There is more then enough evidence to prove God exists.

[Agnostic75]

I do not believe that decent atheist reject him they just cannot accept him without evidence. Each individual would need to be judged according to their situation, environmental conditions, era, peer group, fads, culture and influences. If they would have accepted it after being given the evidence then they will be welcomed. If they heard it and then rejected it after recieving that witness from the Holy Ghost then the gates are closed. As I have said, the judgement is going to be very complex in order for it to be fair.

Not likely. It is much too convenient that the Holy Spirit influences far more people in predominantly Christian countries than in other countries, so your argument cannot be valid. South Korea is an advanced country, with advanced media, and has the largest single Christian church in the world, that has hundreds of thousands of members. About 30% of South Korea is Christian. The country is relatively small, and since media is advanced, and since about 30% of Koreans are Christians, many of the 70% of South Koreans who are not Christians easily know enough about the Bible to be accountable to God, and many of them would have become Christians if they had been raised in the U.S. A loving God would not play favorites by saving a far higher percentage of people in the U.S. than in South Korea.

What you are implying is that all over the world, regarding skeptics who easily know enough about the Bible to be accountable to God, the Holy Spirit chooses to influence far higher percentages of those skeptics who live in predominantly Christian countries than in other countries. That would be unfair, and a loving God would not do that, and would not allow geography to often determine who becomes a Christian.

In order to make it easier for you to understand, let me try again. If everyone in the U.S., and South Korea was removed except for Christians, and skeptics who know enough about the Bible to be accountable to God, a far higher percentage of the skeptics in the U.S. would become Christians than skeptics who live in South Korea. No loving God would do that.

Regarding environmental conditions, era, peer group, fads, and culture, anyone who knows enough about the Bible to be accountable to God is accountable regardless of those factors. For example, anyone who has grown up in a loving Christian home, and has attended church regularly, and has learned all of the basics in the Bible, is accountable to God regardless of any of those factors.

 

[Agnostic75]

No, he wouldn't. That is why they will get their chance in the spirit world.

1 Peter 3

18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;


20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

Why should anyone believe that?

 

[Agnostic75]

Obviously not. You are a mere fallible, imperfect human. An evil, omnipotent God would quite naturally be able to deceive anyone who he wanted to deceive. Many evil humans sometimes successfully do good things in order to deceive people. An evil God would be much more able to deceive people than any human would.

I have never considered such an alternative, perhaps I should have done because I cannot think of a defence to it. I would have to consider it for longer then I have. I guess you would have to consider his motive and would Satan then be a righteous being. In which case the same precepts exist and good over evil remain.

If righteousness is determined by whoever God is, then obviously a God who most humans would consider to be evil would be righteous in his opinion. Or, an evil God might have the opinion that he is evil, but that the evil things that he does are acceptable for him to do. In any case, if God is an imposter, and is omnipotent, he would easily be able to deceive anyone who he wanted to deceive.

Satan might not exist, and might be a deceptive invention of an evil God who is an imposter.

If a rat could be smelt, it has been smelt many times, such as God needlessly injuring, and killing humans, and innocent animals with hurricanes, and diseases. What fair, worthy, and just goals could God not achieve without doing those things?

God always acts for a reason.

Not any reasons that answered my question.

Mankind had an alternative.

That still does not answer my question.

 

[Magic Man]

I consider everything before I dismiss it.

Just not in this thread, I guess.

Do you?

Of course. I know it's probably in vain, but I'll give you a shot here.

There is nothing in the universe that shows a god is required. Everything we have observed could function and exist without a god. The evidence people try to give for God isn't actually evidence for God. We can also see the evolution of the idea of gods, and how they exist for various reasons that aren't because there's good reason to think they do. Considered together it leads to the conclusion that no theistic god exists. It's basically the same way we handle leprechauns and other such entities.

Is that you modus operandi. Are you intent on ruining it for me.

No, you're the one who started the thread saying you could show that God is more likely than not to exist based on scientific evidence.

No, you believe that God is a belief based on no real evidence. Each and every Christian has received a spiritual witness that there is a God. That witness is solely for that individual. It cannot be passed on to anybody else and you cannot live on someone else's belief. You will never understand that until you seek after it yourself.

