INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[Agnostic75]

Freedom to choose has nothing to do with the capacity to carry it out. Even if God can't actually lie does not mean that he could not will to do so.

The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines the word "choose" as "to select freely and after consideration." That does not apply to God since choice implies options. God does not have the option to lie, or to even want to lie. God's omnipotence must always work in complete, and consistent harmony with his omnibenevolence. Always telling the truth, and always wanting to tell the truth, are part of God's omnibenevolence. According to the Bible, and a great many Christian Bible scholars, and a great many Christian laymen, God must always be good, not only regarding his actions, but also regarding his thoughts.

Matthew 5:28 says:

"But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."

If God even wanted to lie, he would have already committed adultery in his heart. That would be impossible for God.

In another thread, you correctly said that even wanting to steal is wrong even if the theft is not committed.

I provided evidence from William Lane Craig, J. P. Moreland, Thomas Aquinas, and from the Bible itself, that God cannot lie.

Aquinas' "God must contain the perfections of all created things in the highest manner possible" is similar to Craig's "greatest conceivable being," and Moreland's "greatest possible being." Such a being could not possibly ever want to lie, let alone ever tell a lie. J. P. Moreland said it the best when he said in a Youtube video that God cannot improve.

Are you actually claiming that Craig, and Moreland believe that God is capable of lying? If so, they are easy to contact, and you could easily be proven wrong. It would also be easy to contact Ravi Zacharias and prove that you are wrong.

Consider the following:

http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=12&article=1383

Can God be limited? Many Bible passages proclaim that God is all-powerful, all-seeing, and all-knowing. While God is unlimited by time, space, or force, His very character has determined that He will never do some things, because to do them would be inconsistent with His principles—viz., God’s nature prevents Him from such things. For example, God cannot lie. Observe what the Bible has to say about God’s honesty and, therefore, His reliability.

Numbers 23:19: “God is not a man, that He should lie, nor a son of man, that He should repent. Has He said, and will He not do? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?”
1 Samuel 15:29: “And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor relent. For He is not a man, that He should relent.”
Psalm 92:15: “To declare that the Lord is upright; He is my rock, and there is no unrighteousness in Him.”
Malachi 3:6: “For I am the Lord, I do not change.”
Romans 3:4: “Indeed, let God be true but every man a liar.”
Titus 1:2: “n hope of eternal life which God, who cannot lie, promised before time began.”
Hebrews 6:18: “t is impossible for God to lie.”
James 1:17-18: “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning.”
​

God is the only being Who is incapable of lying. Everything that God said would happen before now, has happened—just as He said it would. Since God knows all things past, present, and future (and since He is completely honest), it is impossible for Him to speak untruths (see Colley, 2004).

God has never lied—He has never even made an “honest mistake.” God, in revealing His message to humans, has not held back truths that we need (2 Peter 1:3). Likewise, Jesus was completely honest, even when telling a hard truth meant putting Himself in danger (Matthew 23:28-33; 1 John 3:5).

God is not tempted to lie. No one can catch Him in a compromising position, or give Him an opportunity to make Himself appear more impressive by making up false accomplishments or attributes. He is perfect in every way, so even if His character did permit Him to lie, the potential for personal gain, which serves as many people’s motivation to lie, would not affect Him.

Jesus said: “You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it” (John 8:44). The dishonesty of Satan is one of the features that makes him the complete opposite of God; God speaks the truth exclusively, while Satan speaks only lies. The angels who, at one time, chose to follow Satan, are partakers in his deceit (see Thompson, 1999). Satan does not tell lies because he wants humans to avoid the pain that truth often brings. Rather, he lies because he hopes that humans will believe falsehoods and, eventually, be damned because they reject the truth of God (1 Peter 5:8). The fact that the devil keeps “no truth in him” is one of the reasons why heaven and hell are so far separated (Matthew 25:41; Luke 16:26). God cannot associate with the impurity that dishonesty brings.

Consider the following about Caleb Colley, who wrote the article:

"Caleb Colley graduated as an Honors College Scholar Graduate, with University Honors (summa cum laude), from Freed-Hardeman University, where he earned a B.A. in Communication and a B.S. in Bible. He holds a Master’s degree (M.L.A.) from Faulkner University, and is currently working on a Ph.D. in philosophy at the University of South Carolina. Caleb has served as the producer/director for Digger Doug’s Underground, A.P.’s premiere television program for children. He has authored a book on spiritual leadership for young men, and co-authored a book on maturity for teenagers. He writes for R&R and the A.P. Web site, and also assists with the development of Bible School Curriculum and A.P. home-schooling materials. With his considerable public speaking skills, Caleb is available for speaking engagements and is especially effective with young people."

If necessary, I can find many more Christian scholars who disagree with you.

Please quote some Christian scholars who claim that God is able to want to lie, and is capable of lying. In addition, please quote some Scriptures that claim that God is able to want to lie, and is capable of lying.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Yes, and actually showing something was worthy of laughter.

Um, the part immediately prior to the "lol"; I thought that sort of went without saying...

