The first valid evidence that god does NOT exist

[Age]

You have just tried to speculate your way out of the simple fact that Energy can not be created from nothing; that's why god does not exist, because that is not possible.

You don't have the foggiest idea what's "possible" for an omnipotent God.

What are 'you' basing this belief and claim of yours, here, on, exactly?

And, what is possible to a so-called 'omnipotent God', exactly, anyway, to you?

All you know is that humans can't do it. But that's utterly unsurprising.

Would you care to explain how any thing could, possibly, come from no thing?

If no, then this might be because you can not even begin to imagine how it could even, possibly, happen. Which, given your belief that a so-called 'God', with male genitalia, created you with the ability to imagine, could be a sign that 'that God' is not as potent as you 'imagine' it is .

I think you've fallen prey to the old confusion over the word "law." When the word "law" is used in science, it does not refer to an unchangeable certainty. It means "regularity observed," as in, "when a large object is dropped, all things being equal, it falls to the ground "-- hence, we can speak of a "law" of gravity, because that's what routinely happens when the experiment is performed.

But such a "law" has no force behind it, except the conviction we get from the number of experiments it appears to explain. It has no moral rightness, and no absolute certainty: it is, like all scientific "laws," just the theory we find most plausible unless further evidence comes in to cause us to modify it.

Would it be all right if 'we' remember 'this' when you name 'scientific laws' in one of your many attempts to 'try to' to back up and support your belief that a 'personified male God' created every thing?

If tomorrow we found an object floating above the earth, defying gravity, we'd have to revise our understanding of "the law of gravity" to account for it. But the law of gravity does not tell us that's impossible: it only obtains because so far, that hasn't happened -- to our knowledge. A "natural law," then, is just the best expression of current knowledge of human beings on the regularities that govern the universe, so long as something more powerful -- another scientific law, perhaps, or a divine being -- intervene to prove our "law" incomplete.

Can an omnipotent God, who is believed to have set all the "laws" in place in the first place, suspend, interrupt or overcome the natural regularities of the universe He has created?

If anyone believes that a 'male' any thing set all 'laws' in place, in the first place, then 'that one' needs a lot of help, to begin with.

You'll have to explain why he cannot.

But, you do not 'have to' explain how and why you believe some thing , which could not even be logically possible, let alone actually even physically possible, correct?

To you, every one who does not believe, nor have faith in, what you believe and have faith in, 'has to' explain why not, correct?

It looks quite obvious that He can do anything He wishes about that.

LOL

'immanurl can't, literally, still can not yet see just how damaged it has become because of its insidious and incessant beliefs.

[Gary Childress]

You have just tried to speculate your way out of the simple fact that Energy can not be created from nothing; that's why god does not exist, because that is not possible.

You don't have the foggiest idea what's "possible" for an omnipotent God. All you know is that humans can't do it. But that's utterly unsurprising.

I think you've fallen prey to the old confusion over the word "law." When the word "law" is used in science, it does not refer to an unchangeable certainty. It means "regularity observed," as in, "when a large object is dropped, all things being equal, it falls to the ground "-- hence, we can speak of a "law" of gravity, because that's what routinely happens when the experiment is performed.

But such a "law" has no force behind it, except the conviction we get from the number of experiments it appears to explain. It has no moral rightness, and no absolute certainty: it is, like all scientific "laws," just the theory we find most plausible unless further evidence comes in to cause us to modify it.

If tomorrow we found an object floating above the earth, defying gravity, we'd have to revise our understanding of "the law of gravity" to account for it. But the law of gravity does not tell us that's impossible: it only obtains because so far, that hasn't happened -- to our knowledge. A "natural law," then, is just the best expression of current knowledge of human beings on the regularities that govern the universe, so long as something more powerful -- another scientific law, perhaps, or a divine being -- intervene to prove our "law" incomplete.

Can an omnipotent God, who is believed to have set all the "laws" in place in the first place, suspend, interrupt or overcome the natural regularities of the universe He has created? You'll have to explain why he cannot. It looks quite obvious that He can do anything He wishes about that.

So we can observe the universe and various properties of the universe such as conservation laws but we can't draw conclusions based on those properties of the universe alone, but one can invoke the existence of a being that cannot be detected with scientific instruments and that can magically do anything, even the otherwise logically, physically or technically impossible. Sounds like speculation to me. Far more speculative than me assuming the existence of Antarctica. Just saying.

[Age]

You have just tried to speculate your way out of the simple fact that Energy can not be created from nothing; that's why god does not exist, because that is not possible.

You don't have the foggiest idea what's "possible" for an omnipotent God. All you know is that humans can't do it. But that's utterly unsurprising.

