INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[1robin]

It has to be true since murderers who are mentally incompetent are usually not sent to prison, and are usually not considered to be immoral by the majority of people. I think that the vast majority of college philosophy professors would agree with me.

That deals with accountability to morality. The action was still bad or evil even if that person was not accountable in the traditional sense. That is why they were taken out of society. Morality is a condition of quality not choice. It only requires that a transcendent standard exist. As long as the standard exist God can be morally good even if he had no choice.

But I do not need to use the word "morality." I would not be able to love any being who did not have the choice to be bad. In addition, I would not be able to criticize any being who always had to be bad.

1. Yes you can love him you choose not to. Love is a choice not a derivative result.
2. You have so far only given a few areas where God possibly could not have a choice. There are still an infinity of things about which he would still have a choice even if your argument is correct. He chose to save mankind even though his sense of justice would have allowed our destruction without his compromising anything.

But that does not change anything since God does not have free will regarding his character. He must always be good.

But he must not always act on that good. He could have killed me on the spot before I was saved without him being even less good in doing it but he chose not to. There are millions of choices he made concerning me he was not required to if he exists.

No, God cannot choose to do anything. The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines the word choose as "to select freely and after consideration." God has never considered anything since he has always known everything, and he has never been capable of doing anything that is not good.

I almost never entertain debates concerning something as unknowable as what pre-cognition would mean. Might as well discuss time travel.

New International Version
You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you so that you might go and bear fruit--fruit that will last--and so that whatever you ask in my name the Father will give you.

New International Version
For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love

1 aPeter, an apostle of Jesus Christ,
To those who reside as baliens, cscattered throughout dPontus, eGalatia, dCappadocia, dAsia, and fBithynia, gwho are chosen

1 Peter 1:1 (NASB95) - " Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who reside as aliens, scattered throughout Pontus, ..." - Biblia.com

Even though God will save some people, he did not choose to save them since that would mean that he first considered who he would save, and God could not do that since he has always known who he will save. Even if God chose to save some people, whatever he does, it always has to be good, and he always has to tell the truth.

No he chose to save mankind instead of destroy us.

So, my previous arguments are still valid, which were:

"I would not be able to love any being who did not have the choice to be bad. In addition, I would not be able to criticize any being who always had to be bad."

You would be able but you refuse to act on that capacity. Humans can love anything. Love can be given without any merit of it even if you could show there is no merit for love concerning God which you haven't.

 

[1robin]

But I meant that you could not love, admire, and respect any God who you did not believe was good. Surely the God of the Bible will not save anyone who does not love, admire, and respect him.

Yes I and every one who ever existed could do that even for a bad God. Most would choose not to but all could.

That is irrelevant to what I said since I only mentioned what God knows that I know, not anything about his being, or standards. God knows that I know that he does not have free will, and would know that I would not be able to love, admire, and respect him.

The only thing you know for sure is that he knows you thing that. That does nothing to show what you think is true. You have never shown he does not have freewill.

It would be illogical for you to criticize a God who always had to be bad. Similarly, it would be illogical for you to compliment a God who always had to be good.

I could however love either or hate either. That has nothing to do with anything concerning heaven. Someone made that mistake earlier.

That is correct, God does not have free will.

That is not what that verse means. It means God does as he wishes independently of your opinion.

 

[Agnostic75]

But I meant that you could not love, admire, and respect any God who you did not believe was good.

Yes I and every one who ever existed could do that even for a bad God. Most would choose not to but all could.

That is false. You do not love, admire, and respect any person who you do not believe is moral. I am only referring to what you believe about people's morality, not to whether or not they are moral. You believe that God is moral, and that is why you love, admire, and respect him.

Surely the God of the Bible will not save anyone who does not love, admire, and respect him.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

*Waits with bated breath for the point*... *Collapses due to lack of oxygen*... Oh, was that going somewhere? There was still the part where you said "even an a believer in intelligent design believes in intelligent design"... Someone mentioning Behe first doesn't make that any less redundant.

Lol funny. First off, Agnostics (I think that is who it was) was making the point that there are some Intelligent Design theorists (Michael Behe) that believe in common descent/ancestry, and gave a quote of Behe stating such.

AND I RESPONDED to this by saying that EVEN if BEHE DOES BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION, he believes there was a masterMIND behind it. So I was stating that Behe doesn't believe that evolution could occur without Intelligent Design.

So you are falsely quoting me, I didn't say "even a believer in intelligent design believes in intelligent design". I said in Behe's case, he may believe in common descent, but he STILL believes in Intelligent Design.

So once again, reading comprehension...

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I got mad skills. For my part I was only joking around. I usually agree with you.

I wasn't talking about you pimp juice.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Do you guys know that Roger Penrose does not hold to any religious doctrine, and refers to himself as an atheist.

And? Point?

 

[1robin]

That is false. You do not love, admire, and respect any person who you do not believe is moral. I am only referring to what you believe about people's morality, not to whether or not they are moral. You believe that God is moral, and that is why you love, admire, and respect him.

