Evidence for God from Science

As many of you know about two/three weeks ago I came out of the closet as a Deist. I'm starting this thread to hear general thoughts on Deism and discuss it. I personally think that it is the worldview that is in line with the truth, as I have faith in the arguements made by this very website for the existence of a personal God, but don't find the arguments that the Christian story/account is accurate compelling. I'm expecting a lot of backlash since this is a Christian site and Deism by it's definition rejects religions based on supposed revelation from God, therefore the Bible and the ressurection of Jesus and that being the gateway to God. But I figured I'd see what people had to say about it.

For one thing, why would God reject a person such as a Deist who genuinely seeks after him/her/it, but can not intellectually believe that Jesus' death is the exclusive pathway to God? I think that there is no reason that penal substitution should be necessary, and if that "model" is true, does little more than damn billions of people seeking after God with an open heart. Why would God operate in a way that is so contrary to the reason that he gave us, and make that contrary thing be the defining characteristic of ones existence in his eyes? Even as a Christian, I would read the Bible and think "there is absolutely no way I would be able to convince someone else that this is true", so I think it is definitely contrary to our God-given reason.

Seraph wrote:As many of you know about two/three weeks ago I came out of the closet as a Deist. I'm starting this thread to hear general thoughts on Deism and discuss it. I personally think that it is the worldview that is in line with the truth, as I have faith in the arguements made by this very website for the existence of a personal God, but don't find the arguments that the Christian story/account is accurate compelling. I'm expecting a lot of backlash since this is a Christian site and Deism by it's definition rejects religions based on supposed revelation from God, therefore the Bible and the ressurection of Jesus and that being the gateway to God. But I figured I'd see what people had to say about it.

For one thing, why would God reject a person such as a Deist who genuinely seeks after him/her/it, but can not intellectually believe that Jesus' death is the exclusive pathway to God? I think that there is no reason that penal substitution should be necessary, and if that "model" is true, does little more than damn billions of people seeking after God with an open heart. Why would God operate in a way that is so contrary to the reason that he gave us, and make that contrary thing be the defining characteristic of ones existence in his eyes? Even as a Christian, I would read the Bible and think "there is absolutely no way I would be able to convince someone else that this is true", so I think it is definitely contrary to our God-given reason.

Fair enough but for those not sure what deism is here is the Dictionary.com defines deism posted below:

Deism
noun

1.belief in the existence of a God on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelation (distinguished from theism ).

2.belief in a God who created the world but has since remained indifferent to it.

So this begs the questions, how can a deist really seek God with an open an honest heart by automatically excluding the Christian world view concerning Jesus who came to save people from themselves?

Again, are you sure, Seraph, you ever were really a Christian? If so, how did you know?


If one is really seeking God, they'll find him and a probing question - is your heart really so pure?
-
-
-

B. W. wrote:
So this begs the questions, how can a deist really seek God with an open an honest heart by automatically excluding the Christian world view concerning Jesus who came to save people from themselves?

Again, are you sure, Seraph, you ever were really a Christian? If so, how did you know?


If one is really seeking God, they'll find him and a probing question - is your heart really so pure?
-
-
-

They aren't automatically excluding it, their reasons for not believing them have, well, reasons. Even a surface look at the history of Christianity shows it isn't exactly bullet proof in terms of room for doubt.

And yes I am sure I was Christian. Back in middle school I believed it with almost no doubts whatsoever.
"Is my heart so pure", I don't know if you are questioning if I'm genuine in seeking God or what, but if your reasoning is the fact that I haven't arrived at Christianity is a sign that I'm not seeking honestly, I would encourage you to see things from the outside a bit more.

Seraph,

Can you tell us how you know you were a Christian?

Well I have memory of what I believed since I was in my own head. I believed that Jesus was the Son of God and was crucified in place of our sin. I believed that having faith in Jesus' sacrifice saved me and that I would enter heaven after the resurrection after events of Revelation took place. I made the choice on my own to be baptized back in middle school because it meant that much. I tried to follow the Bibles commandments as best as I could and abstain from sin as best as I could, not because I believed it would save me, but because I thought it pleased God to live that way.

Yes I understand that it's important for you guys to prove that I was never a Christian because in the Christian worldview, the answer to whether one can lose their salvation is often "if they fall away they never had saving grace in the first place". But I did (by the common accepted definition of saving faith), and I'm not the only who did and fell away on completely intellectual grounds.

I still have faith and belief in God, I believe it's the same God I felt attached to as a teenager. In my view though, the whole time it was the Classical Deist God rather than the Christian. Even back in the days when I wanted to be baptized, I always felt far more of a desire for "God" than I did for "Jesus". Still, that doesn't believe I never believed in Jesus.

