assume that you are not a parent. Perhaps you could ask your parents why they had you knowing your life would be filled with difficulties, scraped knees, crying, not-wanting-to-eat-your-vegetables, meeting jerks, possibly getting drunk, doing drugs, going into prostitution...

I mean...what were your parents thinking? ...why did they bring you into this world?

FL

You see, this line of thinking is what I had in mind. But whereas a couple of parents are armed with the guise that having a child will be alright as long as they are under their care, but God has the advantage of knowing exactly that most of the human race would be condemned to Hell, and thus wouldn't an all-loving God weigh his options and simply decide that creating us wouldn't be worth all the agony and pain most of us would eventually endure for all eternity? Unless you partake in the theory that people can get out of Hell, of course.

You may want to stop focusing on "God condeming people to Hell" ( God condems NO ONE) and perhaps try to understand that IF God knows everything and IF God created the World then "maybe' GOD knows better than US how it all ends.
Just saying...

Mariolee wrote:Note: I am sorry for posting so many threads and making it seem like I'm abandoning them. I am not an Atheist, but merely a Christian who has finally found a forum that has the philosophical and scientific intelligence to answer them. I am also quite busy, so although I read your posts in my threads, I probably won't answer them since I am in high school and have many standard tests to study for coming up. I still really appreciate them!!

Anyway, my main point is, I've been reading up on this site as well as William Lane Craig about the whole thing about God pleading that we change our ways because He wants us to go into Heaven and not to suffer eternal damnation. But why, if He knew that more than half the human population would end up going to Hell or whatever place that is alternate to Heaven, would He create the human race in the first place. In one of Richard Deem's articles, he notes the main reason is because:

"Since God created spiritual beings for the purpose of expressing love, those beings must have complete free will in order to express that love. "

So God wanted love, but as far as I understand it, the majority of the human race will not experience that love but instead reject Him and burn eternally or at least, for quite the long period of time. To add to this, apparently God mourns these lost souls greatly. Therefore the question arises: was it worth it? If God knew the intense emotional pain that would occur, why would he create the human race in the first place?

Good points you raise. My educated guess is that God is very pleased with the Ones WHO DID embrace him and his eternal offer of salvation even though many will miss out on heaven due to their freewill decision to not want God to even exist ... let alone move toward a meaningful personal relationship with him. Instead, they opted for futile thinking as Romans 1 points out and made for themselves all kinds of excuses not to follow God including accumulation of numerous other things (and people) to worship thereby making idols out of them. Yes, God is very saddened to see so many choose an opposite direction to him...but is elated to have so many that he can call his very own children and to see the joy and gratefulness in us from knowing we are Children of the Most High God looking forward to an eternity in utter bliss and experiencing our Creator without any interferences .

Thank you for all of the answers, guys! I think I have a pretty good understanding now, but this leads me into another question...
Why doesn't God just show Himself to everyone. I mean, technically He did that with Jesus, but that was about 2000 years ago and many people now deny the historicity and validity of this claim that this one man was the Christ. So why doesn't He just show up physically a ton of times to show that He does indeed exist so that they won't go to Hell? Unless you believe that people who don't believe in God because it doesn't seem logical, and not that they disagree with Him, will not go to Hell.

Mariolee wrote:Thank you for all of the answers, guys! I think I have a pretty good understanding now, but this leads me into another question...
Why doesn't God just show Himself to everyone. I mean, technically He did that with Jesus, but that was about 2000 years ago and many people now deny the historicity and validity of this claim that this one man was the Christ. So why doesn't He just show up physically a ton of times to show that He does indeed exist so that they won't go to Hell? Unless you believe that people who don't believe in God because it doesn't seem logical, and not that they disagree with Him, will not go to Hell.

This actually is quite an easy question, Mariolee.

God has shown himself and his awesome power many times in history, it did not change the heart of man.

His own holy nation couldn't obey him.

He brought them out of Egypt, he parted the red sea, food was falling from the sky in the desert when they were hungry, there was a pillar of fire by night, cloud by day, water out of a rock, and it keeps going.

