The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

hinault · 30-01-2017 10:58AM

indioblack wrote: »

I'm a bit late in catching up with this thread - and thanks for your reply.
To repeat - the poster I referred to asked, "If there is a God, why can't we see him?"
For most of Christianities history, most believers didn't actually see God. I know this is stating the obvious, but I think there is a useful line of thought here. It's not directly concerned with the existence of God, but rather focuses on motivation. For a believer, God cannot act without purpose or meaning - so there would have to be a reason in not being able to visually, physically see God.
To me, that seems to mean that belief is a requirement and absolute proof is not.
If God could be seen, and indisputably be recognized as God, [not sure how that would happen], then wouldn't belief be redundant - and this thread also?[!]
Additionally, since belief is individual and subjective, it could be argued that errant belief or no belief is expected to occur.

You raise an interesting point namely why can't God be seen or why doesn't God reveal himself.

If you read Genesis, it seems to indicate that God was visible to Adam and Eve. God's presence was tangible to them. Whether this reading of the text is accurate or not is what is at issue in that context.

On a philosophical level one could argue if the presence of God was tangible and subject to human measures of "proof" then faith in God becomes redundant ie. what was a belief is replaced by what is a tangible fact. Of course for Christians everywhere, God did reveal himself when He became man. For Catholics, God's presence is revealed at every single Mass offered. So for the believer, God's presence is tangible.

Religion teaches that God allows man to act as man decides. Those of faith understand that above all God respects the free will of every single human being. He will not transgress an individuals right to choose to do right or to do wrong, in this life. And that is the same for faith. Faith must be free. It must be predicated on the individual making a free choice to believe in God.

looksee · 30-01-2017 03:03PM

I think I would find it easier to accept 'I have faith' than all that waffly pseudoscience, JC. I hope you do not have to write scientific papers, you seem to have a very individual understanding of 'proof'.

J C · 30-01-2017 08:40PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

So to summarise, you just made it up. What is all that based on? Nothing, your own opinion.

Nothing but the opinion of God Himself ...
God said in Exodus 33:20 LITV “You are not able to see My face; for no man can see Me and live.”

I don't know about you ... but I'd take that advice as a strong indicator that we cannot see God and still be alive after the encounter.
... which is a good reason for Him not revealing Himself IMO.:)

Leroy42 wrote: »

I asked did you make it up as you hadn't provided any evidence, and your come back was....because it is!

... and I ventured a reasoned opinion that because we are mortal (and sinful) beings since the Fall and our banishment from Paradise, we cannot be in the direct presence of an infinitely powerful and good God ... this must await our entry into immortality and the spiritual realm, at our physical death.

Leroy42 wrote: »

So why does he not prove that then? Why is science increasingly able to show us that God isn't required.

... but here's the thing ... science is actually increasingly finding that life and the precision evident in the Universe can only be explained by the action of God.

Leroy42 wrote: »

I mean you are done to argueing about the possibilities of probabilities. Come on, God could easily provide proof but somehow chooses not to do so.

He has said that he provided proof of Himself in the things that He has made ... in fact it is so obvious and clear that anybody denying it is without excuse.
Romans 1:19-20New International Version (NIV)
19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

Leroy42 wrote: »

You don't think he can. You believe in an all powerful God, that is limited n what he can do?

... He is an all powerful God limited by His own volition ... He can't reveal Himself in this realm without creating undesirable effects, like interfering with people's free-will ... and because of His infinite power, causing those who look upon Him to die.

The last time God the Father physically manifested in the World, it was at Sodom and Gomorrah ... and let's just say ... it didn't end well.

... and Lot's wife just had to take a peek at Him ... and promptly died as a result.

J C · 30-01-2017 09:02PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

Inspired? So like a movie only based on actual events, poetic licence and all that. So nothing in it is really the truth, merely a mortal interpretation of the vision they were given, with all the inherent bias and misunderstandings that we know are included in all evidence.

No ... directly inspired by God ... like he phoned the guys and said 'take this down exactly as I say it".

