Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Over at WEIT, reader Ben Goren asks: “Why doesn’t Jesus call 911?”

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Over at Why Evolution Is True, New Atheist Professor Jerry Coyne has posted a letter he received from one of his regular readers, Ben Goren, regarding a major theological flaw which (he claims) undermines not only Christianity, but any religion that worships a God (or gods) who is both omniscient and good: why doesn’t such a being (or beings) assist the police, firefighters and ambulance workers by calling 911 whenever someone is in danger? Goren writes:

Imagine you find yourself in one of any number of calamitous situations — somebody you’re with clutches her chest in pain and falls to the floor; you hear, coming from the far end of a dark alley, the voice of a frightened old man crying for help; a tree falls as you’re driving down a lonely road, missing you but smashing the car following you.

In all such cases, the very first thing you — or anybody else — would do is call 9-1-1…

Now, imagine that it’s not just a single incident you observed and yet stood silently by, but every such case everywhere. Never mind the fact that you’d be a pervert for looking in everybody’s bedroom windows, but to look in a bedroom window, see a lit cigarette fall from sleepy fingers and catch the curtains on fire and then not call 9-1-1 to get the firefighters on the scene before the baby in the crib burns to death in uncomprehending screaming agony, well, that would go unimaginably far beyond mere perversion and move solidly into the worst brand of criminal psychopathy…

And that, at last, brings us to the question that nobody from any religion can satisfactorily answer — at least, not if at least one of its gods (however many there are) has enough awareness and ability to answer the simplest of prayers — or, for that matter, merely has a cellphone and the compassionate instincts of even a young child.

Why doesn’t Jesus ever call 9-1-1?

Goren is not impressed with theologians who respond by making “obfuscatory excuses” and by raising “obscure questions of ‘freedom of the will’ or placing the blame on an ancient ancestral maternal progenitor who procured culinary counseling from a speaking serpent.” Still less is he impressed by the claim that God dispenses justice in the hereafter – “as if post-mortem divine retribution is of any help to the person bleeding out by the side of the road after running into a falling tree, or of any comfort to the umpteenth victim of a serial criminal who enjoys continued success despite the desperate efforts of investigators hoping for a lead or even the slightest hint of a clue.”

Goren is particularly incensed at crimes committed by religious leaders against innocent members of their own flock – for instance, crimes such as child abuse. Goren expresses his astonishment at the fact that “not once in all of history has any deity ever alerted any civil authority to the misdeeds of one of its official representatives.” Crimes such as clerical child abuse, which are committed by God’s “official representatives,” would surely warrant a Divine telephone call to emergency assistance, argues Goren.

In this short post, I’m not going to put forward an answer to Ben Goren’s question: why doesn’t Jesus (or God) call 911? Instead, I’d like to identify a few background assumptions that Goren makes, in his argument. Remember that if even one of these assumptions turns put to be incorrect, then Goren’s argument collapses:

(i) the assumption that God’s responsibility to assist innocent human beings who are in distress is the same as (if not greater than) that of a passerby who happens to see them in distress and who hears their cries for help;

(ii) the assumption that, if God is responsible for alerting 9-1-1 whenever innocent people are in distress, He is directly responsible, and that He cannot delegate this responsibility to some lesser intelligence, such as an angel;

(iii) the assumption that God has no higher obligations towards the human race as a whole, which might conflict with, and over-ride, His obligation to assist individuals in distress;

(iv) the assumption that there are no “privileged members” of the human race who have the prerogative of deciding, on behalf of humanity as a whole, whether (and to what degree) God should offer assistance to individuals in distress who call upon his name for help;

(v) the assumption that anyone – in particular, anyone on 911 – would be capable of hearing the voice of God, if He wanted to leave an important message for them.

Finally, here are a few brief comments of mine regarding these “background assumptions” that Goren makes:

(i) God is not a mere passerby, but the very Author of our being. On the one hand, this fact increases His obligation towards individuals in distress: since He is all-good, all-knowing and all-powerful, God is obliged to dispense perfect justice. But on the other hand, the fact that God maintains everyone – good and bad alike – in existence may also prevent Him from dispensing justice now. (Think of the parable of the wheat and the tares.) Goren has not explained why a supernatural Deity with perfect knowledge, love and power, would be obliged to help each suffering individual right away. As far as I can tell, the only obligation that God has towards suffering individuals here and now is the obligation not to allow them to suffer irreparable harm. However, we should always bear in mind that what appears to be “irreparable damage” to us, may not appear so to God;

(ii) if God has delegated the responsibility for alerting 9-1-1 whenever innocent people are in distress to some angel (or some other super-human intelligence), then we have to consider the possibility that this intelligence – call it Lucifer if you like – has “gone rogue” and is working to sabotage God’s original plan;

(iii) if God’s always alerting 9-1-1 whenever someone is in distress would interfere with the moral development of the human race as a whole (e.g. by making them apathetic about assisting crime victims, leading to a hardening of people’s hearts towards suffering individuals), then it is at least arguable that God’s obligation not to hinder the moral development of the human race as a whole would over-ride His obligation to help those individuals who are in distress;

