Reason to believe

[Upisoft]

Well I notice we've given you answers to this already, has it contributed to a greater understanding? Notice that in any situation where something is wrong, someone is to blame. Notice that Satan is to blame for what he did that was wrong. Eve is to blame for what she did that was wrong. Adam is to blame for what he did that was wrong. We've all done some things wrong, for which we are to blame. No-one can pass the buck to God, He is perfect and it just proves that unless we are willing of our own accord to accept His advice, we will be wrong. What motivates this? Pride and greed (is there anything else you can see that motivates disobedience?).

And my question is why will we be unable to do as Satan, Eve and Adam? Why do you believe we will stay sinless for whole eternity when you clearly have counterexamples. And especially you have Noah's example:

Genesis 6:9
... Noah was a righteous man, blameless among the people of his time, and he walked faithfully with God.

Why do you think something like that will not happen again, but in heaven instead. Well, maybe you will be the only one who will not go to hell.

 

[oi_antz]

And my question is why will we be unable to do as Satan, Eve and Adam? Why do you believe we will stay sinless for whole eternity when you clearly have counterexamples. And especially you have Noah's example:
Why do you think something like that will not happen again, but in heaven instead. Well, maybe you will be the only one who will not go to hell.

Well, quite simply I trust in Jesus. If it weren't for His promise I would have no hope of pleasing God. But He has demonstrated that He is willing to forgive me for my mistakes if I am willing to obey Him, and that seems to be quite a reasonable arrangement, one that works for me Perhaps you don't realize the sheer power of the Holy Spirit, that He can prevent us from sinning by instructing us, and all we need do is heed His voice and accept His advice. It's not about control, it's about respect for others leading to the freedom of society as a whole. Those who remain slaves to sin are causing abominable damage to the earth, and they will be removed in the end to leave only those who agree that God's way is perfect.

 

[Upisoft]

Well, quite simply I trust in Jesus. If it weren't for His promise I would have no hope of pleasing God. But He has demonstrated that He is willing to forgive me for my mistakes if I am willing to obey Him, and that seems to be quite a reasonable arrangement, one that works for me Perhaps you don't realize the sheer power of the Holy Spirit, that He can prevent us from sinning by instructing us, and all we need do is heed His voice and accept His advice. It's not about control, it's about respect for others leading to the freedom of society as a whole. Those who remain slaves to sin are causing abominable damage to the earth, and they will be removed in the end to leave only those who agree that God's way is perfect.

So Jesus not only promised you will go to heaven, but also promised you will stay there. Can you show me this promise?

 

[Mcygee]

Now we are going in circles. Who tempted Satan to sin then? Before Satan's fall everything was perfect or I'm told so. If you can't have sin without a tempter/temptation who was the original tempter? I've got an answer that Satan tempted himself. Well, even if that is true, then why we will not be able to tempt ourselves? Perfect being did it, why we wouldn't?

I think your question is a good one. As I'm still studying the bible myself I am probably not the best to answer this question. Here is a link that may provide some information.

Angels and Sin | Learn The Bible

But one thing I will tell you is I believe the key to so many questions is an understanding of what we don't know. Just like any other thing you use critical thinking for.

In this case I think there are a couple things we need to consider.

1. Angels are not perfect beings.
2. Just because angels have a choice as to their obedience/sin doesn't have anything to do with our state in heaven.
3. After the world as we know it comes to an end there will be great transformations. As I'm still studying I don't fully yet understand those changes. But possibly what rules exist now will change drastically.

I found this quote I feel makes a lot of sense on this subject.

[FONT=&quot]"The inability to sin doesn’t inherently violate free will. My inability to be God, an angel, a rabbit, or a flower is not a violation of my free will. It’s the simple reality of my nature. The new nature that’ll be ours in Heaven—the righteousness of Christ—is a nature that cannot sin, any more than a diamond can be soft or blue can be red. God cannot sin, yet no being has greater free choice than God does.[/FONT]"

One thing I think we all have to be careful of is not to apply our understanding of rules to God and his plan. God can do anything. Which is why I always find it a fallacy when people seem to not believe in the Bible because the stories are too fantastical. If God exists, then such events are not only possibly but make total sense.

This critical thinking is important when reading the bible in multiple cases. Understanding what you do not know. One instance of this I experienced is when I read about the plagues released upon Egypt. Never had I realized that God purposely hardened the heart of the Pharaoh so he would not release God's people and allow God to display his great power. At first this was very concerning to me. Why would God take away the free will of Pharaoh and cause him to sin? But after thinking about it I came to a couple conclusions.

1. God has the right to control whatever he wants in order to have his great plan come to fruition.
2. We do not know if God counted these sins against Pharoah. For all we know Pharoah was not held accountable in God's eyes. If God wants to control me in some way but not hold it against me, that's fine by me.

