The Hiddenness of God

The famous mathematician and atheist, Bertrand Russell (co-founder of analytic philosophy), was asked about what he would say if he had to stand before God one day to give account for his unbelief. His answer:

"Sir, why did you take such pains to hide yourself?"

In a survey of the top reasons that skeptics tend to reject God, in the top three, is the challenge embodied in Russell's complaint:

"God, if you are there, why are you so hard to find?"

 

In theological or philosophical terms, this dilemma is called The Hiddenness of God.

Perhaps the most quoted of all skeptics, Friedrich Nietzsche, also fired salvos against Judaism and Christianity with similar attacks. He wrote there should be "a Duty of God to be truthful towards mankind and clear in the manner of his communications." In other words, WHY isn't God more clear, more obvious, more open in His dealings with mankind?
With Nietzsche in the 19th century, and Russell in the 20th century, I would like to suggest a radical answer here at the outset of the 21st century (actually this answer goes back to the very beginning, at the origin of humanity).

Here goes:

God is not hidden, and if He were any more open, then belief in Him would border on coercion instead of free will.

Wow. Not only do I reject the premises of earlier skeptics, but I posit the opposite. That's a pretty significant gap between our positions. Where am I coming from? To put it simply: logic, science, history, and the Bible.

Imagine walking up to the famous painting of the Mona Lisa at the Louvre in Paris. As you admire this incredible and mysterious work of art, you turn to the person standing next to you, and you say: "Isn't it amazing that no one painted that painting." With an incredulous stare, the person (and rightly so) turns to you and exclaims: "Excuse me?" "Yeah," you continue, "no one painted that. It is the result of random processes over vast ages of time, through well-known chemical and other natural processes." With raised eyebrows and head-shaking, the crowd around you would, no doubt, slowly disperse.



Why would you be rejected in your position? For several well-founded reasons, including:
(1) the complexity of the painting
(2) the form and function of the image
(3) testimony of historical sources confirming the origin of the painting
(4) comparison with other known works of man-made art 
(5) improbability of natural processes arriving at such a product.

What is my point in all of this regarding the supposed hiddenness of God? It is simply this: if something as simple as a (basically two dimensional) painting PROVES there was a painter, then surely an incomprehensibly complex and ordered universe demands that there is a transcendent creator, a God that made it and set its natural laws into motion.

Let's look at just ONE facet of creation: DNA.
The DNA in your cells contains the complete instruction manual of how to build and maintain---YOU. It defines organs, systems, and life-processes that make YOU possible. It is an unimaginably complex, encoded system of information storage, averaging over 3 billion bits of data.

Francis S. Collins is the director of the National Human Genome Research Institute. Once an atheist, he looked into the evidence for God in nature and became a Christian. Concerning DNA, he said:

"When you have for the first time in front of you this 3.1 billion-letter instruction book that conveys all kinds of information and all kinds of mystery about humankind, you can’t survey that going through page after page without a sense of awe. I can’t help but look at those pages and have a vague sense that this is giving me a glimpse of God’s mind."

Werner Gitt, a professor of information systems, states:
"The coding system used for living beings is optimal from an engineering standpoint. This fact strengthens the argument that it was a case of purposeful design rather than a [lucky] chance".

Whether we look inward, to the very small and microscopic world of chemicals and DNA, or outward to the vastness of space and the beauties of the galactic landscape, we are confronted with the reality of not only a superintelligent God, but a super-creative God, a God of unimaginable power.

The late Sir Fred Hoyle, considered one of the greatest astronomers of the modern age, made this observation:
"A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with the physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."

What conclusion was he speaking about as being "almost beyond question"? The conclusion that there is a super-intellect, a God who has designed the laws of nature. So, everytime we look at another person, or any living thing, or we look up into the heavens, and witness the sun, the moon, the stars, we are looking directly at the undeniable handiwork of God, the creator.

Hidden? God is not hidden at all...perhaps only to those who would rather imagine that He doesn't exist. Perhaps the reason that some skeptics don't find God is the same reason most criminals don't "find" a policeman--they aren't looking for Him, and, in fact, have a great vested interest in NOT finding Him. Everything complex and beautiful in life and in nature is explained away almost as quickly as the sleight of hand of the skilled magician.

So, the next big question comes:
"Why doesn't God just say something, audibly, or write a message in the sky, or do something fantastic for all to see?" This is a common query. It supposes that just such an action would immediately satisfy every skeptical doubt, and move humanity into the "God" column. I was struck recently when I paid attention to the words of a song written by Carolyn Arends. She cries out:

"I was hoping you would write to me a message in the stars.
As if the stars themselves were not enough."

Do we hear the logic of her lyrics? How insensible and outrageous is it to imagine that "if only" God would arrange the 100-billion stars in each of the estimated 100-billion galaxies into the shape of some words, then, and finally then, we would have some type of proof of a powerful creator. How ridiculous. Instead of something arbitrary like patterns in the stars, consider the mind-boggling wisdom of God in designing the nuclear fusion process that takes multiple hydrogen atoms and fuses them into helium, with the by-product being incredible amounts of energy radiated out in the form of not only visible light, but all the electromagnetic spectrum, without which life would be impossible.

How about if God would write a message in the clouds? This ignores the fact that incredible engineering was required to create those clouds in the first place. Not realizing that amazing planning that went into utilizing solar radiation to heat the surface of the oceans, causing billions of tons of sea water (now purified from various salts and other pollutants) to rise into the air, and then to come into contact with the jet stream (itself a wonder caused by temperature gradients in the atmosphere) and carried over land where the cooling masses of vapor will descend to the ground with a substance that no living thing can live without. But, it does not end there, for that same water, first as puddles, then creeks, then mighty rivers, all flow back to those same oceans, completing the hydrologic cycle.


Let me restate my earlier premise: God is not hidden, and if He were any more open, then belief in Him would border on coercion instead of free will.

Those who continually challenge Christians to provide "substantial evidence" of God's existence (which, of course, conveniently overlooks small things like DNA, nuclear fusion, the hydrologic cycle, etc.) will always ask for things of God that simply will not prove anything. Let me give a few examples, and then demonstrate why they are completely inadequate, and how God has already provided everything necessary to establish His existence.


