Dinosaurs...and Noah's Ark....

[lucaspa]

Lucaspa said:

"If God is honest, then the surety value of some ideas being false is 100%. Now, if you want to make God deceptive but use "good" motives for that deception, then you have an ad hoc hypothesis to get out of anything."

This really boils it down to the question. I agree that certain things may seem deceptive if they were created a certain way. But I stop short of denying that God could have done it any way He chose to and had a valid, imperative reason for doing so. I am not God, you are not God.

Sure, God can do anything He wants. Include lie, cheat, and steal. But that isn't a God either of us is going to worship. We may acknowledge that such a God exists, like we acknowledge that Bin Laden exists, but we aren't going to follow or love a deceptive God anymore than we are going to follow Bin Laden.

The ratio of God to Man in understanding and depth of knowledge is as Man to ameobe. For us to claim that we could possibly second-guess God's actions and say that if He did something a certain way it MUST be the type of deception that would make Him unworthy of worship is far too presumptuous for me.

First, I don't buy the gap in understanding argument. A mind created in the image of God can understand God. Also, morals aren't relative. We don't have one set of morals for humans and another for God.

Second, as to nothing being able to shake your worship of God. Really? Then specifically address my question of hiding Jesus' body in an unmarked grave and sending hallucinations to all the disciples and Paul. Would that make Him unworthy of worship?

Look, you decide every day that politicians or religious people or business people are deceptive and worthy of trust and fellowship. It's no different for God. Yes, God may have all the power. But having the power of a tyrant doesn't in itself mean you should or would follow one. God offers moral leadership. He sacrifices that if He is deceptive.

And this does get me back to the nature of the Scripture and how God has chosen to allow it to develop. Your comparisons to eyewitness accounts aren't really applicable because I believe God has guided very directly how the Scripture has been developed over the years. Yes, there are translation issues and inconsistencies on a number of points, and this simply proves my point. God, fully in charge of how He wanted His Word presented, has allowed it to be presented in this way: subject to varied interpretation, dispute, division, etc. Yes, fallible men may have created these variations, but God *allowed* the end result. This would seem irresponsible and, yes, deceptive in a lot of ways.

So you are saying that God deliberately sowed dispute, division, dissension, etc. I say it is due to God's unwillingness to mindcontrol people and use them as puppets. You don't seem to have a problem with that. Instead, you seem to think this happened! But, in using them as puppets, God deliberately had them write things that would lead to violence and misunderstanding! Wow! There's so much to say to that version of deity, but I think you've laid out the problems very well.

I think it is entirely possible that He could have inspired the perfect, inerrant "message" but allowed fallible humans to present it. The question comes down to the "for some reason". We don't know, and can't know.

I think we can know. Look at what God has to do in order to get the perfect, inerrant message! He has to mind control people. He has to violate the very principles declared on why He created people to begin with.

Similarly, if He chose to create in such a way that may seem deceptive, who are we to say that His purpose in doing so would necessarily be something we could find "blameworthy".

Is something good because God commands it or does God command it because it is good? If the latter we can indeed find God blameworthy.

 

[Vance]

Lucaspa said:

Sure, God can do anything He wants. Include lie, cheat, and steal. But that isn't a God either of us is going to worship. We may acknowledge that such a God exists, like we acknowledge that Bin Laden exists, but we aren't going to follow or love a deceptive God anymore than we are going to follow Bin Laden.

Again, I place God so much higher that I would never even think about questioning God’s motives. He has shown His infinite love for Mankind by His redemptive gift, and I have felt this love personally. This personal experience is powerful enough for me to feel fully assured that God only has my best interest at heart and I can fully trust Him. It would not even occur to me to attempt to analyze God’s relative virtue and the appropriateness of His actions. I am nowhere near this trusting with fellow humans, of course.


First, I don't buy the gap in understanding argument. A mind created in the image of God can understand God. Also, morals aren't relative. We don't have one set of morals for humans and another for God.

That is not at all how I read "created in God’s image". I read this as capable of the type of thought that separates us from the non-human creation. We are similar to God only in this capability, not in the scope of our understanding. The gap is still as great. As for morality, it has nothing to do with God. I think you are almost anthropomorphizing God, bringing Him into a sphere that you can then actually analyze and make decisions about, as any scientist would prefer. I see God as so far beyond our analysis as to make all attempts futile. What can be analyzed is God’s Creation and the nature of our communion with God.