Infinity works as a abstract idea. It starts falling apart when used to evaluate actual things. That is king of important when discussing ridiculous notions like time, matter, or space being eternal.

Why? And what do you mean by "falling apart"? Do you simply mean it has counter-intuitive results?

No, you may criticize as you please and that is what you are doing. However you can't think I am going to just take your word over a guy with about 4 degrees do you. Especially on subjects that are not resolvable by brute force.

Sure; I don't expect you to take my word as the Word of the Lord or anything- but the point is I'm not simply making **** up or talking where I have no license to talk; Craig works in the field I happen to have studied, and I can back up everything I've said about him (including, within a reasonable limit, the more hyperbolic remarks)...

List them. No matter where you get to in counting them it is a finite number.

Um no, that's the point; that no matter where you stop counting, there are always more of them...

This is getting little far afield. Gödel was a footnote in my post.

My bad; like I said, the fact that Godel's theorems are frequently used (incorrectly) to support all sorts of wild claims about the limits of science or the human intellect, God, or whatever, gets on my nerves a bit, just the like the popular misinterpretation of Nietzsche's madman parable, so I can't help myself.

True Scotsman used to dismiss the fact that there is a set of standards for true Christian.

Well, but don't you see how the very notion of a "true Christian" is problematic, since it almost invariably means "Christians who agree with my interpretation of Christianity"?

Probably the most abused is the argument from authority (the same argument tactic used in classrooms and courtroom around the world everyday) is only a fallacy when a Christian uses it for quality of evidence claims for God.

I guess I can see how this could be somewhat common; argument from authority can be tricky to diagnose sometimes since there may be a fine line between citing expert opinion (which is hardly fallacious) and an actual argument from authority (typically the line involves whether the argument is inductive or deductive, although there are a few other exceptions).

In short every common fallacy is an abused item for arguments against God

Wait... We go from two fallacies, one which is not clear that it is even being misapplied (the no true scotsman) in most cases, to "every" fallacy? Whoa, slow down there fella!

add in massive double standards (like God must be proven beyond all doubt

Who says this? Is this really something atheists generally require? Or do we simply require God's existence be proven to a similar standard that we require for other things- new animal species, planets, ghosts and abominable snowmen, etc.?

even though it is a faith claim but multiverses, life from non-life, and what specifically happened at any point before recorded history need little or no evidence even if they are claims to reliable fact or plausible alternative).

If it was merely claimed that God is a "plausible alternative", or a speculative hypothesis (like multiverse theories generally admit to being), I don't think there would be as much of a problem; the problem is that religious folk sometimes (if not quite frequently) claim that they know God exists, that their belief is certain, that God's existence is not rationally disputable (see the title of this very thread), and so on.

What does the massive mountain of statistics showing moral decline corresponding with the secular revolution in the 60's and agreement with me have to do with each other?

Out of curiosity, could you point me to some of these statistics?

Secularism is insane because it does not even agree with its self. What lunacy denies the right to execute a convicted murderer but insists on the sacred right to kill an innocent human life in the womb?

Since when does "secularism" require being anti-death penality and pro-choice? This is a pretty ridiculous statement, no offense... "Secularism" simply doesn't speak to these issues; one could be in favor of secular govenment and secular values and still be pro-death penalty and/or pro0life.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Come one, come all

Great, thanks! I always feel a little weird diving into a discussion already in progress. J

No, all existing evidence indicates that the mind and brain correlate. Correlation does not entail "originated from".

All the empirical evidence we have indicates that cognitive processes have their physical basis in the brain. It shows that external stimuli act as cues that cause chemical reactions within the brain. I.e., Stimulation of any brain area provokes an experience, and any experience induces brain activity.

We can measure emotions and experiences in the brain.

We can differentiate areas of the brain affected by mental disorders that cause personality changes or disturbances.

If the brain is injured, the mind becomes injured. E.g.,There are people who have experienced severe head trauma whose entire personality changes as a result of said trauma.

We are even at the point where scientists can measure brain activity and read a person’s mind in the sense that they can predict an action a person is about to take before the person himself even knows what action they’re going to take.

All of the available evidence indicates that minds are emergent of brains. Without brains we apparently don’t have minds. So what I’m wondering is, what evidence do you see that indicates that mind and brain are separate entities? What evidence do you have that minds can exist without brains? Because as I see it, all the evidence points in the opposite direction.

Altering a automobile and you may very well alter your means of transportation via the car. It does not follow that you cannot travel by other means beyond the car.

The car is not a part of my physical makeup, as my brain is. So I don’t quite get the example.

We do know that if the brain is injured, the mind is affected as well, which kind of works against the point I think you may be trying to make. In your example, if the car is altered, my physical body is not altered in any way, which is quite different from the mind/brain thing.

And how do you know whether or not your mind won't exist after death? Have you ever been dead to give a full report?
So your assertion isn't any more valid than mines.

There is no evidence to indicate that can happen. All the evidence I see shows that when a person is dead, both their brain and mind cease to exist. I’ve never talked to a disembodied mind before. Have you?

