Jump to content


Photo

Where Is The Christian God?


  • Please log in to reply
49 replies to this topic

#1 Shadow

Shadow

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 64 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Midlands, England

Posted 15 November 2011 - 03:28 PM

If the Christian God is true, then where is it now? Is this God omnipresent? If so then why did the Christians burn 1000s of pantheists and other free thinkers at the stake for saying God is inside all matter? As far as I can see Christians today still reject pantheism.

So If the Christian God is not inside matter, then where is this God? If this Christian God exists outside of time and space, then nobody will ever see this God?

In the Old testament there are verses which say God was interacting and causing things on earth, and people even saw God in a finite form - then the Christian God can not be omnipresent can it? Also if this Christian God was interacting and causing material events on earth to happen in the past, then why not now?

#2 jason

jason

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 662 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 38
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • florida

Posted 15 November 2011 - 06:01 PM

If the Christian God is true, then where is it now? Is this God omnipresent? If so then why did the Christians burn 1000s of pantheists and other free thinkers at the stake for saying God is inside all matter? As far as I can see Christians today still reject pantheism.

So If the Christian God is not inside matter, then where is this God? If this Christian God exists outside of time and space, then nobody will ever see this God?

In the Old testament there are verses which say God was interacting and causing things on earth, and people even saw God in a finite form - then the Christian God can not be omnipresent can it? Also if this Christian God was interacting and causing material events on earth to happen in the past, then why not now?

he still does but not in the same manner. In the tanakh is isreali concentric whereas the new testaments its more christcentric. we are post isreal and isreal for the most part till 1948 hasn existed in the gentile age. God isnt using isreal as a light to the nations , but now is using the gentiles and converted jews to be that light.

#3 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 15 November 2011 - 10:38 PM

If the Christian God is true, then where is it now? Is this God omnipresent? If so then why did the Christians burn 1000s of pantheists and other free thinkers at the stake for saying God is inside all matter? As far as I can see Christians today still reject pantheism.

So If the Christian God is not inside matter, then where is this God? If this Christian God exists outside of time and space, then nobody will ever see this God?

In the Old testament there are verses which say God was interacting and causing things on earth, and people even saw God in a finite form - then the Christian God can not be omnipresent can it? Also if this Christian God was interacting and causing material events on earth to happen in the past, then why not now?


I know this is long but I hope this helps. These are my favorite questions because often times people think these questions but they don't really have the courage to ask them. They continue to let these tough questions be a barrier to faith in God without truly seeking an answer. Trust me, I started out as an atheist, seeking answers to some of these same questions.

To answer your question about the nature of God's omnipresence, I go to the source of revelation about God's character:

Jeremiah 23:23,24
"Am I a God at hand, saith the Lord, and not a God afar off? Can any hide himself in secret places that I shall not see him? saith the Lord. Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the Lord."

Think about all the people praying to God at the same time, across many countries, sometimes across the world. When God shows Himself in physical form, such as the pillar of smoke, or the pillar of fire, or the fleshly body of Jesus Christ, He is not confined to that singular form. He is still everywhere else at the same time, and still capable of making miracles happen for people praying on the other side of the world. God is greater and more complex than anyone can imagine, even the bible tells us just the basics of what we need to know to have a relationship with God. The only word I have ever felt describes God pretty well is "indescribable".

The second point you bring up is that no one will ever see God if He is outside of time and space.

God being outside of time and space means He exists independent from them. Time can end, and space can disappear but God will still exist since He created time and space. God is also able to influence, or speak to someone at one point in time, yet still exist as the same being in another time, in another place. God can be seen by people who are limited by time and space. People did see God in the form of Jesus Christ, a fleshly body. Saints will see God in heaven.

Also, it is important to understand that knowing that God exists is different than having faith that He exists. "By God's grace we are saved through faith in Jesus Christ." If I tell you that I have a coin in my hand, but do not show you, it takes faith for you to believe me. If I show you that there is a coin in my hand, then you know for sure that I do have a coin in my hand. By this simple action, your free will is taken away to believe in the coin or not. God allows people the free will to choose Him, even when God came to earth in the fleshly form of Jesus Christ and performed miracles, there was no "absolute proof" that He was God. He strongly inferred it and He gave people free will to believe Him or not, but when they called Him God, He did not deny it.

As for Christians murdering people, I have two thoughts on this. 1) not everyone that calls themselves a Christian has true faith in Jesus Christ, and are therefore not a Christian and easily steered by the devil to smear the name of God (seems like a bit of a cop out? well stay with me). 2) True Christians often get confused/convinced by themselves or other people to do things in the name of God that God would never call them to do. This does not mean that they are not Christian, but that they are not yet perfected. God is a father. He corrects us when we do wrong, but He does not use His full power to force us to do His will. Often times we get so excited to do "God's will" that we forget to ask Him what His will really is. The best part is that in God's patience, He still loves us when we really mess up and make Him look bad.

I have heard people claim that Christian crusades etc are reason for us to abandon "religion" yet by the same logic, atheism also fails, since it has also been used as an excuse by misguided people to murder others.

Pantheism suggests that all matter=God. Yes Christians still reject this. To simplify, I do not worship an ashtray as being a part of my God, it is part of His creation (matter), molded/shaped by man.

Your final question is "why aren't miracles happening now?"

First there is common grace. Everything that is good in all the earth comes from God. When you feel the warm sun on your back, this is by God's common grace, which is available to everyone. These are miracles which everyone takes for granted.

Second, in the Bible, miracles are not always flashy. Often times people pray to God, and God makes these prayers come true. Sometimes in the Bible, people pray and God does not fulfill that prayer because He has a better plan. This still happens today.

Then there are the "big flashy" miracles. Blind people seeing, deaf people hearing, paralyzed people walking. It happens! It doesn't happen to everyone that is blind, deaf, or paralyzed, but it happens. I know what your thinking, why not? and why do people die from cancer? What is all this evil? First, you may be surprised when I say this but everyone dies, we take our lifespan for granted and get angry with God when loved ones do not die of "natural causes" sometimes. Yes God takes all life back in the end. When you come to understand that God's main purpose is to bring people to faith in Jesus Christ, then complicated stuff that we might consider "suffering" can actually help bring multiple people to Heaven. Suffering can awaken our compassion, bring humility, cause people to experience REAL life, instead of a bland day to day existence. Only God can tell what is truly going on behind the curtains.

My final point: just because we can explain something with scientific laws does not automatically mean God has nothing to do with it.

#4 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 16 November 2011 - 05:37 AM

If the Christian God is true, then where is it now? Is this God omnipresent? If so then why did the Christians burn 1000s of pantheists and other free thinkers at the stake for saying God is inside all matter? As far as I can see Christians today still reject pantheism.