In my many debates with atheists and skeptics, I have often asked a simple question: "What evidence would you accept as conclusive proof of God's existence?" Almost immediately you will get one of the following "standards" of evidence:
1-God would do something supernaturally visible, like appear to them in the sky, etc.
2-God would speak to them audibly, perhaps announce that He is there and that He loves them.
3-God would give some physical object would supernatural abilities, and let us see it, touch it, use it.
4-God would do something medically impossible, maybe raise the dead, heal an amputation, etc.
I will show how each of these supposed "faith-clinchers" would do no such thing, at least, not for long.

1-God would do something supernaturally visible, like appear to them, or an angel, etc.
This would be impressive, but that is all. After a few minutes or hours, the "vision" would soon be explained away as fantasy, illusion, perhaps a hallucination caused by high fever. For those who could hold the zeal of the experience for a few days, they would first begin to question and then soon dismiss this event in the face of ridicule from their peers. After the seventh or eighth person saying to them: "Well, I didn't see it," or "You've been talking with too many crazy Christians!" or "Well, of course, we know that's impossible because God doesn't exist," the conviction of it's reality would evaporate into the air. A vision, like anything historical, is difficult to hold, and impossible to prove. What about if a group or a bunch of people saw the vision? Pretty much the same result, maybe with a bit longer period until rejection since you would have an instant support group. But, then again, maybe it was mass hysteria, group hypnosis, who knows?

2-God would speak to them audibly, perhaps announce that He is there and that He loves them.
This is very similar, if not the exact same, as number one above. Visions, voices, and feelings are all far too subjective to be retained or proven.

3-God would give some physical object with supernatural abilities, and let us see it, touch it, use it.
You know, like a healing stone, or a crown of thorns that glows in the dark, or a crystal that sees into the future. Interesting. Imagine if you could take a computer back in time, even only one hundred years ago. It would have been seen as supernatural, divine, etc. No doubt, if God were to give us some object with supernatural abilities, it would be relegated as a machine from the future, or perhaps left here by advanced aliens, anything except divine. People can rationalize anything away, rather than face the truth.

4-God would do something medically impossible, maybe raise the dead, cure cancer, etc.
This is an interesting, but predictable hypothesis. If someone were to be "raised from the dead" then the obvious conclusion would be that they weren't really dead in the first place, perhaps only in a deep coma. Healings would be almost identical, such as a cure from cancer. Critics would say that the person didn't really have the disease, a medical misdiagnosis, or incorrect test or lab results. Amputations or other outwardly visible types of healing would be dismissed as new medical technology, perhaps from stem cell technology or other genetic research.

The human mind is amazing in it's ability to reject anything that does not neatly fit into it's preconceived notions of reality. The story goes of a man in a mental hospital who continually assured everyone he met that he was indeed dead. Finally, a wise doctor asked him a simple question: "Do dead men bleed?" The patient thought for a moment, and then replied, "Absolutely not." The doctor then pricked the man with a small needle, and a trickle of blood began to ooze. The patient looked at the red rivulet on his finger and exclaimed: "Wow, dead men DO bleed!"



You see, it is not really about the evidence, it is usually more about the preconceived notions, in other words, the presuppositions that form the basis of our worldview. If we do not find God to be a logical concept, then nothing could ever convince a mind that has been set on not accepting His reality.

I had a friend several years back whose wife was unfaithful to him and was lying to him to explain away her behavior. One by one, his friends confronted him about her actions, giving him a long list of evidences and eyewitness accounts of her infidelity. One by one, he rejected all of our testimony, sadly causing many of his friends to turn away. It was only several years later, when she left him and abandoned her own children, that he woke up and realized what had been going on all along. But, at the time of his denial of the evidence, nothing could convince him. Her unfaithfulness seemed an impossibilty to him, it did not even appear as a possible reality on his moral radar screen.




Many skeptics are in that same condition, since they have already decided on the implausability of God's existence, no evidence can surmount their prior assumptions. Any evidence can be explained away, any proof can be rationalized away, and any logical argument can be dismissed as flawed...somehow, because, well, IT MUST BE.
As the late Carl Sagan once said, revealing his immovable prior assumptions:

"The cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be."

Wow. Now there's an open mind.

This may seem to be a strange turn, but stay with me. What if one of NASA's rovers on the surface of Mars found a circular pattern of perfect arrowheads in the Martian soil? Every newspaper across the globe would herald the find on their front pages:

PROOF OF LIFE ON MARS, or, WE ARE DEFINITELY NOT ALONE, or, MAN ISN'T THE ONLY INTELLIGENCE IN THE UNIVERSE.


You could easily write the headline.

But let me ask you, what is an arrowhead? It is a rock that has been shaped by an intelligence to have form and function, usually symetrical down the long axis. So, if the finding of an arrowhead on Mars would PROVE that there was intelligent life on Mars that had to make the arrowheads, then how do you explain things infinitely more complex than arrowheads here on earth, like DNA, the human brain, cellular mitosis, symbiotic relationships, genetic transcriptioning, photosynthesis, autoimmune systems, migration patterns, multicellular organization, etc?

Look at your hand. So, it requires an intelligence to make an arrowhead, but no intelligence is required to design the HAND that makes the arrowhead? The smallest cell in your hand is infinitely more complex than the most intricate and elaborate of arrowheads, but the simpler one (the arrowhead) is intelligently designed, and the complex one (the hand) is the process of millions of years of random chemical events?



The leap of faith and the denial of logic required to accept this is staggering, almost to the point of being funny if it weren't so sad, and so prevalent.

So, is God hidden? Absolutely not. His handiwork and proofs of His intelligence, design, and care are everywhere we look. The fact that we can intelligently discuss this intelligent matter proves prior intelligence in the Universe. Think about it.

Perhaps it is not that He is hidden, as much as it is that we are biased in our search, with many skeptical presuppositions that form the boundaries of what we will accept. If we erect walls of unbelief, and surround ourselves only with those of a similar pre-disposition, then it is no wonder that we see and find only what we expect to see and find.