I would assert that my claim is more valid than yours given that all existing evidence indicates that minds are physical manifestations of brains. You can state otherwise all you like, but with no evidence backing it up, it’s not going to be a very robust argument, in my opinion.

Now with that being said, I do have evidence. Logical evidence. I would like to ask a question; if you and your best friend switched mines...your mind went into his brain and his mind went into your brain, and therefore, you are no longer in your own body and vice versa...but both of you retained your own personal thoughts and desires...who are you? Are you yourself, or are you your best friend?

Logical evidence can be great and all, but I’ll take empirical evidence any day of the week.

On that note, I fail to see how your example is logical in any way. As I mentioned earlier, I don’t know why you’re assuming such a thing could ever happened or has ever happened. Apparently you really want me to answer it because you keep bringing it up, so I will say that I am the person within which my brain resides.

So basically you are saying that we, intelligent human beings, are being stumped by a mindless and blind process

Not at all. As I said, we have pretty decent and testable ideas about how life could come from non-life, and at this point (given a large number of empirical studies) we do know that it is possible that nonlife can produce life. Do we know the exact conditions under which this happened on earth? Not yet, but I wouldn’t say we’re completely “stumped” and I’m not sure how you got that from what I said.

That process, being blind and mindless, was able to do something that intelligent beings wasn't able to do.

I’m sorry, I don’t understand what this means.

Are you saying that because human beings haven’t created a universe yet, that our current universe must be the result of an intelligent being? I don’t get it.

Cont'd ...

 

[SkepticThinker]

Because mindless and blind occurences won't get you specified complexity. The fine tuning of our universe itself would seem to suggest Intelligent Design. So you would have to have intelligent design before you even begin to discuss evolution.

Specified complexity is a vague William Dembski word that doesn’t actually mean anything and he really can’t defend it very well.

I have to ask again, why is it that you think the universe is fine-tuned for life, given that there is VASTLY more non-life than life contained within it and given that the vast majority of the universe appears to actually be inhospitable to life.

There need be no mention whatsoever of intelligent design in order to deduce that evolution occurs.

Based on the constants and values of the universe, each which are so precise that if either one was off by the tiniest percentage, no life would be permissable. You don't get that kind of precision from mindless and blind processes.

So what? Then there wouldn’t be life on earth. And …. ?

I mean, at most you could say that the earth is fine-tuned for life, and only parts of the earth, at that. If you want to claim that the universe is fine-tuned for life, then please tell me where all the life is!

Other life is irrelevant my friend. All that matters is at least THIS universe is fine tuned. That itself cries out for explanation.

What? Of course other life is relevant. I am talking about THIS universe. And I’m still wondering how you can make the claim that the vast and lifeless universe we live in is fine-tuned for life.

He knows enough to challenge any scientists and evolutionists in public debates regarding evolutionists, and even debated 3 evolutionists at one time. You may think he doesn't know anything, but he holds his own against everyone I've seen him against.

Dr. Dino doesn’t know diddly squat. The VAST majority of what he says is either an outright lie, or a misrepresentation of scientific facts and/or studies. I’ve spent a great deal of time watching his garbage and checking his sources. I suggest you give it a shot, if you think he’s so knowledgeable. The guy is phony from head to toe.

I accept common design based on my broader belief in God. I have other arguments that lead me to the conclusion that God exists, and if God exists, he wouldn't need the trial and error of evolution to accomplish his will of filling the world with different species.

That’s all fine and dandy if you want to presuppose the existence of the specific god you believe and then work from there to reinforce the assumption, but it’s not scientific and it’s not going to convince anyone else of anything.

Are you now challenging the existence of evolution?

I said that evolution is the belief that long ago, when NO ONE was around to see it, animals were producing different kind of animals. Now what is being misrepresented here, the "no one was around to see it" part, or the "producing different kind of animals" part?

You were wrong when you said that evolution is the belief that long ago, when NO ONE was around to see it, animals were producing different kinds of animals. The whole thing is wrong. It is a gross misinterpretation of the theory of evolution, as I already explained.

Cats always give birth to cats. Turtles always give birth to turtles. Evolution doesn’t say otherwise, and it definitely doesn’t say that millions of years ago cats were giving birth to non-cats and we should all just accept on faith that this occurred. What it actually says is that for example in allopatric speciation, as populations (POPULATIONS being the important word here) become isolated from each other and subject to different selective pressures, and evolve in different directions over time, new species are the result of the accumulation of the changes that have taken place. At that point, the new species that have been produced is unable to interbreed with the original population from which it came. And over greater periods of time, the changes become ever greater.

This is observable and demonstrable today. Did you read the stuff on ring species I linked for you?

In regards to the allusion I made earlier to the diversity of languages, there is no point in time when say a Latin-speaking mother gave birth to say a Spanish-speaking child. We speak the language in which we were brought up. But as different populations within societies branch off or move away from each other, the language they speak amongst themselves changes in small ways over time. New words are introduced into the vocabulary, different dialects or word usages arise, until over a long enough period of time, it turns into a distinct language even though it may retain some similarities to the language it originated from. This is why for example, Spanish, Italian and French are all similar but distinct. Same idea with speciation.

