Tag Info

Nothing to do with religion / God / whatever, but there seems to be a fundamental flaw in your argument here. Event A causes event B within the universe. God decides that he does not want event B to occur so he stops event A from happening. Event A no longer happened and therefore God would never intervene in the first place. Go to 1. The ...

I can't answer the question in the way you're asking it, but I can 'disarm' numerology for you. When you encounter something, like say, a set of best practices in an activity, the number of units you decide to divide the information into determines the symbolic meaning you are essentially attaching to the set. This is possible with pretty much everything, so ...

Because God decided faith was an absolute requirement in His kingdom: But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is Hebrews 11:6 KJV Actually, Jesus is apparently frustrated with those who desire the type of "sign" you suggest: And he sighed deeply in his spirit, and saith, Why doth this ...

This is a difficult question, given that human reasoning is itself flawed. But if we were to look at the canonization process, the most we could say is that it must be not be absurd; Consider how Matthias was chosen to succeed Judas; even though the process of 'drawing lots' seems irrational, the lots were being drawn against a few possible candidates and ...

I think it is important to consider how you would react if God did exactly what you asked for, in an unmistakable way. While doing so consider the many times in the Bible where Jesus healed people. The Pharisees saw this and knew (or should have known) they were dealing with the Christ. Yet they plotted to kill Him. They would have seen the evidence for ...

There are an awful lot of assumptions here. There is but one way to stop B There is no way to stop B if A has happened Etc But it mainly boils down to this main flaw in the logic: Event A no longer happened and therefore God would never intervene in the first place. Go to 1. Being all knowing God would of course be able to know the possibility of ...

I think you're referring to The Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God (TAG). It was first formulated by Immanuel Kant, but has been refined, disputed and defended over the years. The argument One formulation of the argument is, Prove A: The Christian God exists. Step 1 ~A: (Assume the opposite of what we are trying to prove): The Christian ...

Though I personally tend to favour expository preaching in practice, topical preaching certainly has its place. Scriptural Basis A case could be made from Scriptural example... Jesus's Preaching Jesus's recorded preaching was purely topical - as far as I know, he never took a passage from the Old Testament and expanded on it. Rather, he chose topics ...

God has revealed Himself beyond reasonable doubt - otherwise requiring faith would be unjust. We can argue about what constitutes reasonable, but according to the Bible, there is enough evidence. Rom 1:18-20 NIV The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, ...

I believe you miss a few key points about the halting problem. Just because there is no algorithm that can decide for every input program if it will halt, does not mean that no algorithms exist for any given input. See: Are Impossibility Proofs Possible?- Halting Problem for examples. You assume that God would have to function over every single ...

I guess I'm going to have to expand on my little rant :) The Gospel we find in Scripture is all about the good news of God revealing Himself to and reconciling us to Himself. This is quite the opposite of hiding himself. We still have free will to reject the evidence -to turn our backs on his revelation- but this is not at all the same thing as not having ...

In a nutshell, systematic expository preaching ensures that the Word is preached, the whole Word is preached, and that the pastor has less of an opportunity to rehash his own opinion or stick to a "canon within the canon." Bryan Chapell, author of Christ-Centered Preaching (which is probably the best preaching text since John Broaddus), says: The thing ...

Anyone who's served on a jury knows that the range of what constitutes "reasonable doubt" is pretty huge with only 12 people in the room. Make it a (much) bigger room, expand the pool to 6 billion, and you'll have a range from total credulity to solipsism. If your definition of God includes some sort of fairness, then the requisite self-disclosure should ...

The God of the Bible states "I declare the end from the beginning." In comparing God to an algorithm, you go against the fundamental claims of God --that is, you create a straw man to knock over. God is not an algorithm, waiting for an asynchronous user event or for some unseen input data. God is the author of the data and thus by necessity of being its ...

You're assuming that self-reference is required somehow, that God has to "evaluate himself" (whatever that means) when making decisions, and that his decision-making is based solely on observation and not on any sort of predictive ability. There's a much simpler conceptual model: "Something important is about to happen. There are three possible outcomes. ...

It is, I suppose, conceivable that God is not bound by the laws of logic. But if true further discussion is impossible, as how are we to consider the possibilities except by using logic? I can't imagine how I could prove this either way. Will I present a logical proof that logic always applies? But if logic doesn't apply, then the proof is invalid, and the ...