Beware of that jaded state of mind that looks at significant evidence and says: "Wow, dead men DO bleed." Don't laugh at that as being ridiculous, it happens everyday. It is happening right now, all over the world.

Creation and Evolution Part 1

Many create a strawman argument by positing a challenge for a creationist hypothesis or mechanism. Evolution is an attempt to explain the diversity of life based upon purely naturalistic conditions (which could be a false term, since, if a higher power created all things, then nothing is "natural" per se), and creationism is an explanation based upon the actions of an intelligent designer.

To request the processes by which an intelligent designer composed life (DNA for example) is a mocking strawman. It is like asking "How many corners are there on a circle?" or "What does the color blue taste like?" You can ask the question, but by virtue of it's own premise, it is a failed endeavor at discovering any meaningful answers.

I could take a computer program, and then ask you to explain how that computer program came into being without any intelligent agency (evolution) and then tell you that a programmer designed it (creation). To then ask about how the programmer, through the myriad complexities of the programming process, arrived at the decisions in the logic, the order of the code, the purpose of various subroutines, etc. is to go beyond investigation, for that deals with decisions made that are outside of the mere existence of the code.

We can study the results of the creation event, and the implications of various design features AFTERWARDS. It would be like a cosmologist discussing what occurred before planck time, its all very fun and, sometimes even stimulating, but not meaningful. To demand that a creationist propose the methods and strategies of an intelligent designer is a disingenuous request.

As creationists, we would be glad to discuss the cambrian explosion, the bushes of life (not "tree"--a variety of bushes is a much better graphical illustration of the record of life, the "tree" died years ago), the problem of information technology and DNA, common design (not common descent), the impossibility of abiogenesis from a biochemical standpoint (including left-handedness, reducing atmosphere, etc), mathematics, and the well-demonstrated tendency of lab induced "evolution" to achieve stasis within a short generational period.

We could also discuss the built-in error correction in DNA, and the fact that DNA contains not only the encoded language of building life, but that the ability to decode (read) the code must have been present from the beginning (an impossibility "naturally"). You cannot have an "intangible language" that reads the code of the DNA without an intelligent source. Transcription though codons in a 20-amino acid system utilizing 4-bases has been demonstrated to be an ideal, designed process. Werner Gitt (professor of information systems) said: "The coding system used for living beings is optimal from an engineering standpoint. This fact strengthens the argument that it was a case of purposeful design rather than a [lucky] chance".

The only reason that the letters in this sentence are meaningful to you, is because you already possess an understanding of the rules, the grammar, and the vocabulary of the written English language.

Show that previous sentence to a remote tribesman in the Polynesian chain and they will shake their heads, and perhaps shrug their shoulders. The letters (A-G-C-T) in a certain order (AAA+ACT+CAG, etc) define words and phrases (proteins and processes) and some even encode for starts (beginning of a sentence) or the stops (end of sentence or command for protein synthesis).

Point is, the information encoded into DNA is meaningless without a PREVIOUS language to interpret and execute the encoded information. This is an impossible barrier to cross without intelligence, because LANGUAGE is intangible (not natural/physical) and DNA is encoded information (again, not purely natural, due to its specified complexity).

Now, to discuss the various examples of micro-adaptation (which almost always involve the loss of genetic information, not the arrival of optimized, new information) which we have seen in nature, and to then extrapolate in a manner inconsistent with mathematics and known biological boundaries and to postulate that these equivocate into the appearance of new, advanced structures or systems over time, which the fossil record does not support, and then ask those who see irrefutable and demonstrable evidence of intelligent design to discuss the merits of either theory---we will be glad to do. (editors note: that may be the longest run on sentence in this thread---in bio terms, was it merely "junk" DNA???)

Remember: just because you can IMAGINE a process to explain something, does not mean that you have an ACCURATE explanation. Let's say that we find a wooden chair in the middle of desert. Im sure that given enough time, Mr. Naturalist could write up a purely naturalistic explanation for how that thing arrived there (you know, starting from a tree long ago, and through various natural forces eventually ending up in something that looks like a chair) and then, you know, a simple moron walks up and says, "Whoa, dude. Look here on the bottom, there's a sticker and it says 'Made by #4 in China.'" The naturalist scoffs at the simpleton, noting internally that "if this intellectual ant were at my level, he would at once abandon such simple and only-superficially obvious explanations, and would see the infinite merits of my gradual processes!"

The fossil record could best be summarized as: abrupt appearance, stasis, and extinction. Current genetic studies involving multi-generational, induced mutations, again demonstrate limited variation (even marginal) and then stasis. Geologic research reveals a reducing atmosphere during the period mandated for abiogenesis. All major body plans appear in the Cambrian explosion.

"The paleontological data is consistent with the view that all of the currently recognized phyla had evolved by about 525 Ma. Despite half a billion years of evolutionary exploration generated in Cambrian time, no new phylum level designs have appeared since then." ("Developmental Evolution of Metazoan Body Plans: The Fossil Evidence," Valentine, Erwin, and Jablonski, Developmental Biology 173, Article No. 0033, 1996, p. 376.)

"Modern multicellular animals make their first uncontested appearance in the fossil record some 570 million years ago - and with a bang, not a protracted crescendo. This 'Cambrian explosion' marks the advent (at least into direct evidence) of virtually all major groups of modern animals - and all within the minuscule span, geologically speaking, of a few million years." (Gould, Stephen J., Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History, 1989, pp. 23-24.)

Dr. Paul Chien (chairman of the biology department at the University of San Francisco) "A simple way of putting it is that currently we have about 38 phyla of different groups of animals, but the total number of phyla discovered during that period of time adds up to over 50 phyla. That means [there are] more phyla in the very, very beginning, where we found the first fossils [of animal life], than exist now."
Stephen J. Gould has referred to this as the reverse cone of diversity. Evolution predicts a single source developing into more phyla over time, and the fossil record shows many phyla originally, and less now (extinction not evolution).

The case for creation hardly ends there, though it is enough evidence. Let's consider DNA. DNA requires both a language and the message to be present simultaneously. This type of system requires intelligence, for it contains specified complexity---something never demonstrated to occur naturally.