We can't judge what we don't completely understand. That is where faith comes in. If God exists and created us, we cannot me more righteous and loving than he. I just have faith that God knows what he is doing and is far more loving than I. I can give plenty of examples of this faith in what I do not understand completely.

I can tell you use critical thinking a lot. Which is good. Your a thinker, as am I. Just make sure you apply that critical thinking to the other side as well. Not just to what you think goes against the possibility of God and any failures you perceive in the logic of the Bible.

 

[Mcygee]

I'm in a point where I believe that ether God exists or He does not exists, but I probably will never know. I'm not sure that God exists and I'm trying to find a reason why people believe(or not believe).

Personally from my own research I find that it is not hard to see that God must exist. I think that he knows we are a people weak in faith and thus he does not make it too changeling to see his work around us.

Here is an argument that you may have heard before. I got the basis for it while reading the description for the book "The Privileged Planet". I did not read the book itself but it got me thinking. Here is what I concluded and thus far haven't found something to show it to be bad logic.

First we have to agree on one thing....

If God does not exist, then all things around us must be completely random. After all how could it not be with no guidance.

As long as we agree on that I can move forward with this....

In order for life to be possible, the perfect set of rules must be in place to allow for it. Each separate rule plus the setting or strength of that rule adds to the improbability that it could happen randomly. For instance some rules that have to be in place for life as we know it to be possible...

1. The existence of anything at all. Nothing says it has to. Maybe only matter and gravity existed and nothing else. Why not if it's random?
2. Gravity
3. Light
4. Energy
5. Matter
6. Electromagnetism
7. Electrons, Protons, and Neutrons (yes I know this is part of matter)

These are some of the rules. Then to add to complications you have all the strength of those rules. Some that could not be adjusted at all for life to be possible and some that could be adjusted possibly very little.

The strength of gravity.
The density of matter.
The speed of light.
The attraction strength of elections, protons, and neutrons.

All these rules and all their settings must be random in a universe with no god.

Thus each roll of the dice makes it more and more improbable that we could accidentally land with the perfect set of rules to support life. I do understand that given a different set of rules perhaps you could come up with a different form of life we don't understand. But I think we can all agree any form of life, using 100% random rules, is so unlikely it could be considered as impossible as anything could be.

Then lets say we somehow just happened to get the PERFECT set of rules by complete chance. Then you get into the creation of the first cell. And if you've ever studied everything that is required for even the most basic cell, you realize the impossibility of that feat alone. Scientists will say it isn't impossible, but only a matter of time. Well of course they say that. If you take away the accidental creation of the first cell, you take away any and all arguments they have against the existence of God. They will defend this crazy argument forever because it is all they have. But a cell is far to complicated to happen by accident, it just is.

THEN you get into the complications of feelings, self-awareness, and such. We are more than just a sum of coordinated matter. Just because things can function, it doesn't mean they are self aware or have any real feelings. If you build a complex robot that can analyze data, make decisions, and even learn; that doesn't mean it is self aware or actually has feelings. It is still just a set of moving parts working together. As we would be without more than just matter placed together in a perfectly organized system.

When you add all of these things up. Too me it is clear it is all impossible without a creator. We could not happen by accident. Atheists have called me a wacko "fundamentalist" for saying these things, but analyze the logic yourself. Does it make sense, or doesn't it?

 

[Upisoft]

In this case I think there are a couple things we need to consider.

1. Angels are not perfect beings.

Well, I'm discussing the idea that Ih8s8n told me earlier. The idea is that in Ezekiel 28:12 God speaks to Satan. He is talking to someone who was "the seal of perfection", who was "in Eden, the garden of God" and who was "anointed as a guardian cherub". The same entity was "blameless in your ways from the day you were created till wickedness was found in you". Also God said to him, "Your heart became proud on account of your beauty, and you corrupted your wisdom because of your splendor".

As far as I know God is not talking to Adam or Eve, and only one who was in Eden is Satan. So Satan was "the seal of perfection" "till wickedness was found in" him. Do you have any other explanation?

2. Just because angels have a choice as to their obedience/sin doesn't have anything to do with our state in heaven.

Why not? We are able to sin and God is not going to take away our free-will.

3. After the world as we know it comes to an end there will be great transformations. As I'm still studying I don't fully yet understand those changes. But possibly what rules exist now will change drastically.

God created man and then regretted it (Genesis 6:6). It is quite possible that God will regret what will follow the end of this world.

I found this quote I feel makes a lot of sense on this subject.

[FONT=&quot]"The inability to sin doesn’t inherently violate free will. My inability to be God, an angel, a rabbit, or a flower is not a violation of my free will. It’s the simple reality of my nature. The new nature that’ll be ours in Heaven—the righteousness of Christ—is a nature that cannot sin, any more than a diamond can be soft or blue can be red. God cannot sin, yet no being has greater free choice than God does.[/FONT]"

This is quite nice belief, but is it substantiated? Also God cannot sin by definition, that proves nothing.

