Is God deceiving us?

[Calminian]

I thought this quote from MKJ would make for a good tread of its own.

MKJ wrote

Science begins by making no assumptions about the age of the Earth.

The created world is part of God's revelation, just as Scripture is - it is his natural revelation. If you are saying that God deliberatly left false information in his creation, that is no different than saying he left deliberately false information in Scripture.​

But if this is true, then the Resurrection of Christ was also a sinful act of God, since it could lead someone to believe Christ was had never died. Scientifically speaking, the resurrection would fool any doctor who examined the raised individual. For it would appear that they had no illness and thus were never even sick let alone dead. It would give the doctor a false view of history.

Same would be true with the wine and bread and fish Jesus created. Looking at them after the fact, would lead scientists to believe they came about naturally, and had taken a certain amount of time to develop? They would falsely think the wine matured over a long period of time, and that grains and fish grew to maturity before be cultivated and caught. A false view of history would be inferred from this also. Thus, by the logic above, those acts also would be sinful.

But is this really a good argument? Of course not. God can do anything He wants, and in most cases, He informs us of exactly what He did. The miracles of the wine, fish and bread were written down for our benefit. More to the point, God had the creation account written down, so that no one could misinterpret the evidence.

Thus, if we refuse to believe God's revelation, and are fooled by naturalistic theories, we only have ourselves to blame. That's my take, anyway.

 

[mark kennedy]

What exactly is God supposed to be deceiving us about?

I thought this quote from MKJ would make for a good tread of its own.

MKJ wrote

Science begins by making no assumptions about the age of the Earth.

Scripture begins by making no claims about the age of the Earth. The Genesis account simply reads: 'In the beginning'.

The created world is part of God's revelation, just as Scripture is - it is his natural revelation. If you are saying that God deliberatly left false information in his creation, that is no different than saying he left deliberately false information in Scripture.

Some would call that natural revelation:

"For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse" (Rom. 1:20)​

But if this is true, then the Resurrection of Christ was also a sinful act of God, since it could lead someone to believe Christ was had never died. Scientifically speaking, the resurrection would fool any doctor who examined the raised individual. For it would appear that they had no illness and thus were never even sick let alone dead. It would give the doctor a false view of history.

It hardly seems likely that Jesus survived the cross:

"Accordingly, interpretations based on the assumption that Jesus did not die on the cross appear to be at odds with modern medical knowledge."​

(On the Physical Death of Jesus Christ JAMA 1986)

Thus, if we refuse to believe God's revelation, and are fooled by naturalistic theories, we only have ourselves to blame. That's my take, anyway.

As many atheists and agnostics as I have debated, it's rather curious, not one of them asked me to define the core term, 'God'. Of course they either doubt a professed knowledge of God or outright deny that God exists but you would think in all their philosophical dialogues on the subject they would be insisting on a definition. There's a reason for that, they already know and it's so obvious no definition is necessary.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Archie the Preacher]

But if this is true, then the Resurrection of Christ was also a sinful act of God, since it could lead someone to believe Christ was had never died. Scientifically speaking, the resurrection would fool any doctor who examined the raised individual. For it would appear that they had no illness and thus were never even sick let alone dead. It would give the doctor a false view of history.

This line of supposition would have some validity IF the crucifixion and death of Jesus was accomplished in secret and God felt the need to 'hide' the event. Same with the others whom Jesus - and later some of the apostles - that were raised from the dead.

No intent to deceive inferred or suspected.

Further, misunderstanding on the part of "B" does not make "A" a liar.

God can do anything He wants...

You're confused, Calminian; that is the Muslim view of God. God can change His mind by caprice and reverse truths and so on.

God is all powerful. God can accomplish anything He desires, but the 'He desires' part is actually a limitation in that He will not do anything counter to His nature. Among other things, God will not/cannot renege on a deal. God cannot/will not lie. Contrary to the claims of various and sundry superficial thinking people, God does not plant false evidence to 'confound the unbelievers'.

Let us also take care of the 'big rock' nonsense. As C. S. Lewis pointed out, 'What is the meaning of God's Omnipotence? Can he do whatever he pleases? Yes, except the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to him but not nonsense: "Nonsense remains nonsense even if we talk it about God."'