(iv) it is entirely possible that God, after revealing His existence to the first human beings at the dawn of human history, then asked them, as representatives of the human race as a whole, how much Divine assistance they would like to receive in the future. And it is entirely possible that these “privileged” human beings opted for little or no Divine intervention, thinking that it would give them more personal freedom and enable them to escape from the suffocating embrace (as they saw it) of a Deity Who loved them too much. It’s also entirely possible that God may have promised to comply with their decision, which would “tie His hands” until the end of human history, insofar as He cannot break a promise;

(v) finally, it may turn out to be the case that our ability to hear a message from God depends on our spiritual condition, and that bad or spiritually lukewarm people are simply incapable of hearing detailed 911 messages from the Almighty, due to their poor relationship with God. In that case, it would be our fault, not God’s, that we don’t receive 911 calls from Him, about individuals in distress.

Well, that’s about all I want to say, in response to Ben Goren’s question. The ball is now in his court.

Meanwhile, what do readers think?

Comments
And this business of a God existing outside of space and time is ridiculous. How can you exist outside of something that does not exist in the first place. Both space and time are abstract or derived concepts.Mapou
September 7, 2015
September
09
Sep
7
07
2015
11:00 AM
11
11
00
AM
PDT
My God said "Know my ways". He did not say "You will never understand me". I can't stand those Christians who worship an incomprehensible God of their own making. That is idolatry. We, too, are Elohim (Gods).Mapou
September 7, 2015
September
09
Sep
7
07
2015
10:51 AM
10
10
51
AM
PDT
BA77: and yet somehow immaterial timeless/spaceless/massless stuff does make sense to us. Not where free-will is a factor, and that is what I am addressing. Yes, we can intuit a transcendent "platonic" reality where "mathematics exists timelessly", but mathematics do not have free-will. By definition, they are changeless. Free-will is not change-less by definition. In fact I hold that unless human minds were able to somehow hold a perspective that was and is outside of space-time, in essence a ‘timeless’ perspective... Human consciousness may transcend space-time, that is, exist outside of the material space-time universe, but it need not be outside of all time. Assuming free-will of consciousness, I submit that the fact that human consciousness can change states, which is the essence of what time is, that it is indeed based in a more fundamental time than space-time.mike1962
September 7, 2015
September
09
Sep
7
07
2015
08:56 AM
8
08
56
AM
PDT
For a Theist the baby doesn't die but instead continues to live with God. On Atheism there is no unfair death since humans aren't different from a stone to give them fairness. This life wasn't meant to be eternal to use as an argument against God death. I agree with Mapou that we are images of God equal in understanding and behaviour but i disagree when he says that God, in the Old Testament doesn't behave like Omniscience because He regrets. Sometimes you know how things will become and still continue to make them, God wasn't regretted for making us, he regretted for some humans but not for all humanity.JimFit
September 7, 2015
September
09
Sep
7
07
2015
08:36 AM
8
08
36
AM
PDT
as to:
"the statement that God exists outside of any and all time is nonsensical and irrational. To assert it, is to assert nothing meaningful for us."
and yet somehow immaterial timeless/spaceless/massless stuff does make sense to us. In fact I hold that unless human minds were able to somehow hold a perspective that was and is outside of space-time, in essence a 'timeless' perspective, then science would not be possible for us.
An Interview with David Berlinski - Jonathan Witt Berlinski: There is no argument against religion that is not also an argument against mathematics. Mathematicians are capable of grasping a world of objects that lies beyond space and time …. Interviewer:… Come again(?) … Berlinski: No need to come again: I got to where I was going the first time. The number four, after all, did not come into existence at a particular time, and it is not going to go out of existence at another time. It is neither here nor there. Nonetheless we are in some sense able to grasp the number by a faculty of our minds. Mathematical intuition is utterly mysterious. So for that matter is the fact that mathematical objects such as a Lie Group or a differentiable manifold have the power to interact with elementary particles or accelerating forces. But these are precisely the claims that theologians have always made as well – that human beings are capable by an exercise of their devotional abilities to come to some understanding of the deity; and the deity, although beyond space and time, is capable of interacting with material objects. http://tofspot.blogspot.com/2013/10/found-upon-web-and-reprinted-here.html “One of the things I do in my classes, to get this idea across to students, is I hold up two computer disks. One is loaded with software, and the other one is blank. And I ask them, ‘what is the difference in mass between these two computer disks, as a result of the difference in the information content that they posses’? And of course the answer is, ‘Zero! None! There is no difference as a result of the information. And that’s because information is a mass-less quantity. Now, if information is not a material entity, then how can any materialistic explanation account for its origin? How can any material cause explain it’s origin? And this is the real and fundamental problem that the presence of information in biology has posed. It creates a fundamental challenge to the materialistic, evolutionary scenarios because information is a different kind of entity that matter and energy cannot produce. In the nineteenth century we thought that there were two fundamental entities in science; matter, and energy. At the beginning of the twenty first century, we now recognize that there’s a third