Hi Mike,

Just came up for a bit of air. I'm really sorry to be so tardy in my responses. Just very busy. Gack...

>>I have a couple minutes to respond here. Maybe more later...
>
>Cool
>
>>>If God is all powerful, and perfect (correct me if I'm wrong there), how come he has to step into the affairs of human beings?
>>He doesn't have to I suppose.
>
>But he does. According to you, he hold the atoms together. He has to be right in there, and if he wasn't, we would explode. All according to you.0

No, I think you're jumping to a couple of conclusions here. First of all I did not say nor did I intend to assert that because God could insert Himself into the affairs of mankind that He must or He didn't. Of course, if God is holding the atoms togehter that comprise you and me He is intervening in the affairs of mankind - in that sense. Now, does that mean He's obligated to demonstrate Himself at our whim? Hardly I'd think. Has He or does He? You bet! ALl the time. I can cite you examples from my own life I suppose. Look at the story of Moses and the whole wilderness affair. Someone has calculated that with the some 2-3 million individuals that the manna God provided would have been on the order of some 40 tons per day. I'd call that direct intervention. But, did it do any good? Nope. They still didn't believe.

But God cartainly could intervene if He so chose. He just doesn't have to in the sense of having to explain to you or me why or why not.

>
>>essentially asserting that man indeed will destroy himself unless God steps into history again directly. I see nothing in current news that would persuade me that man is on an upward path.
>
>And this is the reason I'm scared to death of people like you. No offense of course :-)

Don't misunderstand Mike. It's people "like me" who are helping to avoid this end. I do it every time I say that people should live moral lives and they listen, for example. One mor positive moral choice is good when it comes to valuing human life. Contrary-wise it's foks who believe that nan is nothing more than an enlightened bit of mud (all 17 elemets) that conclude man is disposeable and tyhat abortion and euthanasia is ok. IOW, it's people like you, if you believe these things, that are generally degrading the condition of mankind. Sorr if that sounds harsh but it's the elevation of personal selfishness that will destroy mankind, not the elevation of the concept of sacrificing one's life for others that will....

>
>>>If your guess that the force holding atoms together is God himself, admittedly, doesn't that prove that God erred in creating the universe?
>>How so? What in the universe (or creation <g>) would you say would cause people to think God erred? Mankind and the way mankind acts perhaps?
>
>I think you're missing my point. Here:
>
>Premise1: If the force holding the atoms together disappears, the universe will implode/explode
>Premise2: God holds the atoms together
>Conclusion1: If god steps away from the universe to observe it, it will be destroyed

Well, if He "let's go" it (the universe) will certainly go away, that's for sure. And, the Bible says that this is exactly what will happen at some future point in time. Read 2 Peter 3:10 & 2 Peter 3:12 (in context! <g>). Now, reading on we see that God will create a new heaven and earth...

>
>Premise3: If God were omnipotent, he could step away from the universe to observe it
>Premise4: God is omnipotent
>Conclusion2: God can step away from the universe to observe it

Well, you're pre-limiting God's omnipotent abilities it seems here. Why can't He do both at the same time? He is omniscient, you know, so He doesn't need to 'observe' anything as He already knows it, right? <s>

You keep trying to define God into your ability to understand Him. Common actually. Think about it.. How can finite (you, me any human) understand infinirt (God)? To try is kind of silly actually and also why God must reveal Himself to man for man to understand Him. It simply won't work any other way..

>
>But this contradicts conclusion1! So, logically, either Premise2 or Premise4 is false. I think it would be diplomatic to conclude:

>
>If God exists and is omnipotent he is not holding atoms together.
>
>Agreed?

Nope.. Again, you're limiting God to your abilities to understand Him it seems.

>
>
>>Well, here's how I will understand your question. Please correct me if this isn't what you mean, ok?
>>"IOW, why a personal god and not an impersonal god?", which I think is a great question!
>
>Hmmm, there are sublte differences, but we can start here.

Ehrr.. These differences are exactly what differentiate deism with theism Mike.. Not subtle at all IMO.

>
>>OTOH, Christianity teaches that God is personal and is immensely interested in each individual to the point that He knows the number of hairs on their head. Stuff like that. <s>
>
>IOW, the answer to "Why theism over deism" is "because theism teaches theism"? Sorry, thats not quite good enough.

No, that's a misreading. I am asserting that the classical definition of deism v theism includes the notion of an impersonal god with a personal god. That is, in the sense that 'personhood' has several components such as self-awareness, will, choice, knowledge of others, the ability to communicate and so forth. Personality or personhood is at some point a fairly strongly defined term and concept.

I am asserting that God has the qualities of personhood; personality.