No, God is a belief based on no real evidence. Even if you believe God is real, it doesn't change that fact. And we've already been over the rest. I have sought God; I have believed in God. Having a personal experience doesn't count as evidence of God's existence. Lots of people have personal experiences of other entities that you reject.

Science does not make any conclusions about God as God is not definable in science.

God is definable but not ultimately provable one way or the other, just like the Flying Spaghetti Monster isn't.

Yes it does, all the time. I watch as many documentaries and read every book released by people like Lawrence Krauss, Richard Dawkins, Brian Cox, and Christopher Hitchens. They are always aggressively proactive in denouncing the existence of a God.

Science does not explain anything thing about God. It cannot define God so it cannot explain him.

As for god being unnecessary, I would beg to differ, especially with regard to the unexplainable.

A couple things here:

1) Some scientists denounce God. That's not the same as science forming conclusions on God's existence.

2) Science does test some claims made about God, and amazingly always finds no evidence for the claims.

3) 2,000 years ago the tides were inexplicable, so God was inserted. People didn't understand thunder and lightning at one point, so "God did it". "God did it" isn't a rational conclusion when something has yet to be explained.

It is always difficult to determine ones attitude and tone from the written word. You are obviously mistaken in you judgement of me.

Instead of making haughty proclamations that it's the other person that is wrong and has the problem, maybe take a few minutes to realize why you get the negative reactions you do. It would go a long way toward improving your future interactions with atheists.

I am here because I enjoy the challenge against my beliefs. I am not preaching.

You enjoy having someone to argue against. You don't enjoy actually considering legitimate challenges to your beliefs.

 

[SkepticThinker]

What I think is exactly what they are defined as being. If you check them on the free Internet dictionary you will be as wise as I am.

I actually already know what they are, having studied this stuff for a great deal of my life. Personally, I would refer to the DSM.

I’m asking what you think they are.

Antitheists not atheists. Their belief that they know better then we do about our own faith in deity. Their belief that we are delusional for believing in a God that they cannot see or feel. The underhanded method the use to stupify Christians because they believe we are pious. Their belief that hostility that they use to Bully and coerce will somehow make us see what they see.

So the diabolical beliefs you think militant atheists or antitheists or whatever, are trying to force on you are their beliefs that what you believe is delusional? Is that all?

What underhanded methods do they use to “stupify” Christians? What are they doing to bully and coerce you? That’s what I’m trying to get to the bottom of here. So far, you’ve been somewhat vague on that. Are you talking about brainwashing? Indoctrination? How are they doing these things? Are there atheist missionaries somewhere that I don’t know about? Because looking around at who the missionaries of the world actually are, a person might deduce that it’s Christians who are looking to force their beliefs on the world and not vice versa. How about the people who go knocking at people’s doors selling religion, are they atheists?

Why not?

I’m asking you why you brought it up and how it pertains to the discussion.

Not before he had 6 million Jews executed. Little groups have a tendency of becoming larger groups so, for the benefit of our society we need to be vigilant.

Do we not need to also fear the majority then? They’re already a large group.

And in regards to Hitler specifically, there was already for many years a great deal of anti-Jewish sentiment in Europe, probably making it much easier than it would have otherwise been for him to gain the support of the masses. Also, I wouldn’t peg him for an atheist. But that’s neither here nor there, really.

You are joking, right. On every religious forum that I have been on the atheists far out number the theists. Christians do not like confrontational situation so they would rather cease posting then be confronted with the odious behaviour of the antitheist.

There are many Christians on this board who do continue to post for long periods of time. So it looks like there are, in fact, at least some Christians who do like what you consider to be confrontational situations. You yourself must get something out of confrontational situations given that you are here, and knowing what you do.

Furthermore, if as you say, Christians don’t like confrontational situations, how come both times I visited Las Vegas, there was a group of them roaming the streets with pamphlets and a giant loudspeaker yelling Bible verses into people’s faces, calling them sinners and telling them they need to repent? Seems kinda confrontational to me.

Unfortunately, the same rule applies here. Christians attract atheists by doing nothing. Atheist love to gather in packs to taunt and ridicule Christians. It has always been that way, when you have two groups of people, where one thrives on humility and the other on confrontation.

Christians do not attract atheists by doing nothing. If they were actually “doing nothing” atheists wouldn’t have anything to have a problem with. What a lot of atheists take issue with is when Christians try to insert their religious beliefs into the public square, or to condemn or marginalize people (gay people, for example) based on said religious beliefs.

