PDA

View Full Version : God's Omnipotence


Paltik
07-15-2014, 9:25 AM
It is well-known that God is omnipotent, from "omni" meaning "all," and "potent" meaning "powerful." Nothing is impossible with God. But this attribute needs to be understood critically, or else we end up in all kinds of absurd situations.

God cannot, in fact, do absolutely anything.

First, God's power exists logically. The question, "Can God create a rock so heavy he can't lift it?" is an absurd question; it posits two mutually exclusive possibilities and asks if they can mutually exist. God can't be one thing and at the same time something mutually exclusive with the first, just by the laws of language and meaning.

Second, God is who he is. He is limited by his own character. He can't lie, because lying goes against his nature. Proposing scenarios where God is "not really God" because he is unable to do something against his nature--and therefore is not all-powerful--abuses the meaning of God's omnipotence.

Third (and this can be related to #2), God is volitional. He makes decisions which limit his own future actions. If God promises to do something, it is not a sign of weakness or powerlessness to follow through on his promise rather than to break his promise; quite the opposite, it is a strength of God that he is trustworthy. Sometimes we take a "God won't" and turn it into a "God can't, so he's not really God."

People love to state things in absolute terms, when in fact there are few absolutes. God's power is one of those things that has "reasonable" limitations.

Thoughts?

SWalt
07-15-2014, 9:36 AM
It is well-known that God is omnipotent, from "omni" meaning "all," and "potent" meaning "powerful." Nothing is impossible with God. But this attribute needs to be understood critically, or else we end up in all kinds of absurd situations.

God cannot, in fact, do absolutely anything.

First, God's power exists logically. The question, "Can God create a rock so heavy he can't lift it?" is an absurd question; it posits two mutually exclusive possibilities and asks if they can mutually exist. God can't be one thing and at the same time something mutually exclusive with the first, just by the laws of language and meaning.

Second, God is who he is. He is limited by his own character. He can't lie, because lying goes against his nature. Proposing scenarios where God is "not really God" because he is unable to do something against his nature--and therefore is not all-powerful--abuses the meaning of God's omnipotence.

Third (and this can be related to #2), God is volitional. He makes decisions which limit his own future actions. If God promises to do something, it is not a sign of weakness or powerlessness to follow through on his promise rather than to break his promise; quite the opposite, it is a strength of God that he is trustworthy. Sometimes we take a "God won't" and turn it into a "God can't, so he's not really God."

People love to state things in absolute terms, when in fact there are few absolutes. God's power is one of those things that has "reasonable" limitations.

Thoughts?

Yes God can do absolutely anything God chooses. But God chooses not to.

You just explained why God chooses not to. ;)

Most excellent post BTW :)

Just Dave
07-15-2014, 9:40 AM
Interesting.

To answer one of the most asked questions that you pointed out.
"Can God make a rock so big that He can't move it?" is easily answered this way.
"God can make a rock as big as He wants and if He so desires He can move it."

I also agree that God is not going to violate His own character, if He did that wouldn't make Him trustworthy.

texan
07-15-2014, 10:01 AM
Agreed. Omnipotent doesn't mean one possesses the power to create a logical paradox, I always remember it as "having all the powers one can have".

WASR10
07-15-2014, 10:02 AM
Very well stated. I don't really have anything to add.

Looking at them, Jesus said, “With people it is impossible, but not with God; for all things are possible with God.” – Mark 10:27

maxmonster
07-16-2014, 3:26 PM
Well it seems like my eyes have been missing this section...

This may be a little off topic but what about God's Omniscience? God is all knowing yet what about our free will?

God is all knowing correct? How then can we have free will. Those Bible thumpers outta know I am referring to the Calvinists and Arminians.

Sorry if this stirs anything up, I too believe, but have a hard time explaining this subject. I like to believe we have free will yet I cannot put God's omniscience nor omnipotence in a box and say he does not know what outcome will result of each choice we make. Yet is that to say God does not know what choice we will make?

Btw this section is awesome.

texan
07-16-2014, 4:21 PM
Well it seems like my eyes have been missing this section...

This may be a little off topic but what about God's Omniscience? God is all knowing yet what about our free will?

God is all knowing correct? How then can we have free will. Those Bible thumpers outta know I am referring to the Calvinists and Arminians.

Sorry if this stirs anything up, I too believe, but have a hard time explaining this subject. I like to believe we have free will yet I cannot put God's omniscience nor omnipotence in a box and say he does not know what outcome will result of each choice we make. Yet is that to say God does not know what choice we will make?

Btw this section is awesome.

That's a causal fallacy, commonly referred to as post hoc ergo propter hoc. That an omniscient, omnipresent God can know your decision beforehand doesn't follow that your decision was in any way influenced by this knowledge.

Say you left some candy unattended which you knew your child would happen upon. Knowing they have a huge sweet tooth, are you then denying them the choice whether or not to partake? Regardless how certain you may be of the outcome the choice is still entirely theirs, free will is no less illusory here than in your line of reasoning.

SWalt
07-16-2014, 6:52 PM
Well it seems like my eyes have been missing this section...

This may be a little off topic but what about God's Omniscience? God is all knowing yet what about our free will?

God is all knowing correct? How then can we have free will. Those Bible thumpers outta know I am referring to the Calvinists and Arminians.

Sorry if this stirs anything up, I too believe, but have a hard time explaining this subject. I like to believe we have free will yet I cannot put God's omniscience nor omnipotence in a box and say he does not know what outcome will result of each choice we make. Yet is that to say God does not know what choice we will make?

Btw this section is awesome.

That's a causal fallacy, commonly referred to as post hoc ergo propter hoc. That an omniscient, omnipresent God can know your decision beforehand doesn't follow that your decision was in any way influenced by this knowledge.

Say you left some candy unattended which you knew your child would happen upon. Knowing they have a huge sweet tooth, are you then denying them the choice whether or not to partake? Regardless how certain you may be of the outcome the choice is still entirely theirs, free will is no less illusory here than in your line of reasoning.

^^^What Texan said.

But the other half is missing....

Mark 12:28-33 NSB

28 One of the scribes came and heard them arguing, and recognizing that He had answered them well, asked Him, "What commandment is the foremost of all?" 29 Jesus answered, "The foremost is, 'HEAR, O ISRAEL! THE LORD OUR GOD IS ONE LORD; 30 AND YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND, AND WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH.' 31 "The second is this, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.' There is no other commandment greater than these." 32 The scribe said to Him, "Right, Teacher; You have truly stated that HE IS ONE, AND THERE IS NO ONE ELSE BESIDES HIM; 33 AND TO LOVE HIM WITH ALL THE HEART AND WITH ALL THE UNDERSTANDING AND WITH ALL THE STRENGTH, AND TO LOVE ONE'S NEIGHBOR AS HIMSELF, ...."

Love is the operative word and is the basis of all commandments. You can not have Love without volition, without free will. Free will is innate.

But you are right, its a bit off topic. ;)

maxmonster
07-16-2014, 7:01 PM
Please enlighten me... cause I fail to see what is wrong with my thinking. And I am being serious...

I guess maybe I'm blurring the lines between predestination and all knowing... and confusing myself...

texan
07-16-2014, 9:53 PM
Please enlighten me... cause I fail to see what is wrong with my thinking. And I am being serious...

I guess maybe I'm blurring the lines between predestination and all knowing... and confusing myself...
There's a difference between knowing what someone will choose and determinism. The former has no impact on the free will of the person making the choice.

Not a Cook
07-17-2014, 8:43 AM
There's a difference between knowing what someone will choose and determinism. The former has no impact on the free will of the person making the choice.

Bingo.

maxmonster - God is omniscient, and He elects and predestines and foreknows. Consider Romans 8 and Ephesians 1. In His grace, God has elected and predestined those He has appointed to salvation. However, every person still has a very real personal choice to make - that is, whether to accept God's gracious gift of salvation or not. The "whosoever will" of John 3. The Scriptures teach us that God has chosen already, yet they also teach us that man exercises "free will" to make our own decision in the matter. Many people (theologians especially) have difficulty reconciling how these can all be true and co-exist without conflict (i.e. God's omnipotence, God's predestination and election, and man's free will). The mistake is to see them as being mutually exclusive. However, it's very simple - they co-exist perfectly and harmoniously. They are not mutually exclusive. People get too focused on trying to figure out just exactly how that can be. God chooses; man chooses; they are not in conflict. The big point of it all, though, is that we are saved by God's grace, and instead of endlessly arguing about how these things work harmoniously together, we should be faithful to thank God and praise Him for extending His grace to us who don't deserve it.

At the end of the day, we need to be faithful to search the Scriptures carefully, correctly divide the word of truth, and accept what the Scriptures teach us. And ultimately, of course, give praise and worship to the Lord for His amazing grace and love which He has given us through His beloved Son.

maxmonster
07-17-2014, 8:46 AM
*EDIT* Oh shoot Not a Cook, that explains things better ALOT better... hmm

texan
07-17-2014, 10:52 AM
Bingo.

maxmonster - God is omniscient, and He elects and predestines and foreknows. Consider Romans 8 and Ephesians 1. In His grace, God has elected and predestined those He has appointed to salvation. However, every person still has a very real personal choice to make - that is, whether to accept God's gracious gift of salvation or not. The "whosoever will" of John 3. The Scriptures teach us that God has chosen already, yet they also teach us that man exercises "free will" to make our own decision in the matter. Many people (theologians especially) have difficulty reconciling how these can all be true and co-exist without conflict (i.e. God's omnipotence, God's predestination and election, and man's free will). The mistake is to see them as being mutually exclusive. However, it's very simple - they co-exist perfectly and harmoniously. They are not mutually exclusive. People get too focused on trying to figure out just exactly how that can be. God chooses; man chooses; they are not in conflict. The big point of it all, though, is that we are saved by God's grace, and instead of endlessly arguing about how these things work harmoniously together, we should be faithful to thank God and praise Him for extending His grace to us who don't deserve it.

At the end of the day, we need to be faithful to search the Scriptures carefully, correctly divide the word of truth, and accept what the Scriptures teach us. And ultimately, of course, give praise and worship to the Lord for His amazing grace and love which He has given us through His beloved Son.

If you choose to believe the God can determine the destiny for any human, then you preclude them having actual free choice. There is a direct contradiction between free will and determinism, one cannot predestine anything for a creature acting under it's own free will.

Not a Cook
07-17-2014, 12:07 PM
If you choose to believe the God can determine the destiny for any human, then you preclude them having actual free choice. There is a direct contradiction between free will and determinism, one cannot predestine anything for a creature acting under it's own free will.

Why not? You don't think that it is possible that both God and man could make the same choice (as in, God could choose a person, and then that same person could also choose to follow Him)?

Theologians make much of this, but I like to stick with what the Bible actually says. It clearly teaches that God has elected and predestined the saints unto salvation. The Bible also teaches that "whosoever will" will be saved. The Scriptures also tell us that "We love Him because He first loved us" (John 1:19, NKJV). We choose Him because He's first chosen us. "Or do you despise the riches of His goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance?" (Romans 2:4, NKJV). So we see clearly that God leads us to repentance. But why would that mean that we didn't really choose? Why would that contradict free will? Why try to take things farther than what is clearly taught?

Haven't you ever run into a situation where one spouse loved the other first, and it was the love of the "first-loving" spouse and that spouse's actions that lead the second spouse to love the first? The actions of the "first-loving" spouse didn't contradict, preclude, or otherwise eliminate the other spouse's choice to choose to love the "first-loving spouse". So it is with God and us. He loved us first, and we responded to His love by loving Him. He chose us, then we chose Him. His choosing us didn't preclude our choosing Him, although folks try to make pigeon-holed theological and philosophical constructs that makes it appear that it would.

Keeping the focus on simply what the Bible actually teaches leads us to thank and praise God for His truly amazing grace that He has extended to us. If we get too bogged down in pigeon-holed arguments and man-made philosophies and theologies (please understand me - I'm all about having sound doctrine, but not all about man-made constructs), we tend to needlessly divide the body of Christ. Witness the whole division in the church today over Calvinism and Arminianism, or even Calvinists vs. hyper-Calvinists. Why not just stick with what the Scriptures clearly teach?

God chose to love us first; we then chose to love Him. All praise should be to God.

Not a Cook
07-17-2014, 12:09 PM
*EDIT* Oh shoot Not a Cook, that explains things better ALOT better... hmm

Thanks for letting me know, maxmonster! I hope I didn't "muddy the waters" anymore than they already were, but instead was used by God to help you in some small way.

maxmonster
07-17-2014, 12:18 PM
I think alot of people have a hard time really trying to think out of the box. I think generally people thinking more along the lines of predetermination not equating to having free will, if God was to predetermine x amount of people to be saved then what was the point? I often question the whole point of even why God created a perfect world knowing sin would enter it. From how I see things, God is self sufficient he doesn't need our love or anyone's love for that matter, yet if he already knew this was the end result why even do it?

texan
07-17-2014, 12:25 PM
Why not? You don't think that it is possible that both God and man could make the same choice (as in, God could choose a person, and then that same person could also choose to follow Him)?

What do you mean 'why not'? It's a simply logical contradiction, you don't always have free will to choose your own path if you are going to argue that God sometimes chooses it for you. The two concepts are mutually exclusive.

Theologians make much of this, but I like to stick with what the Bible actually says. It clearly teaches that God has elected and predestined the saints unto salvation. The Bible also teaches that "whosoever will" will be saved. The Scriptures also tell us that "We love Him because He first loved us" (John 1:19, NKJV). We choose Him because He's first chosen us. "Or do you despise the riches of His goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance?" (Romans 2:4, NKJV). So we see clearly that God leads us to repentance. But why would that mean that we didn't really choose? Why would that contradict free will? Why try to take things farther than what is clearly taught?

Haven't you ever run into a situation where one spouse loved the other first, and it was the love of the "first-loving" spouse and that spouse's actions that lead the second spouse to love the first? The actions of the "first-loving" spouse didn't contradict, preclude, or otherwise eliminate the other spouse's choice to choose to love the "first-loving spouse". So it is with God and us. He loved us first, and we responded to His love by loving Him. He chose us, then we chose Him. His choosing us didn't preclude our choosing Him, although folks try to make pigeon-holed theological and philosophical constructs that makes it appear that it would.

Keeping the focus on simply what the Bible actually teaches leads us to thank and praise God for His truly amazing grace that He has extended to us. If we get too bogged down in pigeon-holed arguments and man-made philosophies and theologies (please understand me - I'm all about having sound doctrine, but not all about man-made constructs), we tend to needlessly divide the body of Christ. Witness the whole division in the church today over Calvinism and Arminianism, or even Calvinists vs. hyper-Calvinists. Why not just stick with what the Scriptures clearly teach?

God chose to love us first; we then chose to love Him. All praise should be to God.

This reads as whenever a demonstrably logical contradiction pops up in your ethos you're just going to ignore it and go with whatever scripture says. If God preordained that someone would make a given choice, this obviously precludes them from making the choice of their own volition. The difference between foreknowledge and determinism is in who makes the choice.

This may all be fine and good for you but it doesn't really lend itself to a discussion of faith. After all, immutable assertions aren't good topics for conversation. Theology and logical philosophy are about trying to understand the context of belief within a framework of rationalism, if we're tossing rational thought out the window then there's very little left to ponder.

RAMCLAP
07-17-2014, 12:39 PM
Free will doesn't go very far. Those not saved are slaves to sin. Sin is their master. They cannot do what is pleasing to God. Not a lot of free will there. All of us are born dead in out trespasses and sin. Dead men don't have much free will. They certainly can't live to please God.

Not a Cook
07-17-2014, 12:56 PM
What do you mean 'why not'? It's a simply logical contradiction, you don't always have free will to choose your own path if you are going to argue that God sometimes chooses it for you. The two concepts are mutually exclusive.



This reads as whenever a demonstrably logical contradiction pops up in your ethos you're just going to ignore it and go with whatever scripture says. If God preordained that someone would make a given choice, this obviously precludes them from making the choice of their own volition. The difference between foreknowledge and determinism is in who makes the choice.

This may all be fine and good for you but it doesn't really lend itself to a discussion of faith. After all, immutable assertions aren't good topics for conversation. Theology and logical philosophy are about trying to understand the context of belief within a framework of rationalism, if we're tossing rational thought out the window then there's very little left to ponder.

Sorry for not writing more, I only have a minute or so (literally). That said, I'm actually one of the "most logical-type" of folks most people ever encounter. I tend to drive people nuts, both with basic logic and common sense. That said, I don't support or condone "tossing rational thought out the window" ever. Please don't misunderstand me and assume that I do.

I do, however, question your basic premise that there is a logical contradiction between God's predestination and free will. Perhaps it is because "free will" isn't specifically defined, and different people use the term to mean different things. When I use "free will", I simply mean that I actually have a choice. I'm not a robot. God chose me, and loved me, and made known His love to me before I ever knew Him or loved Him. But in response to His incredible love, I have come to choose Him and love Him. That doesn't preclude either His predestination of me, nor my "free will" choice to love Him. Could I reject Him? That's like asking if I could reject the greatest offer of all time. Why would I reject Him? God chose me, and then I chose Him. While we need to exercise rational thought, we don't need to "overthink" things and create what appear to be logical conundrums where none exists. I'm very suspicious that our misunderstanding of one another is based on differing definitions/philosophical assumptions of what is meant by the term "free will".

Again, sorry for this clumsy explanation, but I really have to run. We must exercise reason, but we must be careful not to pigeon-hold ourselves with assumptions that may not be entirely correct.

At the "end of the day" I come back to this: He loves me, He chose me, I chose Him and I love Him. And all the glory will forever be to Him for extending His unspeakably wonderful grace to me!

texan
07-17-2014, 2:52 PM
Sorry for not writing more, I only have a minute or so (literally). That said, I'm actually one of the "most logical-type" of folks most people ever encounter. I tend to drive people nuts, both with basic logic and common sense. That said, I don't support or condone "tossing rational thought out the window" ever. Please don't misunderstand me and assume that I do.