You believe that the first dog came from a non-dog, and the first bat came from a non-bat. What do you call this, after you just told me that "evoluton does not dictate that animals of a particular species give birth to an animal of another species"?

Individuals don’t evolve, populations do. There is no “first dog” in the sense that you’re talking about.

I do not believe that some “first dog” came from a non-dog and I’ve never said any such thing.

See me answer above...

I don’t see how your above answers refute my assertion that we don’t have to believe in things unseen to accept the theory of evolution.

 

[Agnostic75]

My belief is every "kind" of animal does share a common ancestor/descent. For example, all dogs that are alive today came from the first "dog" that was created.

Better stated, the first life form that looked anything like today's dogs came from preexisting life forms that did not look anything like dogs.

Michael Behe is a Christian. He has a Ph.D. in biochemistry. He said:

"For example, both humans and chimps have a broken copy of a gene that in other mammals helps make vitamin C. ... It's hard to imagine how there could be stronger evidence for common ancestry of chimps and humans. ... Despite some remaining puzzles, there’s no reason to doubt that Darwin had this point right, that all creatures on earth are biological relatives.” The Edge of Evolution, pp 71–2.

An article at Beliefs of the U.S. public about evolution and creation says:

"According to Newsweek in 1987, 'by one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science.......' That would make the support for creation science among those branches of science who deal with the earth and its life forms to be about 0.14%"

In other words, 99.86% of experts accept common descent.

The same article shows that some of the most likely people to accept creationism are women, people who have less education, and people who have lower incomes.

Do you believe that a global flood occurred?

You said that the universe is fine-tuned for life, but it isn't since one day, the sun will go nova, and that will be the end of human life on earth unless something else destroys human life on earth before that. You can claim that Jesus will return to earth long before the sun goes nova, but that is a religious argument, not a scientific argument.

The relatively short humans lifespan as judged by a universe that is billions of years old indicates that if human life is fine-tuned, it is only fine-tuned for a very short period of time. You could claim that Christians will have eternal life, but that is religious argument, not a scientific argument.

Of course, even within 1,000 years, or well before that, humans will run out of certain vital natural resources. Even if human life continues, life on earth will be far more difficult than it is today, and it is already very difficult for many people.

Life has always been a struggle for all life forms on earth.

 

[Agnostic75]

Freedom to choose has nothing to do with the capacity to carry it out. Even if God can't actually lie does not mean that he could not will to do so.

The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines the word "choose" as "to select freely and after consideration." That does not apply to God since choice implies options. God does not have the option to lie, or to even want to lie. God's omnipotence must always work in complete, and consistent harmony with his omnibenevolence. Always telling the truth, and always wanting to tell the truth, are part of God's omnibenevolence. According to the Bible, and a great many Christian Bible scholars, and a great many Christian laymen, God must always be good, not only regarding his actions, but also regarding his thoughts.

In another thread, you correctly said that even wanting to steal is wrong even if the theft is not committed.

Matthew 5:28 says:

"But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."

If God even wanted to lie, he would have already committed lying in his heart. That would be impossible for God.

Even if God wanted to lie about giving Christians eternal life, he would not be able to lie about that, or about anything else. Thus, you do not have a rational basis to love God since he has no choice except to always tell the truth, and to always be good.

I provided evidence from William Lane Craig, J. P. Moreland, Thomas Aquinas, and from the Bible itself, that God cannot lie.

Aquinas' "God must contain the perfections of all created things in the highest manner possible" is similar to Craig's "greatest conceivable being," and Moreland's "greatest possible being." Such a being could not possibly ever want to lie, let alone ever tell a lie. J. P. Moreland said it the best when he said in a Youtube video that God cannot improve.

Are you actually claiming that Craig, and Moreland believe that God is capable of lying? If so, they are easy to contact, and you could easily be proven wrong. It would also be easy to contact Ravi Zacharias and prove that you are wrong.

Consider the following:

Apologetics Press - God Cannot Lie

Can God be limited? Many Bible passages proclaim that God is all-powerful, all-seeing, and all-knowing. While God is unlimited by time, space, or force, His very character has determined that He will never do some things, because to do them would be inconsistent with His principles—viz., God’s nature prevents Him from such things. For example, God cannot lie. Observe what the Bible has to say about God’s honesty and, therefore, His reliability.

Numbers 23:19: “God is not a man, that He should lie, nor a son of man, that He should repent. Has He said, and will He not do? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?”
1 Samuel 15:29: “And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor relent. For He is not a man, that He should relent.”
Psalm 92:15: “To declare that the Lord is upright; He is my rock, and there is no unrighteousness in Him.”
Malachi 3:6: “For I am the Lord, I do not change.”
Romans 3:4: “Indeed, let God be true but every man a liar.”
Titus 1:2: “In hope of eternal life which God, who cannot lie, promised before time began.”
Hebrews 6:18: “It is impossible for God to lie.”
James 1:17-18: “Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning.”
​

God is the only being Who is incapable of lying. Everything that God said would happen before now, has happened—just as He said it would. Since God knows all things past, present, and future (and since He is completely honest), it is impossible for Him to speak untruths (see Colley, 2004).