Second, as to nothing being able to shake your worship of God. Really? Then specifically address my question of hiding Jesus' body in an unmarked grave and sending hallucinations to all the disciples and Paul. Would that make Him unworthy of worship?

I am not sure what you are referring to, but no, nothing would make God unworthy of worship.

Look, you decide every day that politicians or religious people or business people are deceptive and worthy of trust and fellowship. It's no different for God. Yes, God may have all the power. But having the power of a tyrant doesn't in itself mean you should or would follow one. God offers moral leadership. He sacrifices that if He is deceptive.

No, again you are anthropomorphizing God. He simply can’t be analogized to any being on earth or any relationship we have here on earth. God is God. I make decisions about people here on earth because they are human and I have no Faith that they are wholly perfect. I do have this Faith with God, based on my personal experience of God and my complete assurance that the truths to this effect in His Scripture are true.


So you are saying that God deliberately sowed dispute, division, dissension, etc.

No, I say that He *allowed* humans to write the Scripture in a way that does this. Why, I have no idea. But I have complete Faith that it was part of His design and purpose.

I say it is due to God's unwillingness to mindcontrol people and use them as puppets. You don't seem to have a problem with that. Instead, you seem to think this happened!

To a certain extent, yes, I think God required that certain Truths became part of the Scripture and that yes, He guided the Scripture to the extent necessary to maintain the inerrant presentation of that Message. I have no problem with that at all. This does not interfere, to my mind, with the purpose of Free Will in the least.

But, in using them as puppets, God deliberately had them write things that would lead to violence and misunderstanding! Wow! There's so much to say to that version of deity, but I think you've laid out the problems very well.

Well, I think He allowed the people to write the inspired Scripture in their own words, which did, as we see, lead to these results. This degree of Free Will was, indeed, allowed. And, yes, if a person actually had the presumption to analyze the actions and motivations of God, then you could find "issues" with this.


I think we can know. Look at what God has to do in order to get the perfect, inerrant message! He has to mind control people. He has to violate the very principles declared on why He created people to begin with.

Well, I think this is fallacious. If God chooses to communicate with us, and chooses to use human vessels to present his Message, He will necessarily inspire the Message. I do not see this as "mind control", but as simple communication and guidance. Just as we now have His Spirit as a guiding force. When the Spirit guides you, convicts you, inspires you, do you see this as mind-control?


Is something good because God commands it or does God command it because it is good? If the latter we can indeed find God blameworthy.


The former, since everything that comes from God is, by definition, good.

 

[bkane]

Lucaspa, "If sound theology contradicts Science, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the self-falsifying experiment which is clearly at fault!" WHOAAAAA!!!!!
You are too insistent that God be what YOU say He should be (or can or can't do). He is not bound by your view of science....or your interpretation of Him in Scripture...and that's a really good thing! Again, I'd rather be guilty of taking the Bible too literally, than to be guilty of picking what I would declare as being literal or not according to my (inerrant??) Scientific world view.
I didn't see where you answered my question about Jesus and the Virgin Birth...how would this have occured without special creation specific from God...did Jesus evolve? Or did God just make it appear that way to deceive us??? Explain how Jesus was formed in Mary's womb so as to void any special creation? God MADE Jesus' body via a means which science cannot explain....special creation. It was creation ..and it was special. science can not void any ability that God would have to have chosen to create all the species without dependence upon an evolutionary definition of special creation. Evo-science does not seek to explain occurances in a supernatural way only a natural one. No wonder Special Creation will never be within the grasp of those who adhere to such a strict and "literal" scientific interpretation....of which you are guilty....My point is...if Special creation did happen for any species creation, how would we really know via the fossil record...since the bones of any specially created creature would be chalked up in the hodge podge of incomplete and ongoing accumulation of bones and assumed connected fossil frags from something prior....

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

Lucaspa, "If sound theology contradicts Science, we may be sure that it is our interpretation of the self-falsifying experiment which is clearly at fault!" WHOAAAAA!!!!!

Sound theology doesn't contradict science; they are non-overlapping magisteria.

You are too insistent that God be what YOU say He should be (or can or can't do).

Not at all. Theistic scientists let God show us what He did by examining His creation. We take it at face value and have to accept what it shows us.