One thing I think we all have to be careful of is not to apply our understanding of rules to God and his plan. God can do anything. Which is why I always find it a fallacy when people seem to not believe in the Bible because the stories are too fantastical. If God exists, then such events are not only possibly but make total sense.

If we apply that logic to all religions it will lead you to the absurd conclusion that all religions are correct. Well, OK it is absurd to me, but there is nothing impossible to God. So, my own agnostic belief is also true and I'm quite safe from flames of hell. Then why should I believe in Christian God?

This critical thinking is important when reading the bible in multiple cases.

That's what I'm doing. Unfortunately that is not always possible, at least for me. For example Genesis 1:16 does not make any sense to me. oi_antz suggested reading it literally, it still makes no sense to me. Sure it speaks of the Sun and the Moon, but I fail to understand how they rule the day and the night.

We can't judge what we don't completely understand. That is where faith comes in.

So, you say we can't judge it but we can trust it. Am I correct?

Your a thinker, as am I.

My personality test agrees with your conclusion.

 

[Upisoft]

Personally from my own research I find that it is not hard to see that God must exist. I think that he knows we are a people weak in faith and thus he does not make it too changeling to see his work around us.

I can see why you say that, but I can also see the other point of view that everything is natural. I have no personal supernatural experiences and the only source is the claims of people I talk with.

First we have to agree on one thing....

If God does not exist, then all things around us must be completely random. After all how could it not be with no guidance.

Sadly I have to disagree. If we agree with it then we have to agree that God is sitting in the clouds and is making snowflakes. Also God pushes them down and they fall by His will.

But I'll try to assume your assertion and see what you have to say.

In order for life to be possible, the perfect set of rules must be in place to allow for it. Each separate rule plus the setting or strength of that rule adds to the improbability that it could happen randomly. For instance some rules that have to be in place for life as we know it to be possible...

1. The existence of anything at all. Nothing says it has to. Maybe only matter and gravity existed and nothing else. Why not if it's random?
2. Gravity
3. Light
4. Energy
5. Matter
6. Electromagnetism
7. Electrons, Protons, and Neutrons (yes I know this is part of matter)

These are some of the rules. Then to add to complications you have all the strength of those rules. Some that could not be adjusted at all for life to be possible and some that could be adjusted possibly very little.

The strength of gravity.
The density of matter.
The speed of light.
The attraction strength of elections, protons, and neutrons.

All these rules and all their settings must be random in a universe with no god.

Why not the other way of thinking about it? The life exists because the rules of this universe were right. I have observed 1 universe and 0 deities. The evidence gives me a little inclination toward the naturalistic explanation.

Thus each roll of the dice makes it more and more improbable that we could accidentally land with the perfect set of rules to support life. I do understand that given a different set of rules perhaps you could come up with a different form of life we don't understand. But I think we can all agree any form of life, using 100% random rules, is so unlikely it could be considered as impossible as anything could be.

Let's play a game. We make an Earth wide lottery where only one person can win. Someone wins the lottery and then starts to think the way you do. Finally he decides that it is quite improbable that he won lottery with chance 1 of 6 billion. He asserts existence of lottery wining deity.

Another example. Take a coin. Toss it 1 billion times and write down the outcome of each toss in a sequence. You may now calculate that exactly sequence has ridiculously low probability of happening. Nevertheless there it is. It happened. Are you going to assert coin tossing deity?

But a cell is far to complicated to happen by accident, it just is.

I've never heard such an argument made by someone that really has some knowledge. I will agree that the cells which we can observe today are virtually impossible to pop into existence without a deity. However the microorganisms we can observe today are no less evolved than we humans are. Much simpler organisms must have been the first organism.

THEN you get into the complications of feelings, self-awareness, and such. We are more than just a sum of coordinated matter. Just because things can function, it doesn't mean they are self aware or have any real feelings. If you build a complex robot that can analyze data, make decisions, and even learn; that doesn't mean it is self aware or actually has feelings.

How can you be sure? We have never build a robot with enough complexity. Maybe one day we will be able to build such complex robot. Can you be absolutely sure now it will not have self-awareness or feelings?

It is still just a set of moving parts working together. As we would be without more than just matter placed together in a perfectly organized system.

I have to disagree. The matter has emergent properties even at the simplest level. If you have 1 electron you can describe its spin with 2 real numbers. If you have 2 electrons you may think 4 real numbers are enough to describe their spin system. That's however not true. You need 6 real numbers and you have new emergent property called quantum entanglement. If you go up toward larger objects you will find other emergent properties like temperature, color, hardness, resistance, chemical bonds, etc. Studying them at basic level of particle physics will be overwhelming as the degrees of freedom of the system start to increase quite rapidly. so, what we do is to find something that describes the properties of the system we care about. We can measure the temperature of an object, but that will not mean we will know how all the atoms in the object are moving. That is called entropy of knowledge. It happens when we have some knowledge about the system (knowledge of some emergent property), but we don't know exact state of the system. So, it is not surprising that matter can continue to have more and more emergent properties that we describe as consciousness, feelings, etc. That in fact is one of the things that make me dismiss the idea that God definitely does not exists. He could be emergent property of the whole universe/multiverse.