I would posit then, that a straight-forward review of the evidence would favor creation.

Now, to discuss the ability of species to adapt based upon environmental factors (which is not evolution, per se) still falls neatly into the creation model. For example, if an architect designed a building for the northeast, he/she would no doubt, design both heating and cooling systems to be present. In certain colder times of the year, the environmental conditions would mandate that the heating system "activate" and in the warmer times, the cooling system would "activate." It is logical that an intelligently designed lifeform would follow similar parameters. The DNA of the creature would contain a range of variation necessary for life in expected climates. Nuff said.

Returning to my opening statement--Be careful of the strawmen you create, they may end up catching on fire and incinerating presuppositions that many hold dear.

The Tragic Crash of the Flying Spaghetti Monster

Question--What can we understand about the Creator, just using logic and inference? Using these tools we can infer that "God" is:
1. Outside the universe (He created it)
2. Eternal
3. Infinite (omnipresent)
4. Spiritual
5. Intelligent
6. Qualities of an individual "person" or greater

What do we read in the Bible? We see that the God of the Bible claims to be the creator of the universe, eternal, infinite, a spirit, intelligent, and a person that is knowable, and who seeks for us to know Him.

Therefore, the God of the Bible is a logical candidate for the Creator of the Universe.

Some will counter with the logically-flawed and mocking rebuttal and challenge: But I think that a Flying Spaghetti Monster is the creator of the universe! (This is the most common taunt, if you don't believe me, just Google that phrase. At last check, it comes in at just under a half-million hits. There are even elaborate websites devoted entirely to the mocking praise of this faux-god. I'm not kidding.)

Lets break that down logically---
Flying: A system of movement through a medium that either moves in conjunction with differences in pressure (birds, planes, etc), or due to propulsion (rockets, etc) or initial movement (asteroids)
Problem: While this doesn't contradict anything about the God of the Bible, it presupposes that this monster-god must move somehow, instead of being infinite, and omnipresent.

Spaghetti: Since spaghetti is a physical substance within the universe (it is an "Effect" of the original "Cause") then it is illogical that a Creator who is OUTSIDE of the universe, and not composed of anything in the universe, would be comprised of spaghetti.

Monster: Since this term is pre-supposed upon many different bases (i.e. evil, scary, large, etc) this one is difficult to deal with logically. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to know if the Creator is a monster, in the sense of an evil being, since evil is a subjective, qualitative term, as is monster. So it would be illogical to posit that the Creator is a monster, as that requires knowledge unobtainable without revelation from the Creator.

Also, in conclusion, what you call God---(examples: Creator, Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Deity, the First Principle, Lord, etc) has no bearing WHATSOEVER in this discussion. Nomenclature does not effect the essential nature of something, it only seeks to describe it or limit it through language. But, as in the case of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, we can analyze that hypothesis to see if it bears up under logical scrutiny as a sufficient desciptor, or whether it should be discarded as wholly inadequate.

In the final analysis: There were no survivors in the crash of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Creationism Misunderstandings

It is a common and often repeated fallacy that the Bible teaches that the earth is flat. The reference that most refer to contains the greek word for "quarters" or "quadrants" referring to the 4 compass points (which we use to this day: North-South-East-West). The verse (in modern english) should be rendered "the four quadrants of the earth." The King James english ( the translation that most refer to) has words that today have completely different meanings. For example, the simple word "LET" in the "king's english" meant to RESTRAIN, but now, 400+ years later, it means to ALLOW.

Also, in the book of Isaiah (written approx. 700 BC) it says that God is above "the sphere (circle) of the earth." In the book of Job (perhaps the oldest of the books of the Bible) it says that God "hangs the earth upon nothing." God is aware of the solar system. Even we, in this enlightened age, say things that are strictly-speaking, incorrect. Phrases such as "watching the sunrise" is actually inaccurate, but of course, it is true in the relative sense of an observer on the earth as fixed point of reference (which is a logical position). You may get a speeding ticket for exceeding the speed limit by 20 miles per hour, but ACTUALLY, due to the movement of the earth through space at many thousands of miles per hour, you may have actually been going backward by many factors. Try to use that with a cop, though. (Don't). Many things we say are spoken with a frame of reference in order to be ultimately meaningful. Many Bible passages contains similar language, and, with an understood frame of reference, are entirely accurate.

Returning to a definition for creationism, it need not be difficult. It refers to the study of cosmology that acknowledges God as it's origin. Since biology is a subset of cosmology, it is included (as are all of the fundamental sciences--physics, chemistry, etc.)

The problem with a presupposition such as naturalism, is that it must lead to illogical conclusions. For an analogy, imagine an aboriginal tribe (who believe that they are indeed alone on the earth) finding a computer circuit board. In their quest to explain its existence, they will have to go to ridiculous and highly-speculative and extrapolated theories to deny it's intelligent origin.

Just because someone can conceive of a "possible" way to arrive at complexity and order (look into information theory) does not indicate that it was the way in which it occurred.

As far as the fossil record goes, it has proved to be an embassment, rather than a vindication, for Darwin. This problem was highlighted by Niles Elredge and Stephen Jay Gould when they postulated the controversial punctuated-equilibrium hypothesis. Elredge laments:

“If life had evolved into its wondrous profusion of creatures little by little, then one would expect to find fossils of transitional creatures which were a bit like what went before them and a bit like what came after. But no one has yet found any evidence of such transitional creatures. This oddity has been attributed to gaps in the fossil record that gradualists expected to fill when rock strata of the proper age had been found. In the last decade, however, geologists have found rock layers of all divisions of the last 500 million years and no transitional forms were contained in them.” (Elredge)

Regardless, abiogenesis seals the coffin of naturalism. For decades, even the greatest naturalist minds have come up against the proverbial brick wall in even hypothesizing a method that could arrive at information systems from dead chemicals.

Using inductive reasoning, though, we can intelligently conclude:
1. All languages, codes, encoding / decoding mechanisms we have observed come from intelligence.