So If the Christian God is not inside matter, then where is this God? If this Christian God exists outside of time and space, then nobody will ever see this God?

In the Old testament there are verses which say God was interacting and causing things on earth, and people even saw God in a finite form - then the Christian God can not be omnipresent can it? Also if this Christian God was interacting and causing material events on earth to happen in the past, then why not now?


Hmmmm, something smells about this post. Could this be nothing more than a thread posted for creating a spectacle? I would wonder what answer (other than the obvious answers found in the Bible) would be acceptable to the starter of the thread?

Further, I could counter with like questions (that would actually be more pertinent and damaging ) to the atheist:

1- If materialistic atheism is true, then where is the empirical evidence for our origins?

2- If materialistic atheism is true, then where is the empirical evidence for something come from nothing?

3- If materialistic atheism is true, then where is the empirical evidence for life come from non-life and intelligence come from non-intelligence?

4- If atheists weren't so fearful of God (and Christianity), why would atheists like Stalin, Pol Pot (etc…) persecute and murder millions of Christians?

5- If the atheist weren’t so fearful of God (and Christianity), why would they come onto forums and ask questions about God and the Bible, when the answers to their questions are found IN the Bible (Gods Word). Then they use as their evidence, those who claim to follow Jesus, but act ‘contrary’ to the words of Jesus. Or they use as evidence that they haven’t personally felt or seen evidence of this God that they don’t believe exists, and then outright deny those who have experienced a relationship with Him, without having a shred of negative evidence refuting the Christian’s relationship with the historical Jesus of the Bible.

Hmmmmm, something seems very odd about the OP, but questions one through three provide that the atheist has far mor faith in their religon than the theist!

#5 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 16 November 2011 - 08:41 AM

It's okay. Let's just make it a good spectacle. Here are a couple of things I believe at present:

The God of the Bible is one God, unlimitless in power. He manifests himself to us in more than one way, in more than one form. He can be in a million places at once, and still be almighty. He created all things and through Him they are held together. This is my God.

The Trinity is one way this is explained, but He is so much more than our understanding. He is inside me. There are those identified as Christians that do not yet have His Spirit inside of them, teaching them all things, and there are Christians such as myself that don't have a perfect understanding, for as the scripture says, the way we see God now is as if in a smokey mirror. We have not reached that which is perfect.

He certainly isn't unrighteous. And it would be unrighteous, would it not, to renege on an agreement, indeed a COVENANT? And doesn't a covenant OBLIGATE one to do something... or refrain from doing something?
So, the fact that the Most Holy One of Israel may have obligated Himself to do something... or refrain from doing something... doesn't negate His omnipotence. Rather, it shows that, unlike a great many MEN... HE will keep HIS word.

That His part is taking longer than you and others like to come to fulfillment is... what? He never agreed to a specific date... or hour. Which all those who so covenant WITH Him know... going in.


I am starting to understand the answer to why? Why this suffering? Why does it continue?

An example: Jesus came to earth as a man and slowly revealed the truth to us of who He is. Another: I can't just go rescue my JW family. I have to gradually reveal the truth to them (and of course, the Lord will ultimately rescue). My point is that we humans take a while to learn, to warm up to an idea. You can't just go around forcing us to understand things. ;)

#6 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1515 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 16 November 2011 - 09:28 AM

[quote] name='Shadow' timestamp='1321396127' post='76732']
If the Christian God is true, then where is it now? Is this God omnipresent? If so then why did the Christians burn 1000s of pantheists and other free thinkers at the stake for saying God is inside all matter? As far as I can see Christians today still reject pantheism.[/quote]

Shadow,

I will answer your questions. First, the Christian "Creator" God can't be an "it." Since you are a person, can you at least admit that if God does exist then He would also have to be a person? Can you admit that an "it" could not make you a person?

"Is God omnipresent." God is not omnipresent, but He is everywhere that He wants to be. If He could not be where He wants to be, then He would be a God who had no free will but actually HAD to be everywhere. The Bible says that God will cast people who do not wish to live with Him "out of His presence." How can He cast you out of His presence if He is omnipresent?

I'm a Christian. I reject pantheism. God is not part of His creation anymore than a mechanical engineer is part of the engine of a car. Can you at least admit that if there is a Creator God that He would have to be anterior and prior to the creation?

As an atheist, you can't argue that it's wrong to kill anyone. Why would it be wrong to murder within your worldview? In your worldview, there can be no right or wrong. I know that the rules of war say to "use your enemy's resources against him," but in logical argument, I must ask that you not borrow from the Christian worldview to argue against the Christian worldview. To do so is to be illogical and you then defeat your own argument. A theists needs no help to defeat the arguments of an atheist.

You asked where God is? I can tell you irrefragably where He is not. He is not in your heart. Can you agree with this?

[quote]So If the Christian God is not inside matter, then where is this God? If this Christian God exists outside of time and space, then nobody will ever see this God?[/quote]

As I posted above, can you agree that a Creator God would have to be prior to and outside of creation? A carpenter can't be part of the materials of the house. But he can "enter" and "live" in the house without being a part of it. No?

To make this post, you had to use logic and thought--irrational, illogical "thought," but nevertheless thought. Thinking is not physical. Now if you argue that thinking is the motion of chemicals in the brain, then you could not "know" that your argument was true. Chemical reactions in the brain is a physical process. If thinking is physical, then you could not know that anything was true, not even that your brain is composed of chemicals (as Haldane posited). Laws of logic are not physical. Reasonless physical matter can't give you the immaterial laws of logic. So what you are doing here on this thread is using God's immaterial laws of logic and "thought" to argue that an immaterial God can't exist. Thus far, the only evidence you have presented is that you can't see Him. But then I must ask: If you see an automoble, do you have to see the automoble maker to believe that one exists?

Your argument that if God "exists" outside of His creation then we will never be able to see Him is illogical. I really don't think you've given this enough thought. This is just an assertion on your part. Can you give us some evidence as to why God is precluded from revealing Himself to us if He so desires?

[quote]In the Old testament there are verses which say God was interacting and causing things on earth, and people even saw God in a finite form - then the Christian God can not be omnipresent can it? Also if this Christian God was interacting and causing material events on earth to happen in the past, then why not now?
[/quote]

The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob is a Triune God--God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. The Christian God can be omnipresent, IF HE WANTS TO. But I will agree that many Christians falsely teach that God is everywhere. But since He will cast you "out of His presence," I think we can surely say that He is not in the Lake of Fire.

You keep referring to God as "it." Now you can argue that He does not exist. And you can be irreverent. But You can't argue that God is an "it" if He does exist. An "it" can't create. Would you agree with this?