His people still could not obey him despite all this.

Now, people could deny that Jesus existed, but they'd be wrong. For many indisputable historic proofs are available for us to examine.

So, an argument in the sense that people need to see God with their own eyes in order to believe in him is unfortunately not going change their heart.

There have been several atheists who have stated that even if there was proof that God existed, they would still not worship him.

However, the bible clearly states that those who seek him out will find him. Then there are those who aren't seeking him out, and are saved. Then there are those who regardless of their status, would freely reject him as their choice and God has to respect their decision.

Mariolee wrote:Thank you for all of the answers, guys! I think I have a pretty good understanding now, but this leads me into another question...
Why doesn't God just show Himself to everyone. I mean, technically He did that with Jesus, but that was about 2000 years ago and many people now deny the historicity and validity of this claim that this one man was the Christ. So why doesn't He just show up physically a ton of times to show that He does indeed exist so that they won't go to Hell? Unless you believe that people who don't believe in God because it doesn't seem logical, and not that they disagree with Him, will not go to Hell.

The fact is, God HAS shows himself thru his Creation in a very unmistakable way . A person has to really try hard to jettison our incredible personal theistic Creator but that is what many choose to do. This idea that 'there is no Creator cause i cant see him' is just a convenient mantra for wanting to do life anyway One wishes. They say they cant believe in God because he isnt visible..well, neither is their Brain, Liver, Kidneys, electricity running across a wire, or the person currently living at 100 N. Main St. in Sacramento, California. , so, does that mean they dont exist ? The age old evidence for a personal theistic Creator (viz. God) has always stood the test of time thru the Cosmological , Teleological, Ontological , and Absolute Morality arguements . The first cause for anything that comes into being which is finite, has to be OVER and BEYOND that, or, INfinite by nature --- much the same that a Painter is to his finished painting . What we as Humans are asked to do, is, to have a very tiny amount of faith in connecting a few dots which lead to a personal Creator , and right after we close our eyes to this short earthly life and move into eternity and infinity, we will get a FULL VIEW of God as promised .... whether that be greater closeness or greater distance based on what we desired for all our eathly life. If you want the best book available on hands-down scientific evidence for God, then you should obtain the book called 'Creation' by Grant Jeffrey at http://www.amazon.com . A good used copy can be had for a few U.S. pennies plus shipping . It is a book that will leave you in total amazement as modern science continues to point toward our incredible and awesome Creator who deserves all honor and glory from his created.

Jac3510 wrote:I appreciate that the question is an honest one, but can I suggest that it doesn't really mean anything? Therefore, there is no answer, because the there's no question to answer. Let me explain what I mean.

First, it helps to understand that some strings of words look meaningful but in the end we realize that they aren't. The most famous example of this is Chomsky's 1957 sentence, "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously." We can understand each one of the words. They violate no grammatical or synactical rules. And yet, it's obvious that the sentence is actually meaningless. If I asked you if you agreed with it, you couldn't say yes or not. You'd just stare at me, blankly, and probably think some rather rude things about my intelligence level. The same goes with some theological questions. For instance, "Can God create a rock so big He can't lift it?" That's a meaningless sentence, because it is inherently self-contradictory. In fact, when you get really deep into classical (Thomistic) philosophy, you'll find out that the question "Does God exist?" is in some ways just the same, because the notion of God's non-existence is irrational at a definitional level. But that aside . . .

Second, if you agree that some questions looks meaningful but are really meaningless, the question becomes, what about yours? I'm sure you think it has meaning, but may I suggest it doesn't? The reason is actually rather simple. It's based on a comparative . . . the idea seems to be, given all the evil and suffering in the world (or in the next world . . . Hell for many), wouldn't we be better off if we never existed? But whenever you compare A and B, you are presuming, by definition, that there are both As and Bs to be compared. But in this case, the A (our non-existence) is to not exist. So when you ask if we would be better off not existing, you are suggesting something inherently self-contradictory. How could "we" be "better off" if there is no "we" to begin with?!?