I think you've fallen prey to the old confusion over the word "law." When the word "law" is used in science, it does not refer to an unchangeable certainty. It means "regularity observed," as in, "when a large object is dropped, all things being equal, it falls to the ground "-- hence, we can speak of a "law" of gravity, because that's what routinely happens when the experiment is performed.

But such a "law" has no force behind it, except the conviction we get from the number of experiments it appears to explain. It has no moral rightness, and no absolute certainty: it is, like all scientific "laws," just the theory we find most plausible unless further evidence comes in to cause us to modify it.

If tomorrow we found an object floating above the earth, defying gravity, we'd have to revise our understanding of "the law of gravity" to account for it. But the law of gravity does not tell us that's impossible: it only obtains because so far, that hasn't happened -- to our knowledge. A "natural law," then, is just the best expression of current knowledge of human beings on the regularities that govern the universe, so long as something more powerful -- another scientific law, perhaps, or a divine being -- intervene to prove our "law" incomplete.

Can an omnipotent God, who is believed to have set all the "laws" in place in the first place, suspend, interrupt or overcome the natural regularities of the universe He has created? You'll have to explain why he cannot. It looks quite obvious that He can do anything He wishes about that.

So we can observe the universe and various properties of the universe such as conservation laws but we can't draw conclusions based on those properties of the universe alone, but one can invoke the existence of a being that cannot be detected with scientific instruments and that can magically do anything, even the otherwise logically, physically or technically impossible. Sounds like speculation to me. Far more speculative than me assuming the existence of Antarctica. Just saying.

Great observation.

[Immanuel Can]

So we can observe the universe and various properties of the universe such as conservation laws but we can't draw conclusions based on those properties of the universe alone, but one can invoke the existence of a being that cannot be detected with scientific instruments and that can magically do anything, even the otherwise logically, physically or technically impossible. Sounds like speculation to me. Far more speculative than me assuming the existence of Antarctica. Just saying.

You believe in the universe, don't you? Have you spanned it? Have you even seen it, beyond a very few of the very nearest stars? And yet, there it is. You cannot see all of it, but you can see some of it; and by faith, you can assume there's a lot more of it to know. And that's exactly how you do it.

The evidence of God is around us. It's on every side, actually. I can see it, and so can almost the entire rest of the human race, at least in partial measure; for 92% of them believe in at least the likelihood of some sort of "god." But other people around 4% of the world, simply refuse to accept evidence as evidence. Instead, they seek out alternate explanations, ways around accepting the testimony of their eyes, the natural world, and their consciences. They don't want there to be evidence, so for them, there is nothing that serves as evidence. They are the Atheists. And 4% or so see some evidence, but aren't sure it's enough. They are the agnostics.

But the problem isn't in the evidence; it's in the viewer.

[Senad Dizdarevic]

1. Evidence is Scientific: "The first law of thermodynamics states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only altered in form."

One of the main god's characteristics is that he is supposed to be the Creator of the World.

I prove that that is not possible, which proves that god as the Creator can not exist.

Actually it doesn't prove that at all. All it shows is that God created the world out of matter. And nothing implies that an omnipotent God would be remotely incapable of doing exactly the lack of which what you say "proves" He cannot exist.

Meanwhile, you've forgotten the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, which shows that the universe had a definite beginning point. Entropy proves there was a state of higher order from which entropy is marking the decline to a state of lower order.

So there was some original "creation" event: now we have to find a plausible doer for the action of creating a universe.

I'm always bemused by the confidence with which skeptics claim to have closed the book on the question, while having no sufficient argument of the kind in hand at all. It's almost like they're in a desperate hurry to keep us from thinking further...

You deny my statement by confirming it.

I said that the 1. Law of thermodynamics states that the impossibility of creating energy means that god as Creator does not exist.

You said that "it doesn't prove that at all. All it shows is that God created the world out of matter."

You first deny it, and then confirm it.

I said that energy is not created from nothing, and you confirm it.

With this confirmation, you stripped god to naked, took him away all goodness, and presented him as any other energy being or human capable of creating something from something. In fact, creating is transforming something into something and not creating something from nothing.

But, then, as your guilt for denying god's creativity backfired on you, you try to show that god nevertheless keeps his almightiness with creating valid evidence that he does not exist. Or in other words, your god is able to create Nothing (probably from something or even from nothing), so I can use it to prove he does not exist.

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does not show "that the universe had a definite beginning point". Here it is: "In any cyclic process, the entropy will either increase or remain the same." Where do you see the "that the universe had a definite beginning point"?

You are just fabricating context to fit your need for god.

The 2. Law also states an important fact that entropy can stay the same, which you and Christian apologists blindly and quickly skip.