>
>>One of the more intriguiging philosophical issues is to explain how man has a personality is self-aware and also able to communicate with others if there is no observable source these attributes may be derived from.
>
>There is a source, genetics. We've talked about self-awareness before, so thats a non-issue, but for communication
>http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/08/15/coolsc.speech/index.html
>
>It doesn't prove anything besides that supernatural is not the only answer, and we should be open minded towards genetics.

As I've said before, there are certsin 'qualities' that elevate mankind above the animal. Love, joy, grief, anger, revenge, honesty, selflessness, etc.

>
>In any case, I fail to see how language and communication can only result from a personal god. Insight?

Pheww.. A huge topic. Honestly, the best thing I can do here is refer you to "The God Who Is There" by Dr. Francis Schaeffer. He deals with this whole issue in a book and I dare say I cannot do the subject real justice here I'd think. It's a worthy read IMO andf I think you'd find it would answer a lot of these issues for you. He (Dr. S.) is dealing exactly with these huge issues we have been discussing here in that book.

>
>>>IOW, are your conclusions really predefined conclusions that you have found evidence to support, or are your conclusions derived from finding impartial evidence and logically arriving at rational conclusions (as youy claim above)?
>>Well, probably a little of both.
>
>A little of both by defintion disqualifes you from claiming you "have not voilated the rational thinking process". Sorry.

Not really. If I conclude that it would be rational to exercise faith that in no way invalidates the reasoning that I used to arrive at this conclusion. Rather, I'd think it is an honest man who is able to admit he doesn't know (nor can) everything and that soem things must be taken on faith. You and I and veryone else, every day, take by faith the notion that others have done their dcientific/research 'due diligence' and that the product or service we use will, in fact, operate as advertised. Airplanes are a good example. Are you an aerodynamic engineer? I am not, yet I am able to fly. I take by faith something I really do not understand.

I assert again that as I have looked at the evidence, both before and after exercising my faith, that the choice I have made is, in fact, the most rational of all choices - and that what I have discovered is that the reality is there. Now, does that mean at somepoint I stopped thinking? No way! It only means that pure thought can only take me so far and that it also has limitations.

I do not believe that spirituality should be irrational whatsoever.

>
>>I've suggested several times that you investigate the writings of the late Dr. Francis Schaeffer's writings.
>
>Narrow it down to something, and I'll go get it. Keep in mind, if it doesn't have the logic that I asked for I'm going to be severaly dissappointed in your cop-out answer.

"The God Who Is There"

I'll even send you a copy if you'd like.

>
>>Additionally, I can cite many examples of cases where someone challenged the claims of Christianity and when they honestly looked at the evidence they became believers.
>
>I can cite many examples of cases where someone challenged the claims of Atheism and when they honestly looked at the evidence they became non-believers.
>
>This isn't a fun game :-)

*chuckle*

Sure, when you're not tied to a particular pov. <g>

No guts, no glory. <g>

>
>>please explain to me then the existence of evil.
>
>Intellectually, I've gotten my self past the point where I believe that words we use out of convience are really something that exists.

Sheesh.. Talk about cop-outs. <g>

"I can't really answer your question Doug so I won't. Now, don't we all feel better now?" <bg>

Is this new-age post-intellecualism I'm seeing here? <g>

>
>Evil doesn't exist outside of the dictionary.

So Hitler's real name was Webster?

>
>>If God created mankind it isn't wrong that He should place man and women in the relationship to each other He deems best is it?
>
>Hmmmm, I'm not going to touch this at all.

Chicken. <g>

The answer is that God is soverign and can do any dang thing He wants.

Isn't it nice that He loves us and His desire is for our all-encompasing (spiritual, mental, physical, etc) well-being and not an unknowing, impersonal, distant 'force' who is absolutely uninterested in His creation? <s>

>
>>Let me ask you this; did this opinion you just expressed come from another source, your own observations or your own studies?
>
>My own studies. I was very dissappointed to find that sexist passage in the new Testament. The old I coudl have let go, but 1 Timothy 2 is ridiculous.

Well, as I've suggested you need to make sure you also include the cultural and language studies you ened there. Christianity has done more to liberate ladies than anything else I know. Granted there are a bunch of male-chauvinist (to use popular venacular) who twist the scriptures to suit their puny egos but that's not what the actual text says or author meant.

>
>>In no way do I mind being put on the spot by tough questions.
>
>I'd like to know what you think when you look at the stars. Do those stars have planets? Do those planets have life? Are they capable of life?

You know, that's a neat question. Candidly I hope so but I really don't know. I think it's always difficult to speculate but it's so dang big.. And beautiful.


And ordered.. <g>