So for these reasons, I just reject the question. It's nonsensical. It's sincere, but some people who ask whether or not God could forget His existence are asking sincerely, too. They're just sincerely nonsensical. I'm not at all attacking your intelligence or motivation. I'm just trying to point out that if you ask a nonsensical question, it turns out to be impossible to provide a sensical answer.

OK, so at first this made a ton of sense to me, but I since then I have thought of up of a few more questions: if God can plan out every probable situation that will ever happen ever, He will know the almost infinite amount of people that will suffer. Now, at the moment before He creates anything, does He not preview every single soul and what WILL BE but has not yet been created? Then theoretically, there is an "us", it just hasn't been created. Unless I am simply confusing myself, which is a big possibility. :p
I would also think, "I dunno, before I was born I didn't exist and I was...fine. I guess. I've been indoctrinated with this belief by contemporary culture that not existing means not having to feel the pain." So technically, wouldn't not existing be better than feeling pain eternally? Maybe I am just not getting a grasp on this whole "if you don't exist, there is no you, thus it is impossible to compare.

Well, Mariolee, I am not going to jump into your dialog with Jac. But my only comment is that your question likely can't be really satisfied unless you understand how God relates to time. There is A theory, then B theory.

I believe the tensed time theory.

Mariolee wrote:OK, so at first this made a ton of sense to me, but I since then I have thought of up of a few more questions: if God can plan out every probable situation that will ever happen ever, He will know the almost infinite amount of people that will suffer. Now, at the moment before He creates anything, does He not preview every single soul and what WILL BE but has not yet been created? Then theoretically, there is an "us", it just hasn't been created. Unless I am simply confusing myself, which is a big possibility. :p

You still have the same problem here. You are suggesting that God should decide not to create us because of what would be bad for us. But that sentence only makes sense if there really is an "us" to think about. What that sentence really reduces to is, "God wants wants best for us (being all loving and all good); since so many of us will suffer, we would be better off not existing; therefore, what is best for us is to not exist." But that's absurd, because there is no "us" in this case to be better or worse. Just remember that colorless green ideas sleep fiercely.

I would also think, "I dunno, before I was born I didn't exist and I was...fine. I guess. I've been indoctrinated with this belief by contemporary culture that not existing means not having to feel the pain." So technically, wouldn't not existing be better than feeling pain eternally? Maybe I am just not getting a grasp on this whole "if you don't exist, there is no you, thus it is impossible to compare.

It's a common idea that is completely nonsensical. Before you existed, you were not fine. You were not anything. Let me give you another example from atheistic culture that is equally absurd to help make this point.

Atheists are fond of saying that quantum mechanics has demonstrates that nothings can produce something . . . indeed, that nothing does so all the time, that nothing is inherently unstable and that nothing just by nature has to produce something. And they show this to be "true" over and over again in the lab, with particulars just popping into existence, in broadly predictable ways, no less. So it seems that "nothing" obeys quite a few laws! It's evident that "nothing" really turns out to be something, for "nothing" owns several properties: we attribute to it the property of being unstable, of being able to produce particles, of obeying certain laws, etc. Now if something has properties, it isn't a nothing1

Just the same can be said about your example(s). When you say that you were fine before you were born because you felt no pain, you are attributing to yourself properties, namely, being fine, the ability to feel pain, and the actual case of not feeling pain. But then you have to assert that you existed in some sense, but only if you exist can properties obtain in you. So when people say, "I was fine before I was born," I just think to myself, "This person has obviously never spend any time thinking about what they are saying."

As far as dom's comments below, that is another way you can approach this. Dom's an A-theorist. B-theory is a little more popular in the philosophical literature (it seems to me). I think both are wrong. I' hold to an Aristotelian view. Each of those has implications for this question, but I still think you can just answer the entire question as I have above. It's nonsensical, and therefore cannot be answered. You may as well ask me how, if God is omniscient and therefore knows everything, it is that He knows everything He doesn't know!