2. DNA is a language (with an encode and decode process)

3. Therefore DNA came from intelligence.

We could go on with RNA transcriptioning, the perfection of DNA encoding from an engineering standpoint (using a 4-base system with nucleotide-triplets to construct protein chains), the fact that all amino acids in life are left-handed(contrary to all logic), the finiteness of time ("proven" by inflation models and the first and second law of thermodynamics), and on and on.
Yes, there is a solid and growing foundation for creationism. It is not a system based upon "well I just believe it that's why!" I certainly did not arrive at my current position that way, but only after research and study, especially Biblical prophecy. Like famous former-atheist C.S. Lewis, I was compelled by the evidence, evidence that he wanted to deny initially.

Regardless of all of the empirical dribble and quibble, the main thing to realize is that the same Creator that made you, became a man and died you, for me.

He died for me? Wow. That's a truth you can't hear and then walk away unchanged from. It will either break your heart into gratitude, or harden you into further rebellion and stubborness.

God's Foreknowledge and Man's Free Will

I have had some of the most interesting discussions lately over what (at least at face value) would seem to be the driest of topics: God's Foreknowledge and Man's Free Will. Yet these interactions have been quite rich and (at least to my low level of excitement) even "fun."

To those who are not quite familiar with this philosophical challenge, let me state it flat out (I'm not saying I agree--but this is the general challenge):

1. God knows everything that will happen in the future (every choice, every action, every thought, etc.)
2. As people, we make decisions and choices
3. BUT, since God already knew everything that we WOULD CHOOSE, we then do not actually have a free will to make our decisions.

I know that some of you have already started shaking your heads, and maybe others have even allowed a chuckle to escape, that's perfectly fine. I do not agree with the conclusion statement (3) of this logical (illogical?) progression, but many seem to really struggle with trying to reconcile God's foreknowlege (perfect prior knowledge) and mankind's ability to still make real, valid decisions and choices.

Let me begin with an example, then I will define terms and move on.

Imagine that you are on the 10th floor of a building that is on a street corner. You even happen to have a CORNER office (oooh, special). You are standing in the corner of your office looking down at the two streets that meet at the intersection far down below. On one street you see a car driving recklessly towards the corner, and, shockingly, you see another car driving on the other street (also recklessly) toward the same intersection. From your vantage point, you can see that this is going to end badly, i.e. that the 2 cars are going to collide right at the intersection below you. Sure enough, in a wail of tires, glass, and horns, they hit. Bam.

Now: question: Did YOU CAUSE the 2 cars to hit each other?

Most of you would say: "No, I only watched them hit each other, I didn't MAKE THEM hit each other!"

And you would be correct in your response.

So, applying this (loosely) to the above logical progression (and making a few liberal substitutions):
1. You "knew" that the 2 cars were going to hit
2. The drivers were freely choosing to drive the way they wanted to (but they obviously did not have access to YOUR knowledge of what was about to happen)
3. But, since YOU KNEW that they would hit each other, the police should haul you off to jail for causing the wreck, and your insurance should have to pay for everything.

Ludicrous. But this (albeit slightly flawed) analogy is an accurate illustration of the fallacy of the claim that God's prior knowledge somehow magically limits my choices or controls my behavior.

Let's define terms and then dive deeper into the meat and potatoes of this debate:

Free Will is defined as:
The ability to make a decision without direct compulsion from an external source.

Foreknowlege is defined as:
A divine attribute which enables God to have perfect knowledge of all events yet future.

Knowledge is defined as:
Awareness of a fact, event, situation, or condition.

With these definitions out of the way, buckle your seatbelts, and secure all loose personal belongings, here we go.

What is the difference between PASSIVE and ACTIVE? Passive implies that circumstances are not changed or altered, and active means that something has influenced or changed something else. Active means that something has the ability to CAUSE something else (it is causative).

Let me illustrate: I open a history book and see the the sentence "Ronald Reagan was the 40th President of the United States." By merely reading (or becoming aware) of that statement in the book, did I change or alter it in any fundamental way? No. Therefore, reading is PASSIVE. But, let's say that I took a marker and crossed out the the number 40, and changed it 50. Did I influence or change the statement in a fundamental way? Absolutely. Yes. Therefore, that was ACTIVE.

Can KNOWLEDGE (awareness) then ever be ACTIVE? Absolutely not, for that is a logical impossibility, for by definition knowledge is awareness, and awareness by default is ALWAYS passive.
Since God's knowledge is not a compulsory force (it is passive not active) then logically it does not (nor can it) influence any future action (or choice, decision, etc.)

1. Free will ONLY has to do conditions existing at the moment of decision (therefore, anything whatsoever to do with God and His foreknowledge do not come into play)

2. Regardless of God's knowledge of what you WILL choose (which implies free will--since God has to know WHAT you CHOOSE) the person is completely free at the moment of decision. To put it another way, it is a case of CONTINGENCY. God's knowledge of what we will choose is contingent upon what we actually will choose. Therefore, in a very real sense, our choice is primary, God's knowledge of that choice is then contingent upon that choice (I mean no disrespect, and I am not saying that God does not exercise His will in the universe)

3. The concept that a decision is unavoidable because God already knows the decision is as illogical as saying that "George Washington was the first president of the United States because the Sun is 93 million miles from the earth." POINT IS: those 2 facts HAVE NOTHING TO DO with one another---they are not related. Similarly, God's knowledge and our choice do not overlap.

Sometimes those who deny that we have a free will to make choices will say: "When an option is presented and God knows you will choose, it becomes unavoidable. And to have free will, any option must be avoidable."

This is logically flawed, since God knows the future, any choices to be made will always be known in advance--BUT that does not in any way affect the actual decision making process required for FREE WILL.

Also, any option is avoidable at the moment of the decision being made. The fact that the Creator has advance knowledge of that in no way impedes the person's choice in the moment of decision.

Free Will has nothing to do with the number of options, or whether the decision is already to known, Free Will only has to do with the "ability to make a decision without compulsion from an external force." God's foreknowledge IN NO WAY compels a person to choose A,B,C, or D.