I do, however, question your basic premise that there is a logical contradiction between God's predestination and free will. Perhaps it is because "free will" isn't specifically defined, and different people use the term to mean different things. When I use "free will", I simply mean that I actually have a choice. I'm not a robot. God chose me, and loved me, and made known His love to me before I ever knew Him or loved Him. But in response to His incredible love, I have come to choose Him and love Him. That doesn't preclude either His predestination of me, nor my "free will" choice to love Him. Could I reject Him? That's like asking if I could reject the greatest offer of all time. Why would I reject Him? God chose me, and then I chose Him. While we need to exercise rational thought, we don't need to "overthink" things and create what appear to be logical conundrums where none exists. I'm very suspicious that our misunderstanding of one another is based on differing definitions/philosophical assumptions of what is meant by the term "free will".

Again, sorry for this clumsy explanation, but I really have to run. We must exercise reason, but we must be careful not to pigeon-hold ourselves with assumptions that may not be entirely correct.

At the "end of the day" I come back to this: He loves me, He chose me, I chose Him and I love Him. And all the glory will forever be to Him for extending His unspeakably wonderful grace to me!

This reads as an argument from incredulity.

free will: the ability to make choices that are not controlled by fate or God.

predestination: the belief that everything that will happen has already been decided by fate or God and cannot be changed.

The two concepts are by definition mutually exclusive. Regardless of how unthinkable it may be to reject your God it remains a fact that if God can determine your life's choices you don't have free will.

Omniscience doesn't equal determinism because it simply means knowledge of the future, not control over it.

Not a Cook
07-17-2014, 8:31 PM
This reads as an argument from incredulity.

free will: the ability to make choices that are not controlled by fate or God.

predestination: the belief that everything that will happen has already been decided by fate or God and cannot be changed.

The two concepts are by definition mutually exclusive. Regardless of how unthinkable it may be to reject your God it remains a fact that if God can determine your life's choices you don't have free will.

I'm not sure I would define "free will" as you did, but I'll work with your definition. Regarding predestination, let's stick with the basic Strong's definition of "to predetermine, decide beforehand" or "to predetermine, appoint beforehand". That said, these are not mutually exclusive. I don't understand why you believe these two concepts are mutually exclusive by definition. You may be assuming that God's predestination CONTROLS man's choice, but the Scriptures don't make any such claim nor is such assumption logically inferred. The Scriptures teach that God chooses us first, and then in response we choose Him. He offers us the choice. It just so happens that everyone He chooses will choose Him, because it would be absolutely foolish not to choose Him. I could liken it to turning down Bill Gates offering you $100 million for nothing, although that offer from Bill Gates pales in comparison to the offer God has actually made. Who would turn down Bill Gates offer of $100 million for nothing? Perhaps someone would, however, God's offer of salvation is far superior to even an offer of $100 million. Who wouldn't choose to accept God's offer of salvation? The "trick", so to speak, is that unless God has chosen someone and given that person faith (remember, faith itself is a gracious gift from God), then that person wouldn't be interested in accepting God's offer. No non-elect person is interested in exercising their "free will" to choose to be saved because they're blinded by Satan and sin. Every elect person will be interested in exercising their "free will" to choose to be saved because (by God's grace at work in them) they realize that God truly has made them "an offer too good to refuse." God isn't controlling the elect's choice - He is assuring them a real choice. Biblically speaking, Christians have a "free will" to choose God; those who are the non-elect are "slaves of sin" and will do what Satan wants - that is, they will choose to reject God's offer of salvation. The amazing part is that God reaches in by His grace and gives choice to the elect while we're still "slaves of sin", and with that choice He gives us we are then free to choose Him (and so we do, because the choice is too good to pass up). God reaches down to us who are in rebellion against Him, and He doesn't just "reach down", but instead He gave His beloved Son up to suffer God's wrath in our place in order to save us.

The two concepts ("man's free will" and "God's predestination of His elect") work in harmony - neither negates nor excludes the other.

Omniscience doesn't equal determinism because it simply means knowledge of the future, not control over it.
I agree. However, in addition to being omniscient, God is also sovereign.

Regardless of how unthinkable it may be to reject your God The way you phrased this has me curious, and I would like to respectfully ask you a question. Are you a Christian? I had assumed you are a Christian, but I'm not sure whether the bolded part of your statement above means you're not a Christian or whether you are a Christian and just used "your God" from a standpoint of logical debate. If you are not a Christian, may I ask why you're so interested in discussing Christian doctrine? If you are a Christian, please forgive me for asking... the phrasing you used just surprised me.

ArmedJackal
07-17-2014, 9:46 PM
Isn't the very idea that god would selectively choose who to offer salvation to, and that he offers salvation to a small minority of all humans, be at odds with the concept of a loving god?

It brings to mind the old clash of the titans movie with Zeus capriciously toying with the mortal's fate on his chessboard.

Is the premise that, since you believe he chose you, that he knows what he is doing?

The one thing I would mention of possible relevance is that... Throughout history, people in every religion, from Christian to Muslim to Native American spirit worship to Greek and roman paganism, to Hebrew to Egyptian to Norse .... Have all believed, with conviction equal to or greater than your's, that "god" spoke directly to them and affirmed their belief.

Even the idea of "belief" being a choice is fraught with pitfalls. You do not consciously choose what you believe. You can choose how you behave, but your "belief" of what is true or false is a function of your experiences as processed by the reasoning center of your brain. Your "belief" of whether or not Brad Pitt is a good actor is not a conscious one. You do not choose to believe whether or not Mustangs are cool cars. It is the same with religion.

Not a Cook
07-18-2014, 12:25 AM
Isn't the very idea that god would selectively choose who to offer salvation to, and that he offers salvation to a small minority of all humans, be at odds with the concept of a loving god?

It brings to mind the old clash of the titans movie with Zeus capriciously toying with the mortal's fate on his chessboard.

Is the premise that, since you believe he chose you, that he knows what he is doing?

The one thing I would mention of possible relevance is that... Throughout history, people in every religion, from Christian to Muslim to Native American spirit worship to Greek and roman paganism, to Hebrew to Egyptian to Norse .... Have all believed, with conviction equal to or greater than your's, that "god" spoke directly to them and affirmed their belief.

Even the idea of "belief" being a choice is fraught with pitfalls. You do not consciously choose what you believe. You can choose how you behave, but your "belief" of what is true or false is a function of your experiences as processed by the reasoning center of your brain. Your "belief" of whether or not Brad Pitt is a good actor is not a conscious one. You do not choose to believe whether or not Mustangs are cool cars. It is the same with religion.

ArmedJackal - I'm not aware of your background, but in brief, "no" is the answer to your first question above. The Scriptures teach us that man is sinful and that each one of us deserves death and destruction. Apart from God doing anything, we are condemned and under a death sentence. God could have chosen to sit back idly and "watch the show" as we proceed to our destruction. However, because God loves us, He chose to send His own beloved Son into the world, have Him suffer the wrath of God that we deserve and die in our place in order to make propitiation for our sins, and graciously offer us salvation through His Son. The fact that He offers salvation to ANYONE at all is a testament to His amazing love and grace. He could have done nothing, but instead He chose to love us so much that He gave His Son for us. Keep in mind that He chose to love us so much while we were in direct and contemptible rebellion against Him. Letting us all perish would have been easy. Christ's life and sacrifice are proof that God loves us.

Your comment regarding "the idea of 'belief' being a choice is fraught with pitfalls" waxes very philosophical, but I don't agree. Everyday I make many choices regarding what I believe. I choose whether or not to believe someone's explanation of an event, especially if that person has a known history of lying. I choose whether or not to believe that my children are telling me the truth. I choose whether to believe that a new song being played on the radio is "good" or "bad". I choose all sorts of things, regardless of my experiences. Regarding the case at hand: yes, I even chose to follow Christ.

RAMCLAP
07-18-2014, 5:31 AM
^^^^This. We all deserve destruction. Some will receive grace. Some will receive justice. But none of us gets treated unfairly.

ArmedJackal
07-18-2014, 8:15 AM
@not a cook

Respectfully, I disagree with your statement about choice of belief. (To be clear, I am not choosing to believe you are incorrect, my brain simply does not think it is true.) It is impossible to believe something your brain thinks to be false. Belief or non belief is an automatic function like your heart beating or flinching from danger. You either like vanilla ice cream or you don't. It is not a choice you have made, it is who you are.

If you hear Obama give a statement on Benghazi, you believe his statement or you don't. The reasoning center of your brain makes that decision automatically for you. It doesn't matter how much you want it to be true or false. You believe or you don't based on life experience.

I want desperately to believe in a Christian god and heaven as it would be better than winning the lottery. But, all the evidence for and against I've encountered makes it seem far more likely to my mind that it is just one of the thousands of belief systems man has embraced over the millennia to cope with the extreme cognitive dissonance of contemplating our own death.

Now, when I was younger and searching for meaning, I accepted Christ, went to church and read the bible cover to cover. Reading the bible convinced me that it was not divine and the work of man. Now, if during this time of searching for Christ, I had experienced a visitation or divine revelation from god, of course I would believe. Anyone and everyone would. So I am left to conclude that god, if he exists, picks and chooses who he will provide compelling evidence of his existence, and thus salvation, to.

The fact that he only makes his existence seem believable to a small minority of all humans is incompatible with the idea of a loving god who, as alpha and omega, knows the beginning, middle and end of the fate of his creation.

Not a Cook
07-18-2014, 9:18 AM
@not a cook

Respectfully, I disagree with your statement about choice of belief. (To be clear, I am not choosing to believe you are incorrect, my brain simply does not think it is true.) It is impossible to believe something your brain thinks to be false. Belief or non belief is an automatic function like your heart beating or flinching from danger. You either like vanilla ice cream or you don't. It is not a choice you have made, it is who you are.

If you hear Obama give a statement on Benghazi, you believe his statement or you don't. The reasoning center of your brain makes that decision automatically for you. It doesn't matter how much you want it to be true or false. You believe or you don't based on life experience.

I want desperately to believe in a Christian god and heaven as it would be better than winning the lottery. But, all the evidence for and against I've encountered makes it seem far more likely to my mind that it is just one of the thousands of belief systems man has embraced over the millennia to cope with the extreme cognitive dissonance of contemplating our own death.

Now, when I was younger and searching for meaning, I accepted Christ, went to church and read the bible cover to cover. Reading the bible convinced me that it was not divine and the work of man. Now, if during this time of searching for Christ, I had experienced a visitation or divine revelation from god, of course I would believe. Anyone and everyone would. So I am left to conclude that god, if he exists, picks and chooses who he will provide compelling evidence of his existence, and thus salvation, to.

The fact that he only makes his existence seem believable to a small minority of all humans is incompatible with the idea of a loving god who, as alpha and omega, knows the beginning, middle and end of the fate of his creation.

ArmedJackal - setting aside our philosophical differences on "belief" in general, I'd like to address a couple other aspects of your post.

First, someone choosing to willfully, purposefully sacrifice his own life to save another person is definitely evidence of amazing love. It is even more so evidence of unspeakably great love when that "someone" is God Himself sacrificing His beloved Son to save people in outright rebellion against God. There is no greater example possible of how great God's love for us actually is. If you really want to know whether God loves man, look to Christ's sacrifice at Calvary. I urge you to consider John 3:16-18, 1 John 3:16, and John 15:13 and accept the fact that God loves you.

Second, if you'll recall from when you read the Bible, Christ didn't ask men to "accept Him". He called us to repent from our sins and follow Him. He commanded us to love Him and obey Him. He told us to take up our cross daily (meaning die to ourselves) and follow Him. He didn't call men simply to "believe" or intellectually assent to His deity. He called men to trust Him and to lose their lives for His sake. Keep in mind that He also humbled Himself and laid down His life for us even though we're not worthy. I don't know what exactly you meant when you said, "I accepted Christ", but from the rest of your statement I know you didn't (have-not-yet) committed yourself to Him such that you have died to self in order to live life for Christ. You have to actually, personally enter into a relationship with Him where you learn to love and trust Him. Some of the most frightening words in the Bible are the spoken by Christ and found in Matthew 7 which I'll quote from the NKJV:

"21 “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ 23 And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’

24 “Therefore whoever hears these sayings of Mine, and does them, I will liken him to a wise man who built his house on the rock: 25 and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it did not fall, for it was founded on the rock.

26 “But everyone who hears these sayings of Mine, and does not do them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand: 27 and the rain descended, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house; and it fell. And great was its fall.”

On that note, I don't know what caused you to believe that the Bible was not the Word of God. However, I'll make you this sincere offer: I will be happy to discuss the Bible, and anything pertaining to it, with you in great detail and address any doubts you may have. If you're interested in taking me up (and I hope you will given your expressed desire to believe), just let me know and I'd be happy to send you my contact info. Although I don't "have all the answers", I may be able to address your doubts. If you're really wishing it were true, I think you owe it to yourself to take up my offer.

On that note, the Bible is an amazing and miraculous text made up of 66 books written by over 40 authors from different walks of life in different time periods and various countries over more than a millenia, most of which authors had never met any of the others. If you really believe it isn't truly the Word of God, you should easily be able to identify a myriad of internal contradictions given the nature of the compendium. I've read the Bible many times and been teaching it for a little while. I've never yet found a contradiction in it, and I've had many folks realize that what they thought were contradictions were simple cases where they didn't properly exegete the text but didn't realize it. That said, my offer stands: if you like, I am willing to address any seeming contradictions you think it holds. I only ask that you would allow me sufficient time to respond (as I lead a busy life, just like most folks) and please prioritize any questions/concerns you may have concerning the Scriptures a

ArmedJackal
07-18-2014, 3:10 PM
@not a cook. That is very generous and I appreciate and respect the spirit in which it is offered.

As to contradictions.... There are many hundreds of clear factual contradictions that require, well, faith to disregard. A short list are detailed here:

http://www.answering-christianity.com/101_bible_contradictions.htm

I am quite certain that some have legitimate explanation of their inconsistency, but the bulk seem irrefutable.

I've always wondered why, if god does exist, he decided to make his existence as improbable as every other god from Odin to Ra. It is an odd chicken and egg problem.... Gods existence can not be objectively proven in a factual manner so faith is required to believe, but why would you pursue faith in a belief not conclusively supported by evidence?

In other words, since objectively there is equivilant factual evidence supporting the existence of a Christian god, Norse gods, Egyptian gods, naticve American gods, etc... Why, without a divine revelation nudging you in a direction, would any objective person choose Christianity to pursue faith in to the exclusion of the others?

Not a Cook
07-18-2014, 7:07 PM
@not a cook. That is very generous and I appreciate and respect the spirit in which it is offered.

As to contradictions.... There are many hundreds of clear factual contradictions that require, well, faith to disregard. A short list are detailed here:

http://www.answering-christianity.com/101_bible_contradictions.htm

I am quite certain that some have legitimate explanation of their inconsistency, but the bulk seem irrefutable.
ArmedJackal - thank you for the respectful manner of your posts. I have only had time so far to skim the list of 101 supposed contradictions at the link you posted. I haven't seen this list before, but even without having had a chance to look up all the references yet, I'm familiar enough with most of the passages that I can demonstrate why the majority of these supposed contradictions are not really contradictions after all. For a few of the list items, I will have to take the time to study the referenced passages before replying. Please bear with me, as it will take me some time to check each of the 101 items and post a response to each.

Before I have a chance to do so, it is worth noting that the list of supposed biblical contradictions are all relatively very minor points. There aren't any items on this list that would be what we expect to see if the Bible wasn't really the Word of God (i.e. major doctrinal and theological differences between the writings of over 40 different authors over the course of over a millenia, which authors hail from different backgrounds and nations). If it isn't really the Word of God, I would expect to see the varying authors disagreeing/contradicting one another in matters of major doctrines and theology all over the place, simply because it's hard to get 40 people (okay, it's hard to get five people) to agree in detail on anything. However, I don't see any such supposed contradictions on the list. All that said, I'm happy to address each one of the items on the list you posted. I only ask that you please give me some time to do so... life is busy, and responding to a list of 101 items will take some time.
I've always wondered why, if god does exist, he decided to make his existence as improbable as every other god from Odin to Ra. It is an odd chicken and egg problem.... Gods existence can not be objectively proven in a factual manner so faith is required to believe, but why would you pursue faith in a belief not conclusively supported by evidence?

In other words, since objectively there is equivilant factual evidence supporting the existence of a Christian god, Norse gods, Egyptian gods, naticve American gods, etc...

Two things to consider:
First, having made myself familiar with the amount and magnitude of evidence supporting the existence of other gods in comparison to that supporting the existence of the one true God, I can definitely say they are not at all equivalent. The one true God has much evidence supporting His existence, and this evidence dwarfs that of any other supposed god. Some of the most remarkable of said evidence is fulfilled prophecy. That is a HUGE discussion that I won't go into now, but suffice it to say that the prophecies already fulfilled and historically documented defy all odds of probability. Yet, more prophecies will still be fulfilled, and again it will defy all mathematical probability (and I personally think we will start to see these further fulfillments in my lifetime). Another evidence is the historical veracity of the Scriptures. Another is the internal consistency of the Scriptures which also defies all odds given the numerous authors and their backgrounds. Another such evidence is the creation itself; by observation of the creation certain of God's attributes may be clearly discerned (ref. Romans 1). There are still other strong evidences of God's existence, but I think the foregoing items I've named is a good start for now.

Second, the book of Hebrews has much to say regarding the question you raise about faith. Hebrews 11:6 (NKJV) says,

"But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him."

I would like to insert the entire text of Hebrews 11 here, but it is far too long. I strongly encourage you to read the entire chapter, as it may very well help you with your question regarding WHY God requires that we come to Him in faith. The bottom line is that God wants us to love Him and to trust Him, similar to how we mere humans want those we love to love us back and trust us. If all the answers/proofs were handed to us on a silver platter, where would the trust be? Take a look at the folks listed in the "Hall of Faith" in Hebrews 11. Faith is not merely intellectual belief, or assent, that something is true, but instead faith is exercised trust. It requires action, not mere intellectual belief. Faith isn't blind... it is based on rational evidence, but that evidence can't "get you all the way there", so to speak. God hasn't asked you to "check your brain at the door"; rather, He expects you to use your mental faculties to reason and search and discover the evidences He has left of His existence. As Proverbs 25:2 (NKJV) says,

"It is the glory of God to conceal a matter,
But the glory of kings is to search out a matter."
Why, without a divine revelation nudging you in a direction, would any objective person choose Christianity to pursue faith in to the exclusion of the others?
You're actually very close to what the Bible teaches with this comment, except that the Bible teaches us that it is the Holy Spirit that draws men to faith and repentance, and ultimately to salvation through Christ. I wish I could explain HOW the Holy Spirit does it, but I can't. As Christ taught us in John 3:8 (NKJV),

"The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear the sound of it, but cannot tell where it comes from and where it goes. So is everyone who is born of the Spirit."