In the past (OT), God did interact with man (mainly the Jews or the seed of Abraham). Jesus said that "if I bear witness of Myself, don't believe me." Jesus did not arrive on the scene unannounced and ask people to believe Him. Joseph Smith, Mohammed, and Russell did that. But the Old Testament says that there must be two (or three) witnesses) to establish a matter. Jesus said that if you don't believe Me, then believe the miracles that I do. And the Father and the Holy Spirit bear witness of Me. And the whole of the Old Testament testified of Jesus Christ. He is woven into the history, the symbolic laws, the Jewish culture, etc. Much of the Old Testament can't be understood unless Jesus is inserted. Spiritual matters are discerned spiritually. Because you have a hard heart towards God, the Holy Spirit is not in you. Thus, you can't discern Spiritual truths. And believe it or not, but your heart can ceceive you. It's called Van Tillian Self-deception. But Paul wrote about it first (Rom. 1:18-22).

Jesus, who is God, came into His own Creation--which you, for some reason, deem impossible--and lived and died for you. And He did not have to become the fabric of a tree to step into that which He created, just as a carpenter can enter the house he builds. He was tempted in all ways but sinned not. Actually, initially Jesus came "only to the House of Israel." Israel rejected Jesus when He walked among them and they later rejected their risen Messiah, ignoring the pleadings of the apostles to accept their Messiah so that "God the Father would send Jesus back" and they would have their kingdom. So God cut off Israel and sent Paul to the Gentiles. When the fulness of the Gentiles has come in, you will see Jesus and you will have to answer to Him. Paul wrote, "Every knee will bow and acknowledge that Jesus is Lord." You can do it voluntarily or involuntarily, but you will do it. "Bring those enemies of mine before Me and slay them with the sword."

TeeJay

#7 Shadow

Shadow

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 64 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Midlands, England

Posted 16 November 2011 - 12:07 PM

Firstly atheism is the belief in no religious God ie an anthropomorphic one. Einstein and other philosophers such as Spinoza were not religious yet equated God with nature. They could be considered "atheists". Don't just lump all atheists into the same box. This thread is asking about evidence for the "Christian God". - Which from replies seems to be none except based on faith.

If materialistic atheism is true, then where is the empirical evidence for our origins?


You would need to explain why you are equating atheism with materialism. Also "empirical evidence for origins" does not exist, science method does not deal with the origins of life. It is a mystery unsolved by science.

where is the empirical evidence for something come from nothing?


There is no empirical evidence for this, something can not come from nothing correct, last time I checked it was Christians who actually believe in that, Christians believe God created the universe and life on earth from nothing. Abiogenesis and Genesis have alot in common. If you read my other posts you would see I argued for an eternal universe which has always existed with no "creation".

If atheists weren't so fearful of God (and Christianity), why would atheists like Stalin, Pol Pot (etc…) persecute and murder millions of Christians?


It's the same as asking why Christians burnt, raped and hung, and even drowned pantheists, free-thinkers, Wiccans, alchemists, agnostics, atheists, non-trinitarians and slaughted loads of muslims etc.

If the atheist weren’t so fearful of God (and Christianity), why would they come onto forums and ask questions about God and the Bible


I am not interested in the Bible, I just wanted to ask what scientific or observable evidence you have for your deity, which if we look at the posts here is none, it's faith only it seems. Heres my view on faith - May aswell have faith in a flying clown creating everything.

God is not omnipresent


Thanks, I didn't think the Christian God was.

I'm a Christian. I reject pantheism. God is not part of His creation anymore than a mechanical engineer is part of the engine of a car.


You are entitled to that personal opinion, but you can not disprove that God is not part of his creation (pantheism), this is metaphysics and philosophy. Read ethics by Spinoza, he equated God with nature, no seperation. This may be considered "atheism" becuase it does not involve the "belief" in any religious God.

As an atheist, you can't argue that it's wrong to kill anyone. Why would it be wrong to murder within your worldview? In your worldview, there can be no right or wrong.


You know me do you? You make the mistake of lumping all atheists in the same boat. But really look at this matter and Christianity is worse in this situation- Christians reject the idea of a conscience, Christians claim there has to be a God telling them what is right and wrong. If you had a conscience why would you need some external source telling you what is right and wrong? You should know already shouldn't you? Christians believe you can not be moral without the Christian God, what does that tell you? Last time i checked Christians also believe in original sin and that everyone is a bad no matter what - it seems to me like Christians do not believe that anyone can be good or free from "sin".

You asked where God is? I can tell you irrefragably where He is not. He is not in your heart. Can you agree with this?


If you are reffering to the Christian God or any other religious God, then yes "he" is not in my heart. Religious Gods are nothing but ideas on paper.

can you agree that a Creator God would have to be prior to and outside of creation


This is typical dualism, - and by the way a "creator God" does not need to be outside of his creation.

Your argument that if God "exists" outside of His creation then we will never be able to see Him is illogical. I really don't think you've given this enough thought. This is just an assertion on your part. Can you give us some evidence as to why God is precluded from revealing Himself to us if He so desires?


You have admitted the Christian God is not omnipresent and he exists outside of time and space - So somehow he is going to magically appear and reveal himself? By the way is there not a verse in the Bible which actually says "nobody has ever seen him", it makes it clear that nobody has ever seen it, and you have to have faith in it.

The Christian God can be omnipresent, IF HE WANTS TO


Ok the Christian God is not omnipresent but he can be if he wants to, and you know this how? He told you?

You keep referring to God as "it." Now you can argue that He does not exist.


But where is your evidence that this "Christian God" does exist?

#8 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 16 November 2011 - 05:08 PM

Firstly atheism is the belief in no religious God ie an anthropomorphic one. Einstein and other philosophers such as Spinoza were not religious yet equated God with nature. They could be considered "atheists". Don't just lump all atheists into the same box. This thread is asking about evidence for the "Christian God". - Which from replies seems to be none except based on faith.


Atheism
Main Entry: athe•ism
Pronunciation: \ˈā-thē-ˌi-zəm\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
Date: 1546
1 archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

http://www.merriam-w...tionary/atheism

The word (A) Theist literally means “No God”. Now, we can have a lengthy debate about the meaning of atheism if you wish, but I doubt you have the understanding that you think you have on the subject; as since Bradlaugh (in 1876) atheist have been running from actual atheism and hiding behind agnosticism (as atheism at its foundation is untenable).

So, when you find an atheist asking materialistic questions about the Christian God, it is perfectly fair game to show the massive amounts of faith contained in the atheistic worldview. And, as we see below, you attempt to run from that materialism… but you cannot have it both ways.

If materialistic atheism is true, then where is the empirical evidence for our origins?