There are other ways to prove or demonstrate that mankind does have a free will (and therefore is responsible (accountable) to God for what we do and choose to do)

Consider this logical sequence:
-God is perfect and cannot sin or commit evil (do something against Himself)
-God is all-powerful and created everything
-Evil and sin exist
THEREFORE: God must have created beings with FREE WILL who have the choice to sin and to do evil.

The "problem" of evil is perhaps the greatest logical proof of the undeniability of free will. Otherwise, we are left with ridiculous conclusions (or premises) such as: God is imperfect or has imperfect power.

Also, since God's foreknowlege is not available to us, it does not and cannot constrain us in the internal decision-making process, therefore, God's foreknowledge does not infringe upon our internal free will choices.

Individually, each of these points is powerful evidence for our free will. But taken collectively, the proof is established. For example, who is the person that I am describing:

1. Was a married man with children (that only narrows it down to maybe 25% of the population)
2. Was a President (now we are getting somewhere---less than 40 people once #1 is taken into account)
3. Assassinated (now we are at about 4 or less)
4. Last name: Kennedy (only one)

The answer is obvious by the time you reach the 4th condition.
Individually, they could point to many (even billions of) people, but cumulatively, they only point to one.

The same is true of the issue of free will. Once we consider the (1) definition of free will (the ability to choose) (2) that foreknowledge is only passive (non-causative) (3) The reality of sin and evil in a universe created by an all-powerful and perfect God, and (4) We do not have access to God's perfectly predictive awareness we then see that the cumulative case is just as definitive.

We have a free will. Now the question is, what are we doing with it?
When it comes to the issue of sin and disobedience against God, we have no excuse, we choose to sin.

But, when it comes to salvation from sin, the Bible shouts out many times, "whosoever will" can be saved, or "whoever will" may be saved, and "Today, make your choice." Speaking of salvation in Christ, John the apostle said: "But as many as RECEIVED Him (Jesus), to them did He give the power to become the children of God."

Receiving is an act of a free will. If we did not have a free will, then God is a liar at worst, and a cruel deceiver at best.

Salvation is always called a GIFT in the Bible. A gift cannot be forced upon anyone, a gift must be accepted, it must be received.

The Lord says:
"For the penalty for sin is death (eternal hell), but THE FREE GIFT of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." (Romans 6:23)
Both sin and salvation involve a free will. Use your free will to accept God's absolutely free gift of salvation. You can't earn it, deserve it, or buy it. You must RECEIVE it.

He's waiting.

Non-Biblical Sources Referencing Jesus or Other New Testament Events/People

(These are not original, but are being collated here for quick reference from various online sources)

Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?, a Jewish historian) mentions John the Baptist and Herod - Antiquities, Book 18, ch. 5, par. 2
"Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness."
Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?) mentions Jesus - Antiquities, Book 18, ch. 3, par. 3.
Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, (9) those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; (10) as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.
There is debate among scholars as to the authenticity of this quote since it is so favorable to Jesus. For more information on this, please see Regarding the quotes from the historian Josephus about Jesus
Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?) mentions James, the brother of Jesus - Antiquities, Book 20, ch. 9.
"Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done."
Flavius Josephus (AD 37?-101?) mentions Ananias the High Priest who was mentioned in Acts 23:2
Now as soon as Albinus was come to the city of Jerusalem, he used all his endeavors and care that the country might be kept in peace, and this by destroying many of the Sicarii. But as for the high priest, Ananias (25) he increased in glory every day, and this to a great degree, and had obtained the favor and esteem of the citizens in a signal manner; for he was a great hoarder up of money
Acts 23:2, "And the high priest Ananias commanded those standing beside him to strike him [Paul] on the mouth."
Tacitus (A.D. c.55-A.D. c.117, Roman historian) mentions "Christus" who is Jesus - Annals 15.44
"Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular."
Ref. from http://classics.mit.edu/Tacitus/annals.mb.txt
Thallus (Circa AD 52, eclipse of the sun) Thallus wrote a history of the Eastern Mediterranean world from the Trojan War to his own time. His writings are only found as citations by others. Julius Africanus, who wrote about AD 221, mentioned Thallus' account of an eclipse of the sun.
"On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in the third book of his History, calls, as appears to me without reason, an eclipse of the sun."
Is this a reference to the eclipse at the crucifixion? Luke 23:44-45, "And it was now about the sixth hour, and darkness fell over the whole land until the ninth hour, 45 the sun being obscured; and the veil of the temple was torn in two."
The oddity is that Jesus' crucifixion occurred at the Passover which was a full moon. It is not possible for a solar eclipse to occur at a full moon. Note that Julius Africanus draws the conclusion that Thallus' mentioning of the eclipse was describing the one at Jesus' crucifixion. It may not have been.
Julius Africanus, Extant Writings, XVIII in the Ante Nicene Fathers, ed. by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973), vol. VI, p. 130. as cited in Habermas, Gary R., The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company) 1996.
Pliny the Younger mentioned Christ. Pliny was governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor. Pliny wrote ten books. The tenth around AD 112.
"They (the Christians) were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang in alternate verses a hymn to Christ, as to a god, and bound themselves by a solemn oath, not to any wicked deeds, but never to commit any fraud, theft or adultery, never to falsify their word, nor deny a trust when they should be called upon to deliver it up; after which it was their custom to separate, and then reassemble to partake of food but food of an ordinary and innocent kind."
Pliny, Letters, transl. by William Melmoth, rev. by W.M.L. Hutchinson (Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press, 1935), vol. II, X:96 as cited in Habermas, Gary R., The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company) 1996.
The Talmud
"On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald went forth and cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy. Any one who can say anything in his favor, let him come forward and plead on his behalf." But since nothing was brought forward in his favor he was hanged on the eve of the Passover!"
Gal. 3:13, "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree."
Luke 22:1-2, "Now the Feast of Unleavened Bread, which is called the Passover, was approaching. 2And the chief priests and the scribes were seeking how they might put Him to death; for they were afraid of the people."
This quotation was taken from the reading in The Babylonian Talmud, transl. by I. Epstein (London: Soncino, 1935), vol. III, Sanhedrin 43a, p. 281 as cited in Habermas, Gary R., The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company) 1996.
Lucian (circa 120-after 180) mentions Jesus. Greek writer and rhetorician.
"The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. . . . You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on faith, with the result that they despise all worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property."
Lucian, The Death of Peregrine, 1113, in The Works of Lucian of Samosata, transl. by H.W. Fowler and F.G. Fowler, 4 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1949), vol. 4, as cited in Habermas, Gary R., The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ, (Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company) 1996.
Though Lucian opposed Christianity, he acknowledges Jesus, that Jesus was crucified, that Christians worship him, and that this was done by faith.
___________________
Sources