Similar to how we can't see the wind but we clearly perceive the wind's effects, so we can't see the Holy Spirit at work in a man's heart and mind, but we can clearly perceive the Holy Spirit's work in that man.

But that said, once you're convinced you found the truth (and remember, Christ said He Himself is the Truth, ref. John 14:6) and realize that the Truth by nature excludes all other possibilities (ref. again John 14:6 and Acts 4:12), you will naturally exclude other possibilities.

ArmedJackal
07-18-2014, 8:40 PM
@ not a cook.

A couple of quick notes. As to the prophecy.... The problem with that is the bible makes prophecies and then conveniently claims that they have been fulfilled without supporting evidence. Once again, it is only convincing evidence if you already buy into it as gospel truth. To the objective viewer it is simply unprovable and unverifiable claims. If I told you today that I had predicted the crash of the Malaysian airliner, you probably wouldn't give that claim much weight unless you already believed I was psychic.

I certainly don't expect you to address all of the contradictions. I will say though that if the bible is indeed the word of god, even minor contradictions of factual events cast serious doubts on it's veracity. If it is verbatim word of god, it should be without factual incongruity. As to your point on there not being major discrepancies despite multiple authors over many decades is not surprising because all of the books were edited and modified, with many gospels being entirely omitted, when the New Testament was created in order to be uniform in messaging. I highly recommend a nice bit of history on how the bible was edited and rewritten to what we have today.

http://www.westarinstitute.org/resources/the-fourth-r/how-the-canon-was-formed/

Very interesting stuff.

RAMCLAP
07-18-2014, 9:52 PM
There isn't any intellectual argument by any man past or present that can ever make anyone believe. That is only for the Holy Spirit to do. No one can believe in God lest the Holy Spirit gives to him to believe. God didn't do anything in the Old Testament to people that they didn't deserve. Even His own people he punished for their unbelief. He had the Babylonians destroy the temple and take the Jews into captivity for their unbelief. Jesus was asked about the people that Pilate had slaughtered in the temple how He could stand by and let God do this. He said that unless they repented they too would suffer the same. God hates sin so much that He cannot stand to look at it. So much so that He made Jesus His only son (Himself incarnate) to be the very embodiment of sin on the cross. Such that Jesus screamed at the top of His lungs, "MY GOD MY GOD WHY HAVE YOU FORSAKEN ME". The fall of man is so deep that God Himself put enmity(hatred) between his seed and the seed of Satan. All men must hate God until they are regenerated by the Holy Spirit. Jesus said that no one can even see the Kingdom unless he is regenerated(Born Again) by the Holy Spirit. The same Spirit that brooded over the face of the earth at creation. Regeneration is a supernatural act that cannot be known by sinful man unless regeneration happens. God didn't do anything evil in the Old or New Testament. He gave to men what all men deserve. Destruction. It is only that Jesus and Him crucified can save men from their fate. No great intellectual argument can do this. it is only the Holy Spirit and the Gospel which is the dynamite of God that can save men from the destruction which is to come. This is the Gospel. One is not saved from Hell. One is not saved from destruction. One is saved from God Himself who hates sin with every fiber of His Being. Yes this is the most offensive thing ever said to mankind. It is still the Gospel.

Not a Cook
07-18-2014, 10:06 PM
@ not a cook.

A couple of quick notes. As to the prophecy.... The problem with that is the bible makes prophecies and then conveniently claims that they have been fulfilled without supporting evidence. Once again, it is only convincing evidence if you already buy into it as gospel truth. To the objective viewer it is simply unprovable and unverifiable claims. If I told you today that I had predicted the crash of the Malaysian airliner, you probably wouldn't give that claim much weight unless you already believed I was psychic.

It sounds like you're thinking of different prophesies than I am. Here is a brief paper that is a "light version" of the fulfilled prophesies evidence to which I referred: http://www.bibleevidences.com/prophecy.htm Many folks who definitely did not believe Christ was the messiah have come to trust Him as such after examining these prophecies and their historical veracity for themselves (one is alluded to in the story, another more famous one is Lee Strobel who started out as an atheist in an attempt to disprove the Bible, and has now become a preacher of the gospel of Christ), therefore it isn't only convincing to those who already "buy into it" as you stated. It has convinced many who have attempted to disprove the Bible but found the evidences actually support it. Here is a partial (very partial) list of some of those prophecies: http://www.bible.ca/b-prophecy-60.htm

I certainly don't expect you to address all of the contradictions.
I would actually like to address all the 101 items, time permitting, but since I'm swamped at work and home at the moment, it will take some time.
I will say though that if the bible is indeed the word of god, even minor contradictions of factual events cast serious doubts on it's veracity. If it is verbatim word of god, it should be without factual incongruity. As to your point on there not being major discrepancies despite multiple authors over many decades is not surprising because all of the books were edited and modified, with many gospels being entirely omitted, when the New Testament was created in order to be uniform in messaging. I highly recommend a nice bit of history on how the bible was edited and rewritten to what we have today.

http://www.westarinstitute.org/resources/the-fourth-r/how-the-canon-was-formed/

Very interesting stuff.
I agree that any actual contradiction in the Bible, if one were to exist, would demonstrate that it is not the inerrant Word of God. But we have to remember what a contradiction really is. For ease of discussion, I will use one of the the current Merriam-Webster's definitions for the noun "contradiction" (taken from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/contradiction): "a situation in which inherent factors, actions, or propositions are inconsistent or contrary to one another." In my experience, every alleged biblical contradiction I've encountered (and believe me, as a teacher I've encountered many alleged contradictions) hasn't actually been a contradiction once I've taken the time to carefully examine it. Generally, they fall into either the realm of scribal transcription errors or a misunderstanding of how different biblical doctrines are able to act harmoniously without contradicting each other.

I have studied how the Scriptures were compiled and canonized more than most folks, although I admit I am no "Bible scholar" or theologian. It's something with which I think all teachers of the Scriptures should be familiar. I'm also familiar with the Westar Institute. That said, beware the folks at Westar Institute, beware their "Jesus Seminar", and seriously beware any of their conclusions. That group is not what it appears to be. They are not true biblical scholars, but were instead formed as more of a PR stunt to convince media outlets and other organizations that the founders' belief that the Bible was outdated and just plain wrong was somehow supported by scholarly research. The founder of Westar then "stacked the deck" and "begged the question", and from "day one" their supposed research is highly suspect at best. I won't bore you with all the details in what would be a VERY LONG post, but they aren't what they appear to be, nor is their supposed "scholarship" what it appears to be. For further information as to what I'm talking about, you may be interested in reading the information at the following links:
- http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markdroberts/series/unmasking-the-jesus-seminar/
- http://www.str.org/articles/the-jesus-seminar-under-fire#.U8n7CfldXto

That said, the books of the Bible have been translated many times, but they have not been otherwise edited or changed (with the exception of scribal transcription errors or translators' mistranslation). For anyone who claims they have been edited or changed, the burden of proof is on claimant. I've yet to encounter any specific instance/claim of such editing or change that was not clearly refuted by archaeological evidence. Archaeology keeps providing more and more evidence of the veracity of the Scriptures as it discovers more and more manuscripts and other extent writings.

On a related note, anyone who doubts the veracity and historicity of the Bible should also likewise doubt the veracity and historicity of most other ancient documents as well, as is discussed here: http://www.bibleevidences.com/transmission.htm. The interesting part is that very, very few folks dare to discount such historical works, yet the evidence supporting the historicity and veracity of the Scriptures is far superior.

Not a Cook
07-18-2014, 10:50 PM
There isn't any intellectual argument by any man past or present that can ever make anyone believe. That is only for the Holy Spirit to do. No one can believe in God lest the Holy Spirit gives to him to believe. God didn't do anything in the Old Testament to people that they didn't deserve. Even His own people he punished for their unbelief. He had the Babylonians destroy the temple and take the Jews into captivity for their unbelief. Jesus was asked about the people that Pilate had slaughtered in the temple how He could stand by and let God do this. He said that unless they repented they too would suffer the same. God hates sin so much that He cannot stand to look at it. So much so that He made Jesus His only son (Himself incarnate) to be the very embodiment of sin on the cross. Such that Jesus screamed at the top of His lungs, "MY GOD MY GOD WHY HAVE YOU FORSAKEN ME". The fall of man is so deep that God Himself put enmity(hatred) between his seed and the seed of Satan. All men must hate God until they are regenerated by the Holy Spirit. Jesus said that no one can even see the Kingdom unless he is regenerated(Born Again) by the Holy Spirit. The same Spirit that brooded over the face of the earth at creation. Regeneration is a supernatural act that cannot be known by sinful man unless regeneration happens. God didn't do anything evil in the Old or New Testament. He gave to men what all men deserve. Destruction. It is only that Jesus and Him crucified can save men from their fate. No great intellectual argument can do this. it is only the Holy Spirit and the Gospel which is the dynamite of God that can save men from the destruction which is to come. This is the Gospel. One is not saved from Hell. One is not saved from destruction. One is saved from God Himself who hates sin with every fiber of His Being. Yes this is the most offensive thing ever said to mankind. It is still the Gospel.

Bingo... but I must remind myself regularly of Peter's charge to us in 1 Peter 3:15 (NKJV), "But sanctify the Lord God[d] in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear". Therefore I am glad to address the intellectual arguments that appear to hinder folks from believing the gospel of Christ. I absolutely agree that only God can save any man. Speaking of the Holy Spirit, Christ instructed us, "8 And when He has come, He will convict the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: 9 of sin, because they do not believe in Me; 10 of righteousness, because I go to My Father and you see Me no more; 11 of judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged." All the "give a defense..." in the world can't change a person's heart, but we're still charged to "give a defense..." because that's one of the seeds that the Lord uses to save a person.

RAMCLAP
07-19-2014, 6:30 AM
Absolutely. Agreed.

DirtyRussianAmmo
07-19-2014, 8:08 AM
There isn't any intellectual argument by any man past or present that can ever make anyone believe. That is only for the Holy Spirit to do. No one can believe in God lest the Holy Spirit gives to him to believe. God didn't do anything in the Old Testament to people that they didn't deserve. Even His own people he punished for their unbelief. He had the Babylonians destroy the temple and take the Jews into captivity for their unbelief. Jesus was asked about the people that Pilate had slaughtered in the temple how He could stand by and let God do this. He said that unless they repented they too would suffer the same. God hates sin so much that He cannot stand to look at it. So much so that He made Jesus His only son (Himself incarnate) to be the very embodiment of sin on the cross. Such that Jesus screamed at the top of His lungs, "MY GOD MY GOD WHY HAVE YOU FORSAKEN ME". The fall of man is so deep that God Himself put enmity(hatred) between his seed and the seed of Satan. All men must hate God until they are regenerated by the Holy Spirit. Jesus said that no one can even see the Kingdom unless he is regenerated(Born Again) by the Holy Spirit. The same Spirit that brooded over the face of the earth at creation. Regeneration is a supernatural act that cannot be known by sinful man unless regeneration happens. God didn't do anything evil in the Old or New Testament. He gave to men what all men deserve. Destruction. It is only that Jesus and Him crucified can save men from their fate. No great intellectual argument can do this. it is only the Holy Spirit and the Gospel which is the dynamite of God that can save men from the destruction which is to come. This is the Gospel. One is not saved from Hell. One is not saved from destruction. One is saved from God Himself who hates sin with every fiber of His Being. Yes this is the most offensive thing ever said to mankind. It is still the Gospel.

Yes! Faith is a gift.

ArmedJackal
07-20-2014, 10:45 AM
It sounds like you're thinking of different prophesies than I am. Here is a brief paper that is a "light version" of the fulfilled prophesies evidence to which I referred: http://www.bibleevidences.com/prophecy.htm Many folks who definitely did not believe Christ was the messiah have come to trust Him as such after examining these prophecies and their historical veracity for themselves (one is alluded to in the story, another more famous one is Lee Strobel who started out as an atheist in an attempt to disprove the Bible, and has now become a preacher of the gospel of Christ), therefore it isn't only convincing to those who already "buy into it" as you stated. It has convinced many who have attempted to disprove the Bible but found the evidences actually support it. Here is a partial (very partial) list of some of those prophecies: http://www.bible.ca/b-prophecy-60.htm


I would actually like to address all the 101 items, time permitting, but since I'm swamped at work and home at the moment, it will take some time.

I agree that any actual contradiction in the Bible, if one were to exist, would demonstrate that it is not the inerrant Word of God. But we have to remember what a contradiction really is. For ease of discussion, I will use one of the the current Merriam-Webster's definitions for the noun "contradiction" (taken from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/contradiction): "a situation in which inherent factors, actions, or propositions are inconsistent or contrary to one another." In my experience, every alleged biblical contradiction I've encountered (and believe me, as a teacher I've encountered many alleged contradictions) hasn't actually been a contradiction once I've taken the time to carefully examine it. Generally, they fall into either the realm of scribal transcription errors or a misunderstanding of how different biblical doctrines are able to act harmoniously without contradicting each other.

I have studied how the Scriptures were compiled and canonized more than most folks, although I admit I am no "Bible scholar" or theologian. It's something with which I think all teachers of the Scriptures should be familiar. I'm also familiar with the Westar Institute. That said, beware the folks at Westar Institute, beware their "Jesus Seminar", and seriously beware any of their conclusions. That group is not what it appears to be. They are not true biblical scholars, but were instead formed as more of a PR stunt to convince media outlets and other organizations that the founders' belief that the Bible was outdated and just plain wrong was somehow supported by scholarly research. The founder of Westar then "stacked the deck" and "begged the question", and from "day one" their supposed research is highly suspect at best. I won't bore you with all the details in what would be a VERY LONG post, but they aren't what they appear to be, nor is their supposed "scholarship" what it appears to be. For further information as to what I'm talking about, you may be interested in reading the information at the following links:
- http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markdroberts/series/unmasking-the-jesus-seminar/
- http://www.str.org/articles/the-jesus-seminar-under-fire#.U8n7CfldXto

That said, the books of the Bible have been translated many times, but they have not been otherwise edited or changed (with the exception of scribal transcription errors or translators' mistranslation). For anyone who claims they have been edited or changed, the burden of proof is on claimant. I've yet to encounter any specific instance/claim of such editing or change that was not clearly refuted by archaeological evidence. Archaeology keeps providing more and more evidence of the veracity of the Scriptures as it discovers more and more manuscripts and other extent writings.

On a related note, anyone who doubts the veracity and historicity of the Bible should also likewise doubt the veracity and historicity of most other ancient documents as well, as is discussed here: http://www.bibleevidences.com/transmission.htm. The interesting part is that very, very few folks dare to discount such historical works, yet the evidence supporting the historicity and veracity of the Scriptures is far superior.

The Catholic Church when compiling and "harmonizing" the books it decided to include in the New Testament changed the contents over hundreds of years. What was in, what was out, the wording. Let me reiterate... The New Testament is not a consistent work. If entire books were put in then removed and edited down.... Then it is impossible to see as a verbatim perfect word of god. Did god's perfect message change repeatedly over those hundreds of years? How is anyone to know which revision is the correct one? What if some of the gospels that were excluded by the catholic editors are in fact divine and put the rest of the message in context?

The answer of course can not be rationally explained in an objective sense. Any attempt at resolving these fundamentally irrational positions ultimately require logical leaps.... Leaps of faith. That is fine of course.... But pretending it is a position that can be logically argued without bias of belief just doesn't hold a lot of water. Faith is faith, reason is reason. They are mutually exclusive as faith is defined by belief without rational basis. Arguments with a provable factual basis require no faith.

Bill Carson
07-20-2014, 1:01 PM
The Catholic Church when compiling and "harmonizing" the books it decided to include in the New Testament changed the contents over hundreds of years. What was in, what was out, the wording. Let me reiterate... The New Testament is not a consistent work. If entire books were put in then removed and edited down.... Then it is impossible to see as a verbatim perfect word of god. Did god's perfect message change repeatedly over those hundreds of years? How is anyone to know which revision is the correct one? What if some of the gospels that were excluded by the catholic editors are in fact divine and put the rest of the message in context?

The answer of course can not be rationally explained in an objective sense. Any attempt at resolving these fundamentally irrational positions ultimately require logical leaps.... Leaps of faith. That is fine of course.... But pretending it is a position that can be logically argued without bias of belief just doesn't hold a lot of water. Faith is faith, reason is reason. They are mutually exclusive as faith is defined by belief without rational basis. Arguments with a provable factual basis require no faith.LOl@ The catholic church compiling and harmonizing the new testament.

Not a Cook
07-20-2014, 2:05 PM
The Catholic Church when compiling and "harmonizing" the books it decided to include in the New Testament changed the contents over hundreds of years. What was in, what was out, the wording. Let me reiterate... The New Testament is not a consistent work. If entire books were put in then removed and edited down.... Then it is impossible to see as a verbatim perfect word of god. Did god's perfect message change repeatedly over those hundreds of years? How is anyone to know which revision is the correct one? What if some of the gospels that were excluded by the catholic editors are in fact divine and put the rest of the message in context?

The answer of course can not be rationally explained in an objective sense. Any attempt at resolving these fundamentally irrational positions ultimately require logical leaps.... Leaps of faith. That is fine of course.... But pretending it is a position that can be logically argued without bias of belief just doesn't hold a lot of water. Faith is faith, reason is reason. They are mutually exclusive as faith is defined by belief without rational basis. Arguments with a provable factual basis require no faith.

I disagree; faith and reason are not mutually exclusive. Faith, without rational evidence of any kind, would be "blind faith, and it sounds to me like you're conflating "blind faith" with the type that God actually gives to us. He does not call us to "blind faith"; far from it. He created us with rational thought processes and intended that we gain knowledge, exercise reason, learn prudence, and gain wisdom. Look again at Hebrews 11, the great chapter of "heroes of the faith". The faith those folks displayed wasn't blind. Consider especially verses 17-19 regarding Abraham's response to God's command to sacrifice Isaac. Abraham exercised reason, he used rational thought, to bridge the apparent contradiction between God's prior promise and His then-current command to sacrifice Isaac. He had faith in God, and used rational thought to discern that two things that appeared mutually exclusive were actually both harmonious. Abraham had already learned to trust God and knew His character; he then used his mental faculties to understand how what he already knew could co-exist with new information. That's real faith, but it certainly isn't "blind faith".