There was no "creation event". Energy from the 1. Law is, in fact, a matter in various states (hard, liquid, gas, atomic, etc.). Energy, matter, and the universe are all the same thing. That means that the universe was never created from nothing. Existence - Pure Awareness (consciousness, attention, and awareness), and Energy (Matter), is eternal.

Even if there were a "creation event", but it wasn't, its creator would be just an ordinary craftsman who transformed something into something else, one existing cosmos into another cosmos.

Universe means Everything, and it is the same as Existence. The Universe has many cosmoses; for example, we live in one cosmos, and there are beings above our cosmos who "created" or, more precisely, transformed our cosmos, living in their cosmos. They are not gods, they just have higher capabilities that come together with living in higher dimensions. My space friends Selini from the 6. dimension have fantastic abilities beyond our imagination, but they are not gods. No different from the higher beings of the higher cosmos.

You are heavily biased defending undefendable, so your first instinct reaction is to say "No!" denying everything that could threaten your doctrinal programming.

Strangely, you then deny creatio ex nihilo, the very core of god's supremacy, and state that god created something from something.

Here is the reason: you so desperately need to keep your investment in god safe that you are prepared to degrade your godly fantasma from Creator god, a supreme being creating the universe from nothing, to an ordinary second-class, minor, and obscure god who is creating something from something.

What would Yahweh say if he existed? Isn't that a sin, a capital one?

[Age]

1. Evidence is Scientific: "The first law of thermodynamics states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only altered in form."

One of the main god's characteristics is that he is supposed to be the Creator of the World.

I prove that that is not possible, which proves that god as the Creator can not exist.

Actually it doesn't prove that at all. All it shows is that God created the world out of matter. And nothing implies that an omnipotent God would be remotely incapable of doing exactly the lack of which what you say "proves" He cannot exist.

Meanwhile, you've forgotten the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, which shows that the universe had a definite beginning point. Entropy proves there was a state of higher order from which entropy is marking the decline to a state of lower order.

So there was some original "creation" event: now we have to find a plausible doer for the action of creating a universe.

I'm always bemused by the confidence with which skeptics claim to have closed the book on the question, while having no sufficient argument of the kind in hand at all. It's almost like they're in a desperate hurry to keep us from thinking further...

You deny my statement by confirming it.

I said that the 1. Law of thermodynamics states that the impossibility of creating energy means that god as Creator does not exist.

But, 'this' is absolutely not necessarily True at all.

You said that "it doesn't prove that at all. All it shows is that God created the world out of matter."

You first deny it, and then confirm it.

I said that energy is not created from nothing, and you confirm it.

With this confirmation, you stripped god to naked, took him away all goodness, and presented him as any other energy being or human capable of creating something from something. In fact, creating is transforming something into something and not creating something from nothing.

But, then, as your guilt for denying god's creativity backfired on you, you try to show that god nevertheless keeps his almightiness with creating valid evidence that he does not exist. Or in other words, your god is able to create Nothing (probably from something or even from nothing), so I can use it to prove he does not exist.

you are both as insane as each other.

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does not show "that the universe had a definite beginning point". Here it is: "In any cyclic process, the entropy will either increase or remain the same." Where do you see the "that the universe had a definite beginning point"?

You are just fabricating context to fit your need for god.

Do you just fabricate context to fit your needs for no God?

Or, are 'you' not fallible to your own beliefs and assumptions, like everyone else is?

The 2. Law also states an important fact that entropy can stay the same, which you and Christian apologists blindly and quickly skip.

There was no "creation event". Energy from the 1. Law is, in fact, a matter in various states (hard, liquid, gas, atomic, etc.). Energy, matter, and the universe are all the same thing. That means that the universe was never created from nothing. Existence - Pure Awareness (consciousness, attention, and awareness), and Energy (Matter), is eternal.

Even if there were a "creation event", but it wasn't, its creator would be just an ordinary craftsman who transformed something into something else, one existing cosmos into another cosmos.

The infinite and eternal Universe, Itself, which is in eternal Creation, through evolution, is in fact the irrefutable proof that the Creator, in fact, does, and has to, exist.

Universe means Everything, and it is the same as Existence. The Universe has many cosmoses; for example, we live in one cosmos, and there are beings above our cosmos who "created" or, more precisely, transformed our cosmos, living in their cosmos.

How do you know 'this', for absolutely sure?

What irrefutable proof can you, and will you, present, here, for 'us'?

They are not gods, they just have higher capabilities that come together with living in higher dimensions. My space friends Selini from the 6. dimension have fantastic abilities beyond our imagination, but they are not gods. No different from the higher beings of the higher cosmos.

You are heavily biased defending undefendable, so your first instinct reaction is to say "No!" denying everything that could threaten your doctrinal programming.