Christopher Hitchens summed it up pretty well, when asked, “How do you justify wanting to take something away from people, that gives meaning to 95% of the American people, and replace it with something that gives meaning to just 5% of the American people?”

He said:

“First, I’ve said repeatedly that this stuff cannot be taken away from people, it is their favorite toy, and will remain so, as Freud said in the Future of an Illusion, it will remain that way, as long as we’re afraid of death. Which I think is quite likely to be a long time.

Second, I hope I’ve made it clear, that I’m perfectly happy for people to have these toys, and to play with them at home, and hug them to themselves and so on, and share them with other people who come round and play with the toys. That’s absolutely fine. They are not to make me play with these toys. I will not play with the toys. Don’t bring the toys to my house. Don’t say my children must play with these toys. Don’t say my toys are not allowed by their toys. I’m not gonna have any of that. Enough with clerical and religious bullying and intimidation. Is that finally clear?”

[youtube]Ogak5ZVxLyM[/youtube]
Christopher Hitchens On Religious Toys - YouTube

As to your assertion that atheists love to gather in packs to taunt and ridicule Christians, see above.

It is absolutely nothing to do with what they say, it is the manner in which they say it. I know what the resolve is but I just cannot see atheists stopping their fun in bullying Christian.

Well I don’t know, the manner in which you say things isn’t exactly nonconfrontational.

If someone asked me to shut up because they didn't like what I was saying I would genuinely respect their wishes and I would shut up.

That applies more so in real life than on a message board where people come to discuss religious matters, wouldn’t you say?

And on the other hand, what if I’m witnessing someone abusing a child, and I’m telling them that smacking a child around is harmful and wrong and they’re telling me it isn’t and I need to shut up and leave them alone. I’m certainly not going to shut up and walk away if I think the child is in harm’s way.

That you obviously think differently suggests that you are confrontational and you would say it anyway. Our society is full of people who do what they want and not what the ought to do. In this case, to be a peace maker and cease the discussion.

You can cease any discussion you like on this forum at any time you like. That has nothing to do with other people, and everything to do with you.

You do not have to sell science to me. I have worked within the science world for many years. I am an advocate of the scientific method, however, I use a great deal of common sense and intuition.

Great, then you understand the shortcomings of anecdotal stories.

No, but if you said that there is a off shout of the Christian religion was practicing Devil worshipping, as I have done with atheists and Antiatheists, I would believe it.

I am telling you that an entire branch of Christianity practiced human torture and murder for centuries on end, in the name of their religion. So why should we not conclude, in the same way you have, that Catholics are narcissistic psychopaths?

You have to trust the words of everyone until such time as they let you down at which time you treat what the say with scepticism.

No you don’t. If someone tells me they have an invisible purple unicorn in their garage, I don’t have to just trust what they say until they let me down. Why would anyone do that? I’d say, the amount of skepticism I’m going to apply to a claim depends on the claim.

Well, he did say it.
The Unbelievers Plan to Rid the World of God
by Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell on May 7, 2013
Following the opening of their documentary The Unbelievers, outspoken atheists Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss discussed the merits of their approaches to “ridding the world of religion.”
https://answersingenesis.org/reviews/tv/the-unbelievers-plan-to-rid-the-world-of-god/

Are you referring to this:
“The interviewer concluded by asking the pair, “Is it your hope or expectation that you can, in your words, rid this world of religion?”

“I’m not sure how soon,” Dawkins answered. “I think that religion is declining, that Christianity is declining throughout Christendom.”21 Looking to the future, he adds, “And I think that that’s going to continue. If we look at the broad sweep of history, it’s clear that the trend is going in the right direction. I’m not so optimistic that it will be in my lifetime, but it will happen.”

Doesn’t sound so nefarious to me.

To be honest it matters not who we are that description is awesome. It is one reason why I am a firm believer in God.

It is awesome. And I appreciate it without any belief in god(s).

I suppose I could but I would be digressing.

No, you would be answering a question about an assertion you are making.


Continued below ...

 

[SkepticThinker]

As I said, his description is awesome, but I cannot believe that there is not some kind of designer behind it.

Some people can believe that. And they aren’t evil just for doing so.