As I previously noted, God has left us manifold evidence regarding Himself and His Word. He isn't calling us to "blind faith". He blessed us with the ability to reason and intends that we use that ability to inform what we believe. We use this type of informed faith many ways in our everyday lives. When I go to a restaurant for the first time and sit in a chair, I don't check the structural soundness and sufficiency of the chair. I exercise reasonable and prudent faith that the chair is sufficiently strong and has been maintained by the restaurant in such a manner to render it capable and suited for carrying my backside. Examples like this are all around. They are cases of faith informed by rational thought and reason, NOT "blind faith". So, too, is my faith in God and His Word a rational faith, albeit an infinitely more important one.

Re: how the Scriptures were canonized, I think further study may surprise you. Yes, the Catholic Church and other organizations and many individuals have monkeyed around with what books to include/exclude over the years. However, the actual canon was pretty well agreed on very early on, before the Catholic Church even held a council on the matter. The 66 books that form the Bible are there for very good and rational reasons, but that is a much bigger discussion. Those 66 books haven't been edited, as historical manuscript evidence demonstrates.

devious21
07-20-2014, 11:25 PM
That's a causal fallacy, commonly referred to as post hoc ergo propter hoc. That an omniscient, omnipresent God can know your decision beforehand doesn't follow that your decision was in any way influenced by this knowledge.

I agree with this up until you add omnipotent to the list of attributes.

Say you left some candy unattended which you knew your child would happen upon. Knowing they have a huge sweet tooth, are you then denying them the choice whether or not to partake? Regardless how certain you may be of the outcome the choice is still entirely theirs, free will is no less illusory here than in your line of reasoning.

When you use "know" in this example, it seems like it really means "pretty sure". Meanwhile, when we talk of God, we say "know" to mean "certainty".

A better example would be to say, imagine you were watching a replay of a football game. You had seen it live, so now watching the replay, you knew who the winner was and how they won. That would be omniscience.

Now let's say you're coaching the football game but not only have seen how it's going to turn out but you still have an opportunity to influence it. That's omniscience and omnipotence.


Lets say God knew the Bills wouldn't win the Superbowl this year when he created our current universe. Did God with his omnipotence have the power to create a universe with a different outcome? Was God NOT powerful enough to create a universe where the Bills would win the Superbowl this year?

If you're all knowing and all powerful, it's hard to argue for free will unless you either hinder God's all knowingness (I know my daughter has a sweet tooth and will probably eat the cookie VS I know that my daughter ate the cookie because I saw the footage) or hinder God's all powerfulness (God could not have created a universe different from the one he did).

devious21
07-20-2014, 11:35 PM
I disagree; faith and reason are not mutually exclusive. Faith, without rational evidence of any kind, would be "blind faith, and it sounds to me like you're conflating "blind faith" with the type that God actually gives to us. He does not call us to "blind faith"; far from it. He created us with rational thought processes and intended that we gain knowledge, exercise reason, learn prudence, and gain wisdom.

Traditionally, faith means that you hold a belief without evidence or justification. If you have evidence for a belief, you don't need faith.

There may be other poetic or spiritual definitions of faith, but from thew view of epistemology what you're calling "blind faith" is essentially "faith".

I believe you most likely don't believe in God PURELY on Faith. I think you most likely have some kind of justification for believing in God. It may not be hard evidence or something that would convince someone else, but it's still convincing justification to you.

Personal revelation or an experience you may have had. That would be justification for you to believe but not someone else. A belief based on personal experience would not be faith. It may also not necessarily be strong evidence either (alien abductions).

texan
07-21-2014, 2:54 AM
I agree with this up until you add omnipotent to the list of attributes.



When you use "know" in this example, it seems like it really means "pretty sure". Meanwhile, when we talk of God, we say "know" to mean "certainty".

A better example would be to say, imagine you were watching a replay of a football game. You had seen it live, so now watching the replay, you knew who the winner was and how they won. That would be omniscience.

Now let's say you're coaching the football game but not only have seen how it's going to turn out but you still have an opportunity to influence it. That's omniscience and omnipotence.


Lets say God knew the Bills wouldn't win the Superbowl this year when he created our current universe. Did God with his omnipotence have the power to create a universe with a different outcome? Was God NOT powerful enough to create a universe where the Bills would win the Superbowl this year?

If you're all knowing and all powerful, it's hard to argue for free will unless you either hinder God's all knowingness (I know my daughter has a sweet tooth and will probably eat the cookie VS I know that my daughter ate the cookie because I saw the footage) or hinder God's all powerfulness (God could not have created a universe different from the one he did).

If you forgo the idea of free will, you're entirely on point with this argument. If however you allow man free will (and with Christian doctrine being what it is, you have to), then my example comes back to the fore. God cannot influence a timeline dominated by free will without bringing determinism to the fore, once again you get to choose one or the other but not both as a functional version of the universe. Either God has determined what your choices will be through some level of intervention or he's left them to your devices.

Not a Cook
07-21-2014, 7:52 AM
Traditionally, faith means that you hold a belief without evidence or justification. If you have evidence for a belief, you don't need faith.

There may be other poetic or spiritual definitions of faith, but from thew view of epistemology what you're calling "blind faith" is essentially "faith".

I believe you most likely don't believe in God PURELY on Faith. I think you most likely have some kind of justification for believing in God. It may not be hard evidence or something that would convince someone else, but it's still convincing justification to you.

Personal revelation or an experience you may have had. That would be justification for you to believe but not someone else. A belief based on personal experience would not be faith. It may also not necessarily be strong evidence either (alien abductions).

I was describing what faith is from the perspective of the Scriptures (and I don't think you can get much more traditional than that). The type of faith that pleases God isn't "blind faith", but rather faith to actively trust Him (this type of faith requires action and isn't simply intellectual assent or belief) and obey Him. He has given us manifold evidence of His nature; this evidence is the Scriptures, the creation itself (ref. Romans 1), and greatest of all - His beloved Son and the perfect life He lead here on earth.

It maybe a bit of a foreign concept to your viewpoint, but the Bible doesn't attempt to "prove God". Rather, it starts with the basic premise that God exists (see Genesis 1:1). It further tells us the following in Romans 1 (NKJV),


18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.

And it further says,
" The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.” in several places.

That said, belief that "there is no God" is an example of "blind faith". Trusting God is an example of a rational faith based upon His manifest attributes and His revealed Word, and most of all, His beloved Son.

devious21
07-21-2014, 8:16 AM
I was describing what faith is from the perspective of the Scriptures (and I don't think you can get much more traditional than that). The type of faith that pleases God isn't "blind faith", but rather faith to actively trust Him (this type of faith requires action and isn't simply intellectual assent or belief) and obey Him. He has given us manifold evidence of His nature; this evidence is the Scriptures, the creation itself (ref. Romans 1), and greatest of all - His beloved Son and the perfect life He lead here on earth.



It maybe a bit of a foreign concept to your viewpoint, but the Bible doesn't attempt to "prove God". Rather, it starts with the basic premise that God exists (see Genesis 1:1). It further tells us the following in Romans 1 (NKJV),





18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.



And it further says,

" The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.” in several places.



That said, belief that "there is no God" is an example of "blind faith". Trusting God is an example of a rational faith based upon His manifest attributes and His revealed Word, and most of all, His beloved Son.


Any belief, including a belief "there is no god" could be based on some form of justification and not faith. Only the person who holds the belief can tell you why they believe it.

If I believed in Bigfoot and you said "well there's no evidence for it" and my response was, "well I know that but I just believe". That's a belief on faith.

On the other hand, if I said "I believe there is no God" and you said "there's no evidence for it" and my response was "aliens visited me and explained to me how they created this universe and that they came from a parallel universe outside ours that we can't comprehend". That's a belief based on some form of justification. It may not be good justification or justification sufficient for you to believe but it's not based on faith.

devious21
07-21-2014, 8:21 AM
If you forgo the idea of free will, you're entirely on point with this argument. If however you allow man free will (and with Christian doctrine being what it is, you have to), then my example comes back to the fore. God cannot influence a timeline dominated by free will without bringing determinism to the fore, once again you get to choose one or the other but not both as a functional version of the universe. Either God has determined what your choices will be through some level of intervention or he's left them to your devices.


Understood. I believe we are on the same page.

Not a Cook
07-21-2014, 9:24 AM
Any belief, including a belief "there is no god" could be based on some form of justification and not faith. Only the person who holds the belief can tell you why they believe it.

If I believed in Bigfoot and you said "well there's no evidence for it" and my response was, "well I know that but I just believe". That's a belief on faith.

On the other hand, if I said "I believe there is no God" and you said "there's no evidence for it" and my response was "aliens visited me and explained to me how they created this universe and that they came from a parallel universe outside ours that we can't comprehend". That's a belief based on some form of justification. It may not be good justification or justification sufficient for you to believe but it's not based on faith.

To cut to the chase: the Bible makes very specific claims about who God is and how He is (that is, His attributes). It presupposes the fact that He exists, and does not attempt to defend His existence because His creation bears witness to His existence and His attributes. The complexity and specificity of His design clearly infers His existence; the mathematical odds against how perfectly suited this planet is for human life defies any explanation outside the fact that He created this place to be perfectly suited to sustain human life. God is. If someone has trouble with that idea, it isn't due to lack of evidence of His existence; rather, it is due to having chosen to ignore Him for one reason or another. As such, I will simply say that He exists and not argue that point any further. The Bible is either true or it isn't. The Bible is true, and it is the inspired and infallible Word of God. As such, it is your prerogative to either ignore Him, or else investigate the Scriptures for yourself in attempt to disprove them. In such an attempt, many have come to trust Him as a result of coming face to face with the fact that God's Word is true. The consequences of ignoring His Word and rejecting His Son and His call to salvation by grace through faith in Him is everlasting destruction. The consequences of following and trusting and loving Him is eternal life. You can choose to debate whether God exists; I challenge you to simply stop ignoring Him and instead listen to Him (study the Scriptures) and start following Christ.

ArmedJackal
07-21-2014, 9:44 AM
LOl@ The catholic church compiling and harmonizing the new testament.

I don't know exactly why you are LOLing. Even the most basic amount of interest and effort will educate you on how the canon was formed. Wikipedia is a halfway decent place to start.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_New_Testament_canon

ArmedJackal
07-21-2014, 10:12 AM
To cut to the chase: the Bible makes very specific claims about who God is and how He is (that is, His attributes). It presupposes the fact that He exists, and does not attempt to defend His existence because His creation bears witness to His existence and His attributes. The complexity and specificity of His design clearly infers His existence; the mathematical odds against how perfectly suited this planet is for human life defies any explanation outside the fact that He created this place to be perfectly suited to sustain human life. God is. If someone has trouble with that idea, it isn't due to lack of evidence of His existence; rather, it is due to having chosen to ignore Him for one reason or another. As such, I will simply say that He exists and not argue that point any further. The Bible is either true or it isn't. The Bible is true, and it is the inspired and infallible Word of God. As such, it is your prerogative to either ignore Him, or else investigate the Scriptures for yourself in attempt to disprove them. In such an attempt, many have come to trust Him as a result of coming face to face with the fact that God's Word is true. The consequences of ignoring His Word and rejecting His Son and His call to salvation by grace through faith in Him is everlasting destruction. The consequences of following and trusting and loving Him is eternal life. You can choose to debate whether God exists; I challenge you to simply stop ignoring Him and instead listen to Him (study the Scriptures) and start following Christ.

You are making quite a few statements here that fail any basic logical test by assuming facts not in evidence. This is the classic Divine Fallacy. Your personal inability to conceive of a complex subject like the habitability of our planet or probability models for abiogenesis really is completely irrelevant to it's objective truth or falsehood. This is not meant as an insult in any way, it is just that your opinion on the topic cannot rationally be considered weighty evidence of your proposed conclusion.

Paltik
07-21-2014, 11:01 AM
If you're all knowing and all powerful, it's hard to argue for free will unless you either hinder God's all knowingness (I know my daughter has a sweet tooth and will probably eat the cookie VS I know that my daughter ate the cookie because I saw the footage) or hinder God's all powerfulness (God could not have created a universe different from the one he did).

Leaving a discussion on reasonable limits to God's omniscience, this thread is meant to address reasonable limits to God's power.

It's not that God could not have created a universe different from the one he did, so much as God could not create a universe where mutually exclusive things occur. God would have to rank and prioritize what he wanted--he would have had to compromise. For example, to eradicate all evil from his universe, he may not have been able to get the level of free-will in humans he wanted to make our love and devotion meaningful enough.

I might add that just as God's omnipotence is not absolute, neither is our free will.

Traditionally, faith means that you hold a belief without evidence or justification. If you have evidence for a belief, you don't need faith.

There may be other poetic or spiritual definitions of faith, but from thew view of epistemology what you're calling "blind faith" is essentially "faith".

The semantic range for "faith" includes "blind faith" but also faith based on experience or evidence. It doesn't accomplish anything to insist people mean something different when they use the word than what they intended. Most Christians I know don't consider their Christian faith to be blind faith.

However, what level of evidence it takes to convince someone of something may be different from person to person, and certainly the evidence for reality being as described in the Bible falls short of the standard of "proof."

Not a Cook
07-21-2014, 11:03 AM
You are making quite a few statements here that fail any basic logical test by assuming facts not in evidence. This is the classic Divine Fallacy. Your personal inability to conceive of a complex subject like the habitability of our planet or probability models for abiogenesis really is completely irrelevant to it's objective truth or falsehood. This is not meant as an insult in any way, it is just that your opinion on the topic cannot rationally be considered weighty evidence of your proposed conclusion.

Your Honor, please allow me to formally introduce the following items as evidence in this court proceeding: all of creation itself; the Bible; and the Historical person of Yeshua the messiah, commonly referred to in English as Jesus Christ.

Respectfully, the facts of God's existence and attributes are in evidence. They are all around us - the very creation itself - just as Romans 1 says. The facts in evidence are far too voluminous to merit entry of each individually into this specific thread. Creation testifies to God's existence. Common sense and basic logic allow us to discern that a relatively complex pocket watch found on a beach was designed and made by an intelligent creature, not as the result of random chance. To ignore the evidence of God's existence is to set-aside common-sense and basic logic. He gave us logic and ability to reason not to lead us away from Him, but so that we can exercise them to learn to trust Him. The characteristics of His creation further allow us to infer and understand certain of His attributes. The Scriptures He gave us further clarify Who and how He is, and bear testimony to His beloved Son.

At the end of the day, I do not hope to convince anyone that God merely exists. My aim is to direct folks to consider Christ in particular - for them to consider His claims and hear His call to repentance and new life in Him. Here is what I posit to you: either Christ is Who He claimed to be (which specifically includes being God and the only means by which any human being can be made right with God), or He isn't. I can (and will continue to) proclaim He is Who He said He is and the Bible is true. Your choice is whether to choose to ignore Him, or instead to investigate His claims and choose whether or not to love and trust Him.

Paltik
07-21-2014, 11:05 AM
If you forgo the idea of free will, you're entirely on point with this argument. If however you allow man free will (and with Christian doctrine being what it is, you have to), then my example comes back to the fore. God cannot influence a timeline dominated by free will without bringing determinism to the fore, once again you get to choose one or the other but not both as a functional version of the universe. Either God has determined what your choices will be through some level of intervention or he's left them to your devices.

"Free will," as theologians argue it, is not absolute. It specifically relates to the issue of whether or not people have any volition in the matter of submitting to God. It is not to say we are free to fly just by deciding to, or resist God's power in any number of other areas. Further, if it were shown that God from time to time removes this or that person's volition in this regard, that doesn't mean others must also not have free will.

devious21
07-21-2014, 12:06 PM
To cut to the chase: the Bible makes very specific claims about who God is and how He is (that is, His attributes). It presupposes the fact that He exists, and does not attempt to defend His existence because His creation bears witness to His existence and His attributes. The complexity and specificity of His design clearly infers His existence; the mathematical odds against how perfectly suited this planet is for human life defies any explanation outside the fact that He created this place to be perfectly suited to sustain human life. God is. If someone has trouble with that idea, it isn't due to lack of evidence of His existence; rather, it is due to having chosen to ignore Him for one reason or another. As such, I will simply say that He exists and not argue that point any further. The Bible is either true or it isn't. The Bible is true, and it is the inspired and infallible Word of God. As such, it is your prerogative to either ignore Him, or else investigate the Scriptures for yourself in attempt to disprove them. In such an attempt, many have come to trust Him as a result of coming face to face with the fact that God's Word is true. The consequences of ignoring His Word and rejecting His Son and His call to salvation by grace through faith in Him is everlasting destruction. The consequences of following and trusting and loving Him is eternal life. You can choose to debate whether God exists; I challenge you to simply stop ignoring Him and instead listen to Him (study the Scriptures) and start following Christ.


To be clear, my point wasn't about whether or not a god exists. It was challenging your assumption that the belief that "no god exists" requires faith.

Belief means you accept something to be true. My alien analogy was an attempt to point out that you don't know what justification someone may have for any particular belief. If they have some type of justification, even if it's poor justification, that's not blind faith. So you can't reasonably make that assumption.

Also, not believing in God isn't the same as holding the belief "God doesn't exist", which I'm thinking you may be seeing as the same.

Rejecting the proposition "A God Exists" and putting forward the proposition "No God Exists" are two separate things.

brewdickle
07-21-2014, 12:25 PM
Your Honor, please allow me to formally introduce the following items as evidence in this court proceeding: all of creation itself; the Bible; and the Historical person of Yeshua the messiah, commonly referred to in English as Jesus Christ.

These are all claims, not evidence.

devious21
07-21-2014, 12:41 PM
Leaving a discussion on reasonable limits to God's omniscience, this thread is meant to address reasonable limits to God's power.



It's not that God could not have created a universe different from the one he did, so much as God could not create a universe where mutually exclusive things occur. God would have to rank and prioritize what he wanted--he would have had to compromise. For example, to eradicate all evil from his universe, he may not have been able to get the level of free-will in humans he wanted to make our love and devotion meaningful enough.



I might add that just as God's omnipotence is not absolute, neither is our free will.







The semantic range for "faith" includes "blind faith" but also faith based on experience or evidence. It doesn't accomplish anything to insist people mean something different when they use the word than what they intended. Most Christians I know don't consider their Christian faith to be blind faith.



