Would a World with God or Without God Look the Same?

In my latest blog post [Faith vs. Unbelief], a commenter posed this statement, “A world with a deistic "god" looks exactly the same as a world without one.”

I have pondered this thought, and even posed the question, “What do you base this thought on?”

I received no answer from the original commenter, but another commenter added to the same thought, “A universe with a deistic god is indistinguishable from one with no god at all; that being the case, the deistic god can neither be proven nor disproven, nor is it useful in any way for explaining why the universe is the way it is.”

So now we have the idea from two persons that:
1. A world [universe] with God would look [be indistinguishable] like a world [universe] without God.
2. God can not be proven or disproven, and is not useful to explain why the universe is the way it is.

I would just like to consider this thought here, and there is a lot of other thoughts left waiting on that post that I would like to get to this week, hopefully.

As a Christian, it is no secret that I believe the Scriptures when it comes to things such as God and creation. As a Christian, I must conclude that God is the Creator of all that is. I understand that there are Christians that believe in the literal account of Genesis, young earth, old earth, and some that hold to evolution. Though there are some differences, the common theme is that God is the Creator. So, for a Christian, there is no way to think or speak of the current thought, “A world with a deistic "god" looks exactly the same as a world without one.” For if there is no God, there is no world; therefore, there would be no world without God to compare to a world with God.

As an Atheist (I believe the commenters to be), I can’t help but ask what point or logic does this statement mean to them? What I mean is, if one does not believe in God (or gods) and that this world simply is by itself (by whatever means it has come about, but without a Creator), how can it be compared to what a world would be if created by God?

Since two different commenters made the same claim, I can’t help but ask for more insight to the thoughts of such a claim.

Also, I ponder the second commenter’s addition, in that “the deistic god can neither be proven nor disproven, nor is it useful in any way for explaining why the universe is the way it is.”

Does this mean that, if accepted, there is indeed a Creator (God), that He would be unimportant concerning our thoughts surrounding creation, or that just acknowledging Him as Creator would not in and of itself answer all of the questions regarding all there is to know about how the entirety of everything works?

Honestly, this statement, “A world with a deistic "god" looks exactly the same as a world without one” means little to a Christian, since we believe without God there would be nothing created.

As an Atheist, or the two original authors, please help me understand what you mean by the statements and how a comparison could ever be made, if we are actually living in either a world [universe] created by God or we are not, and have no way to experiencing the other.

Again, I hope to slowly, but surely cover the other points raised in the other posts, so let’s try to stay on this one thought here.

Whose Doing All The Preaching Anyway

Interesting article:

Pop Culture Prophets and Media Messiahs

So Mark, Did You Leave Us Hanging Or Not?

Check out:

Scholars tussle over end of Mark's Gospel

What Do Theists and Atheists Have In Common?

I believe I have found what atheists, theists, and any other 'ists' seem to have in common.

None of us very much like our beliefs/thoughts/ideas/convictions questioned, and we don't mind telling the offender so.

I wonder if there is really such a thing as "agree to disagree".
I doubt we could agree there is such.

Sure we say, "We will just not talk to the other side", yet we still spend our time talking about the other side. So we really haven't agreed to disagree, but have decided to disagree behind their back so we don't have to listen to their point. This way we get to talk and make fun of them without any recourse or test of what we are saying. This helps us to feel free to sling railing accusations without actual support or facts to back up our claims.

Interesting...

Side/their/them - simply meaning anyone we personally disagree with.

Just a tid-bit to think about.

update: Hmmm... What about an agnostic? I have never spoken to one that I know of. Would they hold this common that us 'ists' do?

What Heaven Is That : Genesis 1:1

I was recently in a discussion, actually a different topic and it moved to a discussion about Genesis 1 and heaven. I mentioned I believe Genesis 1:1 is talking about the creation of heaven where God is and earth where we are.