The analogy was in regards to your claims about hostility on the part of antitheists, or militant atheists, or whatever you’re calling them now.

Not in the OP I haven't

Sure you did. It’s right there in plain English.

We can agree to differ or we can conclude that mental illnesses are frequently a part of the antitheits make up.

I’m not sure how we could agree on something which you have no demonstrated to be true.

This is also why I asked you to elaborate on exactly what you think a psychopath is.

Yes you do. You are a spokespeople.

We don’t have leaders and authority figures. The only thing all atheists have in common is a lack of belief in god(s). That’s about it.

No, it is anecdotal, a part of a poll conducted 2 years ago.

Well, you know how I feel about anecdotes.

No, I am not saying that I am qualified to make such a diagnosis. I am using common sense. schizophrenia and psychopathy rarely feel remorse or guilt for their actions.

Common sense didn’t bring us to the conclusion that psychopaths aren’t capable of remorse or empathy; careful study of such people demonstrated that to us.

Beyond your personal experience and anecdotes, you cannot demonstrate that whatever brand of atheist you don’t like are all narcissistic psychopaths. As I pointed out, I have an anecdote that contradicts your anecdote, so where does that leave us, exactly?

No, You make your own mind up. Don't listen to me, I could be wrong. Do your own research and satisfy yourself.
Unfortunately, once these polls have been given to those who commissioned it they become their property so to give details is against the data protection laws.

I can’t very well look up something that isn’t available to me, now can I?

Objective morality is the belief that there is a universal moral code. Morality is the idea that a certain system of ethics or set of moral judgments is not just true according to a person's subjective opinion, but factually true. Proponents of this theory would argue that a statement like "Murder is wrong" can be as objectively true as "1 + 1 = 2." in order for a feeling of guilt to be felt by an atheist he has to look at non-Christian sources. Objective morality is one of those sources.
Objective morality does not produce a perfect society for us to live in. If objective morality exists then it wouldn't mean that everyone would comply with it. We all have free agency There is always exception to every rule. Besides, objective morality is not a proven phenomenon. It is a postulation.

Um, okay. So are you saying that atheists believe in an objective morality which is responsible for the moral decay of society? What specific morals would you be talking about?

 

[Serenity7855]

Not likely. It is much too convenient that the Holy Spirit influences far more people in predominantly Christian countries than in other countries, so your argument cannot be valid. South Korea is an advanced country, with advanced media, and has the largest single Christian church in the world, that has hundreds of thousands of members. About 30% of South Korea is Christian. The country is relatively small, and since media is advanced, and since about 30% of Koreans are Christians, many of the 70% of South Koreans who are not Christians easily know enough about the Bible to be accountable to God, and many of them would have become Christians if they had been raised in the U.S. A loving God would not play favorites by saving a far higher percentage of people in the U.S. than in South Korea.

You are just not getting this are you. Have you never seen the Saviour knocking on the door that has no handle, suggesting that it is up to us to open the door to him. The spirit of God does not influence anyone's life until he is invited in. If he did it would cartel free agency.

God gives every single person the opportunity to either accept or reject the gospel. You will either hear it here, or in the spirit world. I cannot make it any simpler. Everyone will get that opportunity.

What you are implying is that all over the world, regarding skeptics who easily know enough about the Bible to be accountable to God, the Holy Spirit chooses to influence far higher percentages of those skeptics who live in predominantly Christian countries than in other countries. That would be unfair, and a loving God would not do that, and would not allow geography to often determine who becomes a Christian.

No, the Holy Ghost does not choose anybody. He cannot intervene. He must be asked by an individual exercising his free will.

You keep using the word Christian, as if they will be the only ones entitled to gain entry into the Kingdom of God, that is just not true.

In order to make it easier for you to understand, let me try again. If everyone in the U.S., and South Korea was removed except for Christians, and skeptics who know enough about the Bible to be accountable to God, a far higher percentage of the skeptics in the U.S. would become Christians than skeptics who live in South Korea. No loving God would do that.

It is not knowledge that will get you into heaven. It is your works. You do not become a Christian based of your geographical location, or the concentration of Christians in your area, how superficial is that? It is down to who you are, not where you live or who lives next door to you. It is down to your spirit. If you are not given an opportunity here then you will receive an opportunity in the spirit prison. You keep flogging the knowledge of scriptures thing when it is who you are, not what you know.