You would need to explain why you are equating atheism with materialism. Also "empirical evidence for origins" does not exist, science method does not deal with the origins of life. It is a mystery unsolved by science.


The questions you posed on the OP were for materialistic evidences. If they were not, then you would accept metaphysical answers as evidence. So, are you saying that you’d accept a metaphysical answer to your questions? Are you saying that metaphysical answers can be construed as empirical?

If you say no, than I was perfectly correct in ascertaining the materialistic bent you are on.

If you answer yes, then I’ll be more than happy to discuss the metaphysical nature of atheism and the fallacious logic it would take to fill the faith statements.

The scientific method DOES indeed “deal with the origins of life”, it just that the atheist doesn’t like to deal with the implications of it. And we can discuss that if you wish to as well.

where is the empirical evidence for something come from nothing?


There is no empirical evidence for this, something can not come from nothing correct, last time I checked it was Christians who actually believe in that, Christians believe God created the universe and life on earth from nothing. Abiogenesis and Genesis have alot in common. If you read my other posts you would see I argued for an eternal universe which has always existed with no "creation".

This is either a misconception on your part, or misdirection on your part. The theist saying that God created everything out of nothing is not the same as abiogenesis requiring everything simply “popping” out of nothing. And therein lies the confusion you are having (or your illogical conundrum). Because when God creates something, it is NOT coming from nothing, it is coming from God, which is a perfectly logical assertion (* Note: See Kalam cosmological argument below)! On the other hand, abiogenesis requires something coming from “no one” AND “nothing”; which is an absurd and illogical submission because “from nothing, nothing comes”, a cause requires a “Causer”; unless, of course you’re going to postulate an atheist’s god? I would enjoy that conversation as well.


*Note: Kalam cosmological argument
The aim of this argument is to show that the universe had a beginning in the finite past. The argument battles against the existence of an infinite regression of past events which implies a universe that has infinitely existed. This argument implies the existence of a First Cause.

The form of the argument is:
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Note that the key phrase here is "begins to exist". The question is not "whatever exists".

#9 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 16 November 2011 - 05:09 PM

If atheists weren't so fearful of God (and Christianity), why would atheists like Stalin, Pol Pot (etc…) persecute and murder millions of Christians?


It's the same as asking why Christians burnt, raped and hung, and even drowned pantheists, free-thinkers, Wiccans, alchemists, agnostics, atheists, non-trinitarians and slaughted loads of muslims etc.


As I so astutely pointed out, but you deemed to “cherry-pick” out of the post was:

If atheists weren't so fearful of God (and
Then they use as their evidence, those who claim to follow Jesus, but act ‘contrary’ to the words of Jesus.

Seems like you are wont to run from the things you don’t like, and simply cherry-pick (take out of context) that which you think you have an argument for. This is another type of trolling.

If the atheist weren’t so fearful of God (and Christianity), why would they come onto forums and ask questions about God and the Bible


I am not interested in the Bible, I just wanted to ask what scientific or observable evidence you have for your deity, which if we look at the posts here is none, it's faith only it seems.


If you wanted “scientific or observable evidence”, you wouldn’t have complained so loudly about the word “materialistic” in the beginning of your post… And that explains quite a lot. It also further proves my earlier point.

I can also assert your faith in atheism as well, as you have absolutely NO “scientific or observable evidence” for atheisms origin and foundations. So shall we discuss your deity?


Heres my view on faith - May aswell have faith in a flying clown creating everything.


Yes, but all the above actually show your actual views on faith. And, according to your answers, you may as well have “faith in a flying clown creating everything”, as it would be more logical than what you’ve postulated thus far.

#10 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2476 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Real Science Radio.
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 16 November 2011 - 07:53 PM

But where is your evidence that this "Christian God" does exist?


Shadow, it is all around you, and God says in Romans 1:20 you are without excuse to deny this evidence. When I'm done writing this post, if you read it backwards and are able to read a coherent, clear message, you would immediately think I was some sort of genius and attribute it to intelligence. Well, that's exactly what we've discovered with the DNA, it is also read BACKWARDS and programs entirely different functionality than the forward direction! Scientists have uncovered up to TWELVE ways the DNA is read. To think this happened by mistakes in the DNA over time is flat dumb, dumb as rocks, yet you'll choose to be dumb as rocks and believe this all happened nationalistically, while at the same time admitting its intelligence if some human was to accomplish this.

ME: It's okay. Let's just make it a good spectacle.


I believe Shadow has been caught in a glass-cutting machine, he's making a spectacle of himself. Posted Image

Fred

#11 Shadow

Shadow

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 64 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Midlands, England

Posted 16 November 2011 - 08:26 PM

The questions you posed on the OP were for materialistic evidences. If they were not, then you would accept metaphysical answers as evidence.


I accept metaphysical answers. So far nobody has even given a metaphysical answer. One guy said God exists outside of time and space but can exist elsewhere then gave some bible verses that was about the only answer I got, I was hoping for some further detail.

This thread is not to poke fun at anything, it was a general question - where is the Christian God. Where exactly is it located, as Christianity has rejected omnipresence then it is not everywhere, it is not in matter like pantheism says, it is not completey outside of time and space like deism says, so I was interested in actually knowing where it is located and actually what you guys think it is?.

The scientific method DOES indeed “deal with the origins of life”,


Ok then what is the scientific answer for the origin of life?

The theist saying that God created everything out of nothing is not the same as abiogenesis


Anyone who believes the universe has a beginning, ie Christian creationists, are admitting that something can come from nothing, also according to the bible apparently God created Adam from nothing, not pre existing materials, it was all from scratch. Abiogenesis and Biblical creationism are very similar, the difference is abiogenesis does away with the God. Both are not scientific, both say something can be created from nothing.

<This post has been edited due to continual equivocation, quibbling, and bloviating instead of actually answering for assertions made. I have saved the text elsewhere, where other admin can view it, just in case someone wants to cry foul..... Ron>

#12 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1515 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 16 November 2011 - 10:30 PM

Shadow,

I gave you a very cogent post (No. 6) which you ignored. Why? I'm not going to post a second time unless I hear from you.

TeeJay

#13 Shadow

Shadow

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 64 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 20
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Midlands, England

Posted 16 November 2011 - 10:37 PM

Shadow,

I gave you a very cogent post (No. 6) which you ignored. Why? I'm not going to post a second time unless I hear from you.

TeeJay


You posted aload of verses from the Bible. You admitted God is not omnipresent, but also admitted God is out of time and space but he can appear in creation if he wishes. This is not addressing where he is now, or what "he" or "it" is, what is the nature of this God, we are talking about an immaterial being here, or a man?

but you see have not observed any of this what you say about god appearing in the old testament, you just get these ideas from a book. Why not try and experience your God, why only just play around with words? have you ever seen god?

