Originally posted by shavixmir
Where did God come from, in the first place to create everything?
This question is probably one of the weakest atheists put forward in attempts to discredit Judeo-Christianity. God--a sentient being--can in no way be compared to the 'thing' that is the universe. For there to have been a Big Bang, there had to have been a cause. For there to have been a cause, there had to have been an instigator. There is simply no way to get around this. To say the instigator needed a cause is to infinitely regress and solves nothing. It then becomes necessary to either say an Intelligence was responsible or all of the laws of physics were specially broken or put aside for the Big Bang event.
The Judeo-Christian stance is that God created the universe and the laws of physics inherent therein. Since space/time is located within the universe, it would be logical to postulate that God originated from outside space/time as we know it. Since we cannot imagine time not existing, we project its limitations on God, and that is just bad science. The premise that an Intelligent Designer created the universe is just as--if not more--sound that it spontaneously and randomly happening with an unknown cause. It then becomes necessary to realize that whatever caused the universe is totally outside and not restricted by its laws. Judeo-Christians say that God is omnipresent, omniscient and eternal. This is totally in line with an Intelligent Designer who is outside (not restricted by) space and time. How can men of 'reason' attempt to dismiss God by applying our laws of physics to Him? This does would be akin to 2D cartoons who--for the purposes of this example--were given sentience and dismissed that they were created because they could not imagine a 3rd dimension. They would be projecting their finite knowledge and abilities onto a theoretically infinitely wise and powerful being. Does this make sense?
Once you come to terms with the knowledge that an Intelligent Designer--something shouted from the way our universe is so fine tuned for us--is just as plausible as an unknown, non-sentient causer for the Big Bang, it becomes necessary to consider if perhaps one of the religions have been truly exposed to this Intelligent Designer. It follows logically that if this Designer created us, He/She/It had a purpose, ranging from a way to spend free time to ultimate fellowship with us. Since most people can agree that life is pleasant most of the time, it stands to reason that this Designer has more love than ill feelings for us, possibly entirely love. It follows logically that if He/She/It loved us, He (H/S/I) would convey that to us somehow. If you love someone, you do not watch them from a distance their entire lives. Judeo/Christians firmly believe that the true Intelligent Designer--God--made contact with them roughly 4,000 years ago.
Many civilizations have claimed to have gods, but these civilizations have since died out, as has the worship of their 'gods'. And many of these 'gods' were suspiciously human-like in their behavior; often having orgies, giving birth to children, being half-animal, cruelly playing around with men. Most civilizations do not even address how we got here, but rather how the gods came to be and their affairs with men.
The Jews claim that their forefathers--Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (a.k.a. Israel)--walked and talked with the true God and that Jacob fathered the 12 tribes of Israel. After captivity in Egypt, the Jews claim that a man, Moses, renewed contact with the true God and led them out of slavery and into the Promised Land. The first book of the Bible explains how the universe, earth, and life came to be. The Hebrew text bears striking similarity to the order of evolution. The next 4 books explain how the Hebrew people should live to please God. The Laws of Moses--the first 5 books--are in striking accord with a loving God explaining to His creation that the cause of all suffering and death in the world is due to their inability to remain holy. He explains that if they wish to earn back fellowship with Him, that they must live in a manner that is righteous and good, and that to atone for their sins and evils, they must sacrifice the blood of innocent animals that take the place of them (because the price of unholiness is death). The other books of the Old Testament contains stories of God's chosen prophets reminding the Hebrews their duty to Him and that in the future a chosen one of God would come to be the ultimate sacrifice for ALL of mankind. Despite thousands of years of warning, the Jews were not prepared when the Messiah--chosen one--came. They were prepared for a conquering king who would end their Roman oppression and bring an everlasting kingdom into the world. They were correct in believing this would eventually happen, but they failed to consider the prophecies that first the Son of Man would come to conquer death, and He did this by sacrificing His own innocent life for the sins of all men. He was the only man in history who had lived a life completely devoid of unholiness, so the loving God the Father was able to accept His loving sacrifice to atone for the sins of all men, past, present and future. In fact, because the loving God knew that man was too enamoured with sin to overcome it themselves, He came Himself in the form of a man--fully human and yet fully God--to atone for sins Himself. Such was the love of this loving Creator, that He died the death for all of us, and conquered it forever when He rose again. He promises us that if we believe He did this for us--a display of love in return for His undying love--that He will give to us what He already possesses; eternal life. However, since He is the embodiment of holiness, He has to be just. He has to reward the faithful and good and punish the unbelieving and evil. Note: evil does not mean a conscious decision to harm someone else, it means a conscious decision to deny holiness and remain in sin. All who make this conscious decision are respected by the loving Creator and put in a place where they needn't witness His holiness. But since the Creator gave us all eternal souls, He will not destroy them, but instead bring the faithful to live with Him and the unfaithful away from Him. Hell is a place totally devoid of God and since God is all goodness, all happiness, and freedom from pain and suffering, Hell is the antithesis of all of this.