Leroy42 wrote: »

So Jesus was like a mini God. He wasn't God then? Like a limited version of him? So why pray to Jesus? Again, you seem to be putting in all these conditions based on nothing.

Jesus Christ was true God and true man ... a hybrid, if you will, between an infinite God and a finite man.

Leroy42 wrote: »

God can do anything, but he needs to limit himself as otherwise we couldn't cope,

You have everything mixed up ... which isn't surprising if you're not indwelt by the Holy Spirit.
God can do anything, but He limits Himself out of love for us and to give us the space to voluntarily love Him back.
It's something like a man who tenderly loves his wife ... to allow her to tenderly love him back ... throwing his weight around and trying to force his wife to love him would be tantamount to abuse ... ditto for God!!.

Leroy42 wrote: »

... but at the same time we are supposed to wish for death do that we can spend eternity in his presence.

... there is no need to wish for death ... it will come soon enough to us all ... but we can look forward to an eternity of bliss, whenever we do die believing on Jesus Christ to Save us.

Leroy42 wrote: »

Based on what? Where does it say so? Again, you seem very quick to put limits on this apparent all powerful being God. Guy can create the universe, create life, raise his son from the dead, but can't come down to meet with us because we will all die?

... and because He cannot be in the presence of sin ... without punishing it ... and all of us are sinners.

Leroy42 wrote: »

Yet he did in terms Moses and Noah. He raised Jesus from the dead. She provided loaves and fishes to feed the crowd. He raised Lazarus. He tore down the curtain in the temple. He created a new star to guide the 3 wise kings. He sent an angel down to the shepherds.

God becoming man was a once-off ... I suppose He could send down an angel to talk to somebody ... and probably has done so many times ... but will anybody, who doesn't want to believe this, listen?

Leroy42 wrote: »

Great, maybe those killed in the floods just didn't swim fast enough after he made his presence known!

They certainly made the mistake of not getting on board the Ark fast enough.
... and there is a lesson there for anybody who refuses Salvation ... when it's offered to them.

J C · 30-01-2017 09:13PM

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

You claim he can't show himself because mere mortals would perish in his presence so why bo do what he (allegedly) did before? Send down a few angels to talk to world Leaders and tell them to sort tongs out? Imagine that JC! One quick visit from them and all the starvation and wars in the world could be stopped immediately.

Do you really think that would happen? ... Jesus Christ came down and they killed Him ... angels were sent to Sodom ... and they tried to rape them ... Noah pleaded with the people and they laughed at him.

Many world leaders are good men and women ... but they are not as powerful as many imagine ... and the reason for all of the misery in the world is ultimately sin ... and man's tendency towards evil.
A few angels visiting Trump and Putin is not going to cure that.:)

... although, I suppose, it might stop the wall being built ... or even BREXIT !!:D

... and there you see ... people's freely expressed will being thwarted already !!:eek:

Timberrrrrrrr · 30-01-2017 09:19PM

J C wrote: »

Do you really think that would happen? ... Jesus Christ came down and they killed Him ... angels were sent to Sodom ... and they tried to rape them.

Many world leaders are good men and women ... but they are not as powerful as many imagine ... the reason for all of the misery in the world is ultimately sin ... and man's tendency towards evil.
A few angels visiting Trump and Putin is not going to cure that.:)

You have contradicted yourself so many times in the last few posts i swear my mind is spinning,

"god" can't come down because his mere presence would kill us all but "god" did come before (as jesus) and showed himself to multitudes of people (no mass deaths) because he wanted to but can't do it again because.......something something free will

He also sent angels before but won't again because.......?

Why not send a few "powerful" angels that can take care of themselves? Give them immortality or whatever and tell them to visit earth and sort it out? Go cure a few kids with cancer (preferably eradicate cancer all together) stop droughts and starvation, maybe even make every nuke disappear, There wouldn't be an issue with peoples belief then.

But Nahhhh he prefers to show his face on a piece of toast or inspire some multi millionaire footballer to score a goal instead of helping a sick child :rolleyes:

Leroy42 · 30-01-2017 09:23PM

J C wrote: »

... directly inspired by God ... like he phoned the guys and said 'take this down exactly as I say it".

