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.

Faith vs. Unbelief

What I have recently learned on my blog while speaking to Atheists:

1. Acceptance of science’s theory of evolution is not belief that it is actually true, but merely holds that it is the best theory science has. The word “consensus” is used, meaning “opinion”, which cannot be used as authoritatively fact.

2. Science has not/can not prove there is no God (some assume because it is a negative), because He is out of the natural realm.

3. Science cannot prove there is a God, because He is out of the natural realm.

4. To science, God is non testable, because “The idea of a supernatural explanation (i.e. god) is not even considered, because science cannot test or falsify supernatural explanations. They are outside the bounds of science.”

5. Science does not work with absolutes, so all is relative to current knowledge which may change at any given time due to new evidence overwriting old evidence, or “consensus”, meaning “opinion”.

6. I am not to use science to prove there is a God, because science is evidence and fact not belief and faith.

With even this little bit of “consensus” I have gleaned from some of the Atheists comments from my blog, it clearly shows we merely return to the Scriptures context of Faith vs. Unbelief.

When it comes to God, there is either Faith or Unbelief. Science has no apparent voice, authority, or opinion of God, for He is “outside the bounds of science”.

Now before someone jumps at the word “unbelief”, any honest Atheist must adhere to its definition and admit that in fact they hold to “unbelief”.

Unbelief: “the state or quality of not believing; incredulity or skepticism, esp. in matters of doctrine or religious faith.”

Scripture declares, “He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.”

Be forewarned that, “the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.”

Neither are you who say that you believe in God, but refuse to repent and accept Christ as Lord and Savior of your life by faith, safe, for even, “the devils also believe, and tremble.”

There must be Faith, for it is written, “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.”

There is no more security in science for any to assume, by its inability to prove God is not, or in oneself by the inability to physically see or completely understand the things of God, to hold to a personal opinion that God does not exist.

It simply boils down to a personal choice of Faith or Unbelief.

I would ask that you, “repent ye, and believe the gospel”.

What then is the gospel?

1 Corinthians 15

1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;

2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.

3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;

4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

5 And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:

6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.

7 After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.

Islamic Creationist Sends Scientists His Evidence Against Evolution

In an article by the New York Times, “the voice of Adnan Oktar of Turkey, who, under the name Harun Yahya, has produced numerous books, videos and DVDs on science and faith, in particular what he calls the “deceit” inherent in the theory of evolution. One of his books, “Atlas of Creation,” is turning up, unsolicited, in mailboxes of scientists around the country and members of Congress, and at science museums in places like Queens and Bemidji, Minn.”

Not really any comments from me on this issue, I just found it interesting.

Science Must Acknowledge a Creator to Hold to the Big Bang

We are told, by the definition of The law of conservation of mass/matter, that “matter cannot be created nor destroyed, although it may change form.” It has been noted that “Matter can become energy, and energy can become matter, but always according to e=m2.” And it is noted that, the “Law of Conservation of Energy states: Energy cannot be created or destroyed.”

So there is a problem with the Big Bang.

Where did all of the matter/energy originate from, since the Big Bang could neither create nor destroy matter/energy?

Simple answer: A Creator.

Even now, there are those which desire to claim “another universe whose collapse appears to have given birth to the one we live in today”. Man can continue to grasp straws from the great unknown, but science returns to their own FACTS that matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed.

It is merely simple to understand where the idea of the Big Bang originated from:

Genesis 1:1 says, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.” Throughout His creation, He is said to have spoken things into existence (ex. “God said”).

Just like when God spoke to Moses, concerning the 10 commandments, whereas Moses, the prophet looking unto God for His wisdom, heard His words, the people below, which murmured and disbelieved the very God which had released them from Egypt, only “saw the thunderings, and the lightnings, and the noise of the trumpet, and the mountain smoking”, and they only wanted to hear Moses and not the voice of God.

So, as Christians, we hear the Words of God through Scripture as He spoke into existence the matter/energy and all that is, while others only hear the sounds and take what they see as the Big Bang.

Sorry science, (although I completely disagree with your ideas contrary to Scripture concerning the creation of all that is) without a Creator, you have no Big Bang.

Personally Slaying Sinners Not Taught In the New Testament

Concerning the article of a “false prophet” killing a homosexual, an atheist writes this and:

---

[MB]
Oh, this murderer wasn't obeying the scripture?

Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them....

Ye shall therefore keep all my statutes, and all my judgments, and do them

Please explain to me how he wasn't following your murderous religion? Or are you one of these christians who thinks he knows which parts of the bible count and which don't? Because, you know, you're better qualified to say what should be in "god's written word" than god is.

And in the New Testament, gays and their supporters are worthy of death:

Romans 1:31 Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

---

This will be simple, far less than a full explanation, which many better writers with greater wisdom than I, have written.

Let me begin by saying that “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.” So, both the OT and NT is good for man to know, but it serves difference purposes and was written for specific persons and times.

The Levitical Law was setup for Moses and the children of Israel, and not for the New Testament church. For us, we study the Levitical Law portion of the Old Testaments for serveral reasons. One of those reasons is to identify what God calls sin.