 

[Calminian]

....You're confused, Calminian; that is the Muslim view of God. God can change His mind by caprice and reverse truths and so on.

God is all powerful. God can accomplish anything He desires, but the 'He desires' part is actually a limitation in that He will not do anything counter to His nature. Among other things, God will not/cannot renege on a deal. God cannot/will not lie. Contrary to the claims of various and sundry superficial thinking people, God does not plant false evidence to 'confound the unbelievers'.

Oh, I've made these same points. Yes, God cannot do anything. He cannot violate his own nature. But He can do anything He wants (of course He would never want to violate His nature). You missed that little nuance. Had you caught it, you may not have felt the need to make the Islam comparison.

 

[Papias]

Cal, are you saying you agree with Dr. Martin Luther King, or that he's wrong?

 

[Calminian]

Cal, are you saying you agree with Dr. Martin Luther King, or that he's wrong?

Now that's a strange question from left field.

 

[Papias]

Cal wrote:

Now that's a strange question from left field.

LOL!

Yep, it is. I mistakenly thought your "MKJ" was short for Martin luther King Jr. Sorry about that, my bad.

Funny though.

 

[Calminian]

Cal wrote:



LOL!

Yep, it is. I mistakenly thought your "MKJ" was short for Martin luther King Jr. Sorry about that, my bad.

Funny though.

LOL. I was thinking, 'man, what did I miss?' TBH, I didn't even make the connection with the initials until now.

 

[juvenissun]

I thought this quote from MKJ would make for a good tread of its own.

MKJ wrote

Science begins by making no assumptions about the age of the Earth.

The created world is part of God's revelation, just as Scripture is - it is his natural revelation. If you are saying that God deliberatly left false information in his creation, that is no different than saying he left deliberately false information in Scripture.​

Deceiving or deception is only a view from those who do not understand.

When a scientist sees some contradicting results, he does not say: this is deceiving, and dismisses the contradiction. He goes back to start another round of learning from the beginning.

If God makes something we do not understand, we do not insult Him by saying He is deceptive. In stead, we bow down and pray: please teach me.

 

[gluadys]

I thought this quote from MKJ would make for a good tread of its own.

MKJ wrote

Science begins by making no assumptions about the age of the Earth.

The created world is part of God's revelation, just as Scripture is - it is his natural revelation. If you are saying that God deliberatly left false information in his creation, that is no different than saying he left deliberately false information in Scripture.​

But if this is true, then the Resurrection of Christ was also a sinful act of God, since it could lead someone to believe Christ was had never died.

Not at all, since "resurrection" implies a previous death.

Scientifically speaking, the resurrection would fool any doctor who examined the raised individual.

How would the doctor scientifically explain the nail wounds in his hands and the spear wound in his side? (John 20:24ff)

Same would be true with the wine and bread and fish Jesus created. Looking at them after the fact, would lead scientists to believe they came about naturally, and had taken a certain amount of time to develop?

No, you have the reasoning backwards about. It is not looking at the evidence which would lead them to believe they came about naturally. Given the evidence a scientist could say IF this wine were produced naturally, then it took time. But the evidence in and of itself could not say if the wine was produced naturally or miraculously. The evidence could have been produced miraculously. Science can only give information of what the natural causes would be if it were not produced miraculously. (This is what is meant by Occam's razor; one is not to assume miracles when miracles are unnecessary to the explanation.) So, on the assumption that the wine was produced naturally, a scientific analysis could give it an age. But if the initial assumption is incorrect, the age would be incorrect. However, no lie is involved since we are told at the outset that this was a sign, a miracle, to identify Jesus as the Messiah.

God can do anything He wants, and in most cases, He informs us of exactly what He did. The miracles of the wine, fish and bread were written down for our benefit.

Indeed, he does inform us. That is why we should not assume miracles without the appropriate testimony that a miracle occurred. In the flood story, for example, nothing is said of miracles. In the creation story, apart from attributing creation to the Word (for God spoke creation into existence) nothing is said about miracles. God's Word is always effective whether in providence or miracle.

More to the point, God had the creation account written down, so that no one could misinterpret the evidence.

No one is misinterpreting the evidence. But the evidence does not support a young earth. So it is the evidence of an old earth which needs to be recognized as God's truth.