Seraph wrote:Yes I understand that it's important for you guys to prove that I was never a Christian because in the Christian worldview, the answer to whether one can lose their salvation is often "if they fall away they never had saving grace in the first place".

It's not important to me, I never feel like I am in a position to judge who is and isn't a follower of Christ, only God is the judge of that. If you say you trusted Christ and one point and now you don't, I believe what you say.

Edit. I believe according to how I interpret the NT that being a Christian is more than just what you do or don't know, it is more about the condition of your heart, others here will disagree with me and that is fine.

Seraph wrote:For one thing, why would God reject a person such as a Deist who genuinely seeks after him/her/it, but can not intellectually believe that Jesus' death is the exclusive pathway to God?

John 14:6

I think that there is no reason that penal substitution should be necessary, and if that "model" is true, does little more than damn billions of people seeking after God with an open heart.

It's not necessary. It's what God chose to do.

Why would God operate in a way that is so contrary to the reason that he gave us, and make that contrary thing be the defining characteristic of ones existence in his eyes? Even as a Christian, I would read the Bible and think "there is absolutely no way I would be able to convince someone else that this is true", so I think it is definitely contrary to our God-given reason.

You can ask that question to anyone who holds to the existence of Hell. It doesn't matter what the qualifications are for condemnation. Someone will come out and call it "contrary to reason."

On a philosophical level, what you are doing is denying that God (even in a deistic sense) is absolutely free. You are insisting He necessarily act one way or another, and that is contrary to reason. I've said more about this here: http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 62#p153262

edit:

And I, for one, am not interested in the question of whether or not you were ever really a Christian. My theology says that if you trusted Christ, and I have no reason to think you didn't, then you are still as saved as me. But rather than make assumptions as to why those who are asking you the question, you could just ask them. *shrug*

Jac3510 wrote: It's not necessary. It's what God chose to do.

Well he could do it like that, but it seems inconsistent with the idea that he desires that all be saved.

You can ask that question to anyone who holds to the existence of Hell. It doesn't matter what the qualifications are for condemnation. Someone will come out and call it "contrary to reason."

You're right, practically any "model" that involves an eternal Hell seems pretty unreasonable and contrary to the idea of God being a God of love.

On a philosophical level, what you are doing is denying that God (even in a deistic sense) is absolutely free. You are insisting He necessarily act one way or another, and that is contrary to reason. I've said more about this here: http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 62#p153262

Possibly. I really don't see it as an absolute necessity that God is completely "free". A benevolent God on a metaphysical level probably isn't free to do unloving things.

And I, for one, am not interested in the question of whether or not you were ever really a Christian. My theology says that if you trusted Christ, and I have no reason to think you didn't, then you are still as saved as me. But rather than make assumptions as to why those who are asking you the question, you could just ask them. *shrug*

I'm encouraged by that, haha.

Seraph wrote:You're right, practically any "model" that involves an eternal Hell seems pretty unreasonable and contrary to the idea of God being a God of love.

So, fine. Your objection isn't to the cross or the method of salvation God chose or to penal substitution or any other such thing. It's just to there being such a thing as an eternal hell. And if that's your objection, then I just say, "Okay, then." I mean, no offense, it's not exactly a new, groundbreaking thought, is it? It's a decidedly theological problem, and it is one that theists of all stripes who affirm the doctrine have wrestled with. I find the standard theological answers satisfy the issue enough for me.

Possibly. I really don't see it as an absolute necessity that God is completely "free". A benevolent God on a metaphysical level probably isn't free to do unloving things.

I could agree with that in the trivial sense of saying God isn't "free" to make square triangles, either. So here you are just saying that a God who is being cannot also be non-being. But that has nothing to do with "freedom."

My point was that you are imposing necessary conditions on God's behavior. But that in itself doesn't make sense, because it means that there is something that is--something that has being--"outside" of God. This "something" would be that which God is accountable to or that to which He must adhere. But if you affirm with classical theology that God is Being Itself (ipsum esse subsistens) then you are positing a self-contradiction.