McDowell, Josh. Evidence that Demands a Verdict. San Bernardino, CA: Here's Life Publishers, Inc., 1979.
Habermas, Gary R. The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ. Joplin, MO: College Press Publishing Company, 1996.
Encarta on the Web at http://encarta.msn.com

============(above) CARM.ORG================
Jesus lived His public life in the land of Palestine under the Roman rule of Tiberius (ad 14-37). There are four possible Roman historical sources for his reign: Tacitus (55-117), Suetonius (70-160), Velleius Paterculus (a contemporary), and Dio Cassius (3rd century). There are two Jewish historical resources that describe events of this period: Josephus (37-100?), writing in Greek, and the Rabbinical Writings (written in Hebrew after 200, but much of which would have been in oral form prior to that time). There are also sources (non-historians) writing about the Christians, in which possible mentions are made (e.g., Lucian, Galen).

Of these writings, we would NOT expect Velleius to have a reference to Jesus (i.e. the events were just happening OUTSIDE of Velleius' home area), and Dio Cassius is OUTSIDE of our time window of pre-3rd century. Of the remaining Roman writers--Tacitus and Suetonius--we have apparent references to Jesus (discussed below), even though the main section in Tacitus covering the period 29-32ad is missing from the manuscript tradition. If these are genuine and trustworthy 'mentions' of Jesus, then we have an amazing fact--ALL the relevant non-Jewish historical sources mention Jesus! (Notice that this is the OPPOSITE situation than is commonly assumed--"If Jesus was so important, why didn't more historians write about Him?" In this case, THEY ALL DID!).

Of the Jewish resources--Josephus and the Rabbinical writings (e.g. Talmud, Midrash)--BOTH make clear references to the existence of Jesus (even though the details reported may be odd). So ALL the Jewish sources refer to Him.

In addition, there are three OTHER candidates for historical 'mentions' of Jesus that fall in the 2nd century: one Roman (Pliny the Younger) , one possibly Syrian (Mara Bar Serapion), and one Samaritian (Thallus). [We can also include here the writings of Celsus, Galen, Lucian]

I would like to take these in probable historical order.

(First, a methodological note about the issue of 'independent sources')

Thallus (c. 50-75ad) [4/2/96]

Josephus (Antiquities of the Jews, c.93) [The best current discussion on this passage is in a skeptical piece by my friend Jeff Lowder.]

Let me also just mention something about the Josephus issue. Every now an then I get an email about someone abjectly 'dismissing' the data from Josephus, without even interacting with the data and the positions of solid scholars. This is inappropriate. By far and away, the bulk of modern scholarship accepts that Josephus makes two independent references to Jesus--to argue otherwise requires the objector to dismantle the historical consensus, and this requires argumentation instead of simple assertion (and disallowance of Josephus as a witness!). One of the leading scholars, translators, and commentators on Josephus is Steve Mason. In his book on Josephus and the New Testament (Hendrickson:1992), he discusses the two references to Jesus in Josephus' writings, and concludes that "if it were needed", they would provide independent testimony to the existence of Jesus. He writes:


"Taking all of these problems into consideration, a few scholars have argued that the entire passage (the testimonium) as it stands in Josephus is a Christian forgery. The Christian scribes who copied the Jewish historian's writings thought it intolerable that he should have said nothing about Jesus and spliced the paragraph in where it might logically have stood, in Josephus' account of Pilate's tenure. Some scholars have suggested that Eusebius himself was the forger, since he was the first to produce the passage…Most critics, however, have been reluctant to go so far. They have noted that, in general, Christian copyists were quite conservative in transmitting texts. Nowhere else in all of Josephus' voluminous writings is there strong suspicion of scribal tampering. Christian copyists also transmitted the works of Philo, who said many things that might be elaborated in a Christian direction, but there is no evidence that in hundreds of years of transmission, the scribes inserted their own remarks into Philo's text. To be sure, many of the "pseudepigrapha" that exist now only in Christian form are thought to stem from Jewish originals, but in this instance it may reflect the thorough Christian rewriting of Jewish models, rather than scribal insertions. That discussion is ongoing among scholars. But in the cases of Philo and Josephus, whose writings are preserved in their original language and form, one is hard pressed to find a single example of serious scribal alteration. To have created the testimonium out of whole cloth would be an act of unparalleled scribal audacity." (p.170-171)


"Finally, the existence of alternative versions of the testimonium has encouraged many scholars to think that Josephus must have written something close to what we find in them, which was later edited by Christian hands. if the laudatory version in Eusebius and our text of Josephus were the free creation of Christian scribes, who then created the more restrained versions found in Jerome, Agapius, and Michael? The version of Agapius is especially noteworthy because it eliminates, though perhaps too neatly, all of the major difficulties in the standard text of Josephus. (a) It is not reluctant to call Jesus a man. (b) It contains no reference to Jesus' miracles. (c) It has Pilate execute Jesus at his own discretion. (d) It presents Jesus' appearance after death as merely reported by the disciples, not as fact. (e) It has Josephus wonder about Jesus' messiahship, without explicit affirmation. And (f) it claims only that the prophets spoke about "the Messiah," whoever he might be, not that they spoke about Jesus. That shift also explains sufficiently the otherwise puzzling term "Messiah" for Josephus' readers. In short, Agapius' version of the testimonium sounds like something that a Jewish observer of the late first century could have written about Jesus and his followers." (p.172)

