[Olsen]

Many people confuse three related, although completely distinct, subjects:

1. The existence of God
2. The nature of God
3. The validity of any given religious system

I briefly pointed this out in my article about the Trinity. The first subject is clearly within the grasp of human reason as a completely rational hypothesis for the existence of the universe itself. The second two subjects, however, can never be completely grasped by reason alone given the fact that mystery lies at the heart of both the nature of God and certainly mysterious dogmas characterized by our own religion i.e. Trinity, the hypostatic union, virgin birth, the resurrection and so forth. Science is completely inadequate due to its methodology - largely relying upon observation of what can be demonstrated - to tackle the ultimate questions of existence itself. I would strongly urge our entire community to listen to two featured videos uploaded on to our site involving a debate between the atheist Hawkins and the theist Quinn in this regard (see below).

Part 1

[FLASH]http://www.true2ourselves.com/video/ag_tube.swf?config=http://www.true2ourselves.com/video/ag_embed.xml.php?viewkey=6854880943e5c3cd9ca2&themes=http://www.true2ourselves.com/video/ag_themes.xml&autostart=false&showfsbutton=true[/FLASH]

Part 2:

[FLASH]http://www.true2ourselves.com/video/ag_tube.swf?config=http://www.true2ourselves.com/video/ag_embed.xml.php?viewkey=4eeabdbb0a7d494132ee&themes=http://www.true2ourselves.com/video/ag_themes.xml&autostart=false&showfsbutton=true[/FLASH]

[search4truth]

Thank you for that very interesting radio show. I agree that all members of this community should have a listen and contemplate what is being said.
May I just correct you, his name is Richard Dawkins, not Hawkins

One of the topics that was raised in this debate was that of free will. Even though Dawkins stepped around this topic in this debate, I think that it is an interesting concept.
My chaplain once told me that God created humans with free will, as in only each individual human could make choices for themselves. That is how the original sin was committed. If God had not wanted it to happen, he wouldn't have given humans free will.
After thinking about this, I found what seems to be a paradox in this concept.
It goes something like this:
Since God is all powerful, He can create anything;
Since God can create anything, there isn't anything that he can't create.
Since God is all powerful, there is nothing he can't do;
Since God can do anything, there isn't anything that God can't do.
This is fine, however:

Could God create a box that he couldn't open?

If he could, that would mean he can't be all powerful, as there is at least one thing that he can't do, but,
Otherwise, that means he can't create the box, which means that he isn't all powerful, as there is at least one thing that he can't create.

[gruvEdude]

Originally Posted by search4truth

Could God create a box that he couldn't open?

If he could, that would mean he can't be all powerful, as there is at least one thing that he can't do, but,
Otherwise, that means he can't create the box, which means that he isn't all powerful, as there is at least one thing that he can't create.

Neither can God lie nor do anything foolish. This evidences that 17th century words that are too foolish to be practical today cannot be I AM's.

[Ciaran]

Do you mean that you think that words are flawed and cannot convey the true meaning that they are trying to express?
An interesting thought gruvedude, but that would mean that everything that you are saying to me doesn't make the same sense to me as it did to you when you were writing them. That would also mean that nothing could ever be understood through using words.

[gruvEdude]

Originally Posted by Ciaran

Do you mean that you think that words are flawed and cannot convey the true meaning that they are trying to express?

(Righteous) words of the day, whenever today is, are not flawed. But words from yestercentury age which God's never do.

I AM is forever present, omnipresent.

GrovEdude do you ever try to make sense?

[gruvEdude]

Originally Posted by LewisM3

GrovEdude do you ever try to make sense?

When have God's words ever not been the words of today? When Adam was told not to eat from a certain tree; when Noah was given the ten commandments; when Jesus gave the great commission ...

Please give an example of what hasn't made sense.

Originally Posted by gruvEdude

When have God's words ever not been the words of today? When Adam was told not to eat from a certain tree; when Noah was given the ten commandments; when Jesus gave the great commission ...

Please give an example of what hasn't made sense.

Noah was given the 10 commandments..?? me thinks you should read the KJV and check that

[gruvEdude]

Originally Posted by Daniel

Noah was given the 10 commandments..?? me thinks you should read the KJV and check that

Good catch!

How about Moses?

hypo·crite (hip′ə krit′)

noun

a person who pretends to be what he or she is not; one who pretends to be better than is really so, or to be pious, virtuous, etc. without really being so

Why would we ever read a version representing God's behavior to be hypocritical from God's timeliness?

Originally Posted by gruvEdude

Good catch!

How about Moses?
hypo·crite (hip′ə krit′)

noun

a person who pretends to be what he or she is not; one who pretends to be better than is really so, or to be pious, virtuous, etc. without really being so



Why would we ever read a version representing God's behavior to be hypocritical from God's timeliness?

Hypocrite??

You sure do alot of namecalling from that computer desk of yours.