When you add all of these things up. Too me it is clear it is all impossible without a creator. We could not happen by accident. Atheists have called me a wacko "fundamentalist" for saying these things, but analyze the logic yourself. Does it make sense, or doesn't it?

And for me it just could be the other way around.

 

[Mcygee]

Well, I'm discussing the idea that Ih8s8n told me earlier. The idea is that in Ezekiel 28:12 God speaks to Satan. He is talking to someone who was "the seal of perfection", who was "in Eden, the garden of God" and who was "anointed as a guardian cherub". The same entity was "blameless in your ways from the day you were created till wickedness was found in you". Also God said to him, "Your heart became proud on account of your beauty, and you corrupted your wisdom because of your splendor".

As far as I know God is not talking to Adam or Eve, and only one who was in Eden is Satan. So Satan was "the seal of perfection" "till wickedness was found in" him. Do you have any other explanation?

According to the scripture there angels are not perfect. Otherwise no wickedness would ever be found in them. The description "the seal of perfection" to me speaks that he was perfect until he became corrupt. I understand the play on literal meaning your making but there are many parts of the bible where you cannot take the wording literally. In another part of the bible God describes the earths foundation on pillars, but it doesn't literally mean that the earth is on top of pillars. Anybody who says all wording in the bible is literal is mistaken.

Why not? We are able to sin and God is not going to take away our free-will.

If it was indeed that are free-will to sin was taken away, that would be a wonderful thing to me. But this is describing a state we cannot even begin to understand. The quote below could be 100% right that it just won't be taking away our free-will but just part of our existence. Either way is fine by me.

God created man and then regretted it (Genesis 6:6). It is quite possible that God will regret what will follow the end of this world.

One thing the bible teaches us is that God does what he says. To say he will not can be nothing more than pure speculation, which I do speculate as well. But I do it on the basis that we cannot be more good and loving than God.

If we apply that logic to all religions it will lead you to the absurd conclusion that all religions are correct. Well, OK it is absurd to me, but there is nothing impossible to God. So, my own agnostic belief is also true and I'm quite safe from flames of hell. Then why should I believe in Christian God?

I don't believe this statement to be correct. There are many factors you can use as I mentioned in an earlier post to take out the fakes. In the end it is research of those religions to determine which contain reliable information.

That's what I'm doing. Unfortunately that is not always possible, at least for me. For example Genesis 1:16 does not make any sense to me. oi_antz suggested reading it literally, it still makes no sense to me. Sure it speaks of the Sun and the Moon, but I fail to understand how they rule the day and the night.

You aren't going to understand it all. I strongly disagree with literal translations. I don't see how anybody can see the bible as 100% literal. There are to many things that are obviously not to be taken literally.

So, you say we can't judge it but we can trust it. Am I correct?

Once you know that God exists, why would you think that you know better? There are very few things in the bible that challenged my faith. It was amazing to me on my read through the first five books how just the laws he places down seem to be. Human nature usually seems to be selfish in nature. Leaders making laws to benefit themselves. I see a set of rules only to benefit the lives of all the Israelis.

 

[Mcygee]

Sadly I have to disagree. If we agree with it then we have to agree that God is sitting in the clouds and is making snowflakes. Also God pushes them down and they fall by His will.

But I'll try to assume your assertion and see what you have to say.

If nothing created our universe, then truly there can be no other explanation other than 100% randomly generated rules. What other explanation is possible? Yet you will deny that assertion simply because it would seriously hinder any explanation other than a creator?

Why not the other way of thinking about it? The life exists because the rules of this universe were right. I have observed 1 universe and 0 deities. The evidence gives me a little inclination toward the naturalistic explanation.

Well your skipping over the point. The chances of the rules of the universe being right are as close to impossible as you can get based on dice roles from 1 to infinity each time. Simply saying "This is the universe we have so that's what I'm going to base my reasoning on." is convenient for people who want to try to base the decision of Gods existence to science alone. Science however is the study of the physical universe. Do you really want to throw out something that makes logical sense simply because it doesn't fit into our physical world? Your basically just sticking your head in the sand at that point.

Let's play a game. We make an Earth wide lottery where only one person can win. Someone wins the lottery and then starts to think the way you do. Finally he decides that it is quite improbable that he won lottery with chance 1 of 6 billion. He asserts existence of lottery wining deity.