In other words, I say you can have your deistic "god." By denying Him absolute freedom at a metaphysical level, you've made Him too small and not worthy of worship--well . . . to small to be worthy of mine, anyway.

edit:

By the way, by allowing yourself the luxury of suggesting that you can look at God's actions as good/bad/whatever--by holding Him up to some standard of your choosing--you are just forcing yourself to face Euthyphro. The standard--indeed, the only--answer to that dilemma (that God is not subject to Goodness but rather IS Goodness) is unavailable to you. And thus you have to affirm that things either are good because God so commands them, which forces you into an untenable divine command theory (which, by the way, undermines moral objectivity and necessarily results in moral anti-realism), or else to the conclusion that God declares things good just because they are (which means that your god is not and cannot be good, and if we are going to be consistent, we must make your god ultimately accountable to the God of classical theism who just IS Goodness).

Maybe that's a price you are willing to pay. It's not one that I am, nor do I see any compelling reason that I should even entertain the thought. *shrug*

Seraph wrote:Well I have memory of what I believed since I was in my own head. I believed that Jesus was the Son of God and was crucified in place of our sin. I believed that having faith in Jesus' sacrifice saved me and that I would enter heaven after the resurrection after events of Revelation took place. I made the choice on my own to be baptized back in middle school because it meant that much. I tried to follow the Bibles commandments as best as I could and abstain from sin as best as I could, not because I believed it would save me, but because I thought it pleased God to live that way.

Yes I understand that it's important for you guys to prove that I was never a Christian because in the Christian worldview, the answer to whether one can lose their salvation is often "if they fall away they never had saving grace in the first place". But I did (by the common accepted definition of saving faith), and I'm not the only who did and fell away on completely intellectual grounds.

I still have faith and belief in God, I believe it's the same God I felt attached to as a teenager. In my view though, the whole time it was the Classical Deist God rather than the Christian. Even back in the days when I wanted to be baptized, I always felt far more of a desire for "God" than I did for "Jesus". Still, that doesn't believe I never believed in Jesus.

Seraph,

I'm not asking so I can prove you were not a Christian. I'm just asking for clarification. I'm with Jac on this one. If you trusted Christ for salvation, you're saved. Period.
If you would continue trusting Christ, you would see the Holy Spirit start to work in you. Then your faith would be more than just what you're seeing as intellectual.

Seraph wrote:

B. W. wrote:
So this begs the questions, how can a deist really seek God with an open an honest heart by automatically excluding the Christian world view concerning Jesus who came to save people from themselves?

Again, are you sure, Seraph, you ever were really a Christian? If so, how did you know? If one is really seeking God, they'll find him and a probing question - is your heart really so pure?

They aren't automatically excluding it, their reasons for not believing them have, well, reasons. Even a surface look at the history of Christianity shows it isn't exactly bullet proof in terms of room for doubt. And yes I am sure I was Christian. Back in middle school I believed it with almost no doubts whatsoever.

"Is my heart so pure", I don't know if you are questioning if I'm genuine in seeking God or what, but if your reasoning is the fact that I haven't arrived at Christianity is a sign that I'm not seeking honestly, I would encourage you to see things from the outside a bit more.

First off, asking the question concerning if you think you are a Christians is a valid one. Why, it is more for you, than me or others here. Next it goes back to where we left off on the other thread concerning the experience you mentioned after the divorce of your parents, etc and etc. I wasn't able to follow up due to being pulled away to deal with other matters but as pointed out, that has had an effect on you and most likely moved you into a form of deism. We could discuss that further in privet but for now I’ll leave that for you to think on.

Next, the reason why I pointed out that the Lord asks this probing question: Is your heart really so pure - is to move you toward an honest reasonable discussion on the condition of the human heart and show how indifferent folks are to it. Do you know what the bible means by the Heart – heart of a matter?

Also, deism rejects supernatural revelation, yet, you mentioned before encountering God in a supernatural way. So do you still reject that? So this begs another question, do you consider yourself a real deist after experiencing a supernatural event? Or has your mind explained it way in such manner as to escape emotion, pain, and escape facing your real deep issues?

Proverbs 4:23 NKJV explains the biblical concept of the heart like this: Keep your heart with all diligence, For out of it spring the issues of life.

The heart is viewed as the throne or control room of the soul/mind, the production room of thought, emotions, etc. It is where the issues of life spring forth. That is how I define it here too.
So is the heart really so pure?

Jeremiah 17:9-10, NASB, "The heart is more deceitful than all else and is desperately sick; who can understand it? 10 I, the Lord, search the heart, I test the mind, even to give to each man according to his ways, according to the results of his deeds."

The word translated deceitful in Hebrew means: insidious. This word is seldom used, therefore, here are various dictionary definitions from Webster, Merrim, New English dictionaries on the word insidious:

insidious

1.intended to entrap or beguile

2.stealthily treacherous or deceitful, subtle, cunning

3.operating or proceeding in an inconspicuous or seemingly harmless way but actually with grave effect: an insidious disease.