However, what level of evidence it takes to convince someone of something may be different from person to person, and certainly the evidence for reality being as described in the Bible falls short of the standard of "proof."


It doesn't take the power to create a mutually exclusive paradox to create problems for free will. It simply takes the power to create different universes. If god created a universe in which he was aware of the outcome but had the power and opportunity to create another universe with a different outcome, that creates a problem for free will, unless you impose limits on either the omniscience or omnipotence to rationalize it.

Also, sure - faith can be used loosely to mean "blind faith", hope, trust, etc.

There's a significant difference with those in epistemology (when dealing with discussions of belief) and that's why I think it's clear to distinguish the two or people talk past each other.

If you mean "have faith" or as Hebrews puts it "faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" - that's how I use faith when discussing belief. Faith is used to believe in something when no rational justification is available. Faith is an alternate justification to believe when you don't have evidence. It's used in place of evidence.

If you say faith colloquially like "I have faith the sun will rise tomorrow" - you're using that short hand to mean "I believe that the sun will rise because of previous experience, understanding of astronomy, etc". You may not be certain but you trust that it will. It doesn't take a leap of faith to justify that belief.

It doesn't matter what you call the terms as long as you're clear which is which. I think using faith and blind faith leaves the discussion open to confusion especially in discussions involving epistemology.

ArmedJackal
07-21-2014, 1:07 PM
Your Honor, please allow me to formally introduce the following items as evidence in this court proceeding: all of creation itself; the Bible; and the Historical person of Yeshua the messiah, commonly referred to in English as Jesus Christ.

Respectfully, the facts of God's existence and attributes are in evidence. They are all around us - the very creation itself - just as Romans 1 says. The facts in evidence are far too voluminous to merit entry of each individually into this specific thread. Creation testifies to God's existence. Common sense and basic logic allow us to discern that a relatively complex pocket watch found on a beach was designed and made by an intelligent creature, not as the result of random chance. To ignore the evidence of God's existence is to set-aside common-sense and basic logic. He gave us logic and ability to reason not to lead us away from Him, but so that we can exercise them to learn to trust Him. The characteristics of His creation further allow us to infer and understand certain of His attributes. The Scriptures He gave us further clarify Who and how He is, and bear testimony to His beloved Son.

At the end of the day, I do not hope to convince anyone that God merely exists. My aim is to direct folks to consider Christ in particular - for them to consider His claims and hear His call to repentance and new life in Him. Here is what I posit to you: either Christ is Who He claimed to be (which specifically includes being God and the only means by which any human being can be made right with God), or He isn't. I can (and will continue to) proclaim He is Who He said He is and the Bible is true. Your choice is whether to choose to ignore Him, or instead to investigate His claims and choose whether or not to love and trust Him.

With all due respect, you are not making a logically defensible argument. Even if we accepted your argument of creation as proof of a God, it wouldn't necessarily be the Christian one.

This conversation exemplifies the conundrum that religion is going to face moving forward. I think humans are becoming more and more determined to be perceived as rational and logical. Even people deep in religion feel this pressure to justify their faith rationally. This almost always ends up with these logical leaps, positive confirmation bias and circular reasoning fallacies in an attempt to mitigate the dissonance of trying to justify faith in the unknowable and unprovable dogma of any particular religion.

devious21
07-21-2014, 1:50 PM
Your Honor, please allow me to formally introduce the following items as evidence in this court proceeding: all of creation itself; the Bible; and the Historical person of Yeshua the messiah, commonly referred to in English as Jesus Christ.

Creation itself is evidence of those things which are created, the bible is evidence of the bible and the reference to Jesus isn't really evidence of anything. If we give you the benefit of the doubt and believe that he was a real person, that doesn't speak to the claims about him (e.g. Chuck Norris is a real person).

So far you've managed to prove that nature exists and a book exists. I don't think anyone is challenging those claims.

texan
07-21-2014, 2:02 PM
The way you phrased this has me curious, and I would like to respectfully ask you a question. Are you a Christian? I had assumed you are a Christian, but I'm not sure whether the bolded part of your statement above means you're not a Christian or whether you are a Christian and just used "your God" from a standpoint of logical debate. If you are not a Christian, may I ask why you're so interested in discussing Christian doctrine? If you are a Christian, please forgive me for asking... the phrasing you used just surprised me.

Sorry for the late response, it couldn't be helped. No I'm not a Christian, but as I said before in another thread I find religious philosophy both fascinating and engaging. Given that some here are having these interesting conversations and I do have a background in philosophy and logic, I enjoy reading and contributing where my knowledge base allows. I'm not here to belittle anyone's faith.

"Free will," as theologians argue it, is not absolute. It specifically relates to the issue of whether or not people have any volition in the matter of submitting to God. It is not to say we are free to fly just by deciding to, or resist God's power in any number of other areas. Further, if it were shown that God from time to time removes this or that person's volition in this regard, that doesn't mean others must also not have free will.

Interesting, do you have some link for information on that theological concept? I've never heard any rational argument from a theologian for this.

Not a Cook
07-22-2014, 2:51 PM
I apologize in advance for the delayed response, and the relatively (for me, at least) short responses below. Work is VERY busy...

These are all claims, not evidence.

No... they are evidence. You may choose not to believe my claims, but they are evidence nonetheless of God's existence and His attributes. In a legal proceeding, they would be accepted in the record as evidence. The claim is that they bear witness to God and His attributes. The jurist considers the evidence in the record and then decides whether or not to rely upon and make use of said evidence in order to reach a decision. The incomprehensible (by man, at least) complexity of the creation itself bears witness to God's existence, for this amazing complexity clearly points toward a creator. Common sense will get you that far. The Bible bears witness of God's attributes. The life of the Christ bears witness of God's attributes. In a legal proceeding, you are not allowed to ignore evidence simply because you find it distasteful, but rather must consider and evaluate it.

To be clear, my point wasn't about whether or not a god exists. It was challenging your assumption that the belief that "no god exists" requires faith.

Belief means you accept something to be true. My alien analogy was an attempt to point out that you don't know what justification someone may have for any particular belief. If they have some type of justification, even if it's poor justification, that's not blind faith. So you can't reasonably make that assumption.

Also, not believing in God isn't the same as holding the belief "God doesn't exist", which I'm thinking you may be seeing as the same.

Rejecting the proposition "A God Exists" and putting forward the proposition "No God Exists" are two separate things.

I'll frame this in very simple terms: either God exists, or He doesn't. If you don't believe He exists, you correspondingly believe He does not exist.

If you believe that perhaps some god exists, but you don't believe that God exists, then you believe God does not exist. You would constitute a a special subset of agnosticism if you reject God, but leave open the possibility that some other god may exist. Along this line of reasoning, I'll reiterate what I wrote previously: my interest lies in challenging folks to follow the true and living God, not in merely convincing someone that some theoretical god exists.

Also, your argument brings up a very interesting point. In my experience, most folks that claim to be agnostic are betrayed by their everyday conduct. If they truly believed there may or may not be a god, it seems they would show some interest and make some significant effort to discern whether or not this theoretical god exists because the existence of any god infers the existence of responsibility to that god for one's own actions. Remember, the word "god" is a title meaning "judge". In practice, most professing agnostics I've encountered seem to ignore the possibility completely under some delusion that, if a god exists and they ignore that god, they will not be culpable for their actions because of their ignorance. Such reasoning is common, even though it presents obvious logical problems and raises (but does not address) a multitude of important questions. It also does not follow common jurisprudence (i.e. the oft-repeated "ignorance of the law is no excuse").

With all due respect, you are not making a logically defensible argument. Even if we accepted your argument of creation as proof of a God, it wouldn't necessarily be the Christian one.

I say this sort-of tongue-in-cheek, but it wouldn't be funny if it weren't true, so please understand what I am saying: I do not, nor does anyone else, need to make a logically defensible argument that God exists. The evidence is freely accessible, and each person is responsible to evaluate that evidence for themselves and choose what to believe. I am not charged to try to convince via a "logically defensible argument" that God exists. I am not even charged to "force feed" the evidence to anyone. The fact is that He does exist. I state that as fact, and see no need to attempt to defend what is a basic presupposition. As I noted previously, the Bible presupposes His existence as well (ref. Genesis 1:1) and in numerous places labels those who attempt to deny God's existence as fools. I am simply called to bear witness to Him, and call people to believe Him (notice that I did not write "believe in Him" - as I previously noted, the Bible presupposes that God exists). Attempting to defend (after all, a "logically defensible argument" would only be required in the event of an attack against the premise) God's existence is very loosely similar to an attempt to defend a hungry, wild lion from a defenseless chicken right in front of it. I could warn the chicken all day long that the lion is going to eat it, but if the chicken chooses to ignore my warning because I didn't "provide a logically defensible argument", the chicken does so to its own peril. Whether or not the chicken believes the lion exists, the chicken will suffer the consequences of the lion's existence. In such terms, my job is not to convince the chicken that the lion exists, it is to simply warn the chicken that the lion is going to eat it.

This conversation exemplifies the conundrum that religion is going to face moving forward. I think humans are becoming more and more determined to be perceived as rational and logical. Even people deep in religion feel this pressure to justify their faith rationally. This almost always ends up with these logical leaps, positive confirmation bias and circular reasoning fallacies in an attempt to mitigate the dissonance of trying to justify faith in the unknowable and unprovable dogma of any particular religion.
I obviously do not speak for "religion". I am merely a servant of Christ, not any "religion". Like in the "hungry, wild lion and chicken" example above, what is true is not "unknowable and unprovable". Just because a mere man cannot prove something does not mean it is "unknowable" or "unprovable". Ultimately, it is very knowable and provable, and the Bible tells us that, in time, "every knee shall bow" before Christ. There won't be anyone in that day who doubts or argues against God's existence... it will be obvious. For the time being, we are responsible to exercise rational thought and use that rational thought to inform our beliefs.

Sorry for the late response, it couldn't be helped. No I'm not a Christian, but as I said before in another thread I find religious philosophy both fascinating and engaging. Given that some here are having these interesting conversations and I do have a background in philosophy and logic, I enjoy reading and contributing where my knowledge base allows. I'm not here to belittle anyone's faith.

Totally understood. One thing you might want to consider, though, is that "religious philosophy" is a bit of a foreign concept to the Bible. The Bible does not philosophize, but rather addresses life itself in black-and-white terms. As such, discussion of such topics as God's omnipotence (and please note that this is the God of Bible, thus the capital "G") is informed by Scripture, not by "religious philosophy". The Bible specifically warns us in Colossians 2:8 (NKJV),
"8 Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ."

Interesting, do you have some link for information on that theological concept? I've never heard any rational argument from a theologian for this.
The Bible clearly teaches God's foreknowledge, election, and predestination of the saints. See the following passage for just one example - Romans 8:29-30 (NKJV),
"29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30 Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified."

The Bible does not talk about "free will". Rather, it calls all men "slaves of sin". "Free will" is a term/construct of philosophy and theology, and is thus subject to having different meanings poured into the term. That is the reason I previously noted that I would use Strong's definition for "predestination", but did not necessarily agree to the philosophical definition of "free will" which has been previously used in this thread. I keep coming back to this: the Bible teaches God has foreknown, predestined, and elected the saints, and He has given man a choice whether to follow Him or not. There is no conflict between the two concepts. An apparent conflict only comes when you impose certain conditions upon the basic doctrines, which conditions are based upon man-made definitions and limits. The Scriptures are not in conflict on this matter.

Creation itself is evidence of those things which are created, the bible is evidence of the bible and the reference to Jesus isn't really evidence of anything. If we give you the benefit of the doubt and believe that he was a real person, that doesn't speak to the claims about him (e.g. Chuck Norris is a real person).

So far you've managed to prove that nature exists and a book exists. I don't think anyone is challenging those claims.

Again, I'm not trying to prove God exists. I don't argue for the sake of argument... I take no pleasure in it. Some things are self-evident (as the founders of the country were fond to write). Some things don't require that anyone prove them to you. If someone asks me to prove water is wet, I wouldn't waste my time. If they don't believe water is wet, nothing I say or do can prove to them water is wet any more than their feeling water for themselves. Water is wet. It's too basic to bother with trying to prove. So it is with God. The creation bears witness to His existence.

The Bible takes things further, and teaches us much about God that we wouldn't otherwise know. And your statement, "If we give you the benefit of the doubt and believe that he <sic> was a real person," is just plain silliness. He is the most-well documented person to have ever lived. Believing that He existed (and I might add, does exist) is not giving anyone "the benefit of the doubt". Denying His existence is denying reality. The question isn't whether or not Christ actually walked the earth. The relevant question was asked long ago by Pilate,
“What then shall I do with Jesus who is called Christ?” (ref. Matthew 27:22b)
That is the question every person must answer for themselves. You can choose to dismiss Him and disbelieve Him, or you can choose to believe Him and follow Him. He doesn't leave any middle ground of trying to simply ignore Him (ref. Matthew 12:30).

POLICESTATE
07-22-2014, 4:31 PM
I've always felt that us trying to understand God is like ants trying to understand humans, except to an infinite degree of magnitude. However what we can understand of God is in the Bible. We will understand more when we get to Heaven (at least those of us who make it).

It is enough for me to take God at His word and be obedient, or at least try to be obedient, I'm always screwing up!

devious21
07-23-2014, 2:50 AM
Again, I'm not trying to prove God exists. I don't argue for the sake of argument... I take no pleasure in it. Some things are self-evident (as the founders of the country were fond to write). Some things don't require that anyone prove them to you. If someone asks me to prove water is wet, I wouldn't waste my time. If they don't believe water is wet, nothing I say or do can prove to them water is wet any more than their feeling water for themselves. Water is wet. It's too basic to bother with trying to prove. So it is with God. The creation bears witness to His existence.


You say you're not trying to prove God exists but that's exactly where you steered this conversation. From God's omnipotence to submitting "evidence" that he exists.

That failed and now you're conveniently claiming that evidence isn't necessary because God's existence is just as demonstrable as the properties of water.

I honesty don't know if you're being disingenuous at that point. I don't think any Christian who values reason and logic will follow you there.

If you are being genuine though, here's why that's not logically valid. Your argument that "God is self evident because of nature and the bible" is a logical fallacy called "Affirming the Consequent". The fallacy looks like this.

1. If A is true, then B is true.
2. B is true.
3. Therefore, A is true.

Example:
1. If my pet is a cat, then it's an animal.
2. My pet is an animal.
3. therefore, it's a cat.

And finally, your argument.

1. If God exists, he created nature.
2. Nature exists.
3. Therefore, it was created by God.

ArmedJackal
07-23-2014, 8:18 AM
"The fact is that He does exist. I state that as fact, and see no need to attempt to defend what is a basic presupposition. As I noted previously, the Bible presupposes His existence as well (ref. Genesis 1:1) and in numerous places labels those who attempt to deny God's existence as fools." - Not a Cook

To your point about these arguments being accepted in a court of law..... the legal premise of assuming facts not in evidence would probably work against you.

I've had a bunch of these friendly debates over the years, and while always enlightening, they usually end up in this exact spot. A person will assert that belief in God, specifically the Christian God, is a logically defensible position and then proceed to provide a series of logically fallacious arguments (usually failing logical tests with one of the classic fallacies, begging the question or argument from ignorance). The interesting thing is that these arguments are not "grey areas".... they are objectively flawed arguments that, without genuine emotional investment in a specific conclusion, no one would be able to justify as "evidence". But the discussions always seem to spiral to here, with the person unwilling or unable to understand that they are making arguments that are flawed in construct. The reason behind your investment in those flawed arguments is clear from a psychological standpoint.... Your worldview and personal identity is wrapped in the existence of God as you believe him to be. This is at odds with the social pressure of our modern society to seem rational and logical. Faced with this incongruity, most people subconsciously build an unassailable defense system around these incompatible concepts limits that allows them mental harmony but, as they often are mutually exclusive concepts, defending them in a conversation with someone else who has no emotional investment in the conclusions is impossible. Working backwards from the desired answer to the question works really well in detective novels, but is likely to provide accurate results in a search for truth.

brewdickle
07-23-2014, 8:46 AM
In a legal proceeding, they would be accepted in the record as evidence. The claim is that they bear witness to God and His attributes. The jurist considers the evidence in the record and then decides whether or not to rely upon and make use of said evidence in order to reach a decision.

Actually, the Bible would never make it anywhere near the court as evidence because it is not an eyewitness account. Anything other than a firsthand/eyewitness account is considered hearsay, which is not allowed as evidence in the United States, (unless one of nearly 30 exceptions applies to the particular statement being made). The reason it isn't admitted is because it is unreliable information.

“Is it more probable that nature should go out of her course or that a man should tell a lie? We have never seen, in our time, nature go out of her course. But we have good reason to believe that millions of lies have been told in the same time. It is therefore at least millions to one that the reporter of a miracle tells a lie. ” -Thomas Paine, author and revolutionary

brewdickle
07-23-2014, 9:20 AM
I agree with ArmedJackal that these conversations usually end up in very similar fashion, a "stalemate" or worse, when personal attacks come forth (thankfully hasn't happened here yet). I do enjoy the dialogue though, it allows me a glimpse into the minds of other people, and I guess somewhere deep down inside of me, I'm looking for a compelling reason to be a believer again (what's better than eternal life? ok, maybe eternal life with guns...)

I find that the most fair and meaningful conversations start with something that both parties can agree on. For example 'Nature', we can all see trees, mountains, water... how did it get here? I prefer to look at the scientific evidence and follow it wherever it might lead me. If it leads me to a God, then so be it. And if it leads me elsewhere then I'm ok with that too. I will not start with a conclusion and work backwards to confirm. That's called pseudoscience.

Lastly, I apologize for my part in derailing the thread.

Not a Cook
07-23-2014, 9:37 AM
You say you're not trying to prove God exists but that's exactly where you steered this conversation. From God's omnipotence to submitting "evidence" that he exists.

That failed and now you're conveniently claiming that evidence isn't necessary because God's existence is just as demonstrable as the properties of water.

I honesty don't know if you're being disingenuous at that point. I don't think any Christian who values reason and logic will follow you there.

If you are being genuine though, here's why that's not logically valid. Your argument that "God is self evident because of nature and the bible" is a logical fallacy called "Affirming the Consequent". The fallacy looks like this.

1. If A is true, then B is true.
2. B is true.
3. Therefore, A is true.

Example:
1. If my pet is a cat, then it's an animal.
2. My pet is an animal.
3. therefore, it's a cat.

