What would God say if he came here and why.

[PaulSacramento]

If God is God then He is righteous, a righteous and justice beyond our understanding.
If He is righteous then He must judge those that willingly choose to do what is wrong, those that choose to abide in "darkness", those that reject the "light".
People that reject God's offer of love and grace are already judged.

There is more detail in that regard here:

John 5:
Jesus’ Equality with God

18 For this reason therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God.

19 Therefore Jesus answered and was saying to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner. 20 For the Father loves the Son, and shows Him all things that He Himself is doing; and the Father will show Him greater works than these, so that you will marvel. 21 For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son also gives life to whom He wishes. 22 For not even the Father judges anyone, but He has given all judgment to the Son, 23 so that all will honor the Son even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.

24 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life.

Two Resurrections

25 Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming and now is, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live. 26 For just as the Father has life in Himself, even so He gave to the Son also to have life in Himself; 27 and He gave Him authority to execute judgment, because He is the Son of Man. 28 Do not marvel at this; for an hour is coming, in which all who are in the tombs will hear His voice, 29 and will come forth; those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment.

[Lunalle]

You are of the opinion that there is no God because God doesn't "behave" like YOU THINK He should. Then in that case, you should simply admit that you can't conceive of a God that exists that is different than what YOU think He should be.
So, what doesn't exist is the God that YOU have created in your mind.
And I agree, that God doesn't exist.

I proposed a God, and offered my opinion on the question I was asked. I am of the opinion that the details of the "Christian" God are logically invalid. I can conceive of many, many gods. What I can not do, is offer logically valid justification for any of them (unless I reduce them to non-God status, but then that is just literate dishonesty).

That is not representative of the Bible quote. In the Bible quote the second part has someone doing something in the present while another (God) doing the thing in the past.

Right, OK, so you're sticking with the prejudgment claim then? Interesting. Have I been pre punished, or just pre judged? This leads deeply in to free will.

[PaulSacramento]

You are of the opinion that there is no God because God doesn't "behave" like YOU THINK He should. Then in that case, you should simply admit that you can't conceive of a God that exists that is different than what YOU think He should be.
So, what doesn't exist is the God that YOU have created in your mind.
And I agree, that God doesn't exist.

I proposed a God, and offered my opinion on the question I was asked. I am of the opinion that the details of the "Christian" God are logically invalid. I can conceive of many, many gods. What I can not do, is offer logically valid justification for any of them (unless I reduce them to non-God status, but then that is just literate dishonesty).

That is not representative of the Bible quote. In the Bible quote the second part has someone doing something in the present while another (God) doing the thing in the past.

Right, OK, so you're sticking with the prejudgment claim then? Interesting. Have I been pre punished, or just pre judged? This leads deeply in to free will.

Your opinions of the "Christian God" are incorrect since you understanding of that God is based on your bias that this God don't "behave" like you think He should.

[1over137]

Anyone who believes in him is not judged. But anyone who does not believe is judged already.

Who is forgiven is not judged. Judgement was in the past, but presence is about us being believers/forgiven or not. Am I right?

[Mallz]

Lunella:

I am of the opinion that the details of the "Christian" God are logically invalid

I would like to know all the reasons you believe the Christian God to be illogical.

Right, OK, so you're sticking with the prejudgment claim then? Interesting. Have I been pre punished, or just pre judged? This leads deeply in to free will.

For a long time I had issues with predestination, fate, all the issues revolving around the possibility of not having free will. Until I realized it was my misunderstanding of the situation. God exists outside of time, time was created during the Big Bang, and exists in our reality. The paths we take are foreknown and can be visualized by a being who is able to view time from 'the outside'. Does this effect our free will? No. Just because the outcome of a life is known to God, doesn't mean we don't have full discretion to choose our own paths.

Anyone who believes in him is not judged. But anyone who does not believe is judged already.

This is showing the mercy of Christ our God. We believe in the existence and divinity of Christ, the one we were made through, and we are given the gift of being his children. Rejecting Christ for who He is, is rejecting being a child of God. And as previously stated, those who don't believe reject God Himself, and are already judged as being separated from God, and will be accountable to their own morality in how they lived their lives against Gods. This does not mean that a person who is judged already cannot become un-judged. Which happens through accepting the reality of God, and ourselves, which is accepting that he had an 'avatar' come to Earth to bring humanity back to Himself. Reject this and you reject being with Him. That's the meaning of this verse.