Are you unaware of histories tens of thousands of women who have loved even men who beat and abused them in every way? A human can love anything and that includes things that can't change what they are like cars or things we know very well will kill us if we love them too long (like drugs) yet we do anyway. People can even love and die for things that do not even exist. Love is not dependent on merit though it may include it at times, if not we could not love each other at least half the time.

Surely the God of the Bible will not save anyone who does not love, admire, and respect him.

Either he does (as the Bible says) do that or virtually no one will make it to heaven. It does not just say love, it says we should love him beyond everything else. I have never known anyone that reached that level of faith, but I know many that I saw born again and saved. I would get back to your freewill points. These are never going to go anywhere.

 

[1robin]

I wasn't talking about you pimp juice.

What is pimp juice supposed to be? I am not even sure I want to know but I have heard it so much I was curious.

 

[Agnostic75]

That is false. You do not love, admire, and respect any person who you do not believe is moral. I am only referring to what you believe about people's morality, not to whether or not they are moral. You believe that God is moral, and that is why you love, admire, and respect him.

Are you unaware of histories tens of thousands of women who have loved even men who beat and abused them in every way? A human can love anything and that includes things that can't change what they are like cars or things we know very well will kill us if we love them too long (like drugs) yet we do anyway. People can even love and die for things that do not even exist. Love is not dependent on merit though it may include it at times, if not we could not love each other at least half the time.

But I said:

"I am only referring to what you believe about people's morality, not to whether or not they are moral. You believe that God is moral, and that is why you love, admire, and respect him."

You definitely would not be able to love, admire, and respect any man, or God, who you did not believe was moral. You certainly believe that God is moral, and since God is who we are mainly discussing, which humans are moral, or immoral, are irrelevant.

Surely the God of the Bible will not save anyone who does not love, admire, and respect him.

Either he does (as the Bible says) do that or virtually no one will make it to heaven. It does not just say love, it says we should love him beyond everything else. I have never known anyone that reached that level of faith, but I know many that I saw born again and saved. I would get back to your freewill points. These are never going to go anywhere.

I meant that surely the God of the Bible will not save anyone who does not love, admire, and respect him to some extent at the moment that they become saved.

 

[1robin]

But I said:

"I am only referring to what you believe about people's morality, not to whether or not they are moral. You believe that God is moral, and that is why you love, admire, and respect him."

When did people's morality get into this? people didn't save me.

You definitely would not be able to love, admire, and respect any man, or God, who you did not believe was moral. You certainly believe that God is moral, and since God is who we are mainly discussing, which humans are moral, or immoral, are irrelevant.

Oh yes I and every other person on Earth can and I do. I believe we are all moral failures according to God's standard but a few of my friends are moral failures by even man's standard yet I love them. I do not think moral is the best characterizing label given to God. Right as I have said is more accurate in my opinion. Next.

I meant that surely the God of the Bible will not save anyone who does not love, admire, and respect him to some extent at the moment that they become saved.

I do not think it possible that anyone has ever not loved God more than everything else the moment they are saved. I also believe that love fades and many times seems not to even be present. We are saved in spite of our faults not because of our merit. That in fact is the definition of grace. To receive that which we are not entitled by our own merits. That includes that commandment. The law (which that is a part) has two purposes. To provide goals and to condemn. Our universal failure is what drives us to seek forgiveness. Obedience and forgiveness are both in the. Forgiveness is primary and universal, obedience is secondary and a universal impossibility. Non-Christians get them exactly backwards.

 

[Agnostic75]

No he chose to save mankind instead of destroy us.

But regardless of which good things God does, he has to do good things. I am not able to love God since whatever he does, he must do good things. He does not have the option to be bad. Even if God has options among doing good things, he can only do good things.

I meant that surely the God of the Bible will not save anyone who does not love, admire, and respect him to some extent at the moment that they become saved.

I do not think it possible that anyone has ever not loved God more than everything else the moment they are saved. I also believe that love fades and many times seems not to even be present.

So you agree with me that God will not save anyone who not initially love, admire, and respect him to a great extent.

Even if God has options within doing good things, he must do good things if he does anything. I am not able to love, admire, and respect God since I know that he can only do good things, and does not have the option to do bad things. Similarly, if a God had to always to bad things, I would not be able to criticize him since he had no choice except to do bad things. Without choice, morality, and right and wrong have no meaning.

 

[1robin]

But regardless of which good things God does, he has to do good things. I am not able to love God since whatever he does, he must do good things. He does not have the option to be bad. Even if God has options among doing good things, he can only do good things.

Every one of your arguments concerning freewill are invalid but before I get into that you must understand something that your refusal to get is killing me about. Every single one of us can love all kinds of things.

1. Good things are loved.
2. Bad things are loved.
3. Things that do not exist are loved.
4. Things that can only be good are loved.
5. Things that can only be bad are loved.

All of those are loved in such numbers that the capacity seems to be universal. What we can do and what we will do are two independent things in this case. Even though God does have a choice I could love him for being good even if he had no choice about anything without any contradiction.