I am sorry, but you am being a bit confusing here. So he talked directly to some people, who didn't die as a result?

J C wrote: »

Jesus Christ was true God and true man ... a hybrid, if you will, between an infinite God and a finite man.

I'm not really interested in what he exactly was. If he was God then how did he interact with others without them dying? And if it is that simple why not simply send Jesus to interact with all of us?

J C wrote: »

You have everything mixed up ... which isn't surprising if you're not indwelt by the Holy Spirit.
God can do anything, but He limits Himself out of love for us and to give us the space to voluntarily love Him back.
It's something like a man who tenderly loves his wife ... to allow her to tenderly love him back ... throwing his weight around and trying to force his wife to love him would be tantamount to abuse ... ditto for God!!.

What? No normal person tries to force people to love them? And you don't do it by leaving vague notes around the place and sending strangers to tell her to love you. I'm not sure about your experience of love but mine is based on the person loving me for who and am and me being around for them. Not hiding away and ignoring them and their ills.

J C wrote: »

... there is no need to wish for death ... it will coe soon enough to us all ... but we can look forward to an eternity of bliss, whenever we do die beliving on Jesus Christ to Save us.

Yes, wish was a poor choice of words there I accept.

J C wrote: »

... and because He cannot be in the presence of sin ... without punishing it ... and all of us are sinners.

Again, another limitation on God. He cannot be in the presence of sin without punishing it?

J C wrote: »

God becoming man was a once-off ... I suppose He could send down an angel to talk to somebody ... and probably has done so many times ... but will anybody, who doesn't want to believe this?

Another limitation. So God had one shot a the whole Jesus thing. And he can't possibly have another son, I mean he stopped after one apparently

J C wrote: »

They certainly made the mistake of not getting on board the Ark fast enough.
... and there is a lesson there for anybody who refuses Salvation ... when it's offered to them.:)

I was talking about the tsunami, but it nice to know where your compassion lies. By your own admission, we cannot be offered salvation as God cannot be in touch with us directly. All we can be offered is someone elses promise of salvation, again based on third hand information.

The key question is this. Can God interact with us directly? If yes, they why does he not do it? If no, which is your position, I think, then how can you lay any credibility on anything like the bible because at best it is second hand knowledge. The last person to have direct contact with God was Adam and look what happened to him. This is the God you think we should praise?

A God who punishes, who remains detached from the people who love him, who places barriers to anybody who wants to know him, who does nothing to those who are evil.

This all powerful god, on which you have placed an array of limits to his power. An all powerful god who is impotent to the cries of his children, who is unable to deal with the planet he created, who is even unable to deal with the only person who ever stood up to him (Satan) and is now forced to watch as Satan controls some of his children and uses them to cause hardship to others.

An all powerful god, which despite given Adam everything was unable to stop him from defying him. An all powerful god that despite killing every living creature and person on the planet with a few small exceptions in a reset was quickly back in such a position that he felt he needed to break with his own rules and get directly involved through Jesus.

An all powerful god, who despite sending himself down to fix the world, the world continues to be as far from eden as ever, and yet this is our fault.

J C · 30-01-2017 09:28PM

looksee wrote: »

I think I would find it easier to accept 'I have faith' than all that waffly pseudoscience, JC.

... except you haven't accepted what people, who say they have faith, have to tell you about their faith.

looksee wrote: »

I hope you do not have to write scientific papers, you seem to have a very individual understanding of 'proof'.

Proof isn't actually a word used often in science ... which runs largely on hypotheses supported by probablities (usually in excess of 97%).
... the probability of life being created by God is in excess of 99.999999....99999999999999999999999999999... with several hundred 9s percent.:)
... and if you believe that spontaneous processes can squeeze in to claim the other 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000..........00000000000000000000001% ... then all I'll say is that you are a man of very, very great Faith indeed !!!:D

Timberrrrrrrr · 30-01-2017 09:30PM

J C wrote: »

... except you haven't accepted people who say they have faith.