4.working in a subtle or apparently innocuous way, but nevertheless deadly

5.The definition of insidious is something or someone who works in a subtle or sly way, or in an intent to trap.

6.characterized by treachery or slyness; crafty; wily

7.operating in a slow or not easily apparent manner; more dangerous than seems evident

Origin of insidious: Classical Latin insidiosus ; from insidiae, an ambush, plot ; from insidere, to sit in or on, lie in wait for ; from in-, in + sedere, to sit

The basic idea of this word involves operating or proceeding in an inconspicuous or seemingly harmless way but actually with grave effect as an insidious disease does and that is why the reference to the heart being ill comes in the next part of the sentence in Jeremiah 17:9 - to help define clearly the word we are talking about.

The definition of insidious is something or someone who works in a subtle or sly beguiling way, with the intent to entrap. It operates in a slow manner involving self justifying and self serving thoughts that entrap either the person or others around them in some form or another. Example: people justify, lust, lying, depression, self sabotaging behaviors - do they not - isn't that insidious?

Jeremiah 17:9-10, NASB, "The heart is more (insidious) than all else and is desperately sick; who can understand it? 10 I, the Lord, search the heart, I test the mind, even to give to each man according to his ways, according to the results of his deeds."

So take a hard look at what you mentioned on your own opening statement:

Seraph wrote:…why would God reject a person such as a Deist who genuinely seeks after him/her/it, but cannot intellectually believe that Jesus' death is the exclusive pathway to God?

I think that there is no reason that penal substitution should be necessary, and if that "model" is true, does little more than damn billions of people seeking after God with an open heart.

Why would God operate in a way that is so contrary to the reason that he gave us, and make that contrary thing be the defining characteristic of ones existence in his eyes?

Even as a Christian, I would read the Bible and think "there is absolutely no way I would be able to convince someone else that this is true", so I think it is definitely contrary to our God-given reason.

Can you see the insidious tone in your questions that seek to entrap and beguile God and even yourself in order to make him or others conform to deistic claims?

Why would God really want to spend eternity with folks who reject his cure and change and choose to remain insidious? How would that affect heaven? You think he could just change a person without their consent in heaven - if so would that not defy what being Just really means by denying free change in exchange for forced? Due to past events, we often desired God to force his way in our circumstances and when he doesn't - we get mad or remain wounded then do what?

Jac pointed out that your real issue concerns eternal recompense and the truth claim that Jesus is the only way to heaven. All roads do lead to God and thus all face a Judgment that is absolutely just - just as Jeremiah 17:10 states but not all roads lead to heaven though.

Even on this planet, all roads certainly and rationally do not lead to the same place. If someone has a deadly extremely contagious disease, do you enjoy their company and hang with them without protection?

What sets biblical Christianity apart from all other religions is that it cuts to the heart and exposes it in order to heal it (Jeremiah 17:14) and allows a person to freely choose to accept God’s cure or reject it. It is reasonable and wise to know that if it sounds too good to be true, than it is and yet, many buy into the notion that just because someone seeks God, or even rejects God, they’ll all make it to heaven because God is love, well, can’t see how unreasonable such claims are. If it sounds too good to be true, than it is – is well – rejected by a beguiling pattern of thought.

The gospel boldly shatters such thoughts and deals with the human heart, exposing the nature of the heart. It is that exposing, that people reject for various reasons cemented by a set of personal subtle demands and mesmerizing self effort to avoid looking at their real heart.

Jesus came to heal the broken hearted. Your heart was broken. God ministered to you in a unique way. Now you doubt and demand him to perform you, yet, fail to see the reason for the cross upon which he suffered and the grave from whence he arose that provides the real the cure for the heart. Why? How reasonably beguiling are your questions and answers?

I say this more boldly to you than others because, you have been on the forum for a long while now and many know you and admire your openness. So do I. I also see the wound in your heart because I once shared the same. Jesus healed me of my broken heart in such manner that I cannot doubt at all He saved me and that I am his. I am glad he gave me a new heart and during this mortal life, the old fades away.

I also see the wisdom of God in eternal recompense as just and fair that such things are no longer a concern – why – how – I seen the heart, my own, from that I accepted his healing and cleansing. Seeing the insidious nature of the human heart wakes a person up to this or her real need. May you, Seraph be so awoken too. I thank God for him sending folks my way to jar me out of apathy and my heart atrophy. The blows only led me later to realize how right they were, and how wrong I was about the true condition of my old heart. May the Lord grant you the same.
-
-
-