But this loving God wishes that none should have to go through this, so He wrote us His infallible Word and gave us the Holy Spirit to testify to His existence, along with the undestroyable Jews. The Jews continued existence in the face of countless persecutions and dispersions through history is an eternal testament to His existence and Divine protection. His Word, which was 100% correct in predicting the Savior of mankind, is undoubtedly 100% correct in predicting our future. And the world is setting itself up to again fulfill what God revealed long ago. A time is coming when God will finally let loose His anger at mankind's rejection of Him and will judge the world with plagues, earthquakes and the dominion of the most evil man in history. But this judgement will serve a double purpose. Those who have mocked and denied Him will see undeniable proof that He exists, and they will have to finally be up front with the Truth that they must either accept His love or reject it. There will be massive conversions to Him during this time, and such is the will of a loving God. The same loving God who first smiled when He thought of creating us. The same loving God who breathed life into our father Adam, and lovingly molded our mother Eve from Adam's rib bone. The same loving God who mourned when He had to destroy most of His creation which forsook Him. The same loving God who did this so that WE could come to be. The same loving God who protected the people who would one day yield our Messiah--our Savior--and die Himself on that cross for us. The same loving God who answers the prayers of those who place their trust in His loving and open arms. The same loving God who will one day be forced to judge all mankind.
Will you accept and recipricate His love or will you deny Him? Time is running out.
Grace be upon you all from the Lord Jesus Christ.
Originally posted by DarfiusGod--a sentient being--can in no way be compared to the 'thing' that is the universe.
Originally posted by shavixmir
[b]Where did God come from, in the first place to create everything?
This question is probably one of the weakest atheists put forward in attempts to discredit Judeo-Christianity. God--a sentient being--can in no way be compared to the 'thing' that is the universe. For there to have been a Big Bang, there had ...[text shortened]... or will you deny Him? Time is running out.
Grace be upon you all from the Lord Jesus Christ.[/b]
God can in many ways be compared to the Universe.
For there to have been a Big Bang, there had to have been a cause.
Maybe, maybe not.
For there to have been a cause, there had to have been an instigator.
An instigator is a person as I understand the word. This is a totally bogus argument. Every cause has a person behind it? Ridiculous.
To say the instigator needed a cause is to infinitely regress and solves nothing.
That's exactly the point. That's why your argument of the First Cause is silly. It solves nothing.
It then becomes necessary to either say an Intelligence was responsible or all of the laws of physics were specially broken or put aside for the Big Bang event.
Creationism breaks laws of physics. I am not sure why you think the Big Bang breaks any laws Creationism does not.
Since space/time is located within the universe, it would be logical to postulate that God originated from outside space/time as we know it.
The phrase "outside space/time" means nothing to me. It seems like a nonsensical statement.
Since we cannot imagine time not existing, we project its limitations on God, and that is just bad science.
For you to say anything whatsoever about God projects your limitations on him. How can you know anything about him?
The premise that an Intelligent Designer created the universe is just as--if not more--sound that it spontaneously and randomly happening with an unknown cause.
I disagree that ID is just as sound as claiming you don't know the cause of something. ID makes a definite claim of reality without legitimate support.