This was a theocracy with God’s judgment of sin carried out by men. The law was to be upheld or it brought physical death and/or punishment to the children of Israel.

In the New Testament, all sin is still worthy of death, for it is written, “For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.” There are many sins noted in Scripture, not limited to homosexuality. The works of the flesh will not allow people to inherit the kingdom of God, and sin will cause those to be thrown into the lake of fire.

All sin still deserves death, but God, through Jesus Christ, now through grace is longsuffering with His physical punishment. Death will still come and the second death will follow all those that reject Christ.

Simply because the Old Testament passing physical death upon the sins of people does not mean everyone could freely run around killing all kinds of sinners, nor is that what is done in the New Testament or today.

So sin has not changed, nor the penalty of sin, nor has the holiness of God against sin. The government of the United States of America is not the children of Israel and is not a theocracy. We, as Christians, are to obey the laws of the land, let our officials carry out the judgment of sin (although we do not judge as God does), and are to love and forgive not kill every person that is found to be a sinner. As the Law was a school master to teach us what is sin, Grace allows us mercy to bring us to repentance to God before judgment comes.

There is no contradiction with God, and to have a covenant with the children of Israel and a covenant with the Church does not at all mean He has changed His idea of sin or how it should be punished. You should personally thank God for being born during the age of Grace instead of the age of Law (whereby we all should be grateful), but rest assured the judgment is still death to all which sin and reject the only way to salvation, Jesus Christ, for the forgiveness of such. At the judgment, all that are found unclean (those which have rejected Christ) will be given the second death, cast into the lake of fire.

Journal of Mexico Mission Trip July 6-14 2007 to La Ciudad

I recently returned from a mission trip in La Ciudad, Mexico.

If you would like to read of our experiences, you can find a copy of my journal located here: http://stores.lulu.com/tlw97

The PDF download is free.

A printed copy is also available, but it is set to the lowest manufacturer cost (I do not make anything from any sales), so it does cost the base price of lulu.com to make it.

I wrote this that other Christians may be able to share in our experience and hopefully motivate us all to do more to spread the gospel message of salvation found in Jesus Christ.

False Prophet Kills Homosexual Claiming God Said To

Again we have a misrepresentation of God and the New Testament Scripture concerning how we are to live our lives as Christians. Any honest Christian or Atheist knows a person which claims “I believe I'm Elijah, called by God to be a prophet”, going around planning and desiring to kill a homosexual (or anyone) with a desire as, “I planned on sending him to hell”, is clearly confused to the Biblical message of Christ in the New Testament of Scripture.

Scripture clearly notes that there are false prophets, false teachers, false Christs, and false doctrine which was even prevalent during the days of Christ. Interestingly noted is that this false prophet apparently said, “God first commanded him to kill during a "visitation," or dream, while he was in prison in 2001.” Why would God make a “house call” to give him a job opposed to what He has openly revealed in the New Testament? Sorry, that is not the character of God.

Christians, we need to ensure that we follow the Scripture, by studying, meditating, prayer, and reading what God has given us in the New Testament. The unbeliever will easily use these types of acts to mock and speak ill of Christianity, so we must ensure our lives give example to that which Christ spoke of in His Word. No, we are not perfect, and the lost will always find fault in us to ease their conscience, but we are to be a light to darkness, not do that which is contrary to Scripture and claim God said to do it or that it is okay.

If we sin, let’s admit that we have sinned and repent and ask for forgiveness.

A Map of Faith, 2000

This map is apparently of data from 2000, I wonder about 2007.

I found the map above and individual group maps may be found at the website of American Ethnic Geography. Still not sure as to why there is no newer information posted since this copyright of 2002. They do note that "The U.S. Census Bureau, due to issues related to the separation of church and state, does not ask questions related to faith or religion on the decennial census. Accordingly, there are few sources of comprehensive data on church membership and religious affiliation for the United States. Perhaps the leading organization to address this gap is the Glenmary Research Center, which publishes Religious Congregations and Membership in the United States, 2000."

Compared to the 2004 Electoral Map

God Gives Man the Ability to Create Artificial Limbs

It appears that some would have us believe that since our human limbs do not automatically regenerate themselves if severed from our bodies, or grow later if we are born without them, that this may be used as a proof there is no God, or that He is not all powerful, or that He isn’t loving.

I received the following post:
“Beast,

Science beats religion again:http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/scientists-give-a-helping-hand/2007/07/19/1184559904090.html Scientists invent most realistic replacement limb yet. And Tim, before you go saying "yes but god did that through them", then answer me why god has let all of the amputees to date suffer until now? Why not inspire someone to build this limb when the first arm was lost?” [MB]

In response to another comment given:
“"With God all things are possible".Alright then. Ask God to help amputees grow back lost limbs.If he can do that, I will go back to Church. No questions asked. Deal????” [BEAST]

First, I would like to say this is great technology that God has given man the ability to design and put into use. Secondly, I would like to say this technology in no way proves that God does not exist, that He is unable to do all things, or that He does not love.