Proof isn't actually a word used often in science ... which runs largely on hypotheses supported by probablities (usually in excess of 97%).
... the probability of life being created by God is in excess of 99.999999....99999999999999999999999999999... with several hundred 9s percent.
... and if you believe that spontaneous processes can squeeze in to claim the other 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000..........00000000000000000000001% ... then all I'll say is that you are a man of very, very great Faith indeed !!!:D

And i'm sure you can back this up with indisputable evidence?

Leroy42 · 30-01-2017 09:32PM

The probability of life being created by something that we have no understanding of is 100%. Whether that is a sentient being is nowhere near a certainty.

to get to the 99.9999999etc as you state we would have to remove basically any other possibility and that is simply not the case. We don't know but that doesn't just leave one possibility.

J C · 30-01-2017 09:41PM

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

You have contradicted yourself so many times in the last few posts i swear my mind is spinning,

"god" can't come down because his mere presence would kill us all but "god" did come before (as jesus) and showed himself to multitudes of people (no mass deaths) because he wanted to but can't do it again because.......something something free will

The God man Jesus Christ was a once off necessity to atone for sin ... thereby creating the opportunity for Salvation ... and the next time we will see Him ... it will be at the end of the World as He comes in judgement ... not something I want to see TBH.

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

He also sent angels before but won't again because.......?

There is nothing stopping Him sending angels ... but the results when He does have been mixed, to say the least !!!

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Why not send a few "powerful" angels that can take care of themselves? Give them immortality or whatever and tell them to visit earth and sort it out? Go cure a few kids with cancer (preferably eradicate cancer all together) stop droughts and starvation, maybe even make every nuke disappear, There wouldn't be an issue with peoples belief then.

That's somewhat like the temptation of Jesus Christ where Satan challenged Him to do apparently good things ... and this was Jesus's answer to these tempting suggestions ... and it's my answer as well:-
Matthew 4:1-11New International Version (NIV)

Jesus Is Tested in the Wilderness
4 Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. 2 After fasting forty days and forty nights, he was hungry. 3 The tempter came to him and said, “If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread.”

4 Jesus answered, “It is written: ‘Man shall not live on bread alone, but on every word that comes from the mouth of God.’”

5 Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. 6 “If you are the Son of God,” he said, “throw yourself down. For it is written:

“‘He will command his angels concerning you,
and they will lift you up in their hands,
so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.’”
7 Jesus answered him, “It is also written: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’”

8 Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. 9 “All this I will give you,” he said, “if you will bow down and worship me.”

10 Jesus said to him, “Away from me, Satan! For it is written: ‘Worship the Lord your God, and serve him only.’”

11 Then the devil left him, and angels came and attended him.

J C · 30-01-2017 09:45PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

The probability of life being created by something that we have no understanding of is 100%. Whether that is a sentient being is nowhere near a certainty.

to get to the 99.9999999etc as you state we would have to remove basically any other possibility and that is simply not the case. We don't know but that doesn't just leave one possibility.

We don't know ... but the only possibilities is/are an intelligence / intelligences of God-like proportions.

Timberrrrrrrr · 30-01-2017 09:46PM

J C wrote: »

We don't know ... but the only possibilities is/are an intelligence / intelligences of God-like proportions.

Says you

J C · 30-01-2017 09:47PM

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

And i'm sure you can back this up with indisputable evidence?

10^130 i.e with 130 zeros after it to one ... which is the odds of producing a specific biomolecule to order using spontaneous processes.

J C · 30-01-2017 09:48PM

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Says you

Says me ... and the observable world of living processes!!!:D

Timberrrrrrrr · 30-01-2017 09:48PM

J C wrote: »

10^130 i.e with 130 zeros after it to one ... which is the odds of producing a specific biomolecule to order using spontaneous processes.

There's that word again,

And the JC repetition circle starts another lap.

J C · 30-01-2017 09:59PM

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

There's that word again,

And the JC repetition circle starts another lap.

