Why would you think theology or lack of makes you a bad person?  Despite that, it doesn't mean you're not in need of redemption.  If so, you're claiming you've never broken any laws... For the sake of arguement and theological debate that would pull away from your original question, let's assume "any laws" applies to any said "LAW" applied by any random deity throughout history that could possibly be the true god... or not... It's quite a brave claim even putting it to humanistic standards of LAW.  

anyway, I'm kind of disappointed.  I was hoping with my original post to hear from Mr. O who seemed so blunt and specific of his skeptical need for an answer that he automatically assumed doesn't exist.... yet... I have the same need to challenge my understanding of Truth and am asking for the skeptics to come forward with their... I will emphasize RATIONAL AND REASONABLE counters to my belief.   This way, as said by Mr. O.  we can grow.  I hope you're still following this thread Mr. O.

   Get ready for the "free will" explanation.   Nevertheless, our free will is simply an extension of God's free will isn't it ?  Humans are God's design, our limitations are the limitations that he has set for us, and our boundaries are defined by the being who supposedly created us.    If God wanted beings who embodied sinless perfection then how could that have been an obstacle for a God who is basically defined by his ability to create beings with whatever qualities that he desired ?

That's a real conundrum ain't it. Perplexing too. This is the kind of thing that the bunch I'm with wonder about--but no answer.

Alpha Guardianship:  a team of  explorers/adventurers, of which are also academics in engineering, psychiatry, archeology,  physics, law, the medicines, and other fields. In 1985 we took on the bible as a project of study. Our studies were completed in the summer of 1992. We are making the effort to rely the findings to others.  We are not Theists, Deists, Atheists, Christians, and are of no religion other then one we have encountered.  That’s to say-we believe what we found to be true to us in our biblical interpretations.

What Created God? Excellent Question.

From what we see is that there was no God before there was a brain for such a thing to form. We see God as a personage. We don't care to use the term God" anyway, as it an ancient term used to explain things that couldn't be explained. But, we can't use personage without explanation. The bible isn't wrong, it's merely misinterpreted/misunderstood. First off we find Creation in the book to be of a spiritual nature, not material.

But, the material universe was created, but from what? Whatever it formed from had to be forever existing it seems. It's hard to realize (for me anyway) that there was a non existence of anything, that is---a point/time when nothing existed. But from that view one as to ask- if there was a time nothing existed then how did something come to exist. That's the same type of question as, what was before God. And then, what was before existence, that is if at one time nothing existed. There again, absence of anything cannot produce something, because there's nothing there to start with. So, there had to be the makings of  material that came from something. (wow) It is apparent that material did not form from a Personage, because one at this time cannot see if a personage is material, and as best we can tell there has to be material before a personage can form, because a  material brain must form for their to be a personage. (Holy Kow, it's enough to burn your lights out). Being that religions say that God is spiritual, that cannot exist without a brain. There-fore then-there is no God existing as claimed., and that means that God is a personage of one;s self--because that's the only way a persona can exist, and that being within the brain. There's nothing in the book that states that God is separate from people. The "word" of god is told by prophets who had an understanding of a particular personage which always ended up being them selves. Creation is an explanation of that personage which is named Adam. Adam was not the first personage on the planet. at the time of this Adam there were plenty people in plenty places on the planet. Adam is a people not an individual. The Adamites (as we call them) were descendents of the African Bushman tribe that settled in the Tigress/Euphrates area. It is these that became Adam. what makes Adam is one who understands the forces of one,s self and forces that one must live under and adhere to.

    When one knows these forces he can then make adjustments to his person or character. These of course are the forces within one's self as compared to others in their social group, which of course are social forces. From that knowledge one can then understand the social structure and fashon it into some thing they can live together in peace with. What makes Adam is-the enlightenment of the self, which in turn is the personage/God, which in turn ---is choosing the characteristics in which to live by, which in turn can be designated as morals and ethics. From that- the "Human" character comes alive leaving behind the animal characters that cause strife and discontent. So, if you find God in this case-you've found yourself. Now you know everyone. Christianity is the same as Adam, or the return to it/him. So, now you can see plainly that the Pope is not a Christian---he doesn't understand himself. Christians do not seek power, status, authority, or positions above others, that's immoral, or, animal like. No need to make any signs of any cross, that won't improve your human character.