[PaulSacramento]

What does it mean to believe in Him?
It isn't just about believing that Christ actually existed.
It is about ALL that goes with it.
To believe in Christ is to believe in the resurrection and all that goes with it.
It is to believe in Christ being of the same nature as The Father, believing that ALL was created through Christ and For Christ.
It is believing that Christ is LIFE, that Christ is LOVE and that Christ is LIGHT.
To NOT believe is to deny all that.
Now, this isn't about those that don't know Christ for no fault of their own, this is about those that REJECT Christ and do not believe because they reject.

[Lunalle]

Well, thanks for the discussion all. This is directly applicable to me, because I believe I do fall in to the category of one who "knows but rejects". So I appreciate hearing what you all have to say.

You can claim I don't really understand (I would say none of us do), but then I'd ask: What incentive do I have to believe all these claims, if I can't even properly understand them?

I get the God existing outside of time thing, and how it doesn't negate free will. I am of the belief that we do not have free will (which is also contradictory to the stories in the Bible), so it is really a moot point for me.

The thing is, I don't exist outside of time (at least I have no memory or experience of it). Now, as far as I understand, according to scripture, we will be pulled outside of time at some point, and either be with God or without him (presumably keeping our memory and ability to experience, opinions vary widely). Now, if I don't understand God, I can't say which is better. If I do understand God, I'd rather be without him.

I would like to know all the reasons you believe the Christian God to be illogical.

Well, there are many, many arguments that can be made for and against the Christian God. I'm not sure everyone would like to know all my reasons, but let me get to the root of the issue. I have never seen an argument for God that properly follows the logical laws. I'd be very interested to find one, if you believe you have one you want to share, please PM me the details, and I'll review it.

Who is forgiven is not judged. Judgement was in the past, but presence is about us being believers/forgiven or not. Am I right?

I'm probably not the best one to answer this, but I believe you are right, according to the majority of self proclaiming Christians. For me (with a different world view), the present is about us living our lives with others, in a way that benefits not only those of us who are alive, but all of us yet to live.

Cheers!

[PaulSacramento]

Well, there are many, many arguments that can be made for and against the Christian God. I'm not sure everyone would like to know all my reasons, but let me get to the root of the issue. I have never seen an argument for God that properly follows the logical laws. I'd be very interested to find one, if you believe you have one you want to share, please PM me the details, and I'll review it.

Aside from the fact that "logic laws" are subjective, I am surprised that you have never came across arguments like the "first cause"/"first mover" or the arguments based from the "moral Law", and so forth.
You can go to WLC website, reasonablefaith.org or the biologos.org and see for yourself.

[TheArtfulDodger]

Right, OK, so you're sticking with the prejudgment claim then? Interesting. Have I been pre punished, or just pre judged? This leads deeply in to free will.

Free will is indeed a very complicated subject to meditate on. There are plenty of more explicit verses on the subject, though, such as Romans 8:29-30.

[PaulSacramento]

Right, OK, so you're sticking with the prejudgment claim then? Interesting. Have I been pre punished, or just pre judged? This leads deeply in to free will.

Free will is indeed a very complicated subject to meditate on. There are plenty of more explicit verses on the subject, though, such as Romans 8:29-30.

The issue of predestination is a very complex one (to say the least) BUT, IMO, I don't think it refers to humanity in general but to certain believers that God has "prechosen" for special works.
While it is certainly God prerogative to decide whether or not He will predestine anyone to salvation or judgment, I don't think we can reconcile the death of Christ and God's salvation through grace if those that are to be saved were already predestined to be saved.

[Lunalle]

Aside from the fact that "logic laws" are subjective, I am surprised that you have never came across arguments like the "first cause"/"first mover" or the arguments based from the "moral Law", and so forth.
You can go to WLC website, reasonablefaith.org or the biologos.org and see for yourself.

Well, I've already stated that everything is subjective, so I can't honestly disagree with your first point.

I have come across, and examined in detail the "first cause" and "moral" arguments. Based on my understanding of logic, these arguments simply do not hold up. Thanks for pointing them out though.

Yes, predestination is a complex topic. I appreciate your input on it.