fundamental entity; and its ‘information’. It’s not reducible to matter. It’s not reducible to energy. But it’s still a very important thing that is real; we buy it, we sell it, we send it down wires. Now, what do we make of the fact, that information is present at the very root of all biological function? In biology, we have matter, we have energy, but we also have this third, very important entity; information. I think the biology of the information age, poses a fundamental challenge to any materialistic approach to the origin of life.” -Dr. Stephen C. Meyer earned his Ph.D. in the History and Philosophy of science from Cambridge University for a dissertation on the history of origin-of-life biology and the methodology of the historical sciences. Intelligent design: Why can't biological information originate through a materialistic process? - Stephen Meyer - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqiXNxyoof8 "Information is information, not matter or energy. No materialism which does not admit this can survive at the present day." Norbert Weiner - MIT Mathematician -(Cybernetics, 2nd edition, p.132) Norbert Wiener created the modern field of control and communication systems, utilizing concepts like negative feedback. His seminal 1948 book Cybernetics both defined and named the new field.
Verse:
John 1:1-3 In the beginning, the Word existed. The Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through Him all things were made; without Him nothing was made that has been made. (of note: 'Word' in Greek is 'Logos', and is the root word from which we get our word 'Logic')
bornagain77
September 7, 2015
September
09
Sep
7
07
2015
08:24 AM
8
08
24
AM
PDT
Davem: Since God exists out of time Fact not in evidence Moreover, God may not exist in our time frame, but nobody knows whether or not there is a more fundamental time frame that God exists in. Moreover, the statement that God exists outside of any and all time is nonsensical and irrational. To assert it, is to assert nothing meaningful for us.mike1962
September 7, 2015
September
09
Sep
7
07
2015
07:06 AM
7
07
06
AM
PDT
JDH: It is a useful analogy for you not being able to quite comprehend how God can be omnipresent, omniscient or perfect. The flatland analogy is only useful for getting a sense about how entities could exist that occupy more dimensions than ours and how they might relate to us. It is not useful with regards to the idea that God has omniscience with regard to all future events within our dimension set if we have freedom of choice within it.mike1962
September 7, 2015
September
09
Sep
7
07
2015
07:00 AM
7
07
00
AM
PDT
Man trying to comprehend God is like trying to explain to an amoeba everything we as humans know about the universe.Davem
September 7, 2015
September
09
Sep
7
07
2015
04:43 AM
4
04
43
AM
PDT
Mapou - I apologize if I have offended you, but I thought we were discussing philosophy, not attacking each other. What do you mean by "same to you". I have not made the statement that an omniscient God is not possible like you have. I have not concluded things can not be true that are outside of my epistemological domain. I simply stated that you can not possibly declare that common sense dictates there can't be an omni- anything. Common sense does not help you in seeing what is not possible. Please read the book "Flatland'. I don't think you are my dog. I did not give you a command, I asked you to read something. If you want me to read something you think will help me see more clearly, please suggest. You seem like a smart guy, its just that I object to "time bound people trapped in three dimensions" ( which means that you can not move freely in time either to effect or to observe, and you can not move in a forth spatial dimension -i.e. it makes no sense for someone to tell you about it if it even existed because there is no way for you to see it. ) The book "Flatland" talks about a sphere entering a two dimensional world. The sphere is able to take a circle up and out of the two dimensional plane he dwells in and show him the 3-d world. Yet when placed back in his two dimensional plane the circle realizes it is impossible to describe what "up" means. It is a useful analogy for you not being able to quite comprehend how God can be omnipresent, omniscient or perfect.JDH
September 7, 2015
September
09
Sep
7
07
2015
12:20 AM
12
12
20
AM
PDT
Since God exists out of time it is silly to talk about Him knowing the future, as if He is in our time. He views it all simultaneously. He is in our past, our present, our future. Just because He is aware of what is happening in our future doesn't mean he is determining it, just as He isn't determining what is happening right now, even though right now is the future to any time in the past. For all we know He could be tweaking things here and there throughout time in order to perfect creation. If He decided to change something in our past, how would we know? We wouldn't say, "hey, the past used to be this but now it's different!"Davem
September 6, 2015
September
09
Sep
6
06
2015
05:28 PM
5
05
28
PM
PDT
JDH:
I feel sorry for you Mapou, you have not learned the lesson of your limitations.
Same to you.
For a time bound being trapped in three dimensional space,
You have no idea what those things mean.
you truly have a lot of nerve declaring that you can make grand logical conclusions about items outside of your epistemological domain.
You don't know that.
I suggest you read a little book called “Flatland”. It may open your eyes to see your own limitations and how they affect your thinking.
I suggest you take note of this essential point in our discussion (if you can call it that): I am not your dog.Mapou
September 6, 2015
September
09
Sep
6
06
2015
04:50 PM
4
04
50
PM
PDT
I used to go sailing with a Jewish guy whose daughter I was dating, and he once said that if a school bus went over a cliff and half the kids lived, the parents would say "Thank God!" He then followed up with "What about the kids who died?" His daughter had been in an car accident many years before, and she said that as the car was rolling over, she felt the presence of God. When I told him he seemed astonished. I said "It's a different story when it's your own daughter" and he agreed.Davem