I was told “You really need to find a good commentary brother. You have apassion for God, but you need some help in how to interpret the Bible”, which is fine, but the majority of things I believe have come from books, preachers, and/or teachers of the Baptist type. So, there is probably only a small portion of ideas I may hold that originated out of thin air (for a better quote) from reading the Bible without any previous knowledge of such from another person.

I have been told that “the heaven” in verse 1 is “the deep dark expanse of outer space...where the stars, the moon, the planets, the solar systems, etc., are located”. Also that “the firmament” of day 2 “was the area which held the water described on day 2”.

I was also given this:
Strong's,
Extended surface (solid), expanse, firmament
Expanse (flat as base, support)
Firmament (of vault of heaven supporting waters above)
Considered by Hebrews as solid and supporting 'waters' above
It does not exist to day, because it's part of what God used in the flood, later in Genesis.

Let me say that I do believe the firmament separated water above and below itself as scripture claims in Genesis 1:7 and I do believe that the waters above the firmament were used in the flood of Noah’s day. YET, scripture does not say the firmament held the water, but that the water was “above” and “below” the firmament.

I was also asked “you think the birds fly in the same firmament as the one where you’ll find the sun, moon and stars? I take it you never studied astronomy andthe different ‘spheres.’”

Here is my reply:

This is why I am being confused by what is being said.

In verse 1 it is said that God created the heaven and the earth; therefore they come into existence. So, at the beginning, we have "the heaven" and "the earth".

In verse 6 God creates a firmament between the waters and calls this firmament "Heaven" (8).

So now we have "the heaven", "the earth", and "firmament" (called heaven).

In this same firmament now called heaven (8) (not the original in vs. 1, for vs. 1 was already created in the beginning) he places the sun, moon, stars, etc. (14-18). In this same firmament we see fowl flying (20).

I am unclear as to how one can say the firmament can be removed without removing also the sun, moon, stars, etc. that God placed there. In vs. 14-18 God clearly puts the sun, moon, stars, etc. in the firmament that is created on day 2, not in the heaven created "in the beginning".

I also fail to see how the firmament created in verse 8 can be the same heaven in verse 1, whereas we don't take the mention of earth in vs. 1 and then in vs. 2 as two different earth's being created.

The closet thing I can pull is as it says "the firmament in the heaven" meaning the firmament (called heaven) is in the midst of the heaven He created "in the beginning".

So I pose the question here to the reader:

Is the heaven created in Genesis 1:1 where God lives or not? In your opinion, of course.

Wedding Crashers

I recently saw a show on television called The Wedding Crashers. No, I’m not talking about the movie, which I did not see, but a show with real weddings and real brides and grooms which ask these people to really crash their weddings so they will be remembered.

This post will mostly be for a stimulus of some verses in Scripture I find most interesting.

Matthew 22:9-14

9 Go ye therefore into the highways, and as many as ye shall find, bid to the marriage.

10 So those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together all as many as they found, both bad and good: and the wedding was furnished with guests.

11 And when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man which had not on a wedding garment:

12 And he saith unto him, Friend, how camest thou in hither not having a wedding garment? And he was speechless.

13 Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness, there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

I believe most consider this to be the marriage supper of the Lamb, which is only for the saved people, hence the wedding garments. I have heard it said that “Friend” could refer to Judas since Christ called him “Friend” when he betrayed Him.

Granted there are two ways to look at these verses:

1] As a parable, but then I ask what exactly does this “Friend” signify?

2] As literal, but then I ask who exactly is this “Friend”?

Anyone got a clue?

Sure this isn’t necessary knowledge for salvation, but can’t we enjoy the Bible?

Mixed Breed: Angels & Mankind (Gen. 6 alt view)

This was sent in from a good pastor friend of mine and although we disagree about angels here, I believe it is a very good read and he supports it with scripture. Most will most likely find themselves following this view varried over what I have written in my last post. I have added a few notes of my own in blue. Please enjoy.