God has never lied—He has never even made an “honest mistake.” God, in revealing His message to humans, has not held back truths that we need (2 Peter 1:3). Likewise, Jesus was completely honest, even when telling a hard truth meant putting Himself in danger (Matthew 23:28-33; 1 John 3:5).

God is not tempted to lie. No one can catch Him in a compromising position, or give Him an opportunity to make Himself appear more impressive by making up false accomplishments or attributes. He is perfect in every way, so even if His character did permit Him to lie, the potential for personal gain, which serves as many people’s motivation to lie, would not affect Him.

Jesus said: “You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it” (John 8:44). The dishonesty of Satan is one of the features that makes him the complete opposite of God; God speaks the truth exclusively, while Satan speaks only lies. The angels who, at one time, chose to follow Satan, are partakers in his deceit (see Thompson, 1999). Satan does not tell lies because he wants humans to avoid the pain that truth often brings. Rather, he lies because he hopes that humans will believe falsehoods and, eventually, be damned because they reject the truth of God (1 Peter 5:8). The fact that the devil keeps “no truth in him” is one of the reasons why heaven and hell are so far separated (Matthew 25:41; Luke 16:26). God cannot associate with the impurity that dishonesty brings.

Consider the following about Caleb Colley, who wrote the article:

"Caleb Colley graduated as an Honors College Scholar Graduate, with University Honors (summa cum laude), from Freed-Hardeman University, where he earned a B.A. in Communication and a B.S. in Bible. He holds a Master’s degree (M.L.A.) from Faulkner University, and is currently working on a Ph.D. in philosophy at the University of South Carolina. Caleb has served as the producer/director for Digger Doug’s Underground, A.P.’s premiere television program for children. He has authored a book on spiritual leadership for young men, and co-authored a book on maturity for teenagers. He writes for R&R and the A.P. Web site, and also assists with the development of Bible School Curriculum and A.P. home-schooling materials. With his considerable public speaking skills, Caleb is available for speaking engagements and is especially effective with young people."

If necessary, I can find many more Christian scholars who disagree with you.

Please quote some Christian Bible scholars who claim that God is able to want to lie, and is capable of lying. In addition, please quote some Scriptures that claim that God is able to want to lie, and is capable of lying.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[Agnostic75]

I believe [God] lying will fall under logical impossibilities like square circles.

But you said that "He may be perfectly evil. He may be perfectly ambiguous. He may be able to change the nature of truth itself."

Did I say that he may not do any of those things? I think you're confusing what I said about any God that might exist and what I said concerning God as specifically described by the Bible. In this case the confusion is understandable as I do not distinguish between the two clearly at all times.

No, you were clearly talking about the God of the Bible since talking about another possible God would not have been pertinent to our discussions. Consider the following:

You make the same mistake every time. He may have the capacity to change his nature.

Absolutely not. God is perfect. Therefore, it is impossible for him to lie since that would be imperfect.

Only humans have choice, since choice implies options. God has no options regarding telling the truth. He has no choice except to tell the truth.

Titus 1:2: "In hope of eternal life which God, who cannot lie, promised before time began."

Hebrews 6:18: "It is impossible for God to lie.".

How can an imperfect being know what perfection means? How do you know (beyond the fact the Bible says so) that lying is imperfect? He may be perfectly evil. He may be perfectly ambiguous. He may be able to change the nature of truth its self.

So you were definitely talking about the God of the Bible.

 

[1robin]

The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines the word "choose" as "to select freely and after consideration." That does not apply to God since choice implies options. God does not have the option to lie, or to even want to lie. God's omnipotence must always work in complete, and consistent harmony with his omnibenevolence. Always telling the truth, and always wanting to tell the truth, are part of God's omnibenevolence. According to the Bible, and a great many Christian Bible scholars, and a great many Christian laymen, God must always be good, not only regarding his actions, but also regarding his thoughts.

Matthew 5:28 says:

"But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart."

If God even wanted to lie, he would have already committed adultery in his heart. That would be impossible for God.

In another thread, you correctly said that even wanting to steal is wrong even if the theft is not committed.

I provided evidence from William Lane Craig, J. P. Moreland, Thomas Aquinas, and from the Bible itself, that God cannot lie.

Aquinas' "God must contain the perfections of all created things in the highest manner possible" is similar to Craig's "greatest conceivable being," and Moreland's "greatest possible being." Such a being could not possibly ever want to lie, let alone ever tell a lie. J. P. Moreland said it the best when he said in a Youtube video that God cannot improve.

Are you actually claiming that Craig, and Moreland believe that God is capable of lying? If so, they are easy to contact, and you could easily be proven wrong. It would also be easy to contact Ravi Zacharias and prove that you are wrong.