September 6, 2015
September
09
Sep
6
06
2015
03:30 PM
3
03
30
PM
PDT
When Mapou said that the idea of an omniscient God was "all silly crackpottery from people who have not thought it through or are just dogmatic believers who are set in their ways", RDH replied,
I feel sorry for you Mapou, you have not learned the lesson of your limitations. For a time bound being trapped in three dimensional space, you truly have a lot of nerve declaring that you can make grand logical conclusions about items outside of your epistemological domain.
What RDH says applies both way - believing that an omniscient God (and all the other omni-s of the Christian God) exists definitely is a unwarranted conclusion "outside [the limits of our] epistemological domain." We just can't know all that.Aleta
September 6, 2015
September
09
Sep
6
06
2015
10:12 AM
10
10
12
AM
PDT
Mapou said -
Folks, I’m neither atheist nor materialist but Seversky is correct about this omniscience thing. It’s all silly crackpottery from people who have not thought it through or are just dogmatic believers who are set in their ways.
I feel sorry for you Mapou, you have not learned the lesson of your limitations. For a time bound being trapped in three dimensional space, you truly have a lot of nerve declaring that you can make grand logical conclusions about items outside of your epistemological domain. I suggest you read a little book called "Flatland". It may open your eyes to see your own limitations and how they affect your thinking.JDH
September 6, 2015
September
09
Sep
6
06
2015
09:16 AM
9
09
16
AM
PDT
Mapou,
Box: You seem to hold that God must determine the future if God sees the future. It doesn’t follow.
Mapou: I don’t hold this at all and this is not my argument. It’s a strawman of your own making. (...) This argument has nothing to do with causing the future. It has to do with determinism and omniscience. If God knows the future, the future is already determined by logical necessity.
The future — God’s actions included — are determined by something other than God? Pray tell by what.
Mapou: (…) let me add that my God (Yahweh) does not know the future.
Okay your Yahweh doesn’t know the future, however there are other concepts of God wrt to time, which you fail to take into account:
BA77: Since God created time (and space) it follows that there is no moment of time in the future that God can not have complete knowledge of. For God, being completely transcendent of time and space, it is simply nonsensical to hold that there is some hypothetical moment in the future that He does not have complete access to and knowledge of. The transcendent omnipresence, and omniscience, of God simply leaves no room, indeed CAN leave no room, for some ‘experiment’ that He ‘performs’ that He does not know the future outcome of.
VJTorley: But if you accept a Boethian account of free will, as I do, then it doesn’t follow. On this account, God is timeless, but His knowledge is that of a spectator.
You may also want to read this article at the Stanford website.
Mapou: All I’m saying is that, if God knows the entire future of the universe including what he’ll be doing in that future, then he is an impotent God who can never change his mind.
It doesn’t follow. A timeless God can make free choices.
Mapou: PS. “outside-time-perspective” is also nonsense since time is an abstract concept.
If that is the case, then it’s rather surprising that your Yahweh, who according to you consists of billions upon billions of individuals, is constrained by a mere “abstract concept” and cannot access the future.Box
September 6, 2015
September
09
Sep
6
06
2015
01:57 AM
1
01
57
AM
PDT
Box:
What you don’t seem to get is that seeing the future does not imply causing the future. Those actions are entirely distinct. Similarly I know that the sun will rise tomorrow, but I don’t cause the sun to rise. So, assuming that an outside-time-perspective exists, why should things be “already determined” when seen by God? You seem to hold that God must determine the future if God sees the future. It doesn’t follow.
I don't hold this at all and this is not my argument. It's a strawman of your own making. All I'm saying is that, if God knows the entire future of the universe including what he'll be doing in that future, then he is an impotent God who can never change his mind. This argument has nothing to do with causing the future. It has to do with determinism and omniscience. If God knows the future, the future is already determined by logical necessity. It's nonsense, of course. But since you mentioned causes, let me add that my God (Yahweh) does not know the future. However, he can cause the future to happen the way he wants if he so chooses. And he can also change his mind. PS. "outside-time-perspective" is also nonsense since time is an abstract concept.Mapou
September 5, 2015
September
09
Sep
5
05
2015
10:56 PM
10
10
56
PM
PDT
Aleta, funny you claim that
"it is a mistake for people, such as Ben Goren did, to bother to try to find “logical” problems with God, because it implies that there might be logical answers that solve the problem."
Yet you take no notice that you, i.e. the atheist, are the one who is holding that there is no real rhyme or reason, i.e. logic, for why the universe exists in the first place.
“If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning.” C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity
Before you claim that there is no logic for God, should you not at least have a worldview that you can be able to ground logic in in the first place? Exactly how is logic and reasoning to be grounded in a worldview that insists that everything arose without any real rhyme or reason? To presuppose that the universe can be understood through logic and reason is to presuppose that there is logic and reasoning behind the universe to be understood in the first place. The atheistic/materialistic worldview is incoherent as to providing a rational foundation for practicing science in that it presupposes no logic or reason behind the universe. All of which explains, number one, why there were no atheists at the founding of modern science,, and which, number two, also explains why the atheistic explanations for how the universe came into being, and for how our conscious selves came into being, both wind up in epistemological failure (Boltzmann's Brain, Plantinga's EAAN, also see Nagel.)