---

A reoccurring theme throughout the Old and New Testament is that believers are not to marry unbelievers. To do so would lead, in most cases, to corruption of godly morals and principles and there are examples of this in the Scriptures. King Solomon and his wives who lead him into idolatry. King Ahab and his marrying of Jezebel, In Malachi chapter 2; 10-16 the issue is addressed, In Ezra the daughters of the land were taken and were put away in repentance when the children of Israel returned to the Lord. Even some of the priest were considered corrupt because their blood lines were not pure (read Ezra Chapters 9-10) and of course, there is the passage you have chosen: Genesis 6 is another example of godly principles and values being lost through the marriage of believers and non- believers---that is why God said don't do it! (II Corinthians 6:14). The word Seth means appointed. Adam and Eve were given another seed (son) instead of Able whom Cain slew. Genesis 6:25. I think that does mean that Adam and Eve were given a son with a likeness of Abel. Personally, I think that was spiritually. Abel offered a more respectable sacrifice than Cain, Seth would have done like wise. Now, I know there is no biblical support for that other than Genesis 6:26 that after Seth bore Enos, then men began to call on the name of the Lord. I think call means to turn to or at least acknowledge. When the sons of God saw the daughters of men, I believe that it is referring to a godly race and the godly were corrupted by the ungodly. 1 rotten potatoe in a bag will make you think that all the potatoes are bad---the stink of one corrupts the rest. Same is true when Godly principles and values are compromised---America is a prime example of that. I do not believe the sons of God were angels, but if you do, you are in good company because I know many great people who think the same way---I just do not think it is right :-)

Yes, we can agree with the birth of Enos scripture declares men began to call on the name of the Lord, but I don't find scriptural support that all the lineage of Seth was godly and all the lineage of Cain was ungodly. Also, within the white pages, were Cain, Able, and Seth Adam and Eve's only male children? Although my friend does not agree about angels here, the fact that scripture clearly teaches against the saved and unsaved joining in marriage is undeniable.

You say that the case is weak against such a view, well, It is no more weak than the argument that these sons of God were angels, but the later seems to make far more sense. You asked: "And why would the joining of a saved person and a lost person produce giants and “mighty men which were of old, men of renown”? the word giants does not refer in this passage to men of great stature, it refers to men of status. I think that some of the worlds most deceptive men where of such; Hitler and Stalin were men of status and are renown, but there are others who are not so cruel and even fly under the banner of Jesus Christ, Benny Hinn, Jessie Duplantis and yes I will say it, Joel Olsteen. These are men of status who are deceiving and leading people away from the knowledge of God.

The view that I find weak is the thought that all the lineage of Seth was godly and all the lineage of Cain was ungodly.

As for God placing an enmity between Christ and Satan and causing men to sin and rebel, there is some truth to what you say. Because of sin, we are enemies of God. For those in Christ that enmity has been taken away (Romans 5). But, I think the Seed of Satan and the seed of the woman (the Messiah) go much further than just believer and unbeliever. Satan's seed is not just the unbeliever but also the Anti-Christ who is Satan incarnate. Christ (who is God incarnate) willl crush his head! He defeated Satan at the Cross through the resurrection from the dead and He will ultimately defeat him and cause Satan to be bruised under the feet of the saints of God---Romans 16:20.

What exactly are you suggesting here? What exaclty is meant by "the Anti-Christ who is Satan incarnate"? That he produces a seed, that he comes in the flesh, or will indwell (possess) an individual?

I can't follow your logic that it is God's fault that we sin and rebel against Him, but I can follow the fact that we won't we can't come to God. God must come to each of us and for those who are saved, God takes the initiative and the course of action. I think you would be hard pressed to make our sin and rebellion God's fault. You will have to twist a lot of Scripture to do that. It is this type of teaching that turns good people into hyper-Calvinist saying: it doesn't matter what I do, I do what I do because God made me this way and if God wants me to change He will change me. . . That puts no responsibility on the individual which violates much Scripture. I do not think the teachings on the Sovereignty of God were ever meant to be taken to such extremes. It was given to comfort the hearts and minds of God's people so they could learn to trust and worship Him no matter what! Not for a license to sin.