1 in 6 billion is great odds compared to the odds I'm talking about above. It would be improbable if there was a 1 in 6 billion chance of the universe being able to support life. The numbers we are talking about in this case make it as impossible as anything can be. Besides in your example, there HAS to be at least one winner. Thus no matter what there is a winner who will believe himself to be incredibly lucky. In my example, there is no guarantee of a winner and most likely there would not be a winner. It's really apples and oranges.

Another example. Take a coin. Toss it 1 billion times and write down the outcome of each toss in a sequence. You may now calculate that exactly sequence has ridiculously low probability of happening. Nevertheless there it is. It happened. Are you going to assert coin tossing deity?

Same general concept as above. The two are not comparable. In either case you'll have a "winning" outcome no matter what. Also the numbers we are playing with are peanuts in comparison to what I'm explaining.

I've never heard such an argument made by someone that really has some knowledge. I will agree that the cells which we can observe today are virtually impossible to pop into existence without a deity. However the microorganisms we can observe today are no less evolved than we humans are. Much simpler organisms must have been the first organism.

Study the deep down complex systems involved in even the most basic cell possible. I'm talking about the required things for even the very first cell. It's ridiculous to say it was an accident. There is obvious intelligence there. If you don't find what I'm talking about, I can try to pull together some links for you.

How can you be sure? We have never build a robot with enough complexity. Maybe one day we will be able to build such complex robot. Can you be absolutely sure now it will not have self-awareness or feelings?

Yes I'm sure. It will always be programmed to do the things it does. We can tell it to imitate life, but it will NEVER be true life. That's all Hollywood fiction.

I have to disagree. The matter has emergent properties even at the simplest level. If you have 1 electron you can describe its spin with 2 real numbers. If you have 2 electrons you may think 4 real numbers are enough to describe their spin system. That's however not true. You need 6 real numbers and you have new emergent property called quantum entanglement. If you go up toward larger objects you will find other emergent properties like temperature, color, hardness, resistance, chemical bonds, etc. Studying them at basic level of particle physics will be overwhelming as the degrees of freedom of the system start to increase quite rapidly. so, what we do is to find something that describes the properties of the system we care about. We can measure the temperature of an object, but that will not mean we will know how all the atoms in the object are moving. That is called entropy of knowledge. It happens when we have some knowledge about the system (knowledge of some emergent property), but we don't know exact state of the system. So, it is not surprising that matter can continue to have more and more emergent properties that we describe as consciousness, feelings, etc. That in fact is one of the things that make me dismiss the idea that God definitely does not exists. He could be emergent property of the whole universe/multiverse.

The part about feelings is the weakest part of my argument and I realize that. It can't really be proven one way or the other. So I don't expect you to agree with me on it. I cannot prove it.

 

[oi_antz]

So Jesus not only promised you will go to heaven, but also promised you will stay there. Can you show me this promise?

Certainly:

Luke 23:
40 But the other criminal rebuked him. “Don’t you fear God,” he said, “since you are under the same sentence? 41 We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong.”

42 Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.[d]”

43 Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.”

I think this means that although we are sinners, the fact we revere God and accept Jesus as being the unblemished lamb is what will earn our forgiveness with Jesus. However, to do this without a sincere heart is to make a mockery of forgiveness, which is why I also said that discipleship requires a willingness to obey Him. If you see injustice, do you turn a blind eye? If you see someone starving, do you not give them a meal? This is the essential character of Jesus, which He has said is what He expects of us, and what will ultimately lead to the paradise where there is no evil or one person suffering for the prosperity of another:

Matthew 25:40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

Matthew 25:45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

We are to make every effort to be Christ-like, otherwise that greed takes over and makes for an inhospitable world to some.

 

[Upisoft]

According to the scripture there angels are not perfect. Otherwise no wickedness would ever be found in them. The description "the seal of perfection" to me speaks that he was perfect until he became corrupt. I understand the play on literal meaning your making but there are many parts of the bible where you cannot take the wording literally. In another part of the bible God describes the earths foundation on pillars, but it doesn't literally mean that the earth is on top of pillars. Anybody who says all wording in the bible is literal is mistaken.

That's why there are so many denominations out there. Probably everyone reads and understands the Bible differently. But we agreed on one thing, Satan was perfect before he became corrupt. Thus perfection does not mean inability to sin. So, at this point I scrolled back to reread what you have said, but I found no answer to the question "Who tempted Satan"? The only conjucture that I can make from what you said is that Satan first became somehow corrupted (thus no longer perfect) and then tempted himself to sin. However "Satan first became somehow corrupted" immediately brings the question "How he became corrupted"? So, whatever it is -- sin, temptation, corruption or evil, it must have first cause. I'm interested in that first cause, not in all steps between it and the fall of Satan.

If it was indeed that are free-will to sin was taken away, that would be a wonderful thing to me. But this is describing a state we cannot even begin to understand. The quote below could be 100% right that it just won't be taking away our free-will but just part of our existence. Either way is fine by me.