[PaulSacramento]

Aside from the fact that "logic laws" are subjective, I am surprised that you have never came across arguments like the "first cause"/"first mover" or the arguments based from the "moral Law", and so forth.
You can go to WLC website, reasonablefaith.org or the biologos.org and see for yourself.

Well, I've already stated that everything is subjective, so I can't honestly disagree with your first point.

I have come across, and examined in detail the "first cause" and "moral" arguments. Based on my understanding of logic, these arguments simply do not hold up. Thanks for pointing them out though.

Yes, predestination is a complex topic. I appreciate your input on it.

What, in your view, doesn't hold up logically in regards to those two arguments?
Since the "laws" are:

Logic is the process of proper inference. It is the system of thinking properly, of arriving at proper conclusions. It is the process of proper thinking based upon principles that govern the validity of arguments.

The first law of logic is the Law of Identity. It states that something is what it is, and is not what it is not. For example, a rock is a rock and not a frog.

The second law of logic is the Law of Non-Contradiction. This means that something cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same way. In other words, two contradictory statements cannot both be true.

The third law of logic is the Law of Excluded Middle, which says that a statement is either true or false. “We are here” is a true statement. “The planet Mars is in my pocket” is not a true statement.

[Lunalle]

What, in your view, doesn't hold up logically in regards to those two arguments?
Since the "laws" are:

Logic is the process of proper inference. It is the system of thinking properly, of arriving at proper conclusions. It is the process of proper thinking based upon principles that govern the validity of arguments.

The first law of logic is the Law of Identity. It states that something is what it is, and is not what it is not. For example, a rock is a rock and not a frog.

The second law of logic is the Law of Non-Contradiction. This means that something cannot be both true and false at the same time and in the same way. In other words, two contradictory statements cannot both be true.

The third law of logic is the Law of Excluded Middle, which says that a statement is either true or false. “We are here” is a true statement. “The planet Mars is in my pocket” is not a true statement.

I'll do my best to actually focus on the arguments, and not on common interpretations of the arguments.

First Cause:
This argument is based on the assumption that infinity does not exist.

Morality Argument:
This argument is based on the assumption that the pinnacle of morality was revealed to us 2000ish years ago.

As a note of interest: Jac and I corresponded for about 20 emails about the first cause argument. Unfortunately, Jac and I hold different values, and our opposing values leads to our opposing beliefs.

[PaulSacramento]

First Cause:
This argument is based on the assumption that infinity does not exist.

Morality Argument:
This argument is based on the assumption that the pinnacle of morality was revealed to us 2000ish years ago.

So you don't agree with the arguments because you don't agree with them?
Where is the breaking of the "logical laws"?

Our understanding of "infinity" is gradually getting to the point that "infinity" is probably just a "term" we use for convenience sake.
First cause or first mover theology doesn't assume anything other than the LOGIC that there must be a "first mover/cause" since everything has just that.

The moral argument has nothing to do with moral "pinnacles" of any age, not sure where you got that idea...

[Lunalle]

First Cause:
This argument is based on the assumption that infinity does not exist.

Morality Argument:
This argument is based on the assumption that the pinnacle of morality was revealed to us 2000ish years ago.

So you don't agree with the arguments because you don't agree with them?
Where is the breaking of the "logical laws"?

Our understanding of "infinity" is gradually getting to the point that "infinity" is probably just a "term" we use for convenience sake.
First cause or first mover theology doesn't assume anything other than the LOGIC that there must be a "first mover/cause" since everything has just that.

The moral argument has nothing to do with moral "pinnacles" of any age, not sure where you got that idea...

First Cause Argument:
Not so much breaking the "letter of the law", but the goal of the system.
You said: "It is the process of proper thinking based upon principles that govern the validity of arguments." It defies that, because it is based on assumptions that are either unfalsifiable, or already falsified.

You said: "Our understanding of "infinity" is gradually getting to the point that "infinity" is probably just a "term" we use for convenience sake." this violates the first law. Infinity is infinity, not "like" (probably just a term for convenience sake) infinity, according to the first law. This is the common interpretation of the argument, and that interpretation breaks the first law. You're begging the question. Saying infinity probably doesn't exist, so it's okay to say infinity doesn't exist is asinine. Unless you're infinite, you have no way of accurately calculating the probability of infinity existing, never mind saying it actually doesn't.

Moral Argument:
I guess we have different interpretations of the argument. I'm not sure what argument you're referring to.