I did not clarify myself properly, it was supposed to be posed as a question and not as a fact that it is God's fault that we sin and rebel. We are sinners because Adam disobey God and has pasted that depravity down to all mankind, yet I still believe that the enmity (the punishment for sin as one put it) does cause us to run and rebel from God instead of causing us to run and cleave to God. I would never on purpose take the personaly responsibility of sin off of man and place it on God.

Just my take for what it is worth.

Thanks. Good stuff!

Mixed Breed: Angels & Mankind

The topic for today will most likely bring forth entertainment, interest, and criticism. There will be those which accept it, those which reject it, and those which may never have heard of it, but rest assured this is not an original thought. The idea of how far one may take the supernatural realm is above and beyond for some, yet easily discarded by others, but scripture is indeed filled with miracles and the unexplainable. One only needs to read it.

We have set before us in Genesis 6:1-4:
And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years. There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.

First off we see “when men began to multiply on the face of the earth”, so we can conclude that there were already women (therefore daughters) alive at this time. We may also take note that it says “men began to multiply”.

Secondly we have the mention of “the sons of God”. Take note that the men begat daughters, but it is the sons of God which are looking upon them and taking wives. Also, interestingly, the phrase “sons of God” is only found five (5) times in the KJV: Genesis 6:2; Genesis 6:4; Job 1:6; Job 2:1; Job 38:7. Every reference in the OT is connected to angelic beings, and it is not until the NT that we find it referring to born again mankind. The only other OT mention is “the son of God” which Nebuchadnezzar is speaking of Christ in the midst of the flames with the three Hebrew children in Daniel 3:25. I realize that this point is debateable, but I use the KJV.

It has been argued that “the sons of God” are the lineage of Seth and “the daughters of men” are the lineage of Cain. Many claim that the idea that angels can/did mingle with man is laughable, but the lineage of Seth and Cain claim is very much a weak biblical argument with no evidence of support whatsoever. For one, if that be the case, one would have to claim that the entire male lineage of Seth were saved; which I highly doubt for the fact that only Noah, his wife, and his three sons and their wives were saved through the flood. And why would the joining of a saved person and a lost person produce giants and “mighty men which were of old, men of renown”?

We have in Jude 1:6: And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.

We find it interesting that these angels kept not their first estate and are bound, yet there are those which indeed are free to roam and cause havoc as scripture records the casting out of such by Christ and others. Any guess would be speculation, but noticing in the context of Jude follows “Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh” in verse 7 and the mention of “filthy dreamers defile the flesh” and “dignities” in verse 8, an assumption that Genesis 6 and Jude 6 may actually have a connection deserves a look. Especially in the context of 1 Peter 3:18-20, with the mention of the “spirits in prison” “which sometime were disobedient” “in the days of Noah”.

Along the lines of the “spirits in prison” and “days of Noah” in 1 Peter 3:18-20, including what we have seen in Genesis 6 what led up to the flood, we also have Christ, Himself, telling us in Matthew 24:37, “as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.”

If that were not enough, we have the dream of Daniel. In Daniel 2:41-44 we have the toes of the statue which have foretold every great world kingdom that shall be of man. Interestingly here in verses 41-43, before the last kingdom before the return of Christ in verse 44, we find these words:

whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay, they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men: but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay.

Did you catch that? “they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men”. We are the clay, Genesis 2:7, could it not be that the angels are the iron?

As I close, I would like to leave you with one other point for you to consider, for by now I either have your interest or your mockery.

In Genesis 3:15, most, if not all, would agree we have the prophecy of Christ: And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

We, mostly, agree that “her seed” is a reference to Christ, for Christ was conceived by the Holy Spirit born of a virgin and is not of the seed of man (i.e. Adam). With that in mind, have you missed the two words before it?