And finally, your argument.

1. If God exists, he created nature.
2. Nature exists.
3. Therefore, it was created by God.

You may want to re-read this thread. This thread started with the presupposition that God (the God of the Bible, with a capital "G") exists. This thread is to discuss one of His attributes, namely omnipotence. This thread was not begun in as an attempt to prove that God exists. It has steered off-course toward a discussion of faith and reason and now to asking for a "logically defensible argument" that God exists, Whose existence is a basic presupposition of this thread. I apologize for responding to and participating in those off-course rabbit trails. To be clear, though, I have never attempted to prove God exists.

I have been clear that I am not attempting to prove God's existence. The Bible does not attempt to prove His existence. I take it for granted that those here believe God exists, as the Bible makes it clear that only a fool claims otherwise, and I assume that no one here is a fool. That God exists is one of the "self evident truths", to borrow a term from the founders of our nation. The Bible tells us that the creation itself is evidence of God's existence and bears witness to some of His attributes. My "Your Honor..." statement was sarcastic; I thought that would be apparent given the honorific title "Your Honor" in light of the fact that this is not a legal proceeding and I was not addressing a judge.

As I mentioned before, I have no desire to discuss God and His attributes from some theoretical, philosophical viewpoint. Colossians 2:8 (NKJV),
"8 Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.". In discussing God, wisdom and prudence require that the discussion be based upon what He has revealed of Himself through His Word. I had assumed that anyone choosing to participate in a thread regarding God's attribute of omnipotence would already believe He exists, and that His existence would not need to be proven as part of the thread. If you don't believe that God (note the capital "G") exists, then why do you enter a forum which is intended to discuss one of His attributes?

Again, the Bible is clear that God exists, and that every person is without excuse if they deny this most basic fact (ref. Romans 1). God has not charged me to merely proclaim His existence, but rather to proclaim the gospel of Christ which is the only hope for any person of salvation and reconciliation with God.

Back to the original topic of God's omnipotence, here are a few (out of many) relevant verses from the NKJV,

Matthew 19:26
But Jesus looked at them and said to them, “With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”

Job 42:4
“I know that You can do everything,
And that no purpose of Yours can be withheld from You.

Revelation 19:6
I heard, as it were, the voice of a great multitude, as the sound of many waters and as the sound of mighty thunderings, saying, “Alleluia! For the[d] Lord God Omnipotent reigns!

brewdickle
07-23-2014, 9:57 AM
Sometimes we take a "God won't" and turn it into a "God can't, so he's not really God."

This has some interesting implications as it relates to the following verses.

Psalm 37:4
Take delight in the LORD, and he will give you the desires of your heart.


Matthew 21:22
If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer.

Perhaps someone can clarify.

Not a Cook
07-23-2014, 10:47 AM
This has some interesting implications as it relates to the following verses.

Psalm 37:4
Take delight in the LORD, and he will give you the desires of your heart.


Matthew 21:22
If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer.

Perhaps someone can clarify.

I'm not sure what "interesting implications" you are referring to. Both those verses bear witness that God will fulfill our desires when we delight ourselves in Him. When we delight ourselves in Him, we want to do His will, we want what He wants, we love Him more than we love ourselves, we die to ourselves to live for Him. At that point He will give us the desires of our heart (what we ask for) because our desires will reflect His, and we will want what He wants.

That said, what are these "interesting implications" to which you refer?

Not a Cook
07-23-2014, 11:10 AM
I agree with ArmedJackal that these conversations usually end up in very similar fashion, a "stalemate" or worse, when personal attacks come forth (thankfully hasn't happened here yet). I do enjoy the dialogue though, it allows me a glimpse into the minds of other people, and I guess somewhere deep down inside of me, I'm looking for a compelling reason to be a believer again (what's better than eternal life? ok, maybe eternal life with guns...)

I find that the most fair and meaningful conversations start with something that both parties can agree on. For example 'Nature', we can all see trees, mountains, water... how did it get here? I prefer to look at the scientific evidence and follow it wherever it might lead me. If it leads me to a God, then so be it. And if it leads me elsewhere then I'm ok with that too. I will not start with a conclusion and work backwards to confirm. That's called pseudoscience.

Lastly, I apologize for my part in derailing the thread.

I, too, apologize to everyone participating in and reading through this thread for my part in derailing it.

Remember, though, that God is not someone you can prove through science, because man's science is limited and cannot prove certain things. No person can "control" for God and scientifically test for Him. You cannot control for and exclude all other variables. However, multiple evidences do point to His existence, and reason and faith are not limited to what science can prove. Just because man's science cannot prove something, does not mean it isn't true. God gave us the ability to reason, infer, and believe things far beyond the limits of man's science. If you limit yourself to what you can prove through science, you do so of your own volition and consequently to your own detriment.

If you really are unsure whether God exists, carefully consider and examine His claims. See if what He said is true. He has given us a voluminous compendium we refer to as the Bible. If you really want to know if He exists, it is there you must search for Him. Do not limit yourself to merely what you can prove, for God by His nature is beyond man's understanding and finding out. As another poster in this thread alluded to: if you attempt to "prove" or "disprove" God by man's science, you'll be akin to an ant attempting to prove or disprove man's existence. Our faculties are not intended to comprehend God, but they most certainly are equipped to allow us to consider evidences He has provided and to reason so that we may enter into a relationship of love and trust and obedience to Him through His beloved Son.

The original premise if this thread was regarding one of God's attributes; I suggest that we stick to the original discussion and base our discussion upon the Scriptures.

Not a Cook
07-23-2014, 11:16 AM
"The fact is that He does exist. I state that as fact, and see no need to attempt to defend what is a basic presupposition. As I noted previously, the Bible presupposes His existence as well (ref. Genesis 1:1) and in numerous places labels those who attempt to deny God's existence as fools." - Not a Cook

To your point about these arguments being accepted in a court of law..... the legal premise of assuming facts not in evidence would probably work against you.

I've had a bunch of these friendly debates over the years, and while always enlightening, they usually end up in this exact spot. A person will assert that belief in God, specifically the Christian God, is a logically defensible position and then proceed to provide a series of logically fallacious arguments (usually failing logical tests with one of the classic fallacies, begging the question or argument from ignorance). The interesting thing is that these arguments are not "grey areas".... they are objectively flawed arguments that, without genuine emotional investment in a specific conclusion, no one would be able to justify as "evidence". But the discussions always seem to spiral to here, with the person unwilling or unable to understand that they are making arguments that are flawed in construct. The reason behind your investment in those flawed arguments is clear from a psychological standpoint.... Your worldview and personal identity is wrapped in the existence of God as you believe him to be. This is at odds with the social pressure of our modern society to seem rational and logical. Faced with this incongruity, most people subconsciously build an unassailable defense system around these incompatible concepts limits that allows them mental harmony but, as they often are mutually exclusive concepts, defending them in a conversation with someone else who has no emotional investment in the conclusions is impossible. Working backwards from the desired answer to the question works really well in detective novels, but is likely to provide accurate results in a search for truth.

According to the Bible, the facts are in evidence (ref. Revelation 1). Remember that mankind is not the jurist; rather God is the judge.

I respectfully suggest that you carefully reconsider and search the Scriptures, for it is only in them that you will discover the answer to many of your questions. Man cannot answer them for you; the Bible teaches us that faith is a gift from God and that it comes by the hearing of His Word. Science is useful, and reasoning is useful, but both are limited by the limited nature of the examiner (mere man). Man is not omnipotent. The Bible is not so limited, however, because God is the author of the Bible, and in contrast to man, God is omnipotent, which claim the Bible clearly makes.

devious21
07-23-2014, 11:22 AM
I have been clear that I am not attempting to prove God's existence. The Bible does not attempt to prove His existence. I take it for granted that those here believe God exists, as the Bible makes it clear that only a fool claims otherwise, and I assume that no one here is a fool.

You keep saying that while simultaneously presenting arguments for his existence. I agree with you that we should be able to assume God's existence for the sake of argument (omnipotence) but then you go from assuming to trying to present arguments as justification.

Whether you realize it or not, these are attempts to prove God's existence through logic. These are (logically flawed) arguments for God:


The complexity and specificity of His design clearly infers His existence; the mathematical odds against how perfectly suited this planet is for human life defies any explanation outside the fact that He created this place to be perfectly suited to sustain human life.

That's the watchmaker argument (False Analogy Fallacy) followed by an Argument from Incredulity (I can't imagine how something amazing could be possible without God, therefore God).

Creation testifies to God's existence. Common sense and basic logic allow us to discern that a relatively complex pocket watch found on a beach was designed and made by an intelligent creature, not as the result of random chance. To ignore the evidence of God's existence is to set-aside common-sense and basic logic.

Watchmaker fallacy again. Read up on that as it's NOT a good reason to believe in God. It's logically flawed and should not be convincing to you.

The Bible is either true or it isn't. The Bible is true, and it is the inspired and infallible Word of God. As such, it is your prerogative to either ignore Him, or else investigate the Scriptures for yourself in attempt to disprove them.

This is pretty standard Argument from Ignorance. It's shifting the Burden of Proof.


You can choose to debate whether God exists; I challenge you to simply stop ignoring Him and instead listen to Him (study the Scriptures) and start following Christ.

I think you may be confusing assuming God exists for the sake of argument VS assuming God exists because doing so is a reasonable or logical thing to do (it's not). To be clear, I'm not saying BELIEVING in God is unreasonable or illogical but starting with God as a assumption as opposed to a conclusion (same as all beliefs).

Not a Cook
07-23-2014, 11:42 AM
You keep saying that while simultaneously presenting arguments for his existence. I agree with you that we should be able to assume God's existence for the sake of argument (omnipotence) but then you go from assuming to trying to present arguments as justification.

Whether you realize it or not, these are attempts to prove God's existence through logic. These are (logically flawed) arguments for God:




That's the watchmaker argument (False Analogy Fallacy) followed by an Argument from Incredulity (I can't imagine how something amazing could be possible without God, therefore God).



Watchmaker fallacy again. Read up on that as it's NOT a good reason to believe in God. It's logically flawed and should not be convincing to you.



This is pretty standard Argument from Ignorance. It's shifting the Burden of Proof.




I think you may be confusing assuming God exists for the sake of argument VS assuming God exists because doing so is a reasonable or logical thing to do (it's not). To be clear, I'm not saying BELIEVING in God is unreasonable or illogical but starting with God as a assumption as opposed to a conclusion (same as all beliefs).

You're missing my point. The Bible presupposes God exists, as do I. His existence is a "given" - a "self evident truth". If you don't like that, that's your prerogative. Pointing out evidences of His existence is simply that - not an attempt at proof. Back to the thread topic - God is omnipotent (not us).

devious21
07-23-2014, 11:48 AM
I had assumed that anyone choosing to participate in a thread regarding God's attribute of omnipotence would already believe He exists, and that His existence would not need to be proven as part of the thread. If you don't believe that God (note the capital "G") exists, then why do you enter a forum which is intended to discuss one of His attributes?


The OPs question is one of logic concerning God. At it's heart it's a question about logic.

Keep in mind, I've never challenged the existence of God or said that I don't believe in God or that you shouldn't believe in God. I entered a discussion about logic regarding God and pointed out this:

I disagree; faith and reason are not mutually exclusive.

Faith in the context of belief (and as used in Hebrews) means to believe when you do not have evidence. That is by definition NOT reason and IS mutually exclusive. That said, most people do not believe PURELY on faith. You yourself have provided several arguments that you find convincing and therefore do not believe just because you have faith. While the arguments you stated wouldn't be sufficient justification for me to believe (because I recognize them as fallacious), they may be sufficient justification or evidence for you to believe. And if you have evidence, you're not relying purely on faith and therefore are not being necessarily irrational. That was my point.

But then the conversation shifted towards providing more and more logical arguments for God in a thread regarding logic that were logically invalid or unsound. At that's all I'm really challenging. The misuse of logic and NOT the existence of God.

If you tell me you believe in God, then I have nothing to say about it. If you say you believe in God because the Watchmaker analogy is a logically appealing or compelling argument, it's not.

brewdickle
07-23-2014, 11:52 AM
That said, what are these "interesting implications" to which you refer?

Simply that, a person should receive whatever they ask for, without stipulations.

A god that says "no" to my request, contradicts the passage.

devious21
07-23-2014, 11:58 AM
You're missing my point. The Bible presupposes God exists, as do I. His existence is a "given" - a "self evident truth". If you don't like that, that's your prerogative. Pointing out evidences of His existence is simply that - not an attempt at proof. Back to the thread topic - God is omnipotent (not us).

I understand your point. You're trying to elevate belief in God to the status of "Self Evident" or not in the position of needing any evidence. And in order to do that, you are providing the evidence that should sufficiently elevate it to such a position (watchmaker fallacy, argument from ignorance, etc). But those are flawed and therefore not acceptable.

So the reasons you are seeing as qualifying God's existence as "self evident" are only compelling to others that are willing to accept the same logically flawed arguments that you find convincing.

brewdickle
07-23-2014, 12:11 PM
If you really are unsure whether God exists, carefully consider and examine His claims. See if what He said is true. He has given us a voluminous compendium we refer to as the Bible.

I'm trying not to go off track again, but logically I cannot take the Bible as claims of truth without also validating every other religious doctrine out there be it Quran, Talmud, Book of Mormon, Book of the Dead, etc...

Additionally, I have searched for him through the Bible and it lead me to exactly where I am today. I know I know, I'm not doing it right or not listening hard enough.

And again, the bible is still hearsay. It is not an eyewitness account. I'm not yet willing to base my life on something that was written from secondhand accounts which were based off visions inside someone else's head.

ArmedJackal
07-23-2014, 12:20 PM
I'm trying not to go off track again, but logically I cannot take the Bible as claims of truth without also validating every other religious doctrine out there be it Quran, Talmud, Book of Mormon, Book of the Dead, etc...

Additionally, I have searched for him through the Bible and it lead me to exactly where I am today. I know I know, I'm not doing it right or not listening hard enough.

And again, the bible is still hearsay. It is not an eyewitness account. I'm not yet willing to base my life on something that was written from secondhand accounts which were based off visions inside someone else's head.

Here here. I am going to make a big assumption based on your username that you and I share a passion for beer brewing. If that is the case, we should also be strongly considering an argument attributed (possibly misattributed) to Benjamin Franklin - "Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy."

:)

Not a Cook
07-23-2014, 11:18 PM
I understand your point. You're trying to elevate belief in God to the status of "Self Evident" or not in the position of needing any evidence. And in order to do that, you are providing the evidence that should sufficiently elevate it to such a position (watchmaker fallacy, argument from ignorance, etc). But those are flawed and therefore not acceptable.

So the reasons you are seeing as qualifying God's existence as "self evident" are only compelling to others that are willing to accept the same logically flawed arguments that you find convincing.

"Self-evident" implies that the statement at hand need not be proven. The Bible takes God's existence as self-evident. In addition to the Bible, the founders of our country also accepted God's existence as being self-evident, and such acceptance formed part of the very core of the rationale for our nation's birth. This is apparent from these words from the Declaration of Independence,

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

I'm grateful that the "Founding Fathers" were "willing to accept the same logically flawed arguments that (I) find convincing". The very same body that gave us the Bill of Rights, including our venerated 2A, considered God's existence to be self-evident.

Question: what truths do you hold to be self-evident? I am genuinely curious to see such a list in light of your denial of classifying God's existence as being self-evident.

If you tell me you believe in God, then I have nothing to say about it. If you say you believe in God because the Watchmaker analogy is a logically appealing or compelling argument, it's not.
I believe in God for many reasons. I also acknowledge His very existence as being self-evident.

I'm trying not to go off track again, but logically I cannot take the Bible as claims of truth without also validating every other religious doctrine out there be it Quran, Talmud, Book of Mormon, Book of the Dead, etc...

Additionally, I have searched for him through the Bible and it lead me to exactly where I am today. I know I know, I'm not doing it right or not listening hard enough.

And again, the bible is still hearsay. It is not an eyewitness account. I'm not yet willing to base my life on something that was written from secondhand accounts which were based off visions inside someone else's head.

Two things:
First, many folks say (and may even think) they're searching after God, but at the heart of the matter they're actually searching after something else. For some, that "something else" is self-justification, for others it's other things. The Bible is clear that no one seeks after God (ref. Romans 3:11). However, the good news (actually, the GREAT news) is that God is seeking man. However, to accept His call we have to be humble and broken in heart. Until we are humble and broken before Him over our utter wretchedness, we will not heed His call to salvation. Christ said He came to call sinners, not the righteous, to repentance (ref. Luke 5:32). When you humble yourself before Him and come to terms with your sinfulness and desperate need for salvation and cry out to Him for salvation through Christ, He'll answer you. You can only come to God on His terms, not your own.

Second, the vast majority of the Bible was written by eye witnesses, with the caveat that some passages were "penned" via an amanuensis who recorded the account of an eyewitness. The only exceptions that come to mind are the books of Luke (which was written by one of the most meticulous ancient historians, namely Luke, as a historical record of Christ's life for Theopholis) and portions of Acts (note: part of Acts was Luke's first-hand account) and the old testament history books which are, of course, extremely well-documented historical records. The Bible is not hearsay. If someone told you it is, I'd strongly suggest studying its origins in detail for yourself.

brewdickle
07-24-2014, 8:26 AM
In addition to the Bible, the founders of our country also accepted God's existence as being self-evident, and such acceptance formed part of the very core of the rationale for our nation's birth.

They never specified which god they were referring to. Could have been one of many thousands. http://godfinder.org Moreover, many of the prominent founding fathers were Deists and rejected the Christian God altogether.



First, many folks say (and may even think) they're searching after God, but at the heart of the matter they're actually searching after something else. For some, that "something else" is self-justification, for others it's other things. The Bible is clear that no one seeks after God (ref. Romans 3:11). However, the good news (actually, the GREAT news) is that God is seeking man. However, to accept His call we have to be humble and broken in heart. Until we are humble and broken before Him over our utter wretchedness, we will not heed His call to salvation. Christ said He came to call sinners, not the righteous, to repentance (ref. Luke 5:32). When you humble yourself before Him and come to terms with your sinfulness and desperate need for salvation and cry out to Him for salvation through Christ, He'll answer you. You can only come to God on His terms, not your own.

No true Scotsman fallacy.