It then becomes necessary to realize that whatever caused the universe is totally outside and not restricted by its laws. Judeo-Christians say that God is omnipresent, omniscient and eternal. This is totally in line with an Intelligent Designer who is outside (not restricted by) space and time.
How can something be outside of space and yet be omnipresent? Does that mean God is also inside of space? Ditto with time.
is just as plausible as an unknown, non-sentient causer for the Big Bang
Just for the record, Big Bang proponents don't claim the cause for the BB, if there was one, is non-sentient. However, it is unknown, which is a more reasonable statement to make than to say you know what it is.
Since most people can agree that life is pleasant most of the time, it stands to reason that this Designer has more love than ill feelings for us, possibly entirely love.
False. If pleasantness in life suggests love, then unpleasantness suggests ill-feeling. Therefore God must have at least some ill will toward us.
It follows logically that if He/She/It loved us, He (H/S/I) would convey that to us somehow.
Either you are wrong, or it follows that God would convey clearly and without doubt that he exists and loves us. God did not do that.
many of these 'gods' were suspiciously human-like in their behavior; often having orgies, giving birth to children, being half-animal, cruelly playing around with men.
It's amazing that you don't see similar qualities in the God of the Old Testament.
The first book of the Bible explains how the universe, earth, and life came to be.
Genesis is internally inconsistent. It describes humans being created both before and after plants, if I remember correctly.
a loving God explaining to His creation that the cause of all suffering and death in the world is due to their inability to remain holy.
Suffering is caused by an inability...if we're not able to be holy, then it's not our fault for not being holy.
to atone for their sins and evils, they must sacrifice the blood of innocent animals that take the place of them (because the price of unholiness is death).
Poor animals. Interesting how humans can hand off their punishments to helpless animals. This is what you think justice is? People not having to pay for their crimes, but instead making animals do it?
God would come to be the ultimate sacrifice for ALL of mankind.
Except for those of us who are atheists, agnostics, Wiccans, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists...
Your religious beliefs are ridiculous, Darfius.
Originally posted by no1marauderI don't think he did. I did some Google searches on random sentences and phrases from his post, a method which works with dj2becker's plagiarized posts, and Google isn't giving me any responses. I think this post is all Darfius' writing.
Darfius' post is obviously a cut and paste given without attribution. I don't think we should respond to such posts; if Darfius wants to argue his beliefs he should be required to give some independent thought and analysis and not simply plagiarize someone's else thoughts.
Originally posted by no1marauderThanks for the compliment, no1. Mind giving me a rec? 😉
Darfius' post is obviously a cut and paste given without attribution. I don't think we should respond to such posts; if Darfius wants to argue his beliefs he should be required to give some independent thought and analysis and not simply plagiarize someone's else thoughts.
God can in many ways be compared to the Universe.
How so?
An instigator is a person as I understand the word. This is a totally bogus argument. Every cause has a person behind it? Ridiculous.
Sorry, instigator or instigation.
That's exactly the point. That's why your argument of the First Cause is silly. It solves nothing.
On the contrary, it solves everything. Once you add sentience to the mix, we have no way of disproving that a sentient being with different attributes than us has always existed. We can always prove that a non-sentient thing had a cause.
Creationism breaks laws of physics. I am not sure why you think the Big Bang breaks any laws Creationism does not.
I think God caused the Big Bang, began evolution, and finally molded Adam and Eve to appear like Neanderthals but to have souls. He breaks the laws only when He has to. He is a God of order.
The phrase "outside space/time" means nothing to me. It seems like a nonsensical statement.
How is it nonsensical? Do you think the universe has an end? Do you believe it is infinitely large?
For you to say anything whatsoever about God projects your limitations on him. How can you know anything about him?
I did nothing. He revealed Himself to me.
I disagree that ID is just as sound as claiming you don't know the cause of something. ID makes a definite claim of reality without legitimate support.
What do you deem legitimate? Answering causal questions if legitimate support. It's a lot better than "I don't know." Why did science embrace evolution rather than "I don't know"? Because any answer is better than no answer. Unless of course that answer is God.