Then your other part of your post seems to link atheism with immorality and materialism, this is off topic.

#14 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 17 November 2011 - 12:44 AM

If the Christian God is true, then where is it now? Is this God omnipresent? If so then why did the Christians burn 1000s of pantheists and other free thinkers at the stake for saying God is inside all matter? As far as I can see Christians today still reject pantheism.

So If the Christian God is not inside matter, then where is this God? If this Christian God exists outside of time and space, then nobody will ever see this God?

In the Old testament there are verses which say God was interacting and causing things on earth, and people even saw God in a finite form - then the Christian God can not be omnipresent can it? Also if this Christian God was interacting and causing material events on earth to happen in the past, then why not now?


Hmm, sounds like the pot calling the kettle black. Here is some information where people who think like you (atheists etc...) killed people who did not.

128,168,000 VICTIMS: THE DEKA-MEGAMURDERERS
61,911,000 Murdered: The Soviet Gulag State.
35,236,000 Murdered: The Communist Chinese Ant Hill.
20,946,000 Murdered: The Nazi Genocide State.
10,214,000 Murdered: The Depraved Nationalist Regime.

19,178,000 VICTIMS: THE LESSER MEGA-MURDERERS
5,964,000 Murdered: Japan’s Savage Military.
2,035,000 Murdered: The Khmer Rouge Hell State.
1,883,000 Murdered: Turkey’s Genocidal Purges.
1,670,000 Murdered: The Vietnamese War State.
1,585,000 Murdered: Poland’s Ethnic Cleansing.
1,503,000 Murdered: The Pakistani Cutthroat State.
1,072,000 Murdered: Tito’s Slaughterhouse.

4,145,000 VICTIMS: SUSPECTED MEGAMURDERERS
1,663,000 Murdered? Orwellian North Korea.
1,417,000 Murdered? Barbarous Mexico.
1,066,000 Murdered? Feudal Russia.

Through science weapons of war are made:

1) Atom bombs, Nuclear bombs, and all other explosive devices used in warfare.
2) All types of guns and assault riffles.
3) Killing machines such as tanks, aircraft carriers, fighter jets, etc...
4) Germ warfare. All types of germ weapons made to kill humans in a way that they will suffer a most gruesome death. Anthrax side effects before death are convulsions so severe that the person ends up dying from snapping their own spinal cord. Shall I go into detail about how other germ weapons kill?

Through medical science we have:

1) Super germs that there are no cures for because of the over use of anti-biotics. Anti-biotics is what caused the staph germ to become a flesh eating super germ in which people either die from or have to get amputations.
2) Pharmaceutical companies make drugs that have the side effect of sudden death. As if killing people through prescribed medicine is okay because doctors are licensed to do this. And listing these side effects makes it legal to kill. Maybe I should engrave on my gun that the side effect of using guns can kill. Do you think that would help me in my defense if I ever went to court? Hey judge, the warning is on my gun that using it can kill. Case dismissed. :rolleyes:
3) There are even drugs that have a side effect of causing cancer and other diseases that are deadly. Liver failure, hepatitis, brain hemorrhage, strokes, heart attacks, blindness, kidney failure, lung damage, suicide, make you kill someoneelse, etc...

Through plant science, science tries to play God:

1) Science messes with the genetic structure of plants to try and produce a higher yield to make more money.
2) Our bodies are not design to process genetically altered food and therefore our food becomes a mechanism for causing all types of diseases. Cancer just 100 years ago was 1 in 50. Now it's 1 in 3.
3) Companies hire scientists to come up with ways to actually patent plants so that the farmer will have to buy seeds from them every year. So they come up with what is called terminator seeds which make the plant commit suicide just after producing it's fruit but before it produces any seeds. So the farmer has to buy seeds every year making the seed companies loads of money. There are even laws here in the U.S. that prohibit farmers from even possessing seeds, or the plants that produce seed. By law the farmer has to use hybrids made by science.
4) Companies hire scientists to come up with a way to make it to where farmers no longer have to spray pesticides. They come up with a seed that will germinate in a specially made pesticide that will circulate through the plant it's whole life killing most any bug that tries to eat it. Problem is, it also is killing the bees that pollinate our food producing plants. If the bees die out, 70% of our food from plants will disappear. How bad is the bee problem which is called: Colony Collapse syndrome? Just a few years back it was recorded by bee keepers that in one year over 2 billion bees died in the U.S.. It is so bad that we have to import them from other countries to pollinate our plants.
5) Genetically altered plants that do produce seeds are usually very aggressive. In Canada the genetically altered soybean crop of farms near non-genetically altered soybean have had their crops choked out. Farmers in Canada now say that there is no farm in Canada that does not have genetically altered soybeans, and it was not by choice. And because Farmer A goes into a contract with the seed manufacturer who has a patent on the genetically altered plants. And farmer A seeds end up on farmers B field and he makes money off it because that's what grew on his land. Farmer A can sue farmer B for that. And that's what's happening.

Genetic pollution in plants and animals caused by science trying to play God:

1) Pollen from genetically altered plants get on un-genetically altered plants and they become genetically altered as well. How long will it take before we no longer have any original plants? Organic farmers suffer the most because once their plants get this pollen in them, they are no longer considered organic and the FDA takes away their organic certification and they close. Laws have been past that say a organic farm has to be a certain number of miles away from any commercial farm because of this.
2) Genetically altered fish grow faster and bigger so that fisheries can harvest them much quicker making more money. The problem with this is that if they get into the wild it upsets the balance that exists in our oceans and rivers. In fact a storm hit a fishery and 3 thousand genetically altered fish got released into the oceans. It is said that these fish will:
a. Be aggressive and overtake the non-genetically altered fish of the same kind wiping it out.
B. Because they mature faster, produce a great amount of eggs, and spawn quicker and more often, they will over populate our oceans and rivers greatly damaging our water eco system and all life that lives there.

What makes genetic pollution much worse than chemical pollution is that you cannot go back and correct the problem by cleaning up the mess. You cannot make the fish come back, so the mess made stays and there is no solution. Science is so obsessed with changing things on this planet and claiming the glory that they now mix the DNA of animals, plants, and insects and there is no stopping it. Example: They mixed firefly DNA with tobacco plants and now they have plants that glow in the dark. I wonder what happens to any human that smokes this tobacco? Maybe they get cancer that glows in the dark so you no longer need an MRI? :rolleyes:

Do you know where fertilizer chemicals came from? The companies who made bombs for wars dating back to WW1 to now were afraid that when the wars were over they would go out of business. So some scientists were hired to see what the chemicals for bombs would be good for besides bombs. They found out that they made plants grow quicker and produce more fruit disregarding the devastating side effects:

1) These chemicals are poison. When ingested can cause cancer and several different nervous disorders.
2) Run off from farms pollute our water ways and sink into our water supply polluting both and kill fish and animals who use the water.
3) Making it into fertilizer that anyone can buy has put bomb making chemicals into the hands of terrorists. Bombs are made from fertilizer, some diesel fuel, and blasting caps and you have what happened at many embassies, and many government building. So you have murder for hire made available by science. And I could go on and on with this stuff. People using science has done much worse than anyone under Christianity.