“thy seed”. Who is thy here? None other than Satan. One may quickly wish to say, “But that means anyone that is not born again” and you might even quote John 8:44, “Ye are of your father the devil”.

Okay, now that you have taken that stand, consider this. If “thy seed” is all those which are unbelievers, which indeed we were all at one time, God said, “I will put enmity” “between thy seed and her seed”. Enmity means, “a feeling or condition of hostility; hatred; ill will; animosity; antagonism.” It must then be God’s fault that we are sinners and rebels toward a Holy God and virtually impossible to come to Him, for He Himself has put it in us to be “hostility; hatred; ill will; animosity; antagonism.” toward Him.

Ouch! Where does that leave you?

---

UPDATE: 3/18/07

Let it be noted that the last paragraph was actually based as a question and not a statement. Although scripture clearly teaches enmity has been put there by God, it is not God's fault that we are sinners; for it was the sin of Adam which is the cause of sin brought to all of mankind. And if indeed "thy seed" refers to all unbelivers, how then shall they come of themselves which have within them such enmity of Christ?

Others Besides Adam and Eve / Cain’s Wife

The topic of “Were there other people besides Adam and Eve outside of the Garden of Eden” and “Where did Cain get his wife” has been brought to my attention numerous times over the years. So, for the sake of those inquires, I have posted here what I believe we find in scripture.

If one disagrees, please, feel free to share further biblical insight that we may all learn.

---

Genesis 2:20: And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

There were no other people alive at the time. If there were other people, then surely there would have been at least one woman for Adam.

Genesis 2:23: And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

Eve, Woman, was made from Man. Which man? Adam. So, there were no women before Eve.

Genesis 3:20: And Adam called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.

Notice, Eve is the mother of all living. Again, she was the first woman (Genesis 3:20), so that makes her the first woman to give birth (Genesis 4:1) and therefore the mother of us all.

Genesis 3:22: And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

Who is “the man”? Adam (Genesis 2:15-19).

Genesis 5:1: This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made he him;

Notice “God created man in the likeness of God.” This is only said of Adam in Genesis 1:27. So, if there were other people (mankind) at the time, they would not be “created…in the likeness of God”.

Genesis 5:2: Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.

Now, we see God created “male and female” and “called their name Adam.” With this said, take note of these facts:

---

· “God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” (Genesis 1:27) But, it only mentions Adam. Yet, Adam is the man (Genesis 2:15-19).

· Genesis 2:4 starts over with “These are the generations of the heavens…” explaining Genesis 1 further.

· Note that “God formed man of the dust of the ground” in Genesis 2:7.

· Now note that “the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.” (Genesis 2:22) Notice that the woman (Eve) was made from the man (Adam) and not of the ground as the man (Adam) was. That is why is says here in Genesis 5:2, “and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.”

---

Deuteronomy 32:8: When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.

Again, Adam, the first man, is mentioned. Why not anyone else if there was another linage besides the man, Adam, living outside of the garden?

Chronicles 1:1: Adam, Sheth, Enosh,

Again, Adam is mentioned as the first of all mankind.

Luke 3:38: Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

Again, Adam is directly related as the first man, formed by God.

1 Corinthians 15:22: For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

Notice that all mankind are sinners (Romans 3:23), because of the sin of Adam. If there were people outside of the garden – they would not be held to this sin or death, nor would they have a Savior in Christ (Romans 6:23). We are all born of Adam; therefore we are all born sinners and die. By accepting Christ as Savior we are then born of the Spirit and are made alive in Christ.

1 Corinthians 15:45: And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam was made a quickening spirit.

Clearly, Adam was the first man – and the last Adam, the quickening spirit, is Christ.

There is NO PROOF of any other mankind creation ANYWHERE in Scripture.

So where did Cain get his wife?

Cain married his sister.

When did it become a sin to marry your sister?

There was no law given in Genesis 4. I do not believe one was given until Leviticus 18.

---

Check out Richard's Good and Bad, or Vice Versa