Some people say that inability to sin will make us worthless worshipers. But let's say that God will like our new state in which (for whatever reason it could be) we are unable to sin. Then why He didn't create us in that state?

One thing the bible teaches us is that God does what he says. To say he will not can be nothing more than pure speculation, which I do speculate as well. But I do it on the basis that we cannot be more good and loving than God.

I'm rereading the Bible at the moment and I'm still at Genesis, so I was unable to find the place where God promised that He will never regret another creation of His. In this case I'm talking about the world that will come to be.

I don't believe this statement to be correct. There are many factors you can use as I mentioned in an earlier post to take out the fakes. In the end it is research of those religions to determine which contain reliable information.

Well, those religions also contain fantastical stories. They also insist that God is omnipotent and is able to do what is written. But then how am I supposed to choose the right one? Must I pick the less fantastical religion or must I pick the most fantastical religion? I just have no criterion to pick as the omnipotence of God disconnects Him from the reality and any degree of disconnection is equally valid.

You aren't going to understand it all. I strongly disagree with literal translations. I don't see how anybody can see the bible as 100% literal. There are to many things that are obviously not to be taken literally.

Here I agree with you, but then the question of interpretation of the Bible is the obvious problem.

Once you know that God exists, why would you think that you know better?

That I promise to answer when I know He exists.

 

[Mcygee]

That's why there are so many denominations out there. Probably everyone reads and understands the Bible differently. But we agreed on one thing, Satan was perfect before he became corrupt. Thus perfection does not mean inability to sin. So, at this point I scrolled back to reread what you have said, but I found no answer to the question "Who tempted Satan"? The only conjucture that I can make from what you said is that Satan first became somehow corrupted (thus no longer perfect) and then tempted himself to sin. However "Satan first became somehow corrupted" immediately brings the question "How he became corrupted"? So, whatever it is -- sin, temptation, corruption or evil, it must have first cause. I'm interested in that first cause, not in all steps between it and the fall of Satan.

I think this is very thought provoking question. Not in any way to me a decision on the validity of Christianity, but just one of those things we can explore and think about. Though we may never fully understand it.

Some people say that inability to sin will make us worthless worshipers. But let's say that God will like our new state in which (for whatever reason it could be) we are unable to sin. Then why He didn't create us in that state?

I agree that it would make us worthless worshipers. I think now is the test, and later we no longer need to be tested. We have already accepted and loved him. Some people want to make going to heaven all about what is and isn't a sin but in the end from what I read in the bible God mostly just wants us to accept his authority and love him with all of our heart and soul. This is a question that's interesting to reflect on, but of little importance to me personally. We know from the scripture we will be happy in heaven and be with God for eternity. How exactly that occurs is fine with me. God knows what he's doing.

Well, those religions also contain fantastical stories. They also insist that God is omnipotent and is able to do what is written. But then how am I supposed to choose the right one? Must I pick the less fantastical religion or must I pick the most fantastical religion? I just have no criterion to pick as the omnipotence of God disconnects Him from the reality and any degree of disconnection is equally valid.

This is an area I'm planning to study. Since I have not yet read the book of MY OWN RELIGION (yes it is a problem among many Christians), I am reading that first. Then I plan to compare the differences between Judaism and Christianity. Then I plan to read about Muhammad. The reason I already have faith in Christianity specifically is because I find the story of Jesus Christ to make complete and utter sense. It falls directly in line with the teachings of God in the old testament that we are not good enough to save ourselves. It falls directly in line with the need for atonement. It is the ultimate example of love to us from God. It is the ultimate example of his forgiveness. It just makes sense to me and I believe what will separate Christianity more than anything is truth. Simply that. I find the story of Jesus to ring very true to the overall plan and love of God.

As far as the Koran I have heard that is is obvious after studying the teachings and history of Muhammad that he changed rules to benefit himself. I believe any religion that works towards benefiting one specific group or person could not be the right. I also know of at least a one or two books written by former Muslims I want to study where they make similar claims when they began looking into their own religion. Also I've read that he borrowed things from gods the people were already worshiping in order to make an easy transition. Similar to some things I think the Catholic church did a long time ago to make it easy for pagans to transition. But these are things I am personally somewhat ignorant in. Which is why I'll look for myself as soon as I can.

Are there any other contenders even out there that are worth looking into? Not that I know of. Do you know of any others I should study?

I don't believe it has anything to do with how fantastical it is. But God is truth and thus so will be his message.

Here I agree with you, but then the question of interpretation of the Bible is the obvious problem.