Thus, if we refuse to believe God's revelation,

Creation is revelation, and to insist on a young earth is to refuse to believe God's revelation.

and are fooled by naturalistic theories, we only have ourselves to blame. That's my take, anyway.

What do you mean by "naturalistic theories"? How do you define this term? Do you reject the belief that God works through natural means as well as miraculous means?

 

[Calminian]

Indeed, he does inform us. That is why we should not assume miracles without the appropriate testimony that a miracle occurred. In the flood story, for example, nothing is said of miracles. In the creation story, apart from attributing creation to the Word (for God spoke creation into existence) nothing is said about miracles. God's Word is always effective whether in providence or miracle.

Well, if speaking something into existence does't qualify for a miracle, neither would making wine out of water. I think what you doing is merely defining miracles out of existence.

No one is misinterpreting the evidence. But the evidence does not support a young earth. So it is the evidence of an old earth which needs to be recognized as God's truth.

The biblical evidence supports a young earth, as we have chronological genealogies give us specific information about time.

Now if you're speaking about uniformitarian theories, then those would also be a problem for the wine, for resurrections, for the fish and bread, and just about any other effect caused by a miracle. With that kind of thinking you would have to conclude that any miracle of God would have to be deceptive.

Creation is revelation, and to insist on an old earth is to refuse to believe God's revelation.

There, now the above statement is actually true.

What do you mean by "naturalistic theories"? How do you define this term? Do you reject the belief that God works through natural means as well as miraculous means?

Well the way you avoid miracles is to simply call everything a miracle. You see no difference between the resurrection of Christ and the sunrise. Of course I've brought this to your attention numerous times. You've never acknowledged the point, but have never denied it either. In your theology, everything is a miracle, thus making nothing a miracle. Anyone taking Bible study serious is going to see the problem with that.

 

[gluadys]

Well, if speaking something into existence does't qualify for a miracle, neither would making wine out of water. I think what you doing is merely defining miracles out of existence.

It depends on the effect of the speaking. Is God speaking natural powers into action or overriding them?

The biblical evidence supports a young earth, as we have chronological genealogies give us specific information about time.

That is debatable.
The geological and astronomical and atomic and molecular evidence of an old earth is not.

Now if you're speaking about uniformitarian theories, then those would also be a problem for the wine, for resurrections, for the fish and bread, and just about any other effect caused by a miracle. With that kind of thinking you would have to conclude that any miracle of God would have to be deceptive.

The difference as I see it is that we have been told that some things were miracles (signs) e.g. changing water to wine, making iron float, many hearings and above all the incarnation and resurrection.

We have not been told that any miracle has affected the record of natural history in similar ways. Scripture simply does not give us any account of the history of the earth or the universe, as its focus is on God's dealings with humanity.

Why should we assume miracles for which there is no testimony.

Well the way you avoid miracles is to simply call everything a miracle.

I don't avoid miracles, but I choose not to invent them either.

You see no difference between the resurrection of Christ and the sunrise.

Of course I do see a great difference. No natural power could raise a man from the dead. But sunrise is easily explained by the natural process of earth's diurnal rotation.

What I am saying is that God both raised Christ from the dead and makes the sun to rise each day. (That's biblical isn't it?). But he raises Christ from the dead by overriding natural process, while he makes the sun to rise by natural process. So we call the first a miracle, and the second we do not.

Both are still the work of God, would you not agree?

What I say of evolution is that it is like the rising of the sun, not like the resurrection of Christ.

Of course I've brought this to your attention numerous times. You've never acknowledged the point, but have never denied it either. In your theology, everything is a miracle, thus making nothing a miracle. Anyone taking Bible study serious is going to see the problem with that.

No, I do make a distinction between God's miraculous works and God's providential use of natural causes. So it is not true that in my theology everything God does is a miracle.

But as I see it, in your theology, everything God does must be a miracle. Anything not miraculous is not a work of God. And I think anyone taking Bible study seriously is going to see a problem with that.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

Oh, I've made these same points. Yes, God cannot do anything. He cannot violate his own nature. But He can do anything He wants (of course He would never want to violate His nature). You missed that little nuance. Had you caught it, you may not have felt the need to make the Islam comparison.

We're in agreement then. Thanks.

You'll have to forgive me if I seemed harsh. It is one of the common misconceptions and leads to silly thinking and suppositions.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

Well, if speaking something into existence does't qualify for a miracle...