1. Interestingly those that take the road of evolution as to the origins of life instead of creation by God cheer the mutation process which they believe evolves species as such, but don’t fault it with the lack of ability to reproduce human limbs, nor do they get mad when the same mutations refuse to allow a limb to grow with the baby as they develop in the womb. I realize that this is a most unsatisfactory answer, but if you don’t discount evolution because our severed and missing limbs do not replace themselves, there is no need to try and use this as a “proof” there is no God.

2. The ability of what God can do and what He chooses to do is completely different. By creating man perfect, God did more than He had too, and for sending His Son Jesus Christ to die for sin, so that His rebellious creation could one day live with Him for all eternity without sin was more than He had to do. God deserves glory and praise from us, if for nothing else giving us life (although He has given much more) and eternal life (which will far surpass this earthly life) through Jesus Christ. If man had been created with every ability to be equal with God, whereby we were able to never need God, how then would He be glorified and why would man honor Him? We would be prideful in our own works (as we still are most often) failing to realize that God Himself is all in all our Creator and maker of all that we think and do.

3. As far as love goes, simply because God has chosen to create mankind without the ability to regenerate missing, severed, or failing parts of our body does not mean He is without love. To speak of God without respecting what is written by and of Him in Scripture is merely a sign of the depravity of man refusing to accept God as He is and what He has said. God created man perfect and sinless, and it was man that chose to trust the words of another over God. By sin, all of creation is cursed and therefore suffers and is no longer perfect, but this does not mean God does not love, for He sent His Son Jesus Christ that those who by grace through faith trust in Him shall be saved and made whole for all eternity. This life is temporal and the love of God desires man to be sinless, spiritual, perfect, and whole to live with Him for all eternity, not to be a sinner, fleshly, imperfect, and continually having to regenerate our parts while living in this less than perfect world (not because of God, but because of sin against God). To say God does not love because He does not always give us everything we desire, is like a spoiled child in a supermarket.

Is this to say that I or any Christian knows all the mind of God? Far be it from our lips to utter such nonsense. Our inability to know, define, physically see, or scientifically prove God, in no way makes Him any less God. I realize this may upset some and may be unsatisfactory to others, but Truth is Truth whether we accept it or like it.

One may challenge God with amputees, but it does not discredit Him. For His wisdom far surpasses all the wisdom that man could ever grasp, though he could live a million years and steal the memories of all persons that ever were, man could not come to understand all that God is and knows. How many amputees have trusted in the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, yet you who are whole deny Him with every breath. Why not ask them to share with you the testimony of the gospel of Jesus Christ that lives within their being?

Denying that God exist because one refuses to submit to His authority is a sad thing, something not to be boastful about.

“Alleged” Child Rapist Barbecue

“"I stuck him in his butt!" Linda Rhodes told MyFOXdfw.com, explaining how she and her son John Jennings apprehended the 17-year-old suspect Friday night in Garland, Texas.”

Click here to watch the video report from MyFOXdfw.com.

Mr. Pope Says We Have No “Means of Salvation”

It looks like the new pope has tried to limit salvation again by limiting the true Church of God to only the earthly religion of Catholicism. I say, very well they may indulge themselves in believing they have “the ability to trace their bishops back to Christ's original apostles” for I would rather trace my salvation to Christ rather than man any day.

To say those that trust in Christ outside of the Roman Catholic Church do not have the "means of salvation" is only opinion and/or tradition based nowhere in Scripture Mr. Pope. Scripture does not say, “The Catholic Church is the only way, truth, and life”, or that "The Pope is the only way, truth, and life", but that Jesus Christ is “the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me”.

I do find it interesting that one says, “"I don't know what motivated it at this time," she said. "But it's important always to point out that there's the official position and there's the huge amount of friendship and fellowship and worshipping together that goes on at all levels, certainly between Anglican and Catholics and all the other groups and Catholics."”

What do they mean by “official position”, if they can easily ignore it?

What is the unofficial position? Is that like saying, “I know none of you Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, and Lutherans are saved, but would you still like to get together to fellowship and worship? We’ll still let you preach and pray sometimes, even though the church (and the Pope) doesn’t believe you even have the means to be saved.”

I believe the truth of this statement comes down to one point, which is mentioned in the article: “it said they lack something because they do not recognize the primacy of the pope”.

Sorry Mr. Pope, I have a High Priest in Jesus Christ, I don’t need a Pope for salvation.

The “Means of Salvation” are not in an earthly church, but in the man Christ Jesus which was a Jew, not Roman Catholic.

ADHD Evolution

We are used to hearing that “natural selection” takes “over hundreds or thousands of years” or even longer, but apparently scientists are now suggesting that it has happened in “less than a year” according to an article on the male Blue Moon butterfly.

Does this mean that actually the time frame of millions and millions of years given to the evolutionary patterns of animals could be shortened, since, “the example in this study happened in a blink of the eye, in terms of evolutionary time"?

Of course I don’t actually believe in macro-evolution (although this would be a story of micro-evolution), but I can’t help but wonder what the science community thinks about such a fast evolutionary process, which goes against their own theory of the long process of evolution.