"It would be unwise, therefore, to lean heavily on Josephus' statements about Jesus' healing and teaching activity, or the circumstances of his trial. Nevertheless, since most of those who know the evidence agree that he said something about Jesus, one is probably entitled to cite him as independent evidence that Jesus actually lived, if such evidence were needed. But that much is already given in Josephus' reference to James (Ant. 20.200) and most historians agree that Jesus' existence is the only adequate explanation of the many independent traditions among the NT writings." (p.174f)



Letter from Pliny the Younger to Trajan (c. 110)
Tacitus (Annals, c.115-120) [The best current discussion on this passage is in my friend JP Holding's site]
Suetonius (Lives of the Caesars, c. 125)
Lucian (mid-2nd century)
Galen (c.150; De pulsuum differentiis 2.4; 3.3)
Celsus (True Discourse, c.170).
Mara Bar Serapion (pre-200?)
Talmudic References( written after 300 CE, but some refs probably go back to eyewitnesses)
There are other references to "Christians" in this period, but I am not concerned with those--although some would offer supporting evidence for someone named 'Christ'. For example, Marcus Aurelius (Meditations 11.3) calls the believers 'Christians', but Epictetus (Discourses 4.7.6) calls them "Galileans".
===============(above) http://www.christian-thinktank.com/jesusref.html ====================

Good links on the subject:

http://www.bede.org.uk/jesusmyth.htm

http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexisthub.html

http://www.provethebible.net/T2-Divin/D-0201.htm

http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4223639/k.567/Ancient_Evidence_for_Jesus_from_NonChristian_Sources.htm

http://www.rzim.org/justthinkingfv/tabid/602/articleid/49/cbmoduleid/1694/default.aspx

God and the Universe Part 2 (a.k.a. refuting the Flying Spaghetti Monster)

Time for some more fun.

Challenge: Using logic, prove that the God of the Bible is a logical candidate for the creator of the universe.

1. Principle of Cause and Effect: No effect can be greater than its cause. Therefore, whatever led to the universe must be equal to or most likely, greater than the universe, i.e. "outside" of it.

Inference: The Creator is outside of the natural universe (the Creator is not a part of the universe)

2. Since each Cause MUST BE equal to or greater than it's Effect, the Creator must be equal to or (most-likely) greater than any aspect of the Effect. Example: The universe is an Effect of a previous Cause. Since the entire universe is the Effect, no aspect within that universe can be greater than the Cause. So---what is the universe? It is the combination of Time-Space-Matter/Energy

Inference: The Creator must be greater than Time. What do we call something that has no beginning or end? ETERNAL

Inference: The Creator must be greater than Space. What do we call something that is not bound by space, without limits? INFINITE (and omnipresent by implication)

Inference: The Creator must be greater than Matter (or energy). We call matter "physical". What do we call something that is of substance that is real and yet not physical within this universe? We often call that SPIRITUAL.

3. Since no Effect can be greater than the Cause, and since we find INTELLIGENCE in the universe (people) which is a subset of the effect called the universe, then the Cause, or Creator, must be at least equal in intelligence or greater, most-likely a super-intellect. When you think about DNA, and that it took us 20 years with super computers to crack the code, you can see that the Causal agent must be a super-intellect.

4. Since no Effect can be greater that the Cause, and since people have individuality or personality, which is a subset of the effect called the universe, then the Creator must be at least a "person" in the sense of an individual with the qualities of a self-awareness. This is different than saying that "Since there are flowers, that the Creator must be at least equal to or greater than a flower" (which is still true), because it is not about physical attributes so to speak. But transcendent qualities, such as personality and intelligence must logically be inferred in the Creator, to have created both of these transcendent qualities.

So what can we understand about the Creator, just using logic and inference? We see that "God" is:
1. Outside the universe (He created it)
2. Eternal
3. Infinite (omnipresent)
4. Spiritual
5. Intelligent
6. Qualities of an individual "person" or greater

What do we read in the Bible? We see that the God of the Bible claims to be the creator of the universe, eternal, infinite, a spirit, intelligent, and a person that is knowable, and who seeks for us to know Him.

Therefore, the God of the Bible is a logical candidate for the Creator of the Universe.

Some will counter with the logically-flawed and mocking rebuttal and challenge: But I think that a Flying Spaghetti Monster is the creator of the universe! (This is the most common taunt)

Lets break that down logically---
Flying: A system of movement through a medium that either moves in conjunction with differences in pressure (birds, planes, etc), or due to propulsion (rockets, etc) or initial movement (asteroids)
Problem: While this doesn't contradict anything about the God of the Bible, it presupposes that this monster-god must move somehow, instead of being infinite, and omnipresent.

Spaghetti: Since spaghetti is a physical substance within the universe (it is an "Effect" of the original "Cause") then it is illogical that a Creator who is OUTSIDE of the universe, and not composed of anything in the universe, would be comprised of spaghetti.

Monster: Since this term is pre-supposed upon many different bases (i.e. evil, scary, large, etc) this one is difficult to deal with logically. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to know if the Creator is a monster, in the sense of an evil being, since evil is a subjective, qualitative term, as is monster. So it would be illogical to posit that the Creator is a monster, as that requires knowledge unobtainable without revelation from the Creator.

Also, in conclusion, what you call God---(examples: Creator, Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Deity, the First Principle, Lord, etc) has no bearing WHATSOEVER in this discussion. Nomenclature does not effect the essential nature of something, it only seeks to describe or limit it through language. But, as in the case of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, we can break that one down to see if it bears up under logical scrutiny as a sufficient desciptor, or whether it should be discarded as wholly inadequate or incorrect.

Just think how illogical and inconsistent it is for someone to join this (hopefully) intelligent discussion forum and then intelligently assert that no intelligence is required to account for an intelligent universe. The sad irony of it all. The fact that they can even be conscious of thought concerning this infinite question provides all the evidence needed to sufficiently arrive at the truth of God.

When people ask for even more and more evidence of God, I say: "Do we really need to light a candle in order to SEE THE SUN?" (another NOT original statement--that one goes way back)

(In other words, there is already sufficient and overwhelming evidence, to ask for more is to only admit of willful rejection of obvious truth)

CLICK HERE FOR A NEW SERIES ON 10 NON-BIBLICAL EVIDENCES FOR CHRISTIANITY