The person who reaches a time in his life where he asked the questions, who am I, where did I come from, what is my purpose and where will I go after my life is over. We all ask those question at some point in our lives, when we become individuals adults instead of a part of a family. In our search to answer those questions we will be met with answers. Some true and some intended to deceive. How we handle that and the choices we make will be judged.

Regarding environmental conditions, era, peer group, fads, and culture, anyone who knows enough about the Bible to be accountable to God is accountable regardless of those factors. For example, anyone who has grown up in a loving Christian home, and has attended church regularly, and has learned all of the basics in the Bible, is accountable to God regardless of any of those factors.

Those factors are important, however, no two people are the same so there has to be a judgement of every single individual by taking into account the entirety of their time on earth, including the era they were born in, the environment, peer groups, parents, assessibility to religion etc etc. Anything and everything that effects choice. It has to be a fair judgement.

 

[Agnostic75]

It is not knowledge that will get you into heaven. It is your works. You do not become a Christian based on your geographical location or the concentration of Christians in your area, how superficial is that. It is down to who you are not where you live or who lives next door to you. It is down to your spirit. If you are not given an opportunity here then you will receive an opportunity in the spirit prison. You keep flogging the knowledge of scriptures thing when it is who you are. The person who reaches a time in his life where he asked the questions, who am I, where did I come from, what is my purpose and where will I go after my life is over. We all ask those question at some point in our lives when we become individuals instead of a part of a family. In our search to answer those questions we will be meet with answers. Some true and some intended to deceive.

We are wasting time since you have not reasonably proven that God inspired the Bible.

 

[outhouse]

We are wasting time since you have not reasonably proven that God inspired the Bible.

And if he did inspire the gospel he is not that bright, giving the unknown authors inspiration to write mythology, poem, song, metaphors, rhetoric and fiction added to contradictions and redactions.

 

[outhouse]

You do not become a Christian based on your geographical location

.

Really?

Depending on where one is born, highly dictates what religion they will belong to.

And that is factual.

 

[Agnostic75]

Regarding environmental conditions, era, peer group, fads, and culture, anyone who knows enough about the Bible to be accountable to God is accountable regardless of those factors. For example, anyone who has grown up in a loving Christian home, and has attended church regularly, and has learned all of the basics in the Bible, is accountable to God regardless of any of those factors.

Yes they are, however, no two people are the same so there has to be a judgement of every single individual by taking into account the entirety of their time on earth, including the era they were born in, the environment, peer groups, parents, assessibility to religion etc etc.

Let's consider a skeptic named John Smith. He was raised in a loving Christian home, went to church regularly, learned about all of the basics in the Bible, grew up in a predominantly Christian community in the U.S., is forty-five years old, and was not exposed to any negative people, or negative cultural factors than influenced him. (But negative people, and negative cultural factors are not legitimate excuses for people to use to reject God when they have had numerous opportunities to learn the truth.) Now surely John is accountable to God regardless of any other factors since he had ample opportunity to accept Christianity, but rejected it. John would be unsaved, and would not have eternal life if he died.

Under certain other circumstances, even some that were "more" negative than what John encountered, he would have become a Christian. Therefore, God is not fair since under certain circumstances, John would have accepted God if he had been aware of the same evidence that God gave some other people, but since God is not fair, he does not exist, at least not the God of the Bible.

Another reason why the God of the Bible does not exist is that he does not have free will. A loving God would not ask people to love a God who does not choose to do what he does. Without choice, morality has no meaning. A God who must always be good does not have free will, and does not deserve any credit for being good since he must always be good. God is perfect, and must always do the most perfect thing that is possible. Even if a number of things are equally perfect, God must always do a perfect thing.

If God made humans, how can humans have free will since God made their will, and thus humans' will would be God's will? John Smith's will cannot possibly be his own will since John did not create himself. My position is that it would be impossible for any being with any amount of power to give any man free will since no man created himself. John Smith could only do what he was programmed by God to do. John's brain was created by God, and can only function like God made it. In order for John to have free will, his brain would have to be able to function completely independent of how God constructed his brain, and that would be impossible.

 

[Agnostic75]

Obviously not. You are a mere fallible, imperfect human. An evil, omnipotent God would quite naturally be able to deceive anyone who he wanted to deceive. Many evil humans sometimes successfully do good things in order to deceive people. An evil God would be much more able to deceive people than any human would.