Consider the following:

Apologetics Press - God Cannot Lie

I am going to grant many things here that are not necessarily true to show the futility of the point even if true. Let's say God can't choose to lie. Can't even choose to will to lie. Are you extrapolating the lack of freewill from one things alone. How many things can God choose? Let's say you find 10 things he can't choose. That leaves about an infinity that he could. In what way is the lack of choosing an infinitely small amount of decisions in comparison with a infinite amount he could choose some kind of meaningful issue? Does that prove that he does not exist? No, it does not even suggest that. Does that prove anything in the Bible is wrong? No, I do can't think of a scripture it effects. What goal do you have for this issue even if I grant your premise? I do not even know where you get that God either has or must have freewill in every issue. I do no think the Bible claims he has freewill. Why should I defend something God never claimed? Keep in mind I do not actually grant your premise but only did so to show the futility of any conclusion.

Consider the following about Caleb Colley, who wrote the article:

"Caleb Colley graduated as an Honors College Scholar Graduate, with University Honors (summa cum laude), from Freed-Hardeman University, where he earned a B.A. in Communication and a B.S. in Bible. He holds a Master’s degree (M.L.A.) from Faulkner University, and is currently working on a Ph.D. in philosophy at the University of South Carolina. Caleb has served as the producer/director for Digger Doug’s Underground, A.P.’s premiere television program for children. He has authored a book on spiritual leadership for young men, and co-authored a book on maturity for teenagers. He writes for R&R and the A.P. Web site, and also assists with the development of Bible School Curriculum and A.P. home-schooling materials. With his considerable public speaking skills, Caleb is available for speaking engagements and is especially effective with young people."

Sounds like a competent scholar and he seems to be stating what I said up front. I think you are confusing hypotheticals I have mentioned with my official comments on your claims.

If necessary, I can find many more Christian scholars who disagree with you.

A biography is not an argument. Where is the disagreement.

Please quote some Christian scholars who claim that God is able to want to lie, and is capable of lying. In addition, please quote some Scriptures that claim that God is able to want to lie, and is capable of lying.

I have claimed (though it is quite beyond knowing and not in the Bible) that God can't lie because of his nature. He would not be God if he could lie. It is a contradiction in terms to claim a perfect being could be false. It is not something that he could do but can't. It is not a thing at all. The same with a square circle. It is a logical absurdity. I think I have stated this many times and so have the scholars you have used. I have added some hypothetical maybes and could bes but my official position is that God can't do that which is logically impossible. However above I have said that it is possible and he can't do it for the purpose of seeing to what purpose you are striving.

I have a question for you. You have suggested I speak with Craig in the past. Do you have a link where that can take place. I know he does speak in blogs to people but have no idea what link may be used for that, do you?

 

[1robin]

No, you were clearly talking about the God of the Bible since talking about another possible God would not have been pertinent to our discussions. Consider the following:







So you were definitely talking about the God of the Bible.

I most certainly have been talking about the God of the Bible in most of my responses however I have switched to a generic God based on things I was thinking at the time. Trust me. I realize it was not obvious and had no indicators where my switching occurred. I will attempt to label them accordingly in the future. My official response to your claims about he Biblical God is that he can't do logically impossible things. A perfect God can't be one that lies.

 

[Agnostic75]

I am going to grant many things here that are not necessarily true to show the futility of the point even if true. Let's say God can't choose to lie. Can't even choose to will to lie. Are you extrapolating the lack of freewill from one thing alone. How many things can God choose? Let's say you find 10 things he can't choose. That leaves about an infinity that he could. In what way is the lack of choosing an infinitely small amount of decisions in comparison with a infinite amount he could choose some kind of meaningful issue? Does that prove that he does not exist?

I assume that one of the most important things for most Christians, or the most important thing for most Christians is to have a comfortable eternal life. Since God cannot lie, he must keep his promise to give Christians eternal life. Since he has no choice regarding that issue, it would not be logical for Christians to love him because of that.

God has no choice at all regarding anything that has to do with his character. His methods sometimes change, but his character never changes. God must always be good because his nature requires him to always be good. So, it would not be logical for Christians to love God for anything that he does that is good. By implication, the God of the Bible does not exist because he wants people to love him, and a perfect, all-knowing God would know that that would be illogical since no one can logically love any being except if that being has the choice not to be good.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Specified complexity is a vague William Dembski word that doesn’t actually mean anything and he really can’t defend it very well.

Works for me.

I have to ask again, why is it that you think the universe is fine-tuned for life, given that there is VASTLY more non-life than life contained within it and given that the vast majority of the universe appears to actually be inhospitable to life.

I’ve already stated that the cosmological constants and values of our universe that allows for life to be permissible. We already know the probability of life forming in our universe, thanks to Roger Penrose, and the numbers are so astronomically small that to think that life could have formed by random chance is chicken feed, as Penrose puts it.

There need be no mention whatsoever of intelligent design in order to deduce that evolution occurs.

Well, so far there hasn’t been any evidence of common ancestor. So therefore, I will go by what makes sense to me…since science has to find a way to explain the fine tuning of the universe and also abiogenesis…I will logically conclude that intelligence come from intelligence, and life came from life…instead of the evolutionists view that intelligence came from non-intelligence and life came from non-life.