... and its a critically important word ... spontaneous processes are capable of producing the most extraordinary complex (and unique) things ... like snowflakes, for example ...
... but the one thing they are hopeless at is spontaneously producing complex specified things ... like cars and planes ... and living things.:)

Timberrrrrrrr · 30-01-2017 10:10PM

J C wrote: »

... and its a critically important word ... spontaneous processes are capable of producing the most extraordinary complex (and unique) things ... like snowflakes, for example ...
... but the one thing they are hopeless at is spontaneously producing complex specified things ... like cars and planes ... and living things.:)

How are you so sure of this? How do you know that right at this moment a living thing isn't being spontaneously created somewhere in the universe?

J C · 30-01-2017 10:46PM

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

How are you so sure of this? How do you know that right at this moment a living thing isn't being spontaneously created somewhere in the universe?

I don't ... but the odds are so overwhelmingly against it, that it's a statistical impossibilty.

... and that's good enough for me ... to be going on with.:pac:

Timberrrrrrrr · 30-01-2017 10:49PM

J C wrote: »

I don't ... but the odds are so overwhelmingly against that it's a statistical impossibilty.

... and that's good enough for me ... to be going on with.:pac:

Exactly! Your mind is closed to any other possibility other than "god" did it.

hinault · 30-01-2017 10:55PM

J C wrote: »

... and its a critically important word ... spontaneous processes are capable of producing the most extraordinary complex (and unique) things ... like snowflakes, for example ...
... but the one thing they are hopeless at is spontaneously producing complex specified things ... like cars and planes ... and living things.:)

The process of "spontaneity" is one issue.

The other issue is who created the law which governs the creation of such complexity?

It seems to me that the process (of creation) is one aspect, but what created the law that governs the behaviour of the creation is another aspect.

J C · 30-01-2017 11:03PM

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Exactly! Your mind is closed to any other possibility other than "god" did it.

... not entirely closed ... just 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 % closed ... just like the odds of God(s) doing it !!!

J C · 30-01-2017 11:07PM

hinault wrote: »

The process of "spontaneity" is one issue.

The other issue is who created the law which governs the creation of such complexity?

It seems to me that the process (of creation) is one aspect, but what created the law that governs the behaviour of the creation is another aspect.

The truism that 'were we find a law there is a law giver' is a compeling argument ... but it is not nearly as amenable to hard scientific proof as the specificity argument.
In fact, it is actually in the softer, philosophical and logics domain.

Pherekydes · 31-01-2017 09:04AM

J C wrote: »

I don't ... but the odds are so overwhelmingly against it, that it's a statistical impossibilty.

... and that's good enough for me ... to be going on with.:pac:

Something that's already happened is not a statistical impossibility.

If you combine two decks of cards and deal them face up, the statistical probability of getting the hand you're dealt is lower than 1 in 10^165. Yet there it is.

hinault · 31-01-2017 02:38PM

Pherekydes wrote: »

Something that's already happened is not a statistical impossibility.

If you combine two decks of cards and deal them face up, the statistical probability of getting the hand you're dealt is lower than 1 in 10^165. Yet there it is.

And the number of times when you combine two decks of cards and don't deal them face up is, how many times? It's entirely possible that one could never derive 1 in 10^165.

Some here appear to make the suggestion that the creation of this Universe could have been attempted multiple times:D
The fact that they hold zero evidence for this suggestion too is a given.

The issue is here is that science cannot explain how matter derived from nothing. Christianity holds that God is the catalyst for creation.

hinault · 31-01-2017 02:42PM

J C wrote: »

The truism that 'were we find a law there is a law giver' is a compeling argument ... but it is not nearly as amenable to hard scientific proof as the specificity argument.
In fact, it is actually in the softer, philosophical and logics domain.

The creation of physical matter is one aspect.
The law governing the behaviour of that physical matter is the other aspect.

It seems that the laws governing behaviours of matter, matter such as the motion of planets, are extrinsic.

It seems that there are two aspects which science has "difficulty" explaining. And that is how it should be because these issues are not explainable through science.