“If you do not assume the law of non-contradiction, you have nothing to argue about. If you do not assume the principles of sound reason, you have nothing to argue with. If you do not assume libertarian free will, you have no one to argue against. If you do not assume morality to be an objective commodity, you have no reason to argue in the first place.” - William J Murray The Great Debate: Does God Exist? - Justin Holcomb - audio of the 1985 Greg Bahnsen debate available at the bottom of the site Excerpt: The transcendental proof for God’s existence is that without Him it is impossible to prove anything. The atheist worldview is irrational and cannot consistently provide the preconditions of intelligible experience, science, logic, or morality. The atheist worldview cannot allow for laws of logic, the uniformity of nature, the ability for the mind to understand the world, and moral absolutes. In that sense the atheist worldview cannot account for our debate tonight.,,, http://justinholcomb.com/2012/01/17/the-great-debate-does-god-exist/
Verse:
John1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." of note: ‘the Word’ in John1:1 is translated from ‘Logos’ in Greek. Logos is also the root word from which we derive our modern word logic http://etymonline.com/?term=logic
Of supplemental note:
“It always bothers me that in spite of all this local business, what goes on in a tiny, no matter how tiny, region of space, and no matter how tiny a region of time, according to laws as we understand them today, it takes a computing machine an infinite number of logical operations to figure out. Now how can all that be going on in that tiny space? Why should it take an infinite amount of logic to figure out what one stinky tiny bit of space-time is going to do?" - Richard Feynman – one of the founding fathers of QED (Quantum Electrodynamics) Quote taken from the 6:45 minute mark of the following video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obCjODeoLVw
I don’t know about Feynman, but as for myself, being a Christian Theist, I find it rather comforting to know that it takes an ‘infinite amount of logic to figure out what one stinky tiny bit of space-time is going to do’:bornagain77
September 5, 2015
September
09
Sep
5
05
2015
08:07 PM
8
08
07
PM
PDT
Severesky writes, "And has no one noticed that the reason apologetics are such a thriving field in Christian scholarship is because there is so much in Christian theology that demands explanation and justification." I think it's worse than that. I think it is a mistake for people, such as Ben Goren did, to bother to try to find "logical" problems with God, because it implies that there might be logical answers that solve the problem. However, the whole idea of a omni-everything divine being taken an interest in, and in some way being responsibility for, the actions of people, is a logically untenable story that people have made up. Since it is made up, people can go through endless rationalizations to try to make it make sense without there being any reality to ground their speculations in. It is all "how many angels can dance on the head of a pin" type of stuff. The simplest answer to the questions in the opening post is that there is no God, especially of the God/Jesus type of Christianity, so the questions and points made by Ben Goren are meaningless.Aleta
September 5, 2015
September
09
Sep
5
05
2015
07:36 PM
7
07
36
PM
PDT
Severesky @ 8:
And has no one noticed that the reason apologetics are such a thriving field in Christian scholarship is because there is so much in Christian theology that demands explanation and justification.
Actually, it's because the world is full of people who make it their hobby to come up with excuse after excuse after excuse for ignoring what God has said. Some of us choose to answer these excuses so that those who make them are without excuse.
In other words, for a perfect and omniscient being, God has apparently done a very poor job of communicating His intentions, beliefs and rationales.
Actually, He is perfectly clear when He wants us to know exactly what He expects of us.EvilSnack
September 5, 2015
September
09
Sep
5
05
2015
07:08 PM
7
07
08
PM
PDT
Some things are written in a simple language for a certain age. Others are not. As the prophet Daniel wrote, a time would come when knowledge would increase. The time has arrived for us to understand the difficult things. I have excellent reasons to believe that some of the metaphorical books in the Bible contains revolutionary scientific knowledge that will shake the foundation of human civilization. Get ready to live in interesting times.
Sounds like you have a hankerin' for the Sinularity. But until I see it (and it turns out to not be a living nightmare for everyone), I'm going to have to reason from what we have, which are finite minds whose understanding is not able to fully comprehend the things its Maker can.EDTA
September 5, 2015
September
09
Sep
5
05
2015
07:07 PM
7
07
07
PM
PDT
Since God created time (and space) it follows that there is no moment of time in the future that God can not have complete knowledge of. For God, being completely transcendent of time and space, it is simply nonsensical to hold that there is some hypothetical moment in the future that He does not have complete access to and knowledge of. The transcendent omnipresence, and omniscience, of God simply leaves no room, indeed CAN leave no room, for some 'experiment' that He 'performs' that He does not know the future outcome of. Exhibit A - The crucifixion and resurrection of Christ before time began:
2 Timothy 1:9 who hath saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but in accordance with His own purpose and grace, which was given to us in Christ Jesus before the world began, 1 Peter 1:20 He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake.