Second, the vast majority of the Bible was written by eye witnesses, with the caveat that some passages were "penned" via an amanuensis who recorded the account of an eyewitness. The only exceptions that come to mind are the books of Luke (which was written by one of the most meticulous ancient historians, namely Luke, as a historical record of Christ's life for Theopholis) and portions of Acts (note: part of Acts was Luke's first-hand account) and the old testament history books which are, of course, extremely well-documented historical records. The Bible is not hearsay. If someone told you it is, I'd strongly suggest studying its origins in detail for yourself.

Most scholars and historians agree that the majority of the Bible is not a firsthand account. Therefore, it is hearsay. Not only that, but some distinguished scholars tell us that the people who wrote the new testament lied about their identities.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bart-d-ehrman/the-bible-telling-lies-to_b_840301.html

If you don't feel like reading the whole article here is an excerpt:

'Most modern scholars of the Bible shy away from these terms, and for understandable reasons, some having to do with their clientele. Teaching in Christian seminaries, or to largely Christian undergraduate populations, who wants to denigrate the cherished texts of Scripture by calling them forgeries built on lies? And so scholars use a different term for this phenomenon and call such books "pseudepigrapha."

You will find this antiseptic term throughout the writings of modern scholars of the Bible. It's the term used in university classes on the New Testament, and in seminary courses, and in Ph.D. seminars. What the people who use the term do not tell you is that it literally means "writing that is inscribed with a lie."'

brewdickle
07-24-2014, 8:39 AM
Here here. I am going to make a big assumption based on your username that you and I share a passion for beer brewing. If that is the case, we should also be strongly considering an argument attributed (possibly misattributed) to Benjamin Franklin - "Beer is proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy."

:)

I do enjoy a good beer on occasion. However, the name is completely random and unrelated to my hobbies :)

Not a Cook
07-24-2014, 9:55 AM
They never specified which god they were referring to. Could have been one of many thousands. http://godfinder.org Moreover, many of the prominent founding fathers were Deists and rejected the Christian God altogether.

You might want to check on that. Yes, some were deists, but relatively few. The majority were professing Christians. Even some of the deists were clear that their undertaking was based upon Christian precepts and it was to the God of the Bible that they referred. There are many extant writings on the subject, and the extent writings make it very clear that they were referring to the God of the Bible. Their perspectives did not consider other "gods". How many of the Committee of Five were not professing Christians?


No true Scotsman fallacy. '

You may reject it as a fallacy, but it's true and common sense. You can only come to God on His terms, not yours. Remember, we're not God, He is God, and He sets the rules. He's the one in charge.


Most scholars and historians agree that the majority of the Bible is not a firsthand account. Therefore, it is hearsay. Not only that, but some distinguished scholars tell us that the people who wrote the new testament lied about their identities.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bart-d-ehrman/the-bible-telling-lies-to_b_840301.html

If you don't feel like reading the whole article here is an excerpt:

'Most modern scholars of the Bible shy away from these terms, and for understandable reasons, some having to do with their clientele. Teaching in Christian seminaries, or to largely Christian undergraduate populations, who wants to denigrate the cherished texts of Scripture by calling them forgeries built on lies? And so scholars use a different term for this phenomenon and call such books "pseudepigrapha."

You will find this antiseptic term throughout the writings of modern scholars of the Bible. It's the term used in university classes on the New Testament, and in seminary courses, and in Ph.D. seminars. What the people who use the term do not tell you is that it literally means "writing that is inscribed with a lie."'

"Most modern scholars" are people, and people are easily deceived. Satan attacks the historical veracity of, the infallibility of, and the doctrines of the Scriptures. Unfortunately, he uses many "modern scholars" to do his bidding. Anyone can make any claim they want, but making a claim doesn't make something true. "Most modern scholars" aren't much in the way of biblical scholars at all. They don't even understand the text, and most deny the power of God and disbelieve the text because they start with the preconceived notion that miracles cannot occur and other similarly wrong assumptions. Most seminaries were long ago taken over by unbelievers and no longer serve God.

Thankfully, there are still many, many very well qualified disciples of Christ who are trained in the Scriptures and are very well academically qualified and fit the "scholar" title, who do not deny the Scriptures. There are also still many very good programs (Bible colleges, seminaries, archaeological institutes, etc.) that stay true to the Word of God.

That said, I've investigated these claims for myself and don't need to rely on "most modern scholars". I know that the Bible is true and historical, regardless of what false information others put out there. Go read ancient texts. Go actually see the Dead Sea Scrolls for yourself. Look and evaluate the ancient manuscripts and extent writings for yourself.

Be very careful to be like the Bereans and check things for yourself. I know the Bible is true, and have found nothing but validation of that based upon my own studies. I also know its true based on how God has transformed my life through Christ, and how I've seen Him transform many other lives.

I won't debate the veracity of the Bible in detail in this thread (because it's way off-topic) but I will say this point-blank: the Bible is true, accurate, infallible, trustworthy, and powerful. Similar to something J. Vernon McGee (who really was a very respected scholar who warned people of the satanic lies that were creeping into most seminaries many years ago) used to say: "Defend the Bible? I don't need to defend the Bible. It's not a house cat that I should need to defend it. It's a ferocious lion that is powerful and can very well defend itself. Just let it loose and get out of its way."

texan
07-24-2014, 10:41 AM
Totally understood. One thing you might want to consider, though, is that "religious philosophy" is a bit of a foreign concept to the Bible. The Bible does not philosophize, but rather addresses life itself in black-and-white terms. As such, discussion of such topics as God's omnipotence (and please note that this is the God of Bible, thus the capital "G") is informed by Scripture, not by "religious philosophy". The Bible specifically warns us in Colossians 2:8 (NKJV),
"8 Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ."

Thanks for understanding my interest in the topic.

It's getting counter productive for the discussions to keep having to define terms with such easily referenced denotive meanings...
Philosophy (n):
1) the study of ideas about knowledge, truth, the nature and meaning of life, etc.
2) a particular set of ideas about knowledge, truth, the nature and meaning of life, etc.
3) a set of ideas about how to do something or how to live

All religion is philosophy. Scripture doesn't transcend religious philosophy, it quite simply defines it. As such, any discussions regarding the nature of religion or belief based on scripture are by definition a discussion of religious philosophy. That religious doctrine is ordinarily seen as absolute and immutable doesn't in any way take away from its philosophical nature, it just makes it a closed system.

Finally, If the Bible warns against discussing ideas in a constructive setting, one wonders why participation in this forum is thought to be condoned.

The Bible clearly teaches God's foreknowledge, election, and predestination of the saints. See the following passage for just one example - Romans 8:29-30 (NKJV),
"29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren. 30 Moreover whom He predestined, these He also called; whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified."

The Bible does not talk about "free will". Rather, it calls all men "slaves of sin". "Free will" is a term/construct of philosophy and theology, and is thus subject to having different meanings poured into the term. That is the reason I previously noted that I would use Strong's definition for "predestination", but did not necessarily agree to the philosophical definition of "free will" which has been previously used in this thread. I keep coming back to this: the Bible teaches God has foreknown, predestined, and elected the saints, and He has given man a choice whether to follow Him or not. There is no conflict between the two concepts. An apparent conflict only comes when you impose certain conditions upon the basic doctrines, which conditions are based upon man-made definitions and limits. The Scriptures are not in conflict on this matter

This seems to be weirdly digressing into an argument of semantics. Referencing my earlier definitions taken straight from Merriam-Webster and best stuck to for the sake of a rational discussion, what terms the Bible's authors choose to use is irrelevant to the logical topic of omniscience and determinism in this thread. It is perfectly fine to believe in Biblical predestination. It is also perfectly fine to believe in God's omniscience. What is not at all rational is to believe that humans have free will if God routinely violates the rational boundaries required for people to have free will (reference the now multi-quoted mutual exclusivity of free will and determinism).

One can conclude from your posts (at least in your estimation based on literal scripture) that no, the Bible does not support a worldview of human free will to make our own choices free from the control of God. That should suffice to answer the original question: rationally there is no conflict between the concepts of omniscience and free will, but free will hasn't been bestowed upon mankind in Bible scripture. We live a fatalistic existence preordained by God.

brewdickle
07-24-2014, 11:56 AM
You may reject it as a fallacy, but it's true and common sense. You can only come to God on His terms, not yours. Remember, we're not God, He is God, and He sets the rules. He's the one in charge.

That's not the fallacy. The fallacy is that I have done everything you claim will lead me to a belief in God, yet I still do not believe. You have implied that I was not a "true Christian", or that I wasn't following the instruction book correctly. No matter how much I plead with you that I was fully submitting myself to God, giving my life to Jesus and having him enter my heart... you will still say I did it all wrong. That is the no true Scotsman fallacy, also known as "moving the goal posts."

Just Dave
07-24-2014, 12:05 PM
Bingo.

maxmonster - God is omniscient, and He elects and predestines and foreknows. Consider Romans 8 and Ephesians 1. In His grace, God has elected and predestined those He has appointed to salvation. However, every person still has a very real personal choice to make - that is, whether to accept God's gracious gift of salvation or not. The "whosoever will" of John 3. The Scriptures teach us that God has chosen already, yet they also teach us that man exercises "free will" to make our own decision in the matter. Many people (theologians especially) have difficulty reconciling how these can all be true and co-exist without conflict (i.e. God's omnipotence, God's predestination and election, and man's free will). The mistake is to see them as being mutually exclusive. However, it's very simple - they co-exist perfectly and harmoniously. They are not mutually exclusive. People get too focused on trying to figure out just exactly how that can be. God chooses; man chooses; they are not in conflict. The big point of it all, though, is that we are saved by God's grace, and instead of endlessly arguing about how these things work harmoniously together, we should be faithful to thank God and praise Him for extending His grace to us who don't deserve it.

At the end of the day, we need to be faithful to search the Scriptures carefully, correctly divide the word of truth, and accept what the Scriptures teach us. And ultimately, of course, give praise and worship to the Lord for His amazing grace and love which He has given us through His beloved Son.

Exactly!

The two work together in harmony.

Not a Cook
07-24-2014, 12:36 PM
That's not the fallacy. The fallacy is that I have done everything you claim will lead me to a belief in God, yet I still do not believe. You have implied that I was not a "true Christian", or that I wasn't following the instruction book correctly. No matter how much I plead with you that I was fully submitting myself to God, giving my life to Jesus and having him enter my heart... you will still say I did it all wrong. That is the no true Scotsman fallacy, also known as "moving the goal posts."

Sorry for misunderstanding what you were referring to. I mean this with the utmost respect:

Please consider Hebrews 11:6 (NKJV), "But without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him." The precondition for coming to God is believing both that He is and that He is a rewarder of those that diligently seek Him. Since you don't believe that He is, you haven't come to Him in faith - which is the precondition for truly coming to Him. Please note that the "faith" spoken of here, as I've noted elsewhere, is not mere intellectual assent or belief, but rather a genuine trust that changes your entire life and lifestyle. This type of faith doesn't come and go... this type of faith will endure. Any faith that came and went wasn't the type of faith that is required to come to God. A temporary intellectual belief in God's existence doesn't satisfy the precondition. Consider also the parable of the sower found in Luke 8 (NKJV),
"4 And when a great multitude had gathered, and they had come to Him from every city, He spoke by a parable: 5 “A sower went out to sow his seed. And as he sowed, some fell by the wayside; and it was trampled down, and the birds of the air devoured it. 6 Some fell on rock; and as soon as it sprang up, it withered away because it lacked moisture. 7 And some fell among thorns, and the thorns sprang up with it and choked it. 8 But others fell on good ground, sprang up, and yielded a crop a hundredfold.” When He had said these things He cried, “He who has ears to hear, let him hear!”

9 Then His disciples asked Him, saying, “What does this parable mean?”

10 And He said, “To you it has been given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God, but to the rest it is given in parables, that

‘Seeing they may not see,
And hearing they may not understand.’[b]

11 “Now the parable is this: The seed is the word of God. 12 Those by the wayside are the ones who hear; then the devil comes and takes away the word out of their hearts, lest they should believe and be saved. 13 But the ones on the rock are those who, when they hear, receive the word with joy; and these have no root, who believe for a while and in time of temptation fall away. 14 Now the ones that fell among thorns are those who, when they have heard, go out and are choked with cares, riches, and pleasures of life, and bring no fruit to maturity. 15 But the ones that fell on the good ground are those who, having heard the word with a noble and good heart, keep it and bear fruit with patience."
I say this respectfully: as you've described your personal experience, it sounds like (so far) you haven't been the "good ground", but rather one of the other types of soil. I don't know which other type for sure (because I don't know enough about your personal situation), but not the "good ground" either way.

All that said, the "solution" to "finding faith" isn't in studying philosophy or religion. Faith is a gift from God, and although I can't claim to understand HOW the Holy Spirit imparts faith to anyone, I do know that the Scriptures teach this in Romans 10:17 (NKJV), " So then faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.". All I can say for sure at this time is that, if you really want to have the type of faith that is required to please God, you need to be hearing, reading, and studying the Scriptures, especially the gospel accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

devious21
07-24-2014, 1:38 PM
"Self-evident" implies that the statement at hand need not be proven. The Bible takes God's existence as self-evident. In addition to the Bible, the founders of our country also accepted God's existence as being self-evident, and such acceptance formed part of the very core of the rationale for our nation's birth. This is apparent from these words from the Declaration of Independence,



"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."



I'm grateful that the "Founding Fathers" were "willing to accept the same logically flawed arguments that (I) find convincing". The very same body that gave us the Bill of Rights, including our venerated 2A, considered God's existence to be self-evident.



Question: what truths do you hold to be self-evident? I am genuinely curious to see such a list in light of your denial of classifying God's existence as being self-evident.



I believe in God for many reasons. I also acknowledge His very existence as being self-evident.



You are just using self evident to mean obvious to the extent that you don't require evidence. The only things I hold to be self evident are things that me and the party I'm talking to, both agree are so obvious, they don't require evidence.

The founding fathers used it to mean that life liberty and the pursuit of happiness were fundamental values that they felt required no justification. It doesn't mean they couldn't provide justification for it. It simply speaks to the conviction of that belief.

The claim that a deity exists absolutely requires justification. To assume otherwise is a little ridiculous.

What if I told you my belief in Big Foot was "self evident". And that there's evidence for it but it doesn't require any.

What if another person told you their god was "self evident"? That statement holds almost zero weight.

All it says is that you are so convinced that it seems obvious to you. In order for it to be obvious to ME, I would need to see the same things that convinced you.

So far it has been a bunch of fallacious arguments that are not convincing to me (nor should they be) and therefor, I'm not seeing the God proposition to be as obvious as it appears to be for you.

Not a Cook
07-24-2014, 2:08 PM
You are just using self evident to mean obvious to the extent that you don't require evidence. The only things I hold to be self evident are things that me and the party I'm talking to, both agree are so obvious, they don't require evidence.

The founding fathers used it to mean that life liberty and the pursuit of happiness were fundamental values that they felt required no justification.

The claim that a deity exists absolutely requires justification. To assume otherwise is a little ridiculous.

What if I told you my belief in Big Foot was "self evident". And that there's evidence for it but it doesn't require any.

What if another person told you their god was "self evident"? That statement holds almost zero weight.

All it says is that you are so convinced that it seems obvious to you. In order for it to be obvious to ME, I would need to see the same things that convinced you.

So far it has been a bunch of fallacious arguments that are not convincing to me (nor should they be) and therefor, I'm not seeing the God proposition to be as obvious as it appears to be for you.

I'm using the term "self-evident" per the actual definition of the word (which word had etymologically documented usage back to 1671 and would have been understood the same way by the "founding fathers"). That meaning, per Merriam-Webster's dictionary, is, "evident without proof or reasoning". The founders of our country, as evidenced by the Declaration of Independence and extant writings, considered the existence of God to be self-evident. I'm using the term per its meaning. It does not mean "agreed", nor is it subject to any democratic consensus. Throughout the history of the world God's existence has been considered self-evident, although there have long been those who attempt to deny His existence in unrighteousness as evidenced and described in Romans 1. The Bible says that it is the fool who says in his heart that there is no God (ref. Psalm 14:1 and Psalm 53:1). Consider carefully the second part of Romans 1 which deals directly with this topic, quoted from the NKJV below:

" 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.

24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality,[c] wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, 30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving,[d] unmerciful; 32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.

Lest that isn't clear to you for any reason, perhaps this link will help:
http://billygraham.org/decision-magazine/march-2014/the-fool-has-said-in-his-heart-there-is-no-god/

Perhaps you will keep in mind that I have now repeated myself several times: I have not, and am not, trying to prove to you that God exists. I start at the self-evident truth that He does exist.

Not a Cook
07-24-2014, 2:19 PM
Simply that, a person should receive whatever they ask for, without stipulations.

A god that says "no" to my request, contradicts the passage.

No it doesn't. God only promises to "give you the desires of your heart" when you "delight yourself in Him". When you're delighting in Him, you'll want what He wants to give you, and He will give it to you. If your desires don't match His, He hasn't promised to fulfill them.

It's like me with my kids. If they ask me for something I don't want them to have, something that doesn't match my desires for them, I won't give it to them.

There is no contradiction in these verses.

Keep in mind that God can answer a request multiple ways, just as I can with my kids. I can say "no" because it isn't something that pleases me and isn't what's best for them; I can say "yes" because it pleases me and is what is what's best; but I can also say "not now" because it may be something they want, and I may want to give them, but now isn't the right time for them to have it.

devious21
07-24-2014, 2:54 PM
I'm using the term "self-evident" per the actual definition of the word (which word had etymologically documented usage back to 1671 and would have been understood the same way by the "founding fathers"). That meaning, per Merriam-Webster's dictionary, is, "evident without proof or reasoning". The founders of our country, as evidenced by the Declaration of Independence and extant writings, considered the existence of God to be self-evident. I'm using the term per its meaning. It does not mean "agreed", nor is it subject to any democratic consensus. Throughout the history of the world God's existence has been considered self-evident, although there have long been those who attempt to deny His existence in unrighteousness as evidenced and described in Romans 1. The Bible says that it is the fool who says in his heart that there is no God (ref. Psalm 14:1 and Psalm 53:1). Consider carefully the second part of Romans 1 which deals directly with this topic, quoted from the NKJV below:



" 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.



24 Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, 25 who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.



26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.



28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality,[c] wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, 30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving,[d] unmerciful; 32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.