I have never considered such an alternative, perhaps I should have done because I cannot think of a defence to it. I would have to consider it for longer then I have. I guess you would have to consider his motive and would Satan then be a righteous being. In which case the same precepts exist and good over evil remain.

If righteousness is determined by whoever God is, then obviously a God who most humans would consider to be evil would be righteous in his opinion. Or, an evil God might have the opinion that he is evil, but that the evil things that he does are acceptable for him to do. In any case, if God is an imposter, and is omnipotent, he would easily be able to deceive anyone who he wanted to deceive.

Satan might not exist, and might be a deceptive invention of an evil God who is an imposter.

You cannot reasonably prove that it is more likely that God is who the Bible says he is than that God is an imposter.

If a rat could be smelt, it has been smelt many times, such as God needlessly injuring, and killing humans, and innocent animals with hurricanes, and diseases. What fair, worthy, and just goals could God not achieve without doing those things?

God always acts for a reason.

Not any reasons that answered my question.

Mankind had an alternative.

That still does not answer my question. Common sense, logic, and reason indicate that a loving God would be able to achieve any fair, worthy, and just goal without injuring, and killing humans, and innocent animals with hurricanes, and diseases.

 

[Serenity7855]

[Serenity7855] Yes they are, however, no two people are the same so there has to be a judgement of every single individual by taking into account the entirety of their time on earth, including the era they were born in, the environment, peer groups, parents, assessibility to religion etc etc.

Let's consider a skeptic named John Smith. He was raised in a loving Christian home, went to church regularly, learned about all of the basics in the Bible, grew up in a predominantly Christian community in the U.S., is forty-five years old, and was not exposed to any negative people, or negative cultural factors than influenced him.

All of those factors are irrelevant. That is the point I am trying to make. Only when you have received the testators influence within your soul, that is, the Holy Ghost testifying to you that God lives, will you be in trouble if you reject it. You cannot be held accountable if you do not know what accountability means. You have to have that witness.

If you do not receive it here, on earth, then you will receive it in the spirit prison where you will have the same knowledge and attitude that you have here. If you reject it there then you will also be in trouble. Everyone will eventually receive it, otherwise, what will you be judged on.

But negative people, and negative cultural factors are not legitimate excuses for people to use to reject God when they have had numerous opportunities to learn the truth.

Yes but you need to know that the god you are rejecting is real, therefore, yes they are factors that need to be given consideration. Anything that might influence the smallest of decisions will be a factor in the judgement. But, it is not down to learning the truth, is it, it is down to choice. After you have received the testification of the Holy Ghost, you either choose to follow Christ or you don't. You will then be judged accordingly. If you reject it then why did you reject it?

Now surely John is accountable to God regardless of any other factors since he had ample opportunity to accept Christianity, but rejected it. John would be unsaved, and would not have eternal life if he died.

He reads the Scriptures, right? He has gained knowledge of all it contains. How on earth would he know if what he has read is true. Why should he believe what he has read? Would you just accept that the words in a book are true without some kind of evidence. Let me tell you, I am a realist. If I cannot smell it, touch it, see it, hear it, taste it, or communicate with it, then I do not believe it. No way would I be a Christian, absolutely no way, unless I was pretty sure that it is the right thing to do. I have received a witness by the spirit. I can testify of its authenticity.

Having said all of this, there is a default position. If you live your life as a Christian, but you are unaware of the Bible and God, but you would have believed it if you knew, then you could be judged worthy to enter the Kingdom of God. What counts is the degree of righteousness that you attain in mortality.

How can you be judged on a law you do not know. Now that would be unfair.

Under certain other circumstances, even some that were "more" negative than what John encountered, he would have become a Christian. Therefore, God is not fair since under certain circumstances, John would have accepted God if he had been aware of the same evidence that God gave some other people, but since God is not fair, he does not exist, at least not the God of the Bible.

The question has been answered. You cannot be judged on a law you do not know.

If God made humans, how can humans have free will since God made their will, and thus humans' will would be God's will? John Smith's will cannot possibly be his own will since John did not create himself. My position is that it would be impossible for any being with any amount of power to give any man free will since no man created himself. John Smith could only do what he was programmed by God to do. John's brain was created by God, and can only function like God made it. In order for John to have free will, his brain would have to be able to function completely independent of how God constructed his brain, and that would be impossible.