In fact, prophecy, i.e. knowing exactly what will happen in the future, is one of the ways that was used to test whether a prophet was from God on not. If what a prophet said was found to be false the punishment for his false prophecy, in old testament days, was death. (of personal note: I heard one Christian, who was fed up with all the false prophets now-a-days, quip that maybe we ought to bring that particular old testament punishment back :) )
Psalm 139:16 Your eyes saw my unformed body; all the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be. Isaiah 46:9-10 Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me, Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure:
Although many Christians reference the prophecies surrounding Jesus Christ to support the authenticity of the prophetic claims of the Bible...
The King Jesus (A Precise Mathematical Prediction) Excerpt: Here are the calculations. March 14th, 445 B.C. to March 14th, 32 A.D. is 476 years. (1 B.C. to 1 A.D. is one year, There is no year zero) 476 years x 365 days per year = 173,740 days Add for leap years = 116 days (Leap years do not occur in century years unless divisible by 400 [therefore, we must add three less leap years in four centuries]) March 14th to April 6 th = 24 days total = 173,880 How could Daniel have known this in advance? How could anyone have contrived to have this detailed prediction documented over three centuries in advance? http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/m.sion/kjesenpr.htm The Case for Jesus the Messiah — Incredible Prophecies that Prove God Exists By Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon, and Dr. Walter Kaiser, Jr. Excerpt: But, of course, there are many more than eight prophecies. In another calculation Stoner used 48 prophecies (even though he could have used 456) and arrived at the extremely conservative estimate that the probability of 48 prophecies being fulfilled in one person is one in 10^157. How large is the number 10^157? 10^157 contains 157 zeros! Let us try to illustrate this number using electrons. Electrons are very small objects. They are smaller than atoms. It would take 2.5 times 10^15 of them, laid side by side, to make one inch. Even if we counted four electrons every second and counted day and night, it would still take us 19 million years just to count a line of electrons one inch long. But how many electrons would it take if we were dealing with 10^157 electrons? Imagine building a solid ball of electrons that would extend in all directions from the earth a length of 6 billion light years. The distance in miles of just one light year is 6.4 trillion miles. That would be a big ball! But not big enough to measure 10^157 electrons. In order to do that, you must take that big ball of electrons reaching the length of 6 billion light years long in all directions and multiply it by 6 x 10^28! How big is that? It’s the length of the space required to store trillions and trillions and trillions of the same gigantic balls and more. In fact, the space required to store all of these balls combined together would just start to “scratch the surface” of the number of electrons we would need to really accurately speak about 10^157. But assuming you have some idea of the number of electrons we are talking about, now imagine marking just one of those electrons in that huge number. Stir them all up. Then appoint one person to travel in a rocket for as long as he wants, anywhere he wants to go. Tell him to stop and segment a part of space, then take a high-powered microscope and find that one marked electron in that segment. What do you think his chances of being successful would be? It would be one in 10^157. Remember, this number represents the chance of only 48 prophecies coming true in one person (there are 456 total prophecies concerning Jesus). http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/ATRJ/proof/ATRJ1103PDF/ATRJ1103-3.pdf 'Other than Christ, no other religious leader was foretold a thousand years before he arrived, nor was anything said about where he would be born, why he would come, how he would live, and when he would die. No other religious leader claimed to be God, or performed miracles, or rose from the dead. No other religious leader grounded his doctrine in historical facts. No other religious leader declared his person to be even more important than his teachings.' - StephenB - UD Blogger
Although many Christians reference the prophecies surrounding Jesus Christ to support the authenticity of the prophetic claims of the Bible, I feel a better evidence establishing the authenticity of the prophecies in the Bible comes from referencing the main prophecy that has come to pass in our own generation. Namely the precisely fulfilled prophetic restoration of the Jewish people to their homeland:
Is Modern Israel Fulfilling Prophecy? - Thomas Ice Excerpt: There are dozens of biblical passages that predict an end-time regathering of Israel back to her land. http://www.pre-trib.org/data/pdf/Ice-IsModernIsraelFulfill.pdf Luke 21:24 They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. The time span from the rebirth of Israel as a nation in 1948 to the 6 Day War in 1967 is 19 years. The time from the loss of independence in 606 B.C. to the time of the loss of Jerusalem in 587 B.C. was also 19 years. Was the recapture of Jerusalem in 1967 also prophesied? (Short Answer,, Yes!) http://xwalk.ca/y3nf.html Restoration Of Israel and Jerusalem In Prophecy - Chuck Missler (Doing The Math) – video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/8598581/
Although Missler said that he cheated and ‘backed into the calculation’, none-the-less, archaeological evidence is found that supports his calculation:
