If God Ever Stopped Intervening In Nature....

I just read through this string, and I found the conversation most enjoyable. Thank you to all whom have participated.Many seam to thing that ‘a god having total control’ and us having ‘Free will’ is inherently contradictory.I believe if we could define a few terms, and put some things into perspective, it would go a long way to helping us with this issue.First, I would like to suggest that if you do not accept the premise that ‘God exists’ then nothing, from that point on, is going to make any sense to you.Second, would you not say that: Just because something seems contradictory does not necessarily mean that it is contradictory; and therefore wrong? Just like with Light, if we can accept ‘God’ exists and operates independent of our universe; then it brings, what seemed like, a contradiction into an understandable and reasonable explanation.Getting the correct ‘Perspective’ is the first step in any scientific endeavor; is it not?So, if I am trying to limit ‘the Creator’ to ‘the creation’ then what the Bible says about God would seem ridiculous; however, if we see God as existing and operating in 11+ dimensions (I.e. inside and outside of our universe) then, just like with Light, the seeming contradictions disappear.I realize I am getting long winded here, and I do apologize.Thank you for reading,
JRTjr

Dear Mr. Coyote,Thank you for the warm welcome to this string.I agree with you 100% that Science deals with evidence, which in turn is used to construct hypotheses.However, your argument against logic can also be used against ‘Science’, and everything else for that matter. In any endeavor, if you start off with a faulty premise you’re going to get the wrong answer; would you not agree?Not only that; but I would go as far as to say if you get faulty information anywhere in an equation you’re going to get something other than the absolute correct answer. You may get something close but sometimes even ‘close’ can be detrimental.I would also say that Logic is a foundational stepping stone for Science.(Please note here when I use the word ‘Logic’ I’m talking about: convincing forcefulness; inexorable truth or persuasiveness: the irresistible logic of the facts. Dictionary.com)In any scientific endeavor you must be able to strip away emotional attachments, preconceived ideas, and self-willed dogmas to get to what is factual; for anyone of these can lead you down the wrong path. Would you not agree? I’m sorry; I beg to differ.The ‘scientific method and logic’ must be used to determine if a deity/deities exist; and if they/it exists then those same method should be employed to determine what roll they/it played/plays in the existence and operation of the universes. Would you not agree?Great hearing from you,
JRTjr01

Dear NoNukes,Thank you for your response.Talk about a paradox. I can give evidence both for the existence of God and that He operated outside of our universe; however, to do that you must be willing to look at the evidence and accept it.This is a function of our ‘Free will’; the evidence for God’s existence and operation in our universe is overwhelming, but, if you’re not willing to accept the possibility that there is a Creator then no evidence will persuade you.This is why we do these discussions on this website, why we have zillions of religions around our world. Because different people accept different things as factual and based on their ‘rose colored glasses’ believe in different things.We have to fight beyond what we want to believe (trust in, cling to, rely on ) and be willing to go wherever the evidence (Facts, what is actual verses what is imagined ) leads us if we want to know what is true/factual/actual and real.So, if you’re willing to strip away everything to get to the truth (what is factual, actual and real); then you must start with the first premise.Do you agree that there is enough scientific evidence to state that: The universe is real (Not imaginary, fictional, or pretended: ACTUAL.)Please, don’t laugh, I’m not joking; I’ve actually had someone on this website trying to argue that ‘we all live in the matrix; and that we cannot know reality’.Like with a lot of things having to do with science; there is not simple 1+1=2 answer to this problem. So, if you’re interested, we can take it one step at a time. Thanks for your interesting question; I look forward to your answer,
JRTjr01

Dear Coyote,Great hearing back from you, I am sorry; I don’t think I am making myself clear.I was trying to say that ‘collecting evidence’ is a function of ‘science’; not a prelude to it.Could you agree with that?Thanks again for your thoughts,
JRTjr01

Dear NoNukes,Thanks for your interest. Two, things:First, I could give you a ten page thesis on the existence and operation of a Creator in and outside of our universe; however, I have been asked to keep my posts to a single page or so. So, to present the entire argument I would have to do so in another venue.Secondly, I am presenting my argument; one statement at a time. This way we can discuss each facet of it without going into tens of pages reviewing each point, and counter point.This also gives me, and you both, an idea where each of us is coming from and what evidence respectively will be accepted.If you want the whole thing at once; I could e-mail you a word document detailing my argument for the existence of a Creator. Just give me a week or so to pull it together and finalize it.If you care to continue here we can still do that as well.Great hearing from you,
JRTjr01