Here is an example of the crazy stuff science produces:



Here's a trailer for a documentary that addresses a lot of the issues I mentioned above.



Can you match this Shadow? I only posted a portion of what I could have posted. The greed and corruption in science because of money goes a lot deeper then I posted here.

#15 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1515 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 17 November 2011 - 08:32 AM

[quote] name='Shadow' timestamp='1321508249' post='76832']
You posted aload of verses from the Bible. You admitted God is not omnipresent, but also admitted God is out of time and space but he can appear in creation if he wishes. This is not addressing where he is now, or what "he" or "it" is, what is the nature of this God, we are talking about an immaterial being here, or a man?[/quote]

Shadow,

Please go back and read my post. I posted that God is "everywhere that he wants to be." This means that He can be omnipresent if He wants to be. But He does not have to be in the back room of a g*y bar observing the perversion that is there. He is free to be where He wants to be. Can He indwell His creation. Yes. But he is not part of a tree. He is not a tree, nor a bush, nor part of anything physical. He is the Creator of all that is physical. Presently, the Holy Spirit indwells every believer in Jesus.

Can you show me where I said that God is out of time and space? I postd that for anything to exist, there has to be a Creator that is anterior and prior to creation. We can know a few things for sure:

The universe could not have created itself from nothing (First Law). Not even God could do that if He did not first exist.
The universe could not have always been here (Second Law).

So if it could not have created itself from nothing and it could not have always been here, do you have an explanation that precludes a Creator that is anterior and prior?

It would be helpful if you addressed my post and answered my questions. For example, if you see Mount Rushmore, do you have to "see" the sculptor to KNOW that one exists? Please answer.

Thus far, your only argument aganst God's existence is that you can't see Him.

[quote]but you see have not observed any of this what you say about god appearing in the old testament, you just get these ideas from a book. Why not try and experience your God, why only just play around with words? have you ever seen god?[/quote]

No I have not seen God. And I do experience my God every day. He came and indwelled me when I accepted Jesus as my Lord and Savior. But I don't expect you to accept this. But, "since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made."

[quote]Then your other part of your post seems to link atheism with immorality and materialism, this is off topic.
[/quote]

No it is not off topic. Your main argument against God's existence is that you have not seen Him. Proof that something or someone exists is not based on seeing it or Him. If your father died before you were born, you could not make the argument that your father did not exist because you could not see him.

I gave you a morality argument to show that you have no grounds to become righteously indignant on any issue. It was you who asked about the Christians burning the panthests. No?

And you are an atheist. By definition, you are a materialist in that if no Creator exists, then by definition, nothing but matter exists. But if only matter exists, then you can't explain the immaterial laws of logic and rational thought. Now as an atheist, you do use laws of logic and thought, but in doing so, you affirm atheist to be untrue and theism true.

I would like you to address my Post 6 and answer the questions I posed to you.

TeeJay

#16 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 17 November 2011 - 08:58 AM

The questions you posed on the OP were for materialistic evidences. If they were not, then you would accept metaphysical answers as evidence.


I accept metaphysical answers. So far nobody has even given a metaphysical answer. One guy said God exists outside of time and space but can exist elsewhere then gave some bible verses that was about the only answer I got, I was hoping for some further detail.


I do believe you had more metaphysical answers than that, AND since you accept metaphysical answers, then by definition, you accepted that answer then. But the fact remains, you asked for materialistic answers for a spiritual/supernatural/transcendent God, and I can well provide them. But you have provided in previous thread that you have absolutely NO answer for them, you simply seem to not like them and complain about my using them.

You further didn’t like my showing you that you have even less empirical evidence for your own faith laden word-views.

So here you go with some metaphysical evidence for God:

P-1. All designs imply a designer.

P-2. There is great design in this universe.

C. Therefore, there must be a Great Designer of the universe.

In the first premise we find from experience that this is empirically factual. Anytime we see a complex design, we know by previous experience that it came from the mind and work of the designer. Automobiles imply an auto maker; buildings imply architects; paintings imply artists; coded messages imply an intelligent sender; and watches imply watchmakers. It is, then, ALWAYS our expectation from experience, because we see it happening over and over (inductive observation). It is another way of stating the principle of causality (cause and effect etc…).

Also, form observing the greater a design, we adduce the greater the designer is! Beavers make log dams, but they have never constructed anything like the Hoover Dam. Likewise, a gorilla dancing on a computer keyboard will never write a computer program, nor will a million monkeys sitting at a million typewriters would never be able to write Hamlet. But William Shakespeare did it on the first try with a quill! The more complex the design, the greater the intelligence required to produce it.


I think Anselm stated this well:
1. It is greater for a thing to exist in the mind and in reality than in the mind alone.
2. "God" means "that than which a greater cannot be thought."
3. Suppose that God exists in the mind but not in reality.
4. Then a greater than God could be thought (namely, a being that has all the qualities our thought of God has plus real existence).
5. But this is impossible, for God is "that than which a greater cannot be thought."
6. Therefore God exists in the mind and in reality.

But I like Malcolm’s version as well:
1. If God exists, his existence is necessary.
2. If God does not exist, his existence is impossible.
3. Either God exists or he does not exist.
4. God's existence is either necessary or impossible.
5. God's existence is possible (it is not impossible).
6. Therefore God's existence is necessary.

And, although both of these arguments are ‘a priori’ arguments, they are logical and totally metaphysically driven. Because these conclusions that God exists, are from premises which are supposed to derive from some source “other than observation of the world”—e.g., derived from reason alone.

One of my favorite syllogistic arguments is the Kalam cosmological argument. This argument accepts that the universe had a beginning in the finite past. And this is what ALL empirical scientific evidence purports. The argument uses the scientific evidence to demolish the existence of an infinite regression of past events which implies a universe that has infinitely existed. This argument also implies the existence of a First Cause.

The form of the argument is:
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Note that the key phrase here is "begins to exist". The question is not "whatever exists".

Atheists attempt to counter argument by arguing against point 2, taking the position that the universe has always existed. And what is humorous about this tact, is that is it irrational, illogical and unscientific! Everything the materialistic atheists espouse as attributes. With the advent of the scientific evidence pointing towards a starting point to the universe, this atheistic line of defense has become extremely shaky.