If you think that god is omniscient, then free will is impossible anyway. Furthermore, I have an "actual" relationship with my parents and friends even though their existence is pretty much fact.

An all-knowing being would know in advance if I would break any of its laws and even if I would ask for forgiveness for doing so. It's creation of me would essentially dictate all my actions in advance.

Ah yes... the "free will" explanation.... wait... what's the free will explanation?

An extention of God's free will?  well if that's the case, then even if there is no God, we still have no free will be it that we are subject to the laws of the universe and are confined to the limitations of our evolved mind.  Therefore free will is quite literally a fairytale. 

Then again, what level of free will are you talking about?  Are you talking about the liberty of indifference?  IN other words the ability to do something or not?  Could it be the liberty of Spontinaety?  This would be the idea that we're still free even though we might not have a choice in a situation.  E.g. someone holds a gun to your head and says you have to walk off a cliff... in that situation you still have freedom to choose, either get shot or walk off a cliff, but one who believes in liberty of indifference would view that as not being free becasue you're forced to make a decision that has no outcome in your favor. 

I think the real question here is does forseeing a future event have to have "truth value"  In other words, does a future event that is observable have to come true just becasue it's been observed?  I don't believe so... thoughts?

Conclusive evidence is subjective.  Those who would claim to have an actual relationship (at least many of them) would say the only way they can have that relationship is with conclusive evidence.  The problem with an atheistic approach to this is generally that "conclusive" automatically assumes physical. 

What would prevent you from having an actual relationship with a god who's existence is comparable to your parents is again your choice in the matter.  Instead of being born knowing they're your parents, you're introduced to him later in life when you're able to relate and understand then are allowed to make a choice whether you want to persue a relationship with him or not.  If you choose to persue it is a life long persuit, kind of like choosing to marry that special person.  Just like any other relationship, there are ups and downs and it requires a constant effort to keep it going strong. 

Hi OPIE,

this stupid thread is still active? lol. Augustine of Hippo answered this philosophically speaking 1600 years ago. So if you raise this then logically you are not very educated.

Why was that RedNeck guy picking on Clarin? lol .

Anyway, I will answer your question if you answer mine.

"where did matter come from? "  If you are of the position that matter is finite, then where did the dense energy come from that created the big bang?

This thread is one of the top uneducated threads out there. It makes me smile there it is on display for others to see.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

That's kind of broad.  Evidences could be statistical like the timing and results of certain outcomes that have been associated with prayer to God, or God's actions, e.g. parting of the Reed Sea.  (the non-physical evidence being the timing of the event and the outcome despite the event itself being physical)

They could be scientifically unexplainable phenomenon through study tied to a work of God as an official miracle as investigated by the Vatican... e.g. person X healed from an incurable disease without any recourse (based on a few confirmations) also physical results, but due to the investigation, the association with God would have to be proven prayer as well as no explainable, medical or scientific explanation as to the cure or how the person came out of it.  (a non-physical means to a result)

It could be Biblical, be it that the Bible has yet to make a claim that has not come true, many would attest to this, though most atheists would claim it to be hind-sight rewriting despite the evidences against that possibility. 

It could be evidences discovered through scientific investigation that can be associated with acts of God such as signalless communication as exampled by the Aspect Experiment (photons affecting one another without signals through space and time) which would explain God interacting with the physical without leaving a trace or evidence of an outside influence. 

Among the categories are 1 of many examples from each category.  There are more angles to take, but again, evidences are subjective, so each would have to be taken into consideration by the person questioning them.  (I"m sure you already looked at one or more of them and decided they're not evidence of God) Therefore, I always ask, what would you be looking for for non-physical evidence?  What would you need in other words to consider the subject further?

Exactly.  Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying.   Likewise with God. 

No.. silly ;p  matter came from the heart... because without love, nothing matters.  Ahthanku

From what I understand, he doesn't want a relationship with you just because you realize He exists... He wants a relationship with you because you want to know Him... those who want to know Him will seek Him.. and He will find them.  (reveil himself to them)

that's a very good question.

NOTE:  Genesis is generally understood not to be a literal chronological book, but only a record of events that would have taken place.   Most of what was written was notated or memorized... it's very easy to get the order of a list of events mixed up by memory or quick notation.  (esp. when notepads and pencils were not easily accessible.)

As far as the Red Sea parting and the global flood, there are geological evidences that would suggest their possibility...