Dear Coyote, I’m sorry Coyote, I do not remember making any points about science as it relates, or may relate, to a deity. I was talking about the relation of ‘Evidence’ to ‘Science’. I completely and wholeheartedly agree.I would, also, go further and say that: ‘Evidence without contexts is no evidence at all’. In other words, if you have a piece of evidence, but fail to place that evidence in its proper contexts you’re going to get a distorted model (a distorted view of what that evidence means).Thank you again for your continued interest,
JRTjr01

Dear NoNukes,I’m sorry; I misunderstood your original question.I thought you wanted me to give evince for the existence of God, then evidence for His operation independent of our universe, and then how ‘Free Will’ and ‘a god having total control’ can be true.I did not notice you had already acknowledged the first two premises; my sincerest apologies. As to the Paradox:First, if I may, let me play ‘Devil’s Advocate’ here for a moment.You ask: show that ‘a god having total control’ and us having ‘Free will’ is not inherently contradictory.To which I could simply answer: God, having total control of all that is, in no way impacts our ‘Free Will’ so long as it is His will that we have ‘Free Will’.In other words: the All Mighty, using His ‘Total Control’ of the universe, chooses to give us the freedom to make choices.No contradiction. If the All Mighty, using His ‘Total Control’ of the universe, did not give us the freedom to make choices, and we were making choices without his allowing them then that would be a contradiction.However, I do not think that is exactly what you meant to ask; is it?I believe what you meant to ask is: If God chooses who is ‘saved’ and who is condemned then how can I have a choice to accept or reject salvation?So, just to be clear, are you asking me: Explain how the Bible can teach ‘Freedom of Choice’ and ‘Pre-destination’ simultaneously and still not be contradicting itself? Example: Proverbs 16: 9, Joel 2: 32If that is really your question; can we talk about something simple, like trigonometry?;-} All kidding aside; you have to understand a little about multi-dimensional physics to make sense of how God selects who will be save and, at the same time, without opposing God’s will, we can chose to be saved.Just like it is difficult for most people to understand, and accept, that something happening on a timeline outside of our universe does not have a place on our timeline.However, I have attached a link to this page to an audio clip from a series by Dr. Hugh Ross called ‘Biblical Paradoxes’ that may clear up some of the confusion.He explains it far better than I ever could.This clip is almost 52 minutes long; the entire series is over 10 Hours.P.s. I am glad to hear that you do not need to be convinced that God exists; however, I would like to suggest that no one should take anything as true without at least some evidence."But test and prove all things [until you can recognize] what is good; [to that] hold fast."
(1 Thessalonians 5:21 AMP)Hope this helps you,
JRTjr.Edited by JRTjr01, : Added on ‘P.s.’, and minor editing.

Dear NoNukes,Great hearing from you again. I’m sorry, I do not understand your contention; how does God giving mankind the freedom to make choices cause Him (God) to loose ‘Total Control’ over anything?Hope to hear from you soon,
JRTjr

Dear Ringo,Thanks for joining the festivities; hope you enjoy your stay. You are absolutely correct; I agree with you 100%. Unfortunately, I have to, respectfully, disagree with you on this one.Just because ‘most people’ agree on something does not make it true/factual/correct.Thousands, even hundres, of years ago ‘most people’ thought the Sun revolved around the Earth; that did not mean it was true, factual or correct.I would say that evidence must be based on objective truth. Again, I agree with you 100%; however, I’m not saying you must first accept something as true and then find evidence for it. I’m saying that: if you want to get to the Truth (what is factual/real) you must be willing to follow the evidence wherever it leads.For instance: some Atheists have said ‘There is no god therefore there can be no evidence for god’. They are putting a presupposition before the evidence and calling that science.The only thing that I see that we need before evidence is a conviction that there is reality.In other words: there are things that are True, Real, and Factual outside of what we want or chose to believe as individuals or collectively.Great hearing from you,
JRTjr

Definitions:

​

Truth:

​

2that which is true; statement, ect. That accords with fact or reality 3an established or verified fact, principle, ect.

​

Fact:

​

2a thing that has actually happened or that is really true; thing that has been or is 3the state of things as they are; reality; actuality; truth [Fact as distinct from fancy].

​

Science:

​

1orig., the state or fact of knowledge; knowledge 2systematized knowledge derived from observation, study, and experimentation carried on in order to determine the nature or principles of what is being studied.