Bible Prophecy Fulfilled - Israel 1948 - article Excerpt: Although July 15, 537 B.C. can not be verified by outside sources as the exact day of Cyrus's proclamation, we do know that 537 B.C. was the year in which he made it. As such, we can know for certain that the Bible, in one of the most remarkable prophecies in history, accurately foresaw the year of Israel's restoration as an independent nation some two thousand five hundred years before the event occurred. http://brittgillette.com/WordPress/?p=16 SETTING THE RECORD STRAIGHT Excerpt "In late years several cuneiform tablets have been discovered pertaining to the fall of Babylon which peg both Biblical and secular historic dates. The one tablet known as the "Nabunaid Chronicle" gives the date for the fall of Babylon which specialists have ascertained as being October 12-13, 539 B.C., Julian Calendar, or October 6-7, 539 B.C., according to our present Gregorian Calendar. This tablet also says that Cyrus made his triumphant entry into Babylon 16 days after its fall to his army. Thus his accession year commenced in October, 539 B.C. However, in another cuneiform tablet called "Strassmaier, Cyrus No. 11" Cyrus’ first regnal year is mentioned and was determined to have begun March 17-18, 538 B.C., and to have concluded March 4-5, 537 B.C. It was in this first regnal year of Cyrus that he issued his decree to permit the Jews to return to Jerusalem to rebuild the temple. (Ezra 1:1) The decree may have been made in late 538 B.C. or before March 4-5, 537 B.C. In either case this would have given sufficient time for the large party of 49,897 Jews to organize their expedition and to make their long four-month journey from Babylon to Jerusalem to get there by September 29-30, 537 B.C., the first of the seventh Jewish month, to build their altar to Jehovah as recorded at Ezra 3:1-3. Inasmuch as September 29-30, 537 B.C., officially ends the seventy years of desolation as recorded at 2 Chronicles 36:20, 21, so the beginning of the desolation of the land must have officially begun to be counted after September 21-22, 607 B.C., the first of the seventh Jewish month in 607 B.C., which is the beginning point for the counting of the 2,520 years." http://onlytruegod.org/jwstrs/537vs539.htm
As to the paradox of our having free will and God's omniscience, I found this Tim Keller sermon to be very helpful.
Does God Control Everything - Tim Keller - (God's sovereignty and our free will, how do they mesh?) - video (12:00 minute mark) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkQ6ld8dn7I
As to the argument from evil, does not that entire argument melt away when the Cross of Christ is taken into consideration? Certainly if God spared not his own Son through suffering
2 Corinthians 4:17 For our light and momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweighs them all. The Contradiction of the Cross “On the cross, our false dependencies are revealed. On the cross, our illusions are killed off. On the cross, our small self dies so that the true self, the God-given self, can emerge. On the cross, we give up the fantasy that we are in control, and the death of this fantasy is central to acceptance. The cross is, above all, a place of powerlessness. Here is the final proof that our own feeble powers can no more alter life’s trajectory than a magnet can pull down the moon. Here is the death of the ego, of the self that insists on being in charge, the self that continually tries to impose its own idea of order and righteousness on the world. The cross is a place of contradiction. For the powerlessness of the cross, if fully embraced, takes us to a place of power. This is the great mystery at the heart of the Christian faith, from Jesus to Martin Luther King Jr., the mystery of the power of powerlessness. As long as I am preoccupied with the marshaling of my own feeble powers, there will be no way for God’s power to flow through me. As long as I am getting in my own way, I cannot live in the power of God’s way.” – Parker Palmer, The Promise of Paradox, Pg 46-47
bornagain77
September 5, 2015
September
09
Sep
5
05
2015
07:02 PM
7
07
02
PM
PDT
The only question now is should I call the emergency services if I am first on the scene of a disaster when many lives are in danger? Before acting on such an occasion, It can be helpful to ask oneself, WWJD? - Apparently, what Jesus would do would be to delegate the Job of making the call to Lucifer, the Evil One, who hates Humans and will go out of his way to harm them, perhaps by prank-calling 911 and sending them off on some wild goose chase. So I guess I should delegate to Lucifer as well. I can't see any problem with that. There's also the problem that Jesus may be standing by while these people die horribly and go on to eternal suffering in Hell at the hands of God's Mr Telephone (assuming they are not Christians), because everything ultimately works out better this way (*). You know, like it did for the victims of the Holocaust and everyone on BA77's list of atheist atrocities. If I acted to save one person in any of these situations, for all I know, I could be making things much worse. The best thing is probably to do nothing; If it's better for people to die then it would be remiss of me to help save them. How can I know what the best action is? I can't, but if I do nothing and God doesn't step in with some miracle then I guess my choice of inaction will have been vindicated. OTOH, maybe I was supposed to help but didn't, but then God gets to throw that in my face before he sends me to join them in hell after my death. Well worth any discomfort on their part I should think. I like the idea that somebody may be refused the help they desperately seek because a distant ancestor didn't want every minute detail of his life dictated to them by God: "Back off God, I want to choose my own curtains". I don't like wearing hats so let me state for the record that no descendant of mine for ten thousand generations is ever going to be allowed to wear a hat or any sort of protective headgear or receive emergency help in the case of a head trauma unless it's from Satan, their appointed representative and enemy - Unless they pray for help, in which case their prayers will be successfully answered with a polite (and silent) "no" (and maybe tumbleweed) and a squishing. It saddens me that Jesus is unable to communicate with Human emergency service dispatchers because they can't hear his voice. Maybe we should club together and buy him one of those Stephen Hawking electric speaky gizmos which he operates using a single switch by moving his cheek. (*) Although I know of one Christian, BarryA, who does not accept such arguments.steveh
September 5, 2015
September
09
Sep
5
05
2015
04:31 PM
4
04