So what? Then there wouldn’t be life on earth. And …. ?

And we wouldn’t be here having this discussion.

I mean, at most you could say that the earth is fine-tuned for life, and only parts of the earth, at that. If you want to claim that the universe is fine-tuned for life, then please tell me where all the life is!

Once again, life elsewhere is irrelevant. We do know that life is fined tuned for where WE live. Everything else is irrelevant. If life is permissible elsewhere, then the fine tuning applies to there as well. If you start off with a big bang, you don’t get the kind of low entropy needed to make life permissible. You will get chaos and discourse, not organized and orderly processes.

What? Of course other life is relevant. I am talking about THIS universe. And I’m still wondering how you can make the claim that the vast and lifeless universe we live in is fine-tuned for life.

And I’ve answered this at least 3 times. Roger Penrose calculated the odds of our universe obtaining its low entropy condition by chance alone is 1:10(10)[10]…the first 10 is the base, and the 10 in parenthesis is the exponent and the 123 is the second exponent…that is a 10 followed by 123 zeros, which is a very astronomical and inconceivable number. There is no rational way anyone can accept that we are here by random chance.

Roger Penrose, "Time-Asymmetry and Quantum Gravity," in Quantum Gravity 2, ed. C. J. Isham, R. Penrose, and D. W. Sciama (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981), p. 249.

Dr. Dino doesn’t know diddly squat. The VAST majority of what he says is either an outright lie, or a misrepresentation of scientific facts and/or studies. I’ve spent a great deal of time watching his garbage and checking his sources. I suggest you give it a shot, if you think he’s so knowledgeable. The guy is phony from head to toe.

So since you’ve done so much research, what is he lying about?

That’s all fine and dandy if you want to presuppose the existence of the specific god you believe and then work from there to reinforce the assumption, but it’s not scientific and it’s not going to convince anyone else of anything.

Evolution isn’t scientific. All you’ve ever seen is animals producing their own kind. You accept by faith that million of years ago, these voodoo changes were taking place. That isn’t science. That is religion.

Are you now challenging the existence of evolution?

BINGO AMIGO. Macroevolution, that is.

You were wrong when you said that evolution is the belief that long ago, when NO ONE was around to see it, animals were producing different kinds of animals. The whole thing is wrong. It is a gross misinterpretation of the theory of evolution, as I already explained.

If we all share a common ancestor then that IS the best that animals were producing different kind of animals. You believe that the dogs came from a non-dog. If the animal that all dogs came from was not a dog, then that is an ANIMAL PRODUCING A DIFFERENT KIND OF ANIMAL.

Cats always give birth to cats. Turtles always give birth to turtles. Evolution doesn’t say otherwise, and it definitely doesn’t say that millions of years ago cats were giving birth to non-cats and we should all just accept on faith that this occurred.
What are you talking about?? As I just mentioned, you believe that dogs came from a non-dog. That is an example of an animal producing a different kind of animal. So what the heck are you talking about? How can you even argue that we all share a common ancestor, but don’t believe in macroevolution??? And don’t give me that “macroevolution is a creationist term” crap, I am only using the word to describe the concept.

This is observable and demonstrable today. Did you read the stuff on ring species I linked for you?

Yeah, we observe that dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, etc. If this is all evolution is, then I am an evolutionist, but unfortunately, it isn’t.

Individuals don’t evolve, populations do. There is no “first dog” in the sense that you’re talking about. I do not believe that some “first dog” came from a non-dog and I’ve never said any such thing.

So the dog didn’t come from a wolf, which is a non-dog?? Wowwww

 

[1robin]

I assume that one of the most important things for most Christians, or the most important thing for most Christians is to have a comfortable eternal life. Since God cannot lie, he must keep his promise to give Christians eternal life. Since he has no choice regarding that issue, it would not be logical for Christians to love him because of that.

So you have spent all this time and effort so you can arrive at a point where you can say our love for God over this one issue is unjustified? I can't begin to imagine that being worth the effort. I can love God for even being the type of being that can't lie. Love is anything but rational. However there are thinks that God does have a choice in for instance deciding to save us at all. He could have without violating anything killed us all. Love is irrational but it need not be here. Is it not worthy of love for a being to decide an entire race that has rejected him at his total expense even if once we are saved he has no choice but to honor that agreement.

God has no choice at all regarding anything that has to do with his character. His methods sometimes change, but his character never changes. God must always be good because his nature requires him to always be good. So, it would not be logical for Christians to love God for anything that he does that is good. By implication, the God of the Bible does not exist because he wants people to love him, and a perfect, all-knowing God would know that that would be illogical since no one can logically love any being except if that being has the choice not to be good.