How can something be outside of space and yet be omnipresent? Does that mean God is also inside of space? Ditto with time.
When I say outside space/time, I meant He was outside of it before it existed. Now, He is both within it and outside of it. But being within it doesn't make Him subject to its laws unless He allows it. If I go to Spain, I need not follow their laws unless I choose to.
Just for the record, Big Bang proponents don't claim the cause for the BB, if there was one, is non-sentient. However, it is unknown, which is a more reasonable statement to make than to say you know what it is.
Why is it more reasonable? I would understand if you had no evidence to back up your claim but Christians do have evidence. Perhaps not unquestionable proof--until you accept Him yourself--but definitely evidence.
False. If pleasantness in life suggests love, then unpleasantness suggests ill-feeling. Therefore God must have at least some ill will toward us.
On the contrary, unpleasantness can be explained by the free will choice to reject God. Who is more likely to harm someone else. A Christian following Jesus Christ' example or a neo-Nazi following Hitler's? Now who is more likely to help someone else?
Either you are wrong, or it follows that God would convey clearly and without doubt that he exists and loves us. God did not do that.
He has conveyed it clearly and without doubt to me and millions of others. Your conclusion is false. Now to everyone? Why are those the only two choices? What if He loves us but wants our love in return? Then He wouldn't reveal Himself because that would be coercion. Extenuating circumstances, ATY.
It's amazing that you don't see similar qualities in the God of the Old Testament.
Is the OT God a literal animal? What human-like qualities? What human would care if you kept a certain day holy? What human would care if you made a graven image of them and bowed to it? We are made in the image (eternal soul) of God, so of course we'll have the same emotional qualities.
Genesis is internally inconsistent. It describes humans being created both before and after plants, if I remember correctly.
Contrary to what many "scholars" have reported, Genesis two is not a retelling of Genesis one. How can we determine this to be true? First, we should examine the overall context. Genesis two is considerably different in regard to the emphasis of the content. Genesis one dedicates 4 verses (13😵 to the creation of humans, beginning with verse 26. However, Genesis two dedicates 19 verses (76😵 to the creation of humans, beginning with verse 7. Actually, since there are no real chapter breaks in the original Hebrew manuscripts, the story of the creation of humans continues throughout chapter 3 (another 24 verses). Obviously, the emphasis of the two "versions" is quite different. Part of the problem understanding this passage is because of the poor choice of English words in the common translations. The Hebrew word erets can be translated as "earth" (meaning global) or "land" (referring to a local geographical area). In the Old Testament, erets almost always refers to local geography and not the planet as a whole. We need to examine the context to determine whether erets refers to the entire earth or only a portion of it.
In contrast to Genesis one, there are no indications that the text is referring to global creation. In fact, Genesis 2 begins with God planting a garden8 in a place called Eden, whose location is described in the text that follows. In all, there are three other place names mentioned along with four rivers (verses 10-14). The second place name is Havilah, which is thought to be near the Caspian Sea.9 The third is Cush, which is thought to be a location in Southern Egypt or Ethiopia.10 The fourth is Assyria, which constitutes modern Iraq and Iran.11 Of the four rivers described in the text, only two are definitively identifiable. The Tigris12 and Euphrates13 Rivers run though Iraq and Iran. All the events of Genesis 2 occur in Eden, which is bounded by the three other locations, putting it within the Mesopotamian flood plain.
The narrative continues with descriptions of creation events. Adam was placed in the garden to cultivate it. God brought to Adam the animals He had already created for him to name.14 Since a suitable companion was not found for Adam, God created Eve.15 The narrative concludes with the initiation of the first marriage.16 All the creation descriptions in Genesis two can be attributed to the preparation of a place in which the first humans will live. Therefore, Genesis two further develops the account of mankind's creation at the end of the sixth day.
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/genesis2.html
Suffering is caused by an inability...if we're not able to be holy, then it's not our fault for not being holy.
We're able to be holy, but we choose not to. Even once in life is enough. Do you know anyone who has gone their whole life without once lying, stealing, or lusting?