Yes, but I don't think all of us must agree on it. I believe other interpretations are fine and that it is the central message and meaning that is most important. Some people also don't completely understand that man did write the Bible. When churches say the Bible is the word of God this can confuses some people especially teens and younger children. I know it confused me when I was younger then started learning myself. I believe it is the message of God. What he wanted us to know about our past and what he did. Because if God exists, he's going to make sure his message lives on as he wants it to. But weather or not it is "perfect" as some people say, I don't know if that is the case or not. It is if God wants it to be. Or it could be that he told people what to write but not necessarily controlling every word. You know what I mean? But I don't think this part is that important either. In both cases it is the message he wanted us to hear and the lessons he wanted us to learn.

That I promise to answer when I know He exists.

In case you end up leaving this discussion because I know it's been going on awhile...

I just want to say good luck in finding what you are searching for. I hope you do not give up. But I also hope you understand God will never pop out and present himself to you. Faith will be required on some level no matter what. All I can say is make sure you are open to the possibility and continue searching. If you search openly and with all of your heart, I believe you'll find what your looking for one day. Just make sure you don't shy away from the things that have the stongest evidence of God's existence simply because you are scared to be "ignorant" or because others tell you there's nothing to see there. Make your own decision on that because they will try to explain out God in any way they can. And if you do decide that you think God exists but are unsure of what to believe within that. Pray and ask for him to guide you because you are lacking the wisdom to see what he wants you to see. Whatever it may be.

 

[Chaplain David]

Is there any reason to believe in Christian God? I mean, a positive constructive reason. Not something like "What you gonna lose?"

Yes, there are many reasons to believe. The primary reason being is that it is in fact the truth. My belief is that if people would spend even a fraction of the time that they do not believing or arguing against the one true God in investigating Christianity (and I don't mean on forums only), but going to church, reading scripture, praying, and talking with other Christians about their faith walks with Jesus Christ they would begin to see that truth. Because this is so important I would suggest an all out effort. God loves us and wants us to come to Him.

 

[Upisoft]

If nothing created our universe, then truly there can be no other explanation other than 100% randomly generated rules. What other explanation is possible? Yet you will deny that assertion simply because it would seriously hinder any explanation other than a creator?

We don't know. It seems you know that the rules must be 100% randomly generated. You have to explain why.

Well your skipping over the point. The chances of the rules of the universe being right are as close to impossible as you can get based on dice roles from 1 to infinity each time.

Still we don't know anything about it. The chances could be 1/2 as well, or even 100% pro life. We don't know the rules that govern how universes are created. You assume it have to be 100% random.

Simply saying "This is the universe we have so that's what I'm going to base my reasoning on." is convenient for people who want to try to base the decision of Gods existence to science alone.

Well, you must go that far or you'll be unable to recognize the existence of the book that governs your religion. It is material object you know. And if you cannot trust studying material objects you cannot trust studying the Bible. But I have stopped this far in my beliefs as nothing I see does not require existence of a deity.

The difference between us is that you suppose you know how the universes come to existence and conclude that they cannot come to existence without a deity. I don't suppose that I know how the universes come to existence. Thus the lack of the logical step you have made. You may call it sticking my head in the sand, I call it not accepting more knowledge than I have as granted.

1 in 6 billion is great odds compared to the odds I'm talking about above.

So, there is a "deity probability threshold" that defines how low must be a probability that a deity must exist. That's again example of knowledge I do not posses and I cannot have it as granted. However, a omnipotent being would be able to create an universe which seems impossible to keep life, but nevertheless the life is there. In such universe I would immediately accept God as it would be undeniable.

It would be improbable if there was a 1 in 6 billion chance of the universe being able to support life. The numbers we are talking about in this case make it as impossible as anything can be. Besides in your example, there HAS to be at least one winner.

We exist, don't we? We are the winner. As we don't know the rules of the game we cannot suppose anything about our winning.

Thus no matter what there is a winner who will believe himself to be incredibly lucky. In my example, there is no guarantee of a winner and most likely there would not be a winner. It's really apples and oranges.

Actually I agree it is apples and oranges. We compare things we know everything about with things we know nothing about.

Same general concept as above. The two are not comparable. In either case you'll have a "winning" outcome no matter what. Also the numbers we are playing with are peanuts in comparison to what I'm explaining.

It was simple mathematics pointing out that no matter how low you put your "deity probability threshold" I can toss the coin more times and create a sequence that have lower probability. No matter how small a number epsilon is, there is a smaller number that can be expressed as 1 / (2^N). So, it does not matter how low your probability is, you can make lower probability just by tossing the coin(or more coins to speed up the process) long enough, so N is big enough. So, you have to agree that the deity who created the universe(or similar deity) must have something to do with the outcome of your coin tossing experiment.

The only problem for my logic here is if you postulate that this universe has 0% probability to exist. In this case I cannot toss a coin unlimited number of times.

Study the deep down complex systems involved in even the most basic cell possible.

Unfortunately the most basic cells possible are no longer living.

I'm talking about the required things for even the very first cell. It's ridiculous to say it was an accident. There is obvious intelligence there. If you don't find what I'm talking about, I can try to pull together some links for you.