As for the Earth stopping rotation.  I remember lookiing into that... there are many cultures all over the world that have recorded a double day in their calendar.   i've heard there's evidence of a supernova that would have given daylight brightness.  I have not investigated the claim far enough to confirm at this point. 

IT is my understanding that God logically would work within the limits of the environment He created so as to not make more work for Himself by upsetting the laws and causing greater problems when just a small scale event was to take place. 

wait... so you're telling me that if someone can't find God, then they're tortured eternally?  Where in the Bible does it say that? (seeking God and not finding vs. following other gods are 2 majorly different angles)

As far as your scenario of someone who honestly seeks and finds nothing, I'd probably need a detailed example of what you might be talking about, otherwise, I can only go on assumption.  What I can tell you from that is the conclusion that someone honestly seeks and finds nothing results in eternal torture is religious propaganda and has no basis in scripture. 

Some people can seek and allegedly find nothing all their lives, but denominationalism would tell you that results in eternal torture.  Ask anyone who claims that to support it scripturally and I'm willing to bet they'll run you through scripture all over the Bible until your head spins so that they can peice their rendition of the God puzzle together so it makes sense according to their adjenda.  Denominationalism would tell you that though they've been seeking, they refused to accept and/or look at their denomination and their way of knowing God and therefore it is that persons fault or either rejecting or neglecting that way... though every other denominationalist from opposing denominations would claim the same thing... so who's right? I would say none of them. 

So, what you really mean is that with the proper amount of interpretation and rationalization nothing the Bible claims can be proven to be absolutely impossible.  This applies to every book ever written.

Hi Blacklight, Cap,

The Bible says nobody seeks God (Romans 3:10). So if nobody seeks God, then logically nobody can find God because nobody is good (Romans 3:11-12).

So if nobody ever ever seeks God, and nobody ever does any good, where seeking God would be a good thing, then the 64,000 dollar question, how does one become a Chrisitan?

Come on, you can do it. Answer the question before you look in John 6:44. Or redefine by being ignorant of what the Greek says and tell me Paul actually was talking about what he wanted on his cheesburger at burger king.

Respectfully,

Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).

Try sticking to free will as simply meaning free will, ...that uncomplicated definition will suffice for my argument, okay ?    I stated "If God wanted beings who embodied sinless perfection then how could that have been an obstacle for a God who is basically defined by his ability to create beings with whatever qualities that he desired?"  

Creating beings who possess free will plus sinless perfection shouldn't be any problem whatsoever.  Will you have free will in Heaven ?  Will you be able to sin in heaven ? If that is what you believe then one could not help but wonder why your God wouldn't have simply made this his model for all spiritual being from the time he created them.

 If it's within God's power to combine these two traits ( free will + incapable of sinning ) in regards to the heavenly saints then why the "HELL" wouldn't he simply do that from the very beginning of creation

and avoid all the tremendous heartache that came from intentionally leaving the door open for sin?  It could have easily been avoided.  Your concept of free will in Heaven is the proof.

therefore no books carry weight.  Nothing can be believed unless it is experienced first hand.. got it.

I'm kind of tired, so I'll address what you said about Hell in my next post.

You're exactly right!  Furthermore, I would say that this applies equally well to the myths of every other ancient civilization: they did the best they could with what they had. So, my question is why you take one particular set of myths to be accurate when they all have such similar bases?

Your impressions are flawed: just like it seems to you that most atheists are looking for every excuse not to believe, it seems to most atheists that you're looking for every excuse to believe. Since both sides think the other's impressions are wrong, it would make sense to try to figure out why.

Thankfully, the vast majority of people aren't under the impression that the story of Cinderella is factually accurate...

That's a very good question.  There are many reasons including the relationship I've built with God... but focusing on what would be relevent to you, from all alleged myths, this one has the most support in history, science, geology, archaeology, etc. as well as the longest history... in fact, most other myths from most other cultures have been found to originate from the following of this particular god but got either misinterpreted or altered by a particular person or entity and ended up creating a new following.  See "The Next Christiandom" .  it does a good job at creating a well supported timeline of the progression of world religions. 