Lest that isn't clear to you for any reason, perhaps this link will help:

http://billygraham.org/decision-magazine/march-2014/the-fool-has-said-in-his-heart-there-is-no-god/



Perhaps you will keep in mind that I have now repeated myself several times: I have not, and am not, trying to prove to you that God exists. I start at the self-evident truth that He does exist.


Your entire first paragraph just provided me with a definition of self evident that means exactly what I proposed, followed by another claim that the Founders are referring to God and not "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" followed by more scripture.

You then state that you have not tried to prove god exists yet you provided plenty of arguments of which I explained were very poor arguments.

You then conveniently state no proof for God is even necessary because the claim of God is self evident. It's not. Again, it's not rational to claim belief in a deity requires no justification. If you don't believe me, ask someone else. Look it up online. Walk in to a community college and find someone with a basic understanding of critical thinking.

We can assume FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT that God exists. That's NO WHERE NEAR being the same as saying a rational belief in God requires no justification.

Your last statement sums it up perfectly. -"I start at the self-evident truth that He does exist."

Any person who values logic, reason or skepticism would be embarrassed to say what you did there. That is not something to be proud of.

Imagine if I said "I start at the self evident truth that your god doesn't exist. To be clear, I have not and am not trying to prove it to you. I wouldn't have to because it's self evident".

Your attempt to qualify God as "self evident" is a very, very basic Shifting of the Burden of Proof.

devious21
07-24-2014, 3:04 PM
And to be VERY clear, I'm NOT ASKING YOU TO PROVE GOD.

I simply pointed out that the arguments YOU PROVIDED ON YOUR OWN were fallacies as well as the claim that God is self evident.

If you don't want to provide evidence for God, then don't. But it's incorrect to say that no evidence is required to justify belief. That's simply not true.

texan
07-24-2014, 3:42 PM
Exactly!

The two work together in harmony.

No, the two concepts don't work together in perfect harmony. They are by definition mutually exclusive, claiming the opposite is true is just an exercise in willful ignorance (or dubious reading comprehension).

You can either have choice free from influence or you can have influence over choice. You can't have both.

Not a Cook
07-24-2014, 4:19 PM
No, the two concepts don't work together in perfect harmony. They are by definition mutually exclusive, claiming the opposite is true is just an exercise in willful ignorance (or dubious reading comprehension).

You can either have choice free from influence or you can have influence over choice. You can't have both.

Sorry, that isn't correct. They work together in perfect harmony. You're assuming that just because you don't understand how they work together in harmony, that they must therefore be mutually exclusive. You're creating a false dichotomy, an "either/or scenario", when it is an "and" scenario. Just because you can't reconcile the two in your limited thinking does not mean that they are mutually exclusive. The Bible teaches both. I'll refer you back to my previous post, namely,
"God is omniscient, and He elects and predestines and foreknows. Consider Romans 8 and Ephesians 1. In His grace, God has elected and predestined those He has appointed to salvation. However, every person still has a very real personal choice to make - that is, whether to accept God's gracious gift of salvation or not. The "whosoever will" of John 3. The Scriptures teach us that God has chosen already, yet they also teach us that man exercises "free will" to make our own decision in the matter. Many people (theologians especially) have difficulty reconciling how these can all be true and co-exist without conflict (i.e. God's omnipotence, God's predestination and election, and man's free will). The mistake is to see them as being mutually exclusive. However, it's very simple - they co-exist perfectly and harmoniously. They are not mutually exclusive. People get too focused on trying to figure out just exactly how that can be. God chooses; man chooses; they are not in conflict. The big point of it all, though, is that we are saved by God's grace, and instead of endlessly arguing about how these things work harmoniously together, we should be faithful to thank God and praise Him for extending His grace to us who don't deserve it.

At the end of the day, we need to be faithful to search the Scriptures carefully, correctly divide the word of truth, and accept what the Scriptures teach us. And ultimately, of course, give praise and worship to the Lord for His amazing grace and love which He has given us through His beloved Son."

And also this one, "Why not? You don't think that it is possible that both God and man could make the same choice (as in, God could choose a person, and then that same person could also choose to follow Him)?

Theologians make much of this, but I like to stick with what the Bible actually says. It clearly teaches that God has elected and predestined the saints unto salvation. The Bible also teaches that "whosoever will" will be saved. The Scriptures also tell us that "We love Him because He first loved us" (John 1:19, NKJV). We choose Him because He's first chosen us. "Or do you despise the riches of His goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance?" (Romans 2:4, NKJV). So we see clearly that God leads us to repentance. But why would that mean that we didn't really choose? Why would that contradict free will? Why try to take things farther than what is clearly taught?

Haven't you ever run into a situation where one spouse loved the other first, and it was the love of the "first-loving" spouse and that spouse's actions that lead the second spouse to love the first? The actions of the "first-loving" spouse didn't contradict, preclude, or otherwise eliminate the other spouse's choice to choose to love the "first-loving spouse". So it is with God and us. He loved us first, and we responded to His love by loving Him. He chose us, then we chose Him. His choosing us didn't preclude our choosing Him, although folks try to make pigeon-holed theological and philosophical constructs that makes it appear that it would.

Keeping the focus on simply what the Bible actually teaches leads us to thank and praise God for His truly amazing grace that He has extended to us. If we get too bogged down in pigeon-holed arguments and man-made philosophies and theologies (please understand me - I'm all about having sound doctrine, but not all about man-made constructs), we tend to needlessly divide the body of Christ. Witness the whole division in the church today over Calvinism and Arminianism, or even Calvinists vs. hyper-Calvinists. Why not just stick with what the Scriptures clearly teach?"

All that said, isn't this a discussion of God's attribute of omnipotence, not on Arminianism vs. Calvinism?

texan
07-24-2014, 4:37 PM
You can believe whatever you want to believe, but when your belief contradicts
the basic logic underpinning a rational discussion on the subject, that leaves no room for further discussion. You're basically demanding people accept (your interpretation of) scripture and ignore rationality where the two come into conflict. Your scripture is creating a logical paradox, you cannot have a personal choice to make in accepting God when your life has been predestined (and thus the choices in it preordained). Nobody should be encouraged to accept scripture that makes no sense. Theologians make much of the problem because it's a significant one, pretending it doesn't exist doesn't serve to alleviate this. Willful ignorance and cognitive dissonance are never good mental states.

These are the dictionary definitions of the terms you're using, notice how they are by definition mutually exclusive concepts...

free will: the ability to make choices that are not controlled by fate or God.

predestination: the belief that everything that will happen has already been decided by fate or God and cannot be changed.

There's no need to continue posting on the subject. We're not discussing anything, we're just arguing ad nauseum with no common point of rational reference. Have a good day everyone!

Not a Cook
07-24-2014, 4:45 PM
Your entire first paragraph just provided me with a definition of self evident that means exactly what I proposed, followed by another claim that the Founders are referring to God and not "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" followed by more scripture.

Take a look again at the actual statement in the Declaration of Independence:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

One of the truths that the "founding fathers" clearly considered to be self-evident was that all men are endowed by their Creator with... This presupposes the existence of the Creator. Since that particular truth was self-evident, the presupposition of the existence of the Creator (upon which that self-evident truth depends) must likewise be self-evident.

You then state that you have not tried to prove god exists yet you provided plenty of arguments of which I explained were very poor arguments.

They aren't arguments, they're simply evidences of a self-existent truth. The Bible and the "founding fathers" treated them the same way I do.

You then conveniently state no proof for God is even necessary because the claim of God is self evident. It's not. Again, it's not rational to claim belief in a deity requires no justification. If you don't believe me, ask someone else. Look it up online. Walk in to a community college and find someone with a basic understanding of critical thinking.

We can assume FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT that God exists. That's NO WHERE NEAR being the same as saying a rational belief in God requires no justification.

Your last statement sums it up perfectly. -"I start at the self-evident truth that He does exist."

Any person who values logic, reason or skepticism would be embarrassed to say what you did there. That is not something to be proud of.

Hmmm... interesting you should say that. God hates pride (ref. Proverbs 16:15 and many related verses) and arrogance and haughtiness. He loves humility. The only way to come to God is to humble yourself. Consider carefully 1 Corinthians 1:18-29 (NKJV):

"18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written:

“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
And bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.”[a]
20 Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? 21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. 22 For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; 23 but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, 24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

26 For you see your calling, brethren, that not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called. 27 [B]But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty; 28 and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, 29 that no flesh should glory in His presence."

Imagine if I said "I start at the self evident truth that your god doesn't exist. To be clear, I have not and am not trying to prove it to you. I wouldn't have to because it's self evident".

Your attempt to qualify God as "self evident" is a very, very basic Shifting of the Burden of Proof.

First, there is no burden of proof for something that's self-evident. Refer again to the definition of "self-evident" from Merriam-Webster, "evident without proof or reasoning."

Second, I'm glad you didn't "start at the self evident truth that [God] doesn't exist". If you did, then the Bible would label you a fool (ref. Psalm 14:1 and Psalm 53:1) and I would be instructed not to have anything to do with you and couldn't discuss this with you further (ref. 2 Timothy 2:23, Proverbs 14:7).

planetbuster
07-24-2014, 5:09 PM
the statements made by the OP sounds like more of the church's attempt to shore up the logical weaknesses of christianity, and religion in general, by erecting this fallacious framework by which you can leverage all these nonsensical ideas and portray such notions as based on logic and reason and so on..

but if you think about such things carefully, youll see it doesnt hold water.

i invite you guys to cast off your 2500+ yr old superstitions (the product of the imagination of the mind of early mankind who saw a shooting star or some sh1t and didnt know what it was) and check out something called plasma cosmology.

Not a Cook
07-24-2014, 5:14 PM
Thanks for understanding my interest in the topic.

It's getting counter productive for the discussions to keep having to define terms with such easily referenced denotive meanings...
Philosophy (n):
1) the study of ideas about knowledge, truth, the nature and meaning of life, etc.
2) a particular set of ideas about knowledge, truth, the nature and meaning of life, etc.
3) a set of ideas about how to do something or how to live

All religion is philosophy. Scripture doesn't transcend religious philosophy, it quite simply defines it. As such, any discussions regarding the nature of religion or belief based on scripture are by definition a discussion of religious philosophy. That religious doctrine is ordinarily seen as absolute and immutable doesn't in any way take away from its philosophical nature, it just makes it a closed system.

Finally, If the Bible warns against discussing ideas in a constructive setting, one wonders why participation in this forum is thought to be condoned.



This seems to be weirdly digressing into an argument of semantics. Referencing my earlier definitions taken straight from Merriam-Webster and best stuck to for the sake of a rational discussion, what terms the Bible's authors choose to use is irrelevant to the logical topic of omniscience and determinism in this thread. It is perfectly fine to believe in Biblical predestination. It is also perfectly fine to believe in God's omniscience. What is not at all rational is to believe that humans have free will if God routinely violates the rational boundaries required for people to have free will (reference the now multi-quoted mutual exclusivity of free will and determinism).

One can conclude from your posts (at least in your estimation based on literal scripture) that no, the Bible does not support a worldview of human free will to make our own choices free from the control of God. That should suffice to answer the original question: rationally there is no conflict between the concepts of omniscience and free will, but free will hasn't been bestowed upon mankind in Bible scripture. We live a fatalistic existence preordained by God.

Texan - I know you've sort of bowed-out of the conversation, but there is one final thing I'd like to share with you that you may not have run across before. Namely:

"Religion" is a big topic. But if you examine the Bible through the lens of either "religion" or "philosophy", you'll miss the true beauty of the Scriptures. You see, something J. Vernon McGee said has long stuck with me. It goes something like this: "Religion and the Gospel of Christ are two entirely different things. Religion is full of man-made "dos" and "don'ts". Religion is man's attempt to reach God... man's attempt to be "good enough" by man's own works to be accepted by God. The Gospel of Christ is something altogether different. It starts with the truth that man can't reach God, man isn't even searching for God, and man's own works damn him before God, not justify him before God. The Gospel of Christ isn't at all about man trying to reach God. The Gospel of Christ is about God reaching down to man, because man can't reach God. The Gospel of Christ is about what God did through His Son; it's not about what man can do."

I'm not big on "religion", to put it mildly. The religious leaders of the first century hated and despised Christ, so much so that they ultimately plotted to kill Him and "convicted" Him in a kangaroo-court. Religion doesn't like the Gospel of Christ. Religion tends to want to control people; Christ came to set people free. Coming to Christ isn't about joining or following a religion; coming to Christ is about entering into a literal, personal relationship with Him and learning to love and follow and walk with Him in new life that He gives to us.

P.S. Just in case you're curious, your conclusion from my posts that I quoted above isn't entirely accurate, but I honestly doubt either of us (or anyone else reading this thread) still cares, so I'm happy to drop it.

devious21
07-24-2014, 6:48 PM
One of the truths that the "founding fathers" clearly considered to be self-evident was that all men are endowed by their Creator with...

There's so many things wrong with your "founding fathers" argument. Let me just try to get these out of the way so we can hopefully move on from this point, which is just a complete waste of time.

1) The Founders were not authorities on the existence of God.
2) Appealing to them as an authority is a logical fallacy.
3) The Declaration is saying that it's obvious we have inalienable rights. It's not saying it's obvious that X god exists and no longer requires proof.
4) Something being "Self Evident" doesn't mean it has magically attained some "safe zone" where logic and reason need no longer apply and evidence is not required. It means that it's evident on it's own.


If I give you a solid wooden box and tell you to "open it", you might look at me funny. Maybe check it out for a few minutes before asking me "how?". If my response is "it's self evident", then guess what - I'm wrong. At that point it doesn't matter if I say "The founders said it...". I'm just wrong. If it was "self evident" it would be evident. If it's not, I'm wrong.


They aren't arguments, they're simply evidences of a self-existent truth.

They ARE arguments. They are LITERALLY logical arguments for the existence of God. The "Watchmaker Argument", "Fine Tuned Universe Argument", etc. Also, they aren't rational evidence for anything. They are deeply flawed arguments that hinge on logical fallacies, some of which, I pointed out.


Hmmm... interesting you should say that. God hates pride

No that is not interesting. I honestly don't know if you're doing this on purpose or just grasping for straws. Do you think I used "proud of" in that sentence to how "Pride" is being referenced in the bible or that it's relevant at all to this discussion? Let me rephrase that sentence so it doesn't have that ugly word Pride.

"Any person who values logic, reason or skepticism would be embarrassed to say what you did there. That is something to be ashamed of."

Now you can look up the word "ashamed" and tell me something irrelevant the scripture says about it.

First, there is no burden of proof for something that's self-evident. Refer again to the definition of "self-evident" from Merriam-Webster, "evident without proof or reasoning.

Please look up the definition of "Evident". Evident means obvious. That definition reads as "obvious without proof or reasoning". You're using it to mean "justified without proof or reasoning". That's incorrect and not what evident means.

If I said "It's a fact that we breath oxygen, do you want me to show you all my proof?". You would say "No thank you, that's really obvious. No proof is required to believe that". The reason you don't need me to prove it to you is because it's so OBVIOUSLY TRUE from all the proof you already have. You demonstrate that it's true to yourself, constantly.

If we only breathed once every 80 years and it happened while you were sleeping, the fact that we breathe oxygen would be MUCH LESS OBVIOUS and people would probably be more inclined to hear justification about that fact.

So when you say "God is Self-Evident", what you're telling me is that the proposition "X God Exists" is obviously true. Meanwhile, you stated a handful of logical fallacies as justification for believing in God, which are not compelling to me (or other rational people). At that point, however obvious you think it is, is irrelevant. See my wooden box analogy from earlier.

This is the most important point:
Even IF God's existence was obvious to both of us, that would NOT mean it doesn't need justification to rationally believe it. It would mean there is SO MUCH justification for it, that it's clearly obvious and therefor, none is required. This magical status of "self evident" where claims don't require evidence, is not a real thing. It doesn't exist. And it is absolutely Shifting the Burden of Proof, a logical fallacy.

DPC
07-24-2014, 7:57 PM
Yes "All things are possible with God." Will He do them is the question, the bible is clear "He does what ever He pleases." Does it please Him to do so??? Is it in His will for you to do so??? To say God cannot is absurd, the same God who created the entire universe and everything there in. "Who knows all the days fashioned for me when as yet there were none." Who created Adam out of the dust??? We have a very finite way thinking we are not capable of grasping fully an infinte God except through His Son Christ Jesus who is the fullness of God.

devious21
07-24-2014, 8:25 PM
Yes "All things are possible with God." Will He do them is the question, the bible is clear "He does what ever He pleases." Does it please Him to do so??? Is it in His will for you to do so??? To say God cannot is absurd, the same God who created the entire universe and everything there in. "Who knows all the days fashioned for me when as yet there were none." Who created Adam out of the dust??? We have a very finite way thinking we are not capable of grasping fully an infinte God except through His Son Christ Jesus who is the fullness of God.

I think you'll find that many theists would accept the idea that "God cannot create a square circle".

Not a Cook
07-24-2014, 8:56 PM
Yes "All things are possible with God." Will He do them is the question, the bible is clear "He does what ever He pleases." Does it please Him to do so??? Is it in His will for you to do so??? To say God cannot is absurd, the same God who created the entire universe and everything there in. "Who knows all the days fashioned for me when as yet there were none." Who created Adam out of the dust??? We have a very finite way thinking we are not capable of grasping fully an infinte God except through His Son Christ Jesus who is the fullness of God.

You're right on! Here, again, are a few (of many) relevant verses (all from NKJV):

Matthew 19:26
But Jesus looked at them and said to them, “With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”

Job 42:4
“I know that You can do everything,
And that no purpose of Yours can be withheld from You.

Revelation 19:6
I heard, as it were, the voice of a great multitude, as the sound of many waters and as the sound of mighty thunderings, saying, “Alleluia! For the[d] Lord God Omnipotent reigns!

Barang
07-24-2014, 10:59 PM
For a simple mind like me, the scriptures below are enough to convince me of the God of the Bible. Not to mention things, places, history , etc. that are contain in the Book. Don't know much about them but I know enough that Bible is not lying to me.

Psalm 19:1New American Standard Bible (NASB)
19 The heavens are telling of the glory of God;
And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands.

Romans 1:19-20New American Standard Bible (NASB)
19 because that which is known about God is evident [a]within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

1 Corinthians 2:14New American Standard Bible (NASB)
14 But [a]a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.

[B]1 John 5:20New American Standard Bible (NASB)
20 And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding so that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life.