Even the First Principles of logic point to God!

1- Being Is (B is) = The Principle of Existence
Something exists ( Example: I exist!). This is undeniable, for I would have to exist in order to deny my existence. In the very attempt to explicitly deny my existence I implicitly affirm it.

2- Being Is Being (B is B ) = The Principle of Identity
A thing must be identical to itself. If it were not, then it would not be itself.

3- Being Is Not Nonbeing (B is Not Non-B ) = The Principle of Non-contradiction.
Being cannot be nonbeing, for they are direct opposites. And opposites cannot be the same. For the one who affirms that “opposites can both be true” does not hold that the opposite of this statement is true.

4- Either Being or Nonbeing (Either B or Non-B ) = The Principle of the Excluded Middle
Being and nonbeing are complete opposites (i.e., contradictory), and opposites cannot be the same. Therefore the only choices are being and nonbeing.

5- Nonbeing Cannot Cause Being (Non-B > B ) = The Principle of Causality.
Only being can cause being. Nothing does not exist, and only what exists can cause existence, since the very concept of “cause” implies an existing thing that has the power to effect another thing. From absolutely nothing comes absolutely nothing! The statement “Nonbeing cannot produce being” is undeniable. The very concept of “produce” or “cause” implies something exists to cause or produce the being produced. To deny that relationship of cause to effect is to say, “Nothing is something” and “Nonbeing is being,” which is nonsense.

6- Contingent Being Cannot Cause Contingent Being (Bc > Bc) = The Principle of Contingency (or Dependency).
If something cannot be caused by nothing, neither can anything be caused by what could be nothing, namely, a contingent being. For that which could be nothing does not account for its own existence! And that which cannot account for even its own existence cannot account for the existence of another. Since it is contingent or dependent for its own being, it cannot be that on which something else depends for its being. Therefore, one contingent being cannot be the unlimate cause for other contingent beings.

7- Only Necessary Being Can Cause a Contingent Being (Bn → Bc ) = The Positive Principle of Modality.
Absolutely nothing cannot cause something. Neither can one contingent kind (mode) of being cause another contingent being. So, if anything comes to be, it must be caused by a Necessary Being.

8- Necessary Being Cannot Cause a Necessary Being (Bn > Bn ) = The Negative Principle of Modality.
A Necessary Being is by definition a mode (kind) of being that cannot not be. That is, by its very mode (modality), it must be. It cannot come to be or cease to be. But to be caused means to come to be. Therefore, a Necessary Being cannot be caused. For what comes to be is not necessary.

9- Every Contingent Being Is Caused by a Necessary Being (Bn → Bc ) = The Principle of Existential Causality
All contingent beings need (MUST HAVE) a cause. For a contingent being is something that is but could NOT be. But since it has the possibility not to exist, then it does not account for its own existence. That is, in itself there is no basis explaining why it exists rather than does not exist. It literally has nothing (nonbeing) to ground it. But nonbeing cannot ground or cause anything. Only something can cause or produce something


10- Necessary Being exists = The Principle of Existential Necessity (Bn exists).
The Principle of Existential Necessity follows from two other Principles: the Principle of Existence (no. 1) and the Principle of Causality (no. 5).Since something undeniably exists (no. 1), either it is -
a. all contingent or
b. all necessary or
c. some is necessary and some is contingent.

But both "b." and "c." acknowledge a Necessary Being, and "a." is logically impossible, being contrary to the self-evident principle no. 5. For if all being(s) is (are) contingent, then it is possible for all being(s) not to exist. That is, a state of total nothingness is possible. But something now undeniably exists (e.g., I do), as was demonstrated in premise no. 1. And nothing cannot cause something (no. 5). Therefore, it is not possible (i.e., it is impossible) for there to have been a state of total nothingness. But if it is impossible for nothing to exist (since something does exist), then something necessarily exists (i.e., a Necessary Being does exist). To put it another way, if something exists and if nothing cannot cause something, then it follows that something must exist necessarily. For if something did not necessarily exist, then nothing would have caused the something that does exist. Since it is impossible for nothing to cause something, then it is necessary for something to always have been.

11- Contingent being exists = The Principle of Existential Contingency (Bc exists).
Not everything that exists is necessary. For change is real, that is, at least some being(s) really change. And a Necessary Being cannot change in its being. (This does not mean there can be no change in external relations with another being. It simply means there can be no internal change in its being. When a person changes in relation to a pillar, the pillar does not change.) For its being is necessary, and what is necessary in its being cannot be other than it is in its being. And all change in being involves becoming something else in its being.

But it is evident that I change in my being. I change from not being to being. By “I” is meant the self-conscious individual being I call myself. (This is not to claim that all the parts or elements of my being are not eternal. There are good reasons to believe they are not because usable energy is running down and cannot be eternal [see Thermodynamics, Laws of], but this is not the point here.) This “I” or unifying center of consciousness around which these elemental parts of matter come and go, is not eternal. This is clear for many reasons.
First, my consciousness changes. Even those who claim they are eternal and necessary (namely, that they are a Necessary Being, God) were not always conscious of being God. Somewhere along the line they change from not being conscious they were God to being conscious they were God. But a Necessary Being cannot change. Hence, I am not a Necessary Being. Rather, I am a contingent being. Therefore, at least one contingent being exists. Everything is not necessary.

Further, there are other ways to know one is contingent. The fact that we reason to conclusions reveals that our knowledge is not eternal and necessary. We come to know (i.e., change from a state of not knowing to a state of knowing). But no necessary being can come to know anything. It either eternally and necessarily knows everything it knows, or else it knows nothing. If it is a knowing kind of being, then it necessarily knows, since it is a necessary kind of being. And a being can only know in accordance with the kind of being it is. A contingent or finite being must know contingently, and a Necessary Being must know necessarily. But I do not know all that I can know eternally and necessarily. Therefore, I am a contingent kind of being.


12- Necessary Being is similar to similar contingent being(s) it causes = The Principle of Analogy (Bn — similar → Bc)
Since nonbeing cannot produce being (5), only being can produce being. But a contingent being cannot produce another contingent being (6). And a necessary being cannot produce another necessary being (8). So only Necessary Being can cause or produce only a contingent being. For to “cause” or “produce” being means to bring something into being. Something that comes into being, has being. A cause cannot bring nonbeing into being, since being is not nonbeing (4). The fact that Being produces being implies that there is an analogy (similarity) between the cause of being and the being it causes (8). But a contingent being is both similar and different from a Necessary Being. It is similar in that both have being. It is different in that one is necessary and the other is contingent. But whatever is both similar and different is analogous. Hence, there is an analogy between Necessary Being and the being it produces.