You are assuming here the the Lord of Hosts, the Creator God of Eternity, who has lived for an Eternity and will continue to live for Eternity, 'speaks' exactly as you speak. You have assumed - consciously or not - that God has lungs, vocal cords, tongue, lips and forth and uses 'air' in the same fashion as do humans.

I suggest you think about that for a good long time.

Also, you might check on the meaning of the Hebrew word 'speak'. It can imply more than simply 'talking'.

 

[mark kennedy]

You are assuming here the the Lord of Hosts, the Creator God of Eternity, who has lived for an Eternity and will continue to live for Eternity, 'speaks' exactly as you speak. You have assumed - consciously or not - that God has lungs, vocal cords, tongue, lips and forth and uses 'air' in the same fashion as do humans.

I suggest you think about that for a good long time.

Also, you might check on the meaning of the Hebrew word 'speak'. It can imply more than simply 'talking'.

He never said anything of the sort, that's pure, undiluted hyperbole. You have assumed that because God doesn't have lungs...etc that He can't speak. Now, I ask you, was that fair of me to say? You're the one who started talking about lungs and lips and air but is it fair to say you assumed God must have those physical characteristics in order to speak. Or maybe, you were you just making a point though an exaggeration.

 

[mark kennedy]

It depends on the effect of the speaking. Is God speaking natural powers into action or overriding them?

And he arose, and rebuked the wind, and said unto the sea, Peace, be still. And the wind ceased, and there was a great calm. (Mark 4:39)​

That is debatable.
The geological and astronomical and atomic and molecular evidence of an old earth is not.

The age of the earth is also irrelevant.

The difference as I see it is that we have been told that some things were miracles (signs) e.g. changing water to wine, making iron float, many hearings and above all the incarnation and resurrection.

Yea, that's the clear testimony of Scripture.

We have not been told that any miracle has affected the record of natural history in similar ways. Scripture simply does not give us any account of the history of the earth or the universe, as its focus is on God's dealings with humanity.

You mean except for that thing in Genesis 1 translated 'creation'.

Why should we assume miracles for which there is no testimony.

None so blind...

I don't avoid miracles, but I choose not to invent them either.

You just did, the history of creation in Genesis 1. There are at least four Hebrew words that clearly mean miracles and the one that is the strongest is used three times in reference to the creation of Man.

Of course I do see a great difference. No natural power could raise a man from the dead. But sunrise is easily explained by the natural process of earth's diurnal rotation.

Ok...

What I am saying is that God both raised Christ from the dead and makes the sun to rise each day. (That's biblical isn't it?). But he raises Christ from the dead by overriding natural process, while he makes the sun to rise by natural process. So we call the first a miracle, and the second we do not.

Well...yea....

Both are still the work of God, would you not agree?

Three times you emphasize this, really?

What I say of evolution is that it is like the rising of the sun, not like the resurrection of Christ.

True and so what?

No, I do make a distinction between God's miraculous works and God's providential use of natural causes. So it is not true that in my theology everything God does is a miracle.

Well either a miracle or the first cause was a miracle, not that I see a clear point emerging here.

But as I see it, in your theology, everything God does must be a miracle. Anything not miraculous is not a work of God. And I think anyone taking Bible study seriously is going to see a problem with that.

I see no problem here except that a miracle and a natural phenomenon are two different things.

 

[Skybringr]

Science begins by making no assumptions about the age of the Earth.

Science began when Copernicus decided Earth revolves around the Sun.

People try to make Galileo where it started, but that's where it really began- a century before Galileo when the first notion of the universe from natural philosophy, rather then theology, was proposed.

 

[mark kennedy]

Science began when Copernicus decided Earth revolves around the Sun.

No it didn't, science is a word that simply means knowledge. It became an investigation of natural phenomenon during the Scientific Revolution. Copernicus suggested several models for how the earth could be rotating around the sun and while it was a catalyst for the changes that would follow, science as we now define it would come almost a hundred years later after a long process.

People try to make Galileo where it started, but that's where it really began- a century before Galileo when the first notion of the universe from natural philosophy, rather then theology, was proposed.