​

Real:

​

1Not imaginary, fictional, or pretended: ACTUAL

Dear Straggler,I have conversed with a few of the others in this string; but have just now gone to the top to see what started this all.Thanks for the interesting topic.I notice that several have commented on your post but it looks like no one has tried to actually answer your questions.If you don’t mind, I’d like to take a stab at it. A far as I know, only the Bible (Hebrew Torah, Christian New Testament) states that there is only one God and that this God actively intervenes in; and ‘holds up’ the Universe. If I may, let me try to answer these with a ‘Word Picture’.Imagine you are holding an ornament by its hook. You are ‘Actively’ sustaining that ornament in midair.The bacteria on the inside of the ornament may not even be aware that you exist or even that if you let the ornament fall they would all die; but that does not change the fact that you are actively holding their world together.This is how it is presented in the Bible. The Creator is actively sustaining our universe from outside of our four dimensional universe.If He ever stopped; our universe would simply cease to exist.This is why I thank God that He has allowed me to exist for as long as He has.Thanks for questioning,
JRTjrEdited by JRTjr01, : Minor Corrections

Dear NoNukes,Hay, great hearing from you again; hope you’re doing well. I hear ya! It’s amazing to me to see (presumably) intelligent people treat their ‘opinions’ as {pardon the pun} Gospel truth. I’m going to give you some Scripters to look up and I'll let you make that determination on your own. Isaiah 40: 26, Isaiah 48:13, Hebrews 1: 2 & 3, and Colossians 1: 16 & 17.Hope to hear from you again soon; please, let me know what you decide,
JRTjr

Dear Ringo,Great hearing from you again, hope your day is going well. Are you ‘Absolutely’ sure There is no absolute truth.???; and more importantly, can you prove it???:-}Hope to hear from you soon,
JRTjr

Dear Ringo,How’s it going, hope you are well. Actually, I said: I would say that evidence must be based on objective truth. To which you replied: There is no absolute truth.You are the one making a claim about whether or not ‘absolute/objective truth’ is factual; therefore, by your own supposition, would it not be you who must back up his claim??However, I have already made a case for ‘absolute Truth’ in the question I asked you: Are you ‘Absolutely’ sure There is no absolute truth.???With that said; let me just expand on my statement by quoting something I said to someone else who was making a similar argument.His argument was: facts may exist but they are forever inaccessible to us. In the definitions I gave in a previous post ‘Truth’, ‘Fact’, and ‘Real’ are pretty much interchangeable; so you can substitute ‘absolute Truth’ for ‘Fact’ in what I said and it still holds water.Hope I have not lost you there,
JRTjr

Dear Ringo,Always fun hearing from you. O.k. I’m not going to argue over who made the claim and who should prove their position because this is to fun a topic to pass up.I was going to go a different rout with your comment but I think I found something that will help you understand my position on what truth is.I dropped the word ‘Absolute’ because saying ‘Absolute Truth’ is like saying ‘Real’ reality; something is either true or falts.I took these quotes from Stand to Reason: If someone says... Great fun,
JRTjrEdited by JRTjr01, : Went different rout.Edited by JRTjr01, : Accidentally left something out.

Dear Ringo,Always a pleasure hearing from you; thanks for your continued interest.I’m not trying to be malicious here, however, you’re still vacillating; are we now talking about disputing the claim that there is absolute truth. Or are we talking about Absolute truth is a philosophical construct. If it does exist, we can never know what it is.First you were trying to say that ‘absolute truth’ absolutely does not exist; now you’re saying it may exist but we can’t know that it exists if in fact it does exist.Both, please forgive my bluntness here, are poppycock.Just as we could not know that absolute truth does not exist because to know that would, in itself, be and ‘absolute truth’; If it does exist knowing we could not know it would, again, be an ‘absolute truth’ we would know. Even a school child should know that this is not the definition of ‘Objective truth’ it is the definition on ‘Subjective Truth’. If you actually picked up a Dictionary you would find these definitions: In other words ‘Objective truth’ means: ‘Something that accords with established or verified fact’, reality existing independent of thought (what people think) or an observer (No one has to see it to know that it is true, real, factual, etc.). ‘Objective’ ‘Truth’ as opposed to ‘Subjective’ ‘Truth’.That is the problem we (Mankind) have with things like ‘Truth’, ‘Fact’, and ‘Real’ they do not bend to our will, they cannot be swayed by public opinion, they are Immutable Laws we cannot break; and we love breaking Laws.But, none of that changes what is ‘Real’, ‘Objectively True’, ‘Absolutely True’, or ‘Factual’.Some people will admit that there are things they cannot do {My body cannot survive in a vacuum} others, even though they cannot break these laws will stubbornly continue to try; even if it kills. Those who agree with them will say Ya, but at least he did it his way; to which I would say Ya, but he is still deadSorry, I’ll step off my soap box now.Hay, hope I didn’t lose ya there,
JRTjrDictionary.com

​

Immutable:

​

adj
unchanging through time; unalterable; ageless