Poor animals. Interesting how humans can hand off their punishments to helpless animals. This is what you think justice is? People not having to pay for their crimes, but instead making animals do it?
Animals have no souls. They do not fear, or are happy, etc. They simply know when they are surviving and are not. The Jews killed them quickly and mercifully with a quick cut to the neck. It was God's justice, not mine. He values humans above animals, and so accepted the display of faith humans showed by sacrificing their livelihood to Him. But finally He came Himself to be the sacrifice, so even animal sacrifice is no longer necessary if we simply accept His gift.
Except for those of us who are atheists, agnostics, Wiccans, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists...
No, it's for everyone, ATY. Accept it right now. What's stopping you? It's a free gift. You get eternal life with a God who loves seeing you happy. Take it. It's your choice to accept or deny it.
Your religious beliefs are ridiculous, Darfius.
Kind of you to say.
Originally posted by Jay PeateaJesus very rarely broke the laws (remember, He only ministered 3 out of His 33 years). And He only did so to verify His claims for skeptics like you. If He hadn't, you'd be dismissing Him. Since He did, you dismiss Him.
Odd how god created these laws of physics for everyone on this planet, which we all have to live by. Except Jesus who was exempt from some of them. So much for things like equality & justice. Yes it really does depend on who your dad is, when your breaking the law.
Can God win with you, Jay?
Originally posted by Jay PeateaWhat exactly is wrong with the Bible? Remember, only the original Hebrew and Greek texts were 100% free of error. Modern day translations have errors due to copyists, but everything is still inspired.
Also considering how complex & finely tuned the world is. Surely our intelligent designer could have done a better job on the bible ?
Originally posted by DarfiusHe could if I could see this verification myself.
Jesus very rarely broke the laws (remember, He only ministered 3 out of His 33 years). And He only did so to verify His claims for skeptics like you. If He hadn't, you'd be dismissing Him. Since He did, you dismiss Him.
Can God win with you, Jay?
Originally posted by DarfiusDo you read either Hebrew or Greek? I'm betting not, so how do you know that the original texts were free of error. Did someone tell you this or did you read it? And are the original scriptures still around? I'm pretty sure that they aren't. So how do you know that they were free of factual or even spiritual errors? And how do lost scriptures such as the Dead Sea scrolls play into your literal interpretation of the bible?
What exactly is wrong with the Bible? Remember, only the original Hebrew and Greek texts were 100% free of error. Modern day translations have errors due to copyists, but everything is still inspired.
Do you read either Hebrew or Greek?
Nope.
I'm betting not, so how do you know that the original texts were free of error.
They were inspired directly by God. He cannot err.
Did someone tell you this or did you read it?
It is a logical inference and indeed the only one if one believes in God. I read copies of the original Hebrew and Greek with Hebrew-to- English and Greek-to-English dictionaries.
And are the original scriptures still around?
No. But we have more documentation and copies of the originals than any other book of antiquity.
I'm pretty sure that they aren't. So how do you know that they were free of factual or even spiritual errors?
They were inspired directly by God through the Holy Spirit.
And how do lost scriptures such as the Dead Sea scrolls play into your literal interpretation of the bible?
Which Dead Sea Scrolls? The ones that align with the OT only prove that the prophecies that Jesus fulfilled were before His time and not written afterwards. Also, Daniel's prophecies became much more profound.
Originally posted by DarfiusFrom what I read on the net the Greek & Hebrew texts only agree with each other 95% of the time. Obviously I can't confirm this from personel experience, as I can't read greek or herbrew. But certainly it seems feasible. Also there are other regilious text that never made the NT, The gospel of St thomas etc... The fact that there are such things indicates some selective editing. Plus even you can't deny that the gospels were written by man. Then consider mans propensity for getting facts wrongs, for embellishment, for misinteruptation, for fabrication. I doubt very much that Jesus did things exactly the same as is stated in the bible.
What exactly is wrong with the Bible? Remember, only the original Hebrew and Greek texts were 100% free of error. Modern day translations have errors due to copyists, but everything is still inspired.