What are you talking about? The Word of God is pure. It brings understanding to all who put their trust in it.
That depends on what you mean by the word of God.
The Bible being written in human languages cannot be pure. God works with human beings and human things in spite of their lack of purity. God demonstrated in the Bible that He doesn’t require purity in that which He works with. He worked with tax collectors, sinners, Peter and Paul despite the fact that they were quite far from any kind of purity.
There’s no connection. Tick still follows tock. Whether God instantiates infinite, eternal, indeterminate being or not.
Got a link on that?
You are probably right, I shouldn’t put my trust in the scripture. For all I know, the god of the scripture could be the Devil and the Devil is the true god. I guess I will just have to wait till I die to find out. Maybe I’m to concerned about faith, love and obedience. Maybe I should just believe All Will Be Well for everyone. Maybe a flip of a coin is as good as trusting in the scriptures when making decisions in this life. That could be a conclusion I could get from many of the posts.
Should I get degrees in Physics and Linguistics so I can truly know God?
Wrong! You should put your trust in scripture. Like I said, God CAN work with things which are not pure. But this includes the warnings of Jesus against judging other people. Trust in scripture to judge for yourself what you should do with your life. But back off when it comes to judging other people. As you leave your own salvation in the hands of God, you should leave the salvation of other people in the hands of God as well. You can witness to the gospel by sharing your own experience without acting like you are God Himself as judge jury and executioner.
God is infinite, so the ways you can know God are likewise infinite. By all means let God be the guide in deciding which way is best for yourself.
I said, “The proof is so blatantly obvious that only a wicked, unrepentant person would turn away from it. ALL OF CREATION CRIES OUT THAT GOD IS. His glory, knowledge, understanding, wisdom and power can been seen by what He has made. It is an unbelieving and sinful heart that rejects the obvious.”
The Spirit says through Paul, Rom 1:19- 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 men are without excuse.” I agreed by saying, “The proof is so blatantly obvious” Paul says it is plain to them , God has made it plain to them , God’s divine nature has been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. So all I did was express what Paul said.
Paul said, Rom 1:28 Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.” I said, “It is an unbelieving and sinful heart that rejects the obvious”. Paul said, “ they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God ” that is a definition of an unbelieving and sinful heart that rejects the obvious. So again, all I did was express what Paul said.
I am afraid you have judged me and your judgment is in error. I fear you have judged the Spirit of God speaking through Paul.
My original point was that God’s creation cries out that He is. Therefore, mankind is without excuse.
Nothing you have quoted says that the existence of God is obvious. All we can conclude is that if a creator God exists then His power and greatness is revealed in what He has created. To be sure this is not an excuse and atheists don’t see this as an excuse to do whatever they want. On the contrary they see people in religion using God as an excuse to do what they want. There are indeed those who have given up on a belief in God but others never had any belief in God and certainly did not think there was good reason to believe in the existence of such a thing let alone that this was obvious. I believe in God now but in the past it certainly didn’t look obvious to me. How could it when I had to figure out what the word “God” could even be talking about?
I have only judged that what you say here in this forum is not only obviously wrong but demonstrably wrong. And yes you have used this false claim as a basis for accusing people of being wicked for believing differently than you do and rejecting what is obvious. But I will not say they do not have an unbelieving and sinful heart because that seems to be true of everyone including Christians. They say they believe and yet they continue to sin so their belief is questionable.
Physics is only my hobby, but what you are saying jives with my limited knowledge on the subject. Staying with the double slit experiment, if you have measuring devices at the slits to determine which slit a particle goes through then you don’t get the interference pattern on the other side of the slits. This is an example of the measuring device making the observation.
Thanks for the correction.
Ok. I will change the word obvious to manifest, NT:5318> phaneros (fan-er-os’); from NT:5316; shining, i.e. apparent (literally or figuratively); neuter (as adverb) publicly, externally:
Or change it to. clearly see, NT:2529 kathorao (kath-or-ah’-o); from NT:2596 and NT:3708; to behold fully, i.e. (figuratively) distinctly apprehend:
So will say it’s not obvious, will just say that the proof of God’s existence is manifest, shining, apparent, made externally public, clearly seen, able to behold fully, and distinctly apprehended.
But what does that mean? How does it work in the real world?
People say prove to me God is real. The fact is, I don’t have to, for God has already proved it, made it manifest through the things He has created. I don’t have to struggle with the unrepentant to try to convince them that God is. What I do is proclaim the good news of the cross of Christ. That through the cross they can die to sin and be born anew, become a new creation in Jesus. That being united in Christ’s death and resurrection they not only will have forgiveness of past sins but will become bound to Jesus. He will be their Lord, not sin, the Devil, money, man or anything else in creation will lord it over them. They will be freed from the bondage to sin, to live a life of righteousness by the new spirit that God births in them and by the power of His Spirit. For freedom sake, Christ has set us free.
I can bypass all the dispute and smoke screen about them not knowing of God’s existence because God says they already know, I can go directly to the call of repentance, love, faith and obedience to God that comes through faith in Christ. Those who turn from their, “not thinking it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God” to placing all their trust and hope in the cross of Christ will be saved from their, “depraved mind and doing what ought not to be done”. It is the power of God, through the New Birth, that delivers all who lean fully on Christ from the power and lordship of sin and Satan.
That is how it works in the real world. I proclaim turning from sin and self love to an absolute trust in Jesus. I preach Christ crucified. He who knew no sin, became sin so that we would become the righteousness of God through Him. God requires the life of the sinner but Jesus paid that price to God with His own life. Jesus is our redeeming sacrifice, the price paid to free us from God’s just wrath.
HOW???
Actually, the human authors of the Bible said that.
The only argument for the existence of God which I have endorsed is “The Neglected Argument” written by Charles Sanders Pierce, described here. The reason I gave was “because it gets a handle on the subjective nature of the choice to believe.” A more cynical description would be that it embraces the fallacy of circularity as if that were a virtue rather than a logical failing. LOL
I agree up to a point. I have said it before and I will say it again… the burden of proof is ALWAYS on the person who expects other people to agree. Whether it is an atheist with some nonsense about how negative claims are special and don’t require proof, or a Christian who has made the Bible the limits of any reality which he will acknowledge – no amount of such special pleading puts the burden of proof on the person you have decided must agree with you.
If that were so, we would have jails full of people who are there for no other reason that not being able to prove their innocence.
Incorrect. Punishing someone for a crime is an extreme example of requiring someone to agree with you. Everyone can believe to their hearts content that he is guilty for whatever reason – but to expect the accused to be punished requires proof. Innocent until proven guilty is an APPLICATION of this principle that the burden of proof is on anyone who expect others to agree with them. The idea that negative claim are special is just ridiculous. Anyone can say their claim is the negative one.
What negative claims? Atheism doesn’t have to make any. Let alone prove them. Despite the name.
According to your logic, a defendant would need to prove their innocence in the absence of any evidence against them.
No they do not. Prosecution and defense can believe whatever they want, with no proof required. The only need for proof is when you want to force your view on someone – which is what you do when you find the defendent guilty and make him pay. It goes to the defense by default because it is the prosecution rather than the defense who is demanding that action be taken. By your logic, it is the defense who brings the case to court – which is not only wrong but absurd.
It is the same with legislation. Whether the law is positive or negative is irrelevant. It is those who want the law passed and thus action to be taken who have to prove their case.