Beyond that, this God has been known all over the world to be active in the lives of the people who follow Him... there are many stories of events that took place that parallel the works of this God, I would be skeptical of course except for the sources being reliable and me witnessing some minor stuff as well...  Most other myths or gods have not been proven to be active let alone there, in fact, many times they must be objectified to worship. 

for over 4 years I've been doing that.  For those who actually do want to figure out why, they act like you do, asking honest logical questions and/or starting new threads with me to get more deep into each other's reasoning... again I can count on 1 hand those who have done that... the rest, though I ask them to work with me and challenge their own understanding as I'm doing tend to become circular and redundant regardless of the effort to bring progress to the conversation.  Many also will ask a question then leave, never to be heard from again... those I can't of course say either way.  It's possible that some threads I have been involved in only attracted those circular atheists.  don't know. 

Lemme correct my wording.  I didn't want to stereotype atheists in general.  I was specifiying to my experience on this site...  most of my friends are atheists and I have to say they're not like that.  They legitimately can't rationalize God and are not looking for excuses for their understanding.  Some of them are simply just not interested in challenging their understanding and they're up front and honest about that.  Sorry if I came across as pigeonholing atheists in general.  I do agree that most atheists in general do want to understand and aren't looking for excuses to not believe. 

...and if asked why, I'm sure most could come up with very logical reasoning. 

    caposkia in light of that biblical viewpoint do you believe over the endless span of eternity that periodically there will be defectors from Heaven ?   ( ......the population of Heaven would actually decrease ?  )   

 That would seem to be the logical implication.

So, are you saying it's possible for there to be free will and no evil?

Are you defining evil as any choice that is contrary to a prefered choice of God, or as literal as breaking a specific law put in place..

I guess either way, it's possible, but with free will, there'd always be the opportunity for evil.  Evil doesn't happen or come without choice, directly or indirectly. 

In this particular situaton, in reference to life in Heaven, it's truly hard to make a call... heaven would be a place where Satan, corruption, countless temptations etc. wouldn't exist.  Be it that we live in a world with all those things, it's hard to imagine a life without such a bombardment of means to "evil" and therefore logic would say from experience that it's not possible, but logic would also say it is possible if certain named elements were not a factor. 

The Bible makes many references to life in the flesh vs. spiritual life, flesh being sinful and spiritual being pure.  It sounds as if the temptation to sin is not there spiritually, so it'd have to be a well thought out choice to do so, not ignorance, poor judgement or a blinded decision as sin is in the world today.  

I agree.  Discrepancies are to be found regarding almost every theological topic imaginable; Christians can't even agree between themselves as to who among them is even a true believer™

  Yes, I am familiar with Hades / Sheol.

  Yes. I remember.

 Doesn't make sense to me either.  Clarity doesn't seem to be very high on God's list of priorities which is even more puzzling in light of verses like I Corinthian 14:33 ( God is not the author of confusion...)

  More deliberately muddled communication from the Creator apparently.

  No, I think any God would do well to inform his potential followers exactly what to expect.  If the whole entire relationship is to culminate at some future paradise why be coy about it ?   God certainly wasn't obscure as to what to expect concerning Hell was he ?  (  I know, that's also a point of dispute among believers ! )

Parents don't usually send their children to Hell to be eternally tortured for the dumb choices they've made.

  Again, why wouldn't God give these two newly minted human beings the benefit of his Divine perspective ?   ( God to Adam and Eve: "Oh, did I forget to mention that tricky talking serpent in the Garden ? My Bad ! )

    ( Adam and Eve to God: "Thanks God !  Appreciate the heads up !" )

   Pretty crappy parenting given the eternal stakes that were involved, wouldn't you say ?  Adam and Eve trusted God who gave them his instructions yet somehow God failed to warn them about a beguiling creature who could easily take advantage of their complete lack of knowledge regarding lies and deception.  Complicates things, doesn't it ?

      Have we ever heard of the watch maker analogy ?  How long have you been visiting atheist forums Rekeisha ?

I'm sorry caposkia but your answers are so full of "maybe this"  and "possibly that" and are otherwise so full of qualifying language that I don't know why I should even ask you to explain anything.  And speaking as a former Protestant Christian of very orthodox leanings many of your interpretations would place you squarely outside of the vast majority of mainstream beliefs.  Make no mistake, my view is that you are all involved in massive self-deception but you would be considered an outsider to the vast majority of Christian followers. 

 Despite my criticism, I believe that you are a sincere, honorable person and are probably a quite likable person in the real world.  I could see myself getting along with you quite well despite our theistic differences which is something that I could scarcely say about most of the other Christians who post on this forum.