It would be just as consistent that that same God would devise a method for salvation that comes at our cost. He could be just as good and leave us to with what our actions deserve. Claiming he is good is no to do anything in demanding he must act on that good. I can love a God even if his actions were dictated by his nature in every detail. In what way are you the determining factor of what could be loved? Heck people love that which is nothing but evil. Even a God without choice is more deserving than that. I was wondering what in the world all your arguments were about. I never suspected you were to employ them to tell us what we can love or should. Even if he deserved no love how does that help your position. I need to get vaccinated against polio even if polio shots are unlovable.

 

[Agnostic75]

So you have spent all this time and effort so you can arrive at a point where you can say our love for God over this one issue is unjustified?

No, I said:

God has no choice at all regarding anything that has to do with his character. His methods sometimes change, but his character never changes. God must always be good because his nature requires him to always be good. So, it would not be logical for Christians to love God for anything that he does that is good.

You only love some people because they have the option to not be good, but sometimes choose to be good. God does not have the option to not be good.

No moral God who did not have the ability to change his character would ask people to love him since he has no option except to be good.

 

[1robin]

No, I said:



You only love some people because they have the option to not be good, but sometimes choose to be good. God does not have the option to not be good.

No moral God who did not have the ability to change his character would ask people to love him since he has no option except to be good.

None of this is true. I can love something even if it is bad and has no choice but to be that way if I want to. I can love things that do not even exist. I can love things that have no mind at all like cars or paintings. You have done none of things needed for your claim.

1. Establish any criteria that governs what a human can love.
2. Show that a being who possibly has no choice in one area has no choice in others.
3. Show that God demands love on for his characterizes alone.

Until you do even the very bizarre point your making is not even made.

 

[Agnostic75]

None of this is true. I can love something even if it is bad and has no choice but to be that way if I want to.

Jesus said that in order for a man to become saved, he must love God with all of his heart, soul, and mind. That kind of love could only be had for a being who is greatly admired, and greatly appreciated. You can love a bad person, but you cannot admire their character.

Anyway, what you said is irrelevant since God is the topic, not anyone, or anything else.

Show that a being who possibly has no choice in one area has no choice in others.

But I have already told you at least twice that God's methods sometimes change, but his character never changes. God must always tell the truth. He must always be good regardless of what he does. He does not have the option to not to be good.

Show that God demands love for his characteristics alone.

However Christians love God, it would all involve his character, and he cannot change his character.

 

[1robin]

Jesus said that in order for a man to become saved, he must love God with all of his heart, soul, and mind. That kind of love could only be had for a being who is greatly admired, and greatly appreciated. You can love a bad person, but you cannot admire their character.

No he didn't. He said that but not about being saved. It is a good goal but not a requirement. That was about the law.

Anyway, what you said is irrelevant since God is the topic, not anyone, or anything else.

I can love a bad God. What is certain is that many people love non-existent God's. We all can't be right.

But I have already told you at least twice that God's methods sometimes change, but his character never changes. God must always tell the truth. He must always be good regardless of what he does. He does not have the option to not to be good.

Why can't I love that which is always good just because it is good. You simply invented what can be loved or not.

However Christians love God, it would all involve his character, and he cannot change his character.

I love God for what he did in my life that he did not have to. However I could love him even if he was evil, could change but didn't, or was even non-existent. I can love whatever I wish for whatever reason I wish. I think you allowed your argument just enough rope to hang its self with. I thought that was the case which is why I just granted your premise to begin with. It is what the masterful Ravi Zacharias calls opening up a person within their assumptions. A tactic so good Christ used it many times.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Better stated, the first life form that looked anything like today's dogs came from preexisting life forms that did not look anything like dogs.

Michael Behe is a Christian. He has a Ph.D. in biochemistry. He said:

"For example, both humans and chimps have a broken copy of a gene that in other mammals helps make vitamin C. ... It's hard to imagine how there could be stronger evidence for common ancestry of chimps and humans. ... Despite some remaining puzzles, there’s no reason to doubt that Darwin had this point right, that all creatures on earth are biological relatives.” The Edge of Evolution, pp 71–2.

But even Behe recognizes that if evolution did occur, it is because of intelligent design. There is still an intelligent designer behind the event.

An article at Beliefs of the U.S. public about evolution and creation says:

"According to Newsweek in 1987, 'by one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science.......' That would make the support for creation science among those branches of science who deal with the earth and its life forms to be about 0.14%"

In other words, 99.86% of experts accept common descent.

Intelligent design is still implied.

The same article shows that some of the most likely people to accept creationism are women, people who have less education, and people who have lower incomes.

Well, neither me or my family was asked the question, so I don’t buy into subjective surveys.

Do you believe that a global flood occurred?

Yes.

You said that the universe is fine-tuned for life, but it isn't since one day, the sun will go nova, and that will be the end of human life on earth unless something else destroys human life on earth before that. You can claim that Jesus will return to earth long before the sun goes nova, but that is a religious argument, not a scientific argument.

But the second law of thermodynamics is a scientific argument.

 

[Agnostic75]

But even Behe recognizes that if evolution did occur, it is because of intelligent design. There is still an intelligent designer behind the event.

I am not arguing against the existence of God. I am arguing against intelligent design, such as the intelligent design that Ken Miller discusses in an article at The Flagellum Unspun.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.