31
PM
PDT
Hi Eugen, That was a very interesting scenario about the cellular automata. I enjoyed reading it. Thank you.vjtorley
September 5, 2015
September
09
Sep
5
05
2015
03:58 PM
3
03
58
PM
PDT
Hi Dennis, Thank you for your very insightful comment:
I suggest one more assumption overlooked by Mr Goren, i.e., that God may already be intervening in many ways of which we are unaware. We may be seeing only unavoidable situations in which competing priorities make God’s intervention unwise, and even in those God may be working to lessen the blow.
tjguy, Thanks very much for that story from "American Minute" about the providential deliverance of Washington's army. I hadn't known about that episode. The event calls to mind Tennyson's aphorism: "More things are wrought by prayer than this world dreams of."vjtorley
September 5, 2015
September
09
Sep
5
05
2015
03:57 PM
3
03
57
PM
PDT
Hi Seversky, Thank you for your comments. You write:
God is supposed to be omniscient. That means he already knows the outcome of any experiment we can think of – and that includes how people respond to suffering and evil.
Actually, that only follows if you accept either a predestinationist (Calvinist/Banezian) or Molinist account of free will. (In the latter account, God knows all counterfactuals.) But if you accept a Boethian account of free will, as I do, then it doesn't follow. On this account, God is timeless, but His knowledge is that of a spectator. So God cannot know the outcome of an experiment involving free creatures (such as ourselves), unless He actually performs it.vjtorley
September 5, 2015
September
09
Sep
5
05
2015
03:45 PM
3
03
45
PM
PDT
Axel, would you please elaborate?Box
September 5, 2015
September
09
Sep
5
05
2015
01:54 PM
1
01
54
PM
PDT
Worse, Box, imo, is that you and Mapou make no allowance for paradox re free will.Axel
September 5, 2015
September
09
Sep
5
05
2015
01:26 PM
1
01
26
PM
PDT
Imagine for a moment this scenario.  Programmer creates cellular automata world on a computer. Little creatures and their world  are just patterns of electronic signals moving around the memory grid. He may make himself coffee and display the patterns so he can watch what's happening. Even though software rules he established are very simple emerging patterns become complex and unpredictable. Automata become conscious and intelligent and start learning about the world.  Automata scientists figure that everything is made of electrons which move around in bunches and follow simple rules built into the grid. They can count number of electrons in any bunch down to high precision. They develop ways to accelerate electrons and smash them around to see what happens. Automata scientists find the latest little pathway on a memory grid. They see that everything is stable, orderly and predictable in their reality. Automata philosophers start asking tough questions: If the Creator exists what are his intentions? Atheist automata ask: Would he call 911 for me? Theist automata say: you should do it yourself and stop whining, you will die sooner or later anyway. What could automata be able to say about programmer? Could they observe programmer with their science or even imagine how to describe him? Where is the programmer? How he looks and behaves? Does he eat, dream or is he ever going to pull the plug? The simple answer is no, we don't know his plan or intentions. There is no way for automata to cross to another domain/realm to observe or study the programmer. I cannot think of any probe or experiment they could setup to cross the barrier. Wise ones notice the rules which provide stability and orderliness to their world. They also see that combination of rules + some freedom is the optimum setup for their world.  They realize there is something amazing going on but nobody is sure what.Eugen
September 5, 2015
September
09
Sep
5
05
2015
01:11 PM
1
01
11
PM
PDT
Mapou: Seversky is correct about this omniscience thing. It’s all silly crackpottery from people who have not thought it through or are just dogmatic believers who are set in their ways.
That’s rich coming from you. I already exposed your erroneous reasoning in another thread.
Mapou: the point is that, if God can see all past, present and future, there is no free will. It’s already determined. But since there is free will, God cannot see all past, present and future. It’s one or the other. There is no getting around this. It’s trivial logic and no one has to be a propeller head in order to understand it.
What you don’t seem to get is that seeing the future does not imply causing the future. Those actions are entirely distinct. Similarly I know that the sun will rise tomorrow, but I don’t cause the sun to rise. So, assuming that an outside-time-perspective exists, why should things be “already determined” when seen by God? You seem to hold that God must determine the future if God sees the future. It doesn’t follow.Box
September 5, 2015
September
09
Sep
5
05
2015
01:03 PM
1
01
03
PM
PDT
EDTA:
You seem to be making the same presumption that others make, namely that if God were real, he could/should just sit us down, and explain every factor, every contingency, every mitigating circumstance to us, and we would be capable of fully understanding it, and would accept it as reasonable. There is no reason to believe that any of that is the case.
If we don't understand it now, we'll understand it later. We learn and we increase our knowledge, just like the Gods. Heck, we are Gods. So say the scriptures.
The conclusion here is that that the Bible, and any other communication to us from on high has to be a watered-down, simplified version of the actual truth.
Ha. Some things are written in a simple language for a certain age. Others are not. As the prophet Daniel wrote, a time would come when knowledge would increase. The time has arrived for us to understand the difficult things. I have excellent reasons to believe that some of the metaphorical books in the Bible contains revolutionary scientific knowledge that will shake the foundation of human civilization. Get ready to live in interesting times.Mapou
September 5, 2015
September
09
Sep
5
05
2015
12:54 PM
12
12
54
PM
PDT
1 10 11 12 13

Leave a Reply