Pherekydes · 31-01-2017 05:21PM

hinault wrote: »

And the number of times when you combine two decks of cards and don't deal them face up is, how many times?

I've no idea what you're trying to say?

J C · 31-01-2017 08:03PM

Pherekydes wrote: »

Something that's already happened is not a statistical impossibility.

Its a certainty (and a requirement) that an intelligence(s) of inordinate capacity created life ... its a statistical (and logical) impossibility that it could be spontaneously generated.

Pherekydes wrote: »

If you combine two decks of cards and deal them face up, the statistical probability of getting the hand you're dealt is lower than 1 in 10^165. Yet there it is.

... and that is where specificity comes in ... we're not just looking for any old 'hand of cards', to use your analogy. If we were, your point would be valid.

... what we're actually looking for is specific 'hands' that perform useful specified functions in living organisms ... and if it was observed that there is a very limited number of permutations of 'hand' that is functional (and they are surrounded by vast areas of non-functional combinatorial space, like we observe with living processes) ... then it would be statistically impossible to produce 'functional' 'hands' of cards with any practical degree of regularity using spontaneous processes ... precisely because of that 10^165 figure.:)

Of course, an intelligent Human can choose to place the cards face up in any specific sequence in a few minutes ... and if you needed 10 different specific sequences produced they could so in about an hour ... so what Human Intelligence can do in less than an hour would defy a spontaneous process to achieve using all of the time and matter in the universe ... and a lot more besides.

... such is the importance of applied intelligence, to producing specified functional phenomena.

Pherekydes · 31-01-2017 08:51PM

J C wrote: »

Its a certainty (and a requirement) that an intelligence(s) of inordinate capacity created life ... its a statistical (and logical) impossibility that it could be spontaneously generated.

... and that is where specificity comes in ... we're not just looking for any old 'hand of cards', to use your analogy. If we were, your point would be valid.

... what we're actually looking for is specific 'hands' that perform useful specified functions in living organisms ... and if it was observed that there is a very limited number of permutations of 'hand' that is functional (and they are surrounded by vast areas of non-functional combinatorial space, like we observe with living processes) ... then it would be statistically impossible to produce 'functional' 'hands' of cards with any practical degree of regularity using spontaneous processes ... precisely because of that 10^165 figure.:)

Of course, an intelligent Human can choose to place the cards face up in any specific sequence in a few minutes ... and if you needed 10 different specific sequences produced they could so in about an hour ... so what Human Intelligence can do in less than an hour would defy a spontaneous process to achieve using all of the time and matter in the universe ... and a lot more besides.

There are some points which you've misunderstood:

The odds of getting the hand dealt are 1 in 10^165. It doesn't have to serve any particular purpose. The odds are the same.
You've previously stated that a probability in the order of the above is a statistical impossibility. Clearly, this is untrue.
The pointlessness of calculating the probability of an event occurring after the event seems to continue to elude you.

J C · 31-01-2017 08:58PM

Pherekydes wrote: »

There are some points which you've misunderstood:
The odds of getting the hand dealt are 1 in 10^165. It doesn't have to serve any particular purpose. The odds are the same.

You've previously stated that a probability in the order of the above is a statistical impossibility. Clearly, this is untrue.

The pointlessness of calculating the probability of an event occurring after the event seems to continue to elude you.

Probabilities are very important ... they are the very basis of science ... where hypotheses are assessed for validity, in general, where they are found to be beyond 97% probability ... and probabilities are invariably done after the event ... because that's when the stats become available,

Where you see a 'hand', dealt like you describe, with a specific sequence, like all cards face up in an exact order, you can conclude definitivley that an intelligent Human did this ... because there are 10^165 ways of not achieving this by a spontaneous process.
.... and the probabilty of it being done by an intelligent human is therefore 99.9999999999999999999999 ... 9999% (with 165 9s after the decimal point).
... which is a statistical certainty.
... ditto when you see similar degrees of specificity in living organisms.

People know intuitively and from experience that this is the case ... but this is the maths that underlies it.

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

Comments