Two things, then, are entailed in the principle that Necessary Being causes being:

First, the effect must resemble the cause, since both are being. The cause of being cannot produce what it does not possess.

Second, while the effect must resemble its cause in its being (i.e., its actuality), it must also be different from it in its
potentiality.

For the cause (a Necessary Being), by its very nature, has no potential not to be. But the effect (a contingent being) by its very nature has the potential not to be. Hence, a contingent being must be different from its Cause. Since, the Cause of contingent beings must be both like and different from its effect, it is only similar. Therefore, there is an analogical likeness between the Cause of a contingent being and the contingent being it causes to exist.

NOTE: Much of the above leans heavily upon on the writings in:

The Baker encyclopedia of Christian apologetics - Geisler, N. L(1999).. Baker reference library.

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Encyclopedia Britannica Online

Psychology Wiki

The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Jacques Maritain Center: The First Principles of Knowledge

Jacques Maritain Center: The Primary Facts and Principles of the Logician.


#17 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 17 November 2011 - 09:00 AM

This thread is not to poke fun at anything, it was a general question - where is the Christian God. Where exactly is it located, as Christianity has rejected omnipresence then it is not everywhere, it is not in matter like pantheism says, it is not completey outside of time and space like deism says, so I was interested in actually knowing where it is located and actually what you guys think it is?.


No, the thread was obviously intended to ask for answers that you will not accept ‘a priori’. You have proven that thus far. Plus, you attempt to put back-handed digs in, by calling God “it”. But that doesn’t bother me in the least, as you are speaking from a view of ignorance, and my dealings with certain atheists temper me to consider the source of the comment.

Secondly, Christianity has not rejected omnipresence. You had a person explain that you definition of “omnipresence” is incorrect. God can indeed be “omnipresent” and no be in hell (for example) as God cannot look upon sin without that sin being destroyed. And this is why He couldn’t look upon His Son (Jesus) at the time Jesus took the sin of man (Adam) upon Himself. I think it would be better stated that sin cannot survive I the presence of God. But this in no way affects Gods “omnipresence”, therefore you are greatly mistaken on your definition, and your point is moot.

Thirdly, God and the universe cannot logically be the same! This is logically impossible because:
One – If God and the material world are one and the same, then God would have come into being at the same time, and God would not be God.
Two - God and the material world are one and the same, God then would be the same as us, and God would not be God.
Three - God and the material world are one and the same, then God could not have created the universe, because one cannot create themselves, and therefore god could not be God!

Therefore Pantheism fails.


The scientific method DOES indeed “deal with the origins of life”,


Ok then what is the scientific answer for the origin of life?

The scientific answer for the origin of life (and the universe as well) is that “Nothing cannot create anything”, and “everything that comes into being has a causal initiator (or Creator). And since BOTH the universe AND life had a beginning (i.e. did not create themselves and therefore are not infinite) they BOTH had a creator. Therefore the scientific answer directly refute the materialistic atheistic worldview!

The theist saying that God created everything out of nothing is not the same as abiogenesis


Anyone who believes the universe has a beginning, ie Christian creationists, are admitting that something can come from nothing, also according to the bible apparently God created Adam from nothing, not pre existing materials, it was all from scratch. Abiogenesis and Biblical creationism are very similar, the difference is abiogenesis does away with the God. Both are not scientific, both say something can be created from nothing.


Once again you are either misinformed OR are purposefully being a misinformed.
First – As I provided for earlier “God is Someone/Something” therefore when God created “Everything came from “Someone/Something”!
Second – There is absolutely no biblical support for the notion that “God created Adam from nothing”. You may want to re-read the verses, as you totally got that wrong!
Third – Abiogenesis itself is illogical as “from nothing, nothing comes” therefore abiogenesis fails to “do away” with anything, let alone God.

Let me further say that the rest of your post contains nothing more than the same drivel and tripe that I have thoroughly dismantled above. I am not going to waste my time showing that you have done nothing more than post misinformation and faith statements. Therefore I will edit you post for the waste of time that it is…

#18 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 17 November 2011 - 09:36 AM

You posted aload of verses from the Bible. You admitted God is not omnipresent, but also admitted God is out of time and space but he can appear in creation if he wishes. This is not addressing where he is now, or what "he" or "it" is, what is the nature of this God, we are talking about an immaterial being here, or a man?

Look at science, western and eastern and tell me that men do not have a spirit. Tell me that all that exists is something one can see with their eyes. What is this Chi that Eastern medicine is so concerned with? Can you see someone's life force? I guess to a blind man nothing exists at all. Maybe it is easier for a blind man to find God.

You are mistaken, we do not merely play with words.

Romans 8:9 However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him.

God is a Spirit. We must worship Him in Spirit. I know where He is because He has shown me. He has shown me because I accepted His Son.

A controlling and fear mongering cult frightened me away from God the Father. But something kept me looking. I looked at the life of Christ. Saw the history written about Him. Unlimited in power, perfect in justice and humility and love. How could I not accept His free gift?

#19 Teejay

Teejay

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1515 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 78
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Texas

Posted 20 November 2011 - 09:02 AM

[quote] name='MamaElephant' timestamp='1321547814' post='76858']
Look at science, western and eastern and tell me that men do not have a spirit. Tell me that all that exists is something one can see with their eyes. What is this Chi that Eastern medicine is so concerned with? Can you see someone's life force? I guess to a blind man nothing exists at all. Maybe it is easier for a blind man to find God.

You are mistaken, we do not merely play with words.

Romans 8:9 However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him.

God is a Spirit. We must worship Him in Spirit. I know where He is because He has shown me. He has shown me because I accepted His Son.

A controlling and fear mongering cult frightened me away from God the Father. But something kept me looking. I looked at the life of Christ. Saw the history written about Him. Unlimited in power, perfect in justice and humility and love. How could I not accept His free gift?[/quote]

ME,

I love your argument with the blind man! If seeing is believing, then no blind man could every know anything was true. Can I steal this from you and use it in future arguments with atheists?

TeeJay

#20 MamaElephant

MamaElephant

    former JW

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1564 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Interests:Bible, Home-schooling, Education, Fitness, Young Earth Science, Evolution, Natural Medicine, Board Games, Video Games, Study of cult mind control and Counseling for those coming out of cult mind control.
  • Age: 35
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I am His! 1/29/12

Posted 20 November 2011 - 10:47 AM

ME,

I love your argument with the blind man! If seeing is believing, then no blind man could every know anything was true. Can I steal this from you and use it in future arguments with atheists?

TeeJay

Thank you for the compliment. Anything that I say in the work of the Lord is free for all to copy. :)




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users