He is not bound by your view of science....or your interpretation of Him in Scripture...and that's a really good thing!

Agreed, but sauce for the goose - this is exactly what creationists want to do to God - make Him subject to their interpretation of Scripture.

Again, I'd rather be guilty of taking the Bible too literally, than to be guilty of picking what I would declare as being literal or not according to my (inerrant??) Scientific world view.

Your choice. Personally, I'd rather be guilty of assuming God didn't create dishonestly, but rather that what God's Creation says is true (doesn't Paul allude to that in Romans?)

I didn't see where you answered my question about Jesus and the Virgin Birth...how would this have occured without special creation specific from God...did Jesus evolve? Or did God just make it appear that way to deceive us??? Explain how Jesus was formed in Mary's womb so as to void any special creation? God MADE Jesus' body via a means which science cannot explain....special creation. It was creation ..and it was special. science can not void any ability that God would have to have chosen to create all the species without dependence upon an evolutionary definition of special creation.

Can you find where we say God cannot use special creation? We don't. As I am sure I have said to you before (though you now forget it), it is not that God could not create supernaturally, simply that the evidence is clear in His creation that He did not do so. With Our Lord, we have no evidence disproving a special creation. We do have 2000 years of faith that Jesus was miraculously conceived. Nothing in science has anything to say about that.

Evo-science does not seek to explain occurances in a supernatural way only a natural one.

Correct. Supernatural explanations are outside the realm of science.

No wonder Special Creation will never be within the grasp of those who adhere to such a strict and "literal" scientific interpretation....of which you are guilty....My point is...if Special creation did happen for any species creation, how would we really know via the fossil record...since the bones of any specially created creature would be chalked up in the hodge podge of incomplete and ongoing accumulation of bones and assumed connected fossil frags from something prior....

We'd know because the fossil record would not accord perfectly with the evolutionary model we have. However, it does. We would not expect to find common retro-viral insertions in our and the great apes' genomes. We would not expect to find our chromosome 2 cobbled together out of two ape chromosomes with the termination sequences still there in the middle of the thing. We would not expect muscles in our legs with only one end attached, which are fully functional in monkeys. We would not expect atavistic legs on whales, nor fully formed tails (yes, with bones) on humans. Yet we find all these things.

 

[Vance]

I think this is a good place to insert my analogy to "expert witnesses" that I use at trial. When a jury reviews a case, the purpose is to determine what happened and they do this based on ALL the evidence before them. This can include documents, eyewitness testimony, statements by the principals themselves and expert witnesses (usually scientists of some type) who explain how things could have happened in the natural world, and even giving the various odds of things happening one way or another.

The key for the jury finding the truth is to apply the proper weight to each of the sources of evidence, considering the likelihoods and probabilities and then determining whether they feel confident enough that one particular thing happened to find for one party or the other.

The point is that the scientists are just tools for the discovery of the truth. They are the source that describes the various possible *natural* scenarios and their relative likelihoods in purely the natural sense. It is up to the jury to take this and then factor in the OTHER evidence they have been presented make a decision. The expert witnesses do not determine the truth, they simply present the physical, natural side of the equation. We do not ask them to make ultimate judgments, only give their opinion *within* their field of expertise. This *does* involve, though, asking them the question "barring any outside factors, and based on your expertise, what do you think happened here." The answer to this very important question is *not* asking them for a determination of Truth, simply a statement about their conclusion based solely on the physical evidence and their expertise. THIS is the role of science.

Here is a hypothetical, based on a recent case I handled. There was a fire in a warehouse. There were two possible sources for the fire. The scientist, the expert witness, concluded that it was most likely Cause "A". He indicated that Cause "B" was possible, but much less likely. He said that Cause "A" was about 95% likely, and Cause "B" was about 5% likely, so his conclusion was entirely justified and supported by the physical evidence, and other experts we talked to agreed that this analysis was correct.

There is other evidence, however, which points to Cause "B", in the form of an eyewitness.

What does the jury do? If it assumes that the scientist is wholly accurate in his assessment of the probabilities, they then have to analyze the other evidence for credibility, consistency, etc. As we know, not all eyewitnesses can be trusted, even if they are entirely honest. Yet, it can not be dismissed entirely.

In the case, it turned out that Cause B was, indeed, the cause of the fire. The incident fell into the 5%.