Galileo had a telescope and confirmed some of what Copernicus has theorized, that's not what was changing science. The real issue was the principles of motion, physics and the big problem was Aristotelian mechanics. Galileo was accused of contradicting Scripture which came as a big shock to Galileo, being a devout Catholic and all. He argued that the Bible teaches how to get to heaven, not how the heavens work. To my knowledge, no one, including the Inquisition, has ever successfully contradicted him.

That's why scientists finally separated science and theology, just as politically religion and government had to be separated. They have very little to do with one another.

 

[gluadys]

And he arose, and rebuked the wind, and said unto the sea, Peace, be still. And the wind ceased, and there was a great calm. (Mark 4:39)​

And I think we would agree that in this case, Jesus was overriding the natural process. The same could be said of the strong east wind God called to push back the waters of the Red Sea so the Israelites could cross on dry land.
So these we call miracles, right?

But scripture also speaks of winds which are not miraculous:

"The wind blows to the south and goes round to the north; round and round goes the wind, and on its circuits the wind returns." Eccclesiastes 1:6

These are the kinds of winds we hear about on the daily weather forecast. And these, too, are God's work, right? Only these are God working by natural process, not overriding it. So we don't call these miracles, but we honour God for both the normal and miraculous winds.

The age of the earth is also irrelevant.

Yes, we are in agreement there, but you will get a debate with Calminian on this point.

Yea, that's the clear testimony of Scripture.

Another agreement, great!

You mean except for that thing in Genesis 1 translated 'creation'.

You just did, the history of creation in Genesis 1. There are at least four Hebrew words that clearly mean miracles and the one that is the strongest is used three times in reference to the creation of Man.

If you are referring to the verb 'bara' its only peculiarity is that God is always the subject. It does not tell us by which mode God is acting. Could be an overriding of natural process; could be an action by natural process. As long as it is creation by God, it can be referred to as 'bara'. If God chooses to produce some species via evolution, so long as it is God's action, 'bara' would be a suitable verb.

Ok...



Well...yea....

More agreement, good!

Three times you emphasize this, really?

Yes, I think it needs emphasis. I think that in defending belief in creation, anti-evolutionists have forgotten that God is not only the God of miracles, but also the God of nature. And this has had the unfortunate consequence of failing to see God's hand in natural process and natural explanations of natural phenomena. A hostility to the very idea of natural explanations of natural phenomena has grown up in some Christian communities, such that all science is rejected as closet atheism.

Yet modern European science was originally founded on the idea that the study of nature was the study of God's work and conducive to glorifying God as the amazing phenomena of nature were described more completely and accurately.

When Christians, of all people, fail to see God's hand in nature as well as in miracles, they unconsciously eject God from the natural world as effectively as Deists or materialists or atheists do. And that leads directly to god-of-the-gaps theology, where the only place we look for God is in the darkness of our ignorance.

We need to recover the classic Christian understanding that God is to be found in all we know about nature, including everything for which we have a natural explanation. By all means, extol God as the worker of miracles; but also praise him for all the phenomena he has made and continues to make by natural means and for the gift he has given us of understanding them and appreciating them. Praise him for the miraculous pillar of light guarding the Israelites by night as they wandered in the wilderness. Praise him as well for the guidance of a flashlight whose working we can explain scientifically. Both lights are equally the work of God.

True and so what?


Well either a miracle or the first cause was a miracle, not that I see a clear point emerging here.

The point is that Christians should not be fearful of or hostile to natural explanations of natural phenomena, as if they were inherently atheistic. In many cases, rejection of "miracle" is not a rejection of God as Creator. It is simply affirming that God works with nature as well as transcending nature.

I see no problem here except that a miracle and a natural phenomenon are two different things.

Two different things, yes, but both works of God, right? Are we agreed on that?

 

[SkyWriting]

Science began when Copernicus decided Earth revolves around the Sun.

People try to make Galileo where it started, but that's where it really began- a century before Galileo when the first notion of the universe from natural philosophy, rather then theology, was proposed.

"Aristotle 384 – 322 BCE His writings cover many subjects – including physics, biology, zoology, metaphysics, logic, ethics, aesthetics...and constitute the first comprehensive system of Western philosophy."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle

The period 2700–2300 BC saw the first appearance of the Sumerian abacus, a table of successive columns which delimited the successive orders of magnitude of their sexagesimal number system.