Well, you will have to show some kind of evidence to substantiate your claim that God made free agency. We had it before we even got here. We used it to agree to come here. It is what we will be judged on. If he owns it then what the heck are we doing here? How are we able to prove ourselves if we do not have free agency. God created the tabernacle of clay, that is, the body. We, our spirit self, are eternal in nature, so our free agency is also eternal in nature.

What does the brain have to do with free agency. It is just grey matter. It controls our body with all of its functions, but our spirits are a separate organ that resides with our bodies and radiates out to influence those around us. That is a simplification, of course. A good film to watch that talks about the phenomenon is called "I am" by Tom Shadyac.

 

[Serenity7855]

If righteousness is determined by whoever God is, then obviously a God who most humans would consider to be evil would be righteous in his opinion. Or, an evil God might have the opinion that he is evil, but that the evil things that he does are acceptable for him to do. In any case, if God is an imposter, and is omnipotent, he would easily be able to deceive anyone who he wanted to deceive.

Satan might not exist, and might be a deceptive invention of an evil God who is an imposter.

You cannot reasonably prove that it is more likely that God is who the Bible says he is than that God is an imposter.





Not any reasons that answered my question.



That still does not answer my question. Common sense, logic, and reason indicate that a loving God would be able to achieve any fair, worthy, and just goal without injuring, and killing humans, and innocent animals with hurricanes, and diseases.

It is all anecdotal, and you are not a fan of that.

Oh, God has never killed anyone. He is incapable of evil. If he did that he would cease to exist. Every catastrophe in the old testament is the result of man's choices. It is beyond God to stop it because free agency has determined it. Free agency is an immovable principle like gravity.

 

[Serenity7855]

Really?

Depending on where one is born, highly dictates what religion they will belong to.

And that is factual.

Well, if you are in an area where the gospel is not preached, or even allowed, like China, then of course the concentration of Christians will be lower, and of course there will be a higher concentration where the gospel is taught. That does not mean that only those who have heard the word of God will be welcomed in the kingdom of God. That would be grossly unfair. and God is a fair God, so he has a plan, called the "Plan of Salvation", and within that plan he has a contingency plan to make sure that we all have equal opportunity to hear his words.

 

[outhouse]

and God is a fair God.

Was he fair, to all the innocent animals that died in the mythical flood?

Was it fair to let other civilizations run over Israel like there was not god at all protecting them?


I don't think fair is a decent definition of the concept.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Why does science have to define God?

If science is to investigate God, then science would need a definition of "God" upon which to work, to create tests and experiments, etc. How do you know what you are looking for if you don't know what you're looking for? How do you test something when you don't know what you are testing?

I didn't say "Science deeds to define God".

I said something closer to, "If 'God Science' is to emerge, we first need to clearly define God in scientific terms".

This is why my posts in this thread have greatly decreased. What you are hearing is not what I am saying. I'm wondering if that's not happening the other way around as well.

 

[outhouse]

we first need to clearly define God in scientific terms".


.

I think we have already.

Determined to be ancient men's mythology.

 

[Serenity7855]

If science is to investigate God, then science would need a definition of "God" upon which to work, to create tests and experiments, etc. How do you know what you are looking for if you don't know what you're looking for? How do you test something when you don't know what you are testing?

I didn't say "Science deeds to define God".

I said something closer to, "If 'God Science' is to emerge, we first need to clearly define God in scientific terms".

This is why my posts in this thread have greatly decreased. What you are hearing is not what I am saying. I'm wondering if that's not happening the other way around as well.

This is what you said

As far as your delusion of "God Science", the first thing that has to happen is that "God" must be defined in a way that subjects it to scientific research. When that challenge is met, maybe we can ... "proceed".

I just asked why God had to be defined.

I do not think it matters really. You believe that God cannot be used in the scientific method and so do I, therefore, what is the argument?

 

[Bunyip]

This is what you said

As far as your delusion of "God Science", the first thing that has to happen is that "God" must be defined in a way that subjects it to scientific research. When that challenge is met, maybe we can ... "proceed".

I just asked why God had to be defined.

Because without a definition the term is meaningless.