Abbadon,
It really is that simple, and I think most readers of this thread will have seen that god could have encoded enough into the creation account to prove divine inspiration, and that therefore any lack of belief in god is due to god not providing it. Your conunter arguments have failed, which is why you clutch to the remnants of them like straws...
In actuality no matter what God could have "encoded" in the creation account, it would still not have been enough to prove to you divine inspiration. You judge God according to what you think he should have done. A universe consistent, and logical, with intelligent life that is able to contemplate its existence to you offers no prove that God exists, to me it offers all the proof I need.
Rather obviously if there is an all-powerful god, what you say is right; he could just blot out everything. I though I was rather obviously talking about the moral rightness of an action rather than an inability to do an action, so don't know why you are pointing this out, as it's not pertinant to the discussion of moral rightness.
It is germane to the subject, of moral rightness, for morally God could do what ever he wants to His creation, He owes us nothing. I was making a point about moral culpability, for man is spoken of in Scriture as being made out of clay, to signify God as a potter, that can make some for an honorable purpose and some for dishonorable (Rom.9:14-21). No charge can be leveled against Him, for we belong to Him, to do with us as He see fit. No matter how much we protest about His perceived injustices, that are merely according to our limited intellectual capacities and lack of thorough understanding of His ways.
The universe gives clear testimony in my estimation, to a superior intelligence that is far vaster than our little human peanut brains can comprehend.
However, his supposed divine book makes statements about his standards, and implies that we are made in god's image and our sense of right and wrong are derived from. Yes or no?
Yes the Scriptures do indicate that we have received a sense of right and wrong implanted in us, but also please do not forget, we also received "free will". Which complicates things, considerably.
I think though you are confused on some issues, while God gave man a sense of right and wrong to help guide him He also gave man "free will" which would allow him to choose, between the two and not automatically to follow the sense of right as if locked into it like a robot.
God never gave man omnipotence to know absolutely what is right and wrong in every matter for God never made man to be an independent creature, that is independent of his Creator. Nowhere is that ever implied in Scripture. God made man to be subservient to him always, which is perfectly within in God's rights morally, since He made everything.
If god had said; "I can do what I like", then he would be able to do what he likes. But god has made it clear certain things are wrong and unfair. The actions in the account of Babel fall under that description BY GOD's OWN STANDARDS. What do we call someone who doesn't act according to their own standards?
You say by God's own standards He is judged, for what he did at the Tower Babel, I don't know what you mean?
And the stories where the Israelites are authorised to ethnically cleanse entire regions, or kill off everyone apart from female virgins who would be sex slaves? That shows that "He can do what ever he wants because He's the Creator.", but it doesn't mean I'd worship such a beast. What are your justifications for god endorsed child rape? And does the above quote mean you cannot find any other excuse for the bahaviour at Babel, other than 'god can do what he likes'?
God can do what He see fit, He doesn't have to run it by us to get our OK, is more accurate, and in line with the contexts of my statements.
We in our limited capacity may not see the justification for such actions. Our even worse we may have a propensity to judge God, without wanting to examine all the facts.
As far as God's endorsement of child rape, that you claim, I do not see any evidence of it.
I get a different message; that god is an idea made by man, as in this story he acts just like a man. I notice you don't try and defend the reasonableness or consistancy of the actions when viewed with the 'fall' in mind, but rather say 'god can do what he likes'.
As I already stated, the Genesis account uses anthropomorphic terms referring to the Creator and is highly metaphorical. Its purpose, is not to give a scientific description of God, for there is none. Throughout the Scriptures anthropomorphic metaphorical terms are used repeatedly in reference to God. Common sense, tells us that God created time and space, and therefore exists outside of these, and is not confined to them, and neither does he need these things to exist. God's existence, God's person, cannot be described, by any human terms no matter how scientific. Therefore any description of God, is metaphorical.
If god will do whatever he likes even if it defies his own standards, then he is not a fit god. Please give justification and reasoning if you disagree with this.
God does not defies his own standards, God is moral, and at great sacrifice to Himself. You and I do not fully understand God's moral standards, nor do you or I, fully understand why there is suffering in the world. You speak so absolutely, with such little knowledge.
I think the greatest example we have of God not defying his own moral standards on a whim, is the fact that he literally came into this universe was born of a virgin, and suffered one of the most horrible death imaginable. I have no doubt that Jesus was God. Jesus when he was walked this earth was God, divested of his divinity and transformed to a lowly human, with all its limitations, and suffered all the problems commom to men of his day.
He was born a helpless baby, that crapped in his pants like babies do, had to suck breasts, and learn how to walk just like babies do, got sick with all the common sickness that people suffered, had to work to make a living, in effect had to suffer all the things that people of that time had to suffer.
Jesus who was God knew his purpose for coming to the earth and did not back away from it. He was frightened and terrorized by the death that he had to undergo it caused Him great anxiety and pain but he did it, he could've chickened out he could've called on 12 legions of angels, to rescue him, but he didn't.
Jesus coming down to this earth, is the word of God in the flesh, it is God in a form that we can understand thoroughly. The qualities that God displayed in this human form, gives all those that have faith, reason to believe that God is indeed love. And while we may not understand completely, why God has allowed suffering in the world, we do know God is not asking us to do something He Himself would not do.
Of course you do not believe in Jesus Christ, or that he was God, and so this probably means nothing to you.
If it is wrong that a human ruler rule by terror and violence and pays no heed to what conceptions of justice his subjects have, why is it okay for god to do it? Surely wrong is wrong, or can god do anything and still be right? Please provide evidence for all presuppositions.
Human ruler's have limits to their authority, God's rulership has no limit. Man's thoughts are not God's thoughts the Bible clearly brings that out. To expect that God can not proceed until he gets the okay from us, is ludicrous. To expect God to explain everything to us as if he needed to make an excuse for doing what he's doing is ludicrous as well.
God places a high-value on faith in Him. If we have no faith in God we will speak in the same manner, as yourself. Fault finding, judging, and ridiculing God, are all manifestations of a lack of faith.
And YOU said it was a contract; can we see a pattern in the way you handle people pointing out that god broke it if it were a contract (they provide evidence against your position, you maintain your belief despite this) when compared to your attitude with volcanos?
You speak as if, you positively proved every point. You did not. Perhaps to your satisfaction, and others who share your views you've proven your point, but only on a very subjective basis. Objectively proving your point, you have not.
I've noticed that about you, you have a very subjective way of veiwing things, and try to make it appear objective. You even use the fallacious idea that science somehow disapproves God's existence. It does not.
And the Anthropic principle!!! Oh.... you mean like there is no way of determining if we JUST HAPPEN to live in a Universe with these conditions, as we could ONLY KNOW we lived in a Universe with these conditions IF WE LIVED in a Universe with these conditions? i.e. we only see it as remarkable because it happened, there would have been no observers like us to see it any other way? You really want to get into that one, go ahead; I'd far rather you tied up the lose ends you currently have before going into bait and switch...
Abbadon, sometimes you sounds so silly, to me anyway, trying to give the impression, that science can explain how "anything" came into existence, from nothing.
These are subjects that are outside the realm of science. These are subjects which science can not speak on, but you try to make it look like it does.