So you agree with me that God will not save anyone who not initially love, admire, and respect him to a great extent.

No that is not what I said. I think it true that all those saved do love him but that is not the basis on which they were saved. In fact until salvation takes place you do not even know God exists to love. It is only because we feel his love in us first that we are compelled to love him in return. Salvation takes place before love is given.

Even if God has options within doing good things, he must do good things if he does anything. I am not able to love, admire, and respect God since I know that he can only do good things, and does not have the option to do bad things. Similarly, if a God had to always to bad things, I would not be able to criticize him since he had no choice except to do bad things. Without choice, morality, and right and wrong have no meaning.

Repeat.

I will get to why your entire arguments are wrong concerning freewill but first your refusal to understand this love issue must be resolved. The reason it has taken my some time to construct my argument against a lack of freewill is I have no recollection of anyone using it. 90% of my responses are taken from professionals in debate settings, once verified. If it has not been discussed very much it takes me a bit to look at all the aspects involved.

If I am never getting the Craig link at least say so.

 

[Agnostic75]

So you agree with me that God will not save anyone who not initially love, admire, and respect him to a great extent.

No that is not what I said. I think it true that all those saved do love him but that is not the basis on which they were saved. In fact until salvation takes place you do not even know God exists to love. It is only because we feel his love in us first that we are compelled to love him in return. Salvation takes place before love is given.

You admitted that it takes some kind of appreciation for God for a man to become saved. I am not able to appreciate God since I know that even if he has the option to choose among doing good things, he still has to do good things if he does anything.

 

[Agnostic75]

Every one of your arguments concerning freewill are invalid.......

Absolutely not since you have agreed with me that God can only do good things.

 

[1robin]

You admitted that it takes some kind of appreciation for God for a man to become saved. I am not able to appreciate God since I know that even if he has the option to choose among doing good things, he still has to do good things if he does anything.

I do not remember saying that but I might have. If I did it was not dialed in tight enough for you argument here. Salvation only requires faith in brute historical facts and faith in their supernatural implications. Let me explain this another way. Salvation IS NOT BY ANY MEANS a response to our love. Our love is a response to salvation. Nothing can merit salvation but Christ's actions alone. We love God because he came to live in our hearts but even that love ebbs and flows over time.

For the hundredth time you are capable but have decided not to. I can't even remember how his deserving our love even got in the discussion. You also have never been saved (I am certain) so you can't know what your response would be. I do not think it possible to not love the being that produces what I felt no matter what besides that might be true.

 

[1robin]

Absolutely not since you have agreed with me that God can only do good things.

That was not a question it was my conclusion based on facts I have not yet provided. Both the statement credited to me and God's freewill can be true. I have to dig up what I a speaking of but will provide it with the next post on the issue.

 

[Agnostic75]

If I am never getting the Craig link at least say so.

Perhaps you mean the link at Perfect Being Theology | Reasonable Faith. Craig says:

To say that I tacitly endorse Anselmian Perfect Being Theology is an understatement, Aditya. I am an enthusiastic proponent. As I explain in Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview, I see the conception of God as the greatest conceivable being as one of the guides for systematic theology’s formulation of the doctrine of God.

 

[1robin]

Perhaps you mean the link at Perfect Being Theology | Reasonable Faith. Craig says:

Nope, you have almost dared me to contact Craig and ask or tell him some general things. I want the link where I can do that.

 

[Agnostic75]

You admitted that it takes some kind of appreciation for God for a man to become saved. I am not able to appreciate God since I know that even if he has the option to choose among doing good things, he still has to do good things if he does anything.

I do not remember saying that but I might have. If I did it was not dialed in tight enough for you argument here.

You said:

.......until salvation takes place you do not even know God exists to love. It is only because we feel his love in us first that we are compelled to love him in return. Salvation takes place before love is given.

That has to be false since no one can become compelled to love a God who they do not believe exists. Yes, love comes from God to humans after they become saved, but my arguments are about what God requires of humans in order for them to become saved. Surely God never saves anyone who has no appreciation for him at all, and does not believe that he exists.

Salvation only requires faith in brute historical facts and faith in their supernatural implications.

No, salvation also requires believing that God exists, and it requires at least some love, admiration, and respect for God.

Even if God has options within doing good things, he must do good things if he does anything. I am not able to love, admire, and respect God since I know that he can only do good things, and does not have the option to do bad things. Similarly, if a God had to always to bad things, I would not be able to criticize him since he had no choice except to do bad things. Without choice, morality, and right and wrong have no meaning.

Would you be able to criticize a God who always had to do bad things?

 

[Agnostic75]

Nope, you have almost dared me to contact Craig and ask or tell him some general things. I want the link where I can do that.

Oh, now I understand what you meant. His main website is at ReasonableFaith.org. He lives in Atlanta, and is Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology in La Mirada, California, so you might also be able to contact him through that school. When I said that it is easy to contact him, I should have said that sooner or later, you will be able to contact him.