If you are going to pull studies on currently existing organisms it would not help. They have already evolved for too long time. We don't know what was and what was not required for the existence of the very first cells. Again you seem to posses more knowledge than me. You know it had to be accident or God. I know that between accident and God there are so many emergent properties of matter that I cannot dismiss them all.

Yes I'm sure. It will always be programmed to do the things it does. We can tell it to imitate life, but it will NEVER be true life. That's all Hollywood fiction.

Self programming is possible. You'd never know what such a machine will be able to achieve.

The part about feelings is the weakest part of my argument and I realize that. It can't really be proven one way or the other. So I don't expect you to agree with me on it. I cannot prove it.

And I'm feeling we are turning this into Creation vs. science thread. I don't feel this is the right direction.

 

[Upisoft]

Certainly:

I see promise we will go in paradise, but I see no promise we will stay there.

 

[oi_antz]

I see promise we will go in paradise, but I see no promise we will stay there.

No, I don't remember saying there is a promise we will stay there. There is a promise that the sheep in Matthew 25 will inherit the new earth, and someone has mentioned that those will be the people who have conquered Satan and the flesh, so it's pretty well guaranteed that the people comprising that society will be 100% loyal to God and will never sway to the temptation of sin. Also, as I mentioned, if we give preference to the Holy Spirit in our lives over all temptations then we can live as saints and not sinners. This is what we ought strive to become. However, according to the parable of the sower Matthew 13:1-23 - Passage Lookup - New International Version - BibleGateway.com there are some who don't quite go the full distance and get drawn back into sin when temptation arises.

Also take a look at Philippians 3 Philipians 3 - Passage Lookup - New International Version - BibleGateway.com, this talks about overcoming the flesh to "press heavenward".

 

[Upisoft]

I think this is very thought provoking question. Not in any way to me a decision on the validity of Christianity, but just one of those things we can explore and think about. Though we may never fully understand it.

If I was 'easy' type I probably would be convinced long ago. So, it is expected that I'll ask hard questions. Maybe it has to do with another part of my personality type. I'm perceiving type almost fully up the scale:

Perceiving

Perceivers perceive structure as being more limiting than enabling. They prefer to keep their choices open so they can cope with many problems that the know life will put in their way.
They get their sense of control by keeping their options open and making choices only when they are necessary.
They are generally curious and like to expand their knowledge, which they will freely acknowledge as being incomplete. They are tolerant of other people's differences and will adapt to fit into whatever the situation requires.

Also I don't find my question provoking, as I want to know what may happen after we go to paradise. If the first cause of evil is still viable we may have trouble.

Also I'm glad to see a fellow agnostic (in limited sense)

I agree that it would make us worthless worshipers. I think now is the test, and later we no longer need to be tested. We have already accepted and loved him.

People die at all ages. Does that mean 1 year old baby death is end of a test?

We know from the scripture we will be happy in heaven and be with God for eternity. How exactly that occurs is fine with me. God knows what he's doing.

Give me some links to the verses that say so, please. I'm still stuck in Genesis wondering why Cain is afraid of other people, when the text shows he is there with only his parents, as he already killed his brother.

This is an area I'm planning to study. Since I have not yet read the book of MY OWN RELIGION (yes it is a problem among many Christians), I am reading that first.

I lead you 2:0 and counting as I'm reading it for 3rd time. I can tell you I find it extremely boring, especially the parts that describe who was father to whom. NT is different and quite better, but as it says OT is true one must accept them both. Anyway I find NT having quite tempting messages, but isn't that the way Satan is supposed to work by tempting people with things they wish so much so they readily accept? God from OT was more straightforward - ordering and expecting obedience, then punishing disobedience.

I believe any religion that works towards benefiting one specific group or person could not be the right.

Yet you accept this one that benefits the specific group who believe in it.

 

[Upisoft]

so it's pretty well guaranteed that the people comprising that society will be 100% loyal to God and will never sway to the temptation of sin.

As Satan was 100% loyal before his fall. Yet he fell.
You don't know the first cause of evil that made Satan fall, but you believe it won't happen again based only on conjecture.

 

[oi_antz]

As Satan was 100% loyal before his fall. Yet he fell.
You don't know the first cause of evil that made Satan fall, but you believe it won't happen again based only on conjecture.

Can you show me the verse that says Lucifer was 100% loyal to God? I haven't read that, cheers.

 

[razeontherock]

As Satan was 100% loyal before his fall. Yet he fell.
You don't know the first cause of evil that made Satan fall, but you believe it won't happen again based only on conjecture.

FALSE. Who is it that takes a little truth, and uses it to undermine Faith? And why are you in league with that effort?

You know some. Why do you overlook what is clearly known of the fall?


And what is this? "earnest of our inheritance"

Is it something that can be understood intellectually and debated, or does it remain relatively meaningless until it's experienced? And how does it replace your "conjecture" accusation?