One of the first things you would say, when some one tells you that God does exist, is, 'No'. Denying every thing that could, and would, threaten your own doctrinal programming.

Strangely, you then deny creatio ex nihilo, the very core of god's supremacy, and state that god created something from something.

Here is the reason: you so desperately need to keep your investment in god safe that you are prepared to degrade your godly fantasma from Creator god, a supreme being creating the universe from nothing, to an ordinary second-class, minor, and obscure god who is creating something from something.

What would Yahweh say if he existed? Isn't that a sin, a capital one?

[Age]

So we can observe the universe and various properties of the universe such as conservation laws but we can't draw conclusions based on those properties of the universe alone, but one can invoke the existence of a being that cannot be detected with scientific instruments and that can magically do anything, even the otherwise logically, physically or technically impossible. Sounds like speculation to me. Far more speculative than me assuming the existence of Antarctica. Just saying.

You believe in the universe, don't you? Have you spanned it? Have you even seen it, beyond a very few of the very nearest stars? And yet, there it is. You cannot see all of it, but you can see some of it; and by faith, you can assume there's a lot more of it to know. And that's exactly how you do it.

The evidence of God is around us. It's on every side, actually. I can see it, and so can almost the entire rest of the human race, at least in partial measure; for 92% of them believe in at least the likelihood of some sort of "god." But other people around 4% of the world, simply refuse to accept evidence as evidence. Instead, they seek out alternate explanations, ways around accepting the testimony of their eyes, the natural world, and their consciences. They don't want there to be evidence, so for them, there is nothing that serves as evidence. They are the Atheists. And 4% or so see some evidence, but aren't sure it's enough. They are the agnostics.

But the problem isn't in the evidence; it's in the viewer.

And, believing that there is so-called 'evidence', for what one already believes exists or is true, but of which they have not yet obtained actual irrefutable proof for, is just delusional and absurd.

If one already believes or disbelieves some thing, like for example, 'God exists', then they will, subconsciously, 'look for', and 'see', only 'that' that they, again, subconsciously want to 'see'. And, let 'us' never ever forgot that 'evidence' is never actual 'proof' for absolutely any thing.

[Immanuel Can]

1. Evidence is Scientific: "The first law of thermodynamics states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed, only altered in form."

One of the main god's characteristics is that he is supposed to be the Creator of the World.

I prove that that is not possible, which proves that god as the Creator can not exist.

Actually it doesn't prove that at all. All it shows is that God created the world out of matter. And nothing implies that an omnipotent God would be remotely incapable of doing exactly the lack of which what you say "proves" He cannot exist.

Meanwhile, you've forgotten the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, which shows that the universe had a definite beginning point. Entropy proves there was a state of higher order from which entropy is marking the decline to a state of lower order.

So there was some original "creation" event: now we have to find a plausible doer for the action of creating a universe.

I'm always bemused by the confidence with which skeptics claim to have closed the book on the question, while having no sufficient argument of the kind in hand at all. It's almost like they're in a desperate hurry to keep us from thinking further...

You deny my statement by confirming it.

Exactly. I agree that humans cannot create or destroy energy, (and in fact, aren't even quite sure what "energy" is. It's a catch-all term, really.) And I point out that any natural law applies only to things that are under natural law, which means "not transcendent." By definition, God is transcendent of all natural laws; He's not some kind of "product" of natural forces. He's the Originator of the natural processes which we humans know. He's above them and beyond them, so no term drawn from natural law represents some kind of blow against that conception of God.

As it turns out, then, to complain that we humans cannot create matter is just totally irrelevant to the concept in question -- and that's true whether or not one believes in God. The concept is not being addressed at all by reference to human natural laws, whether to support the concept or to refute the concept.

...your guilt for denying god's creativity...

You'll have to point out where I said anything but that God is the transcendent Creator. You'll find I never have.

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does not show "that the universe had a definite beginning point".

Yes, it certainly does. And beyond all reasonable doubt, as well. Go back and read it again, and this time, think carefully. You'll realize it does.

Here it is: "In any cyclic process,

The universe isn't "cyclic." It's linear. Entropy proves it's linear.

The 2. Law also states an important fact that entropy can stay the same,

The rate of entropy can "stay the same." But the rate means the world is still running down: it just speaks of the pace at which it's happening, not whether or not it is.

You're so eager to refuse the evidence, it seems, you're not really thinking through it's implications properly.

Existence - Pure Awareness (consciousness, attention, and awareness), and Energy (Matter), is eternal.

You're confusing different terms: energy is not "awareness." But God is both eternal and has energy at His disposal. So actually, you'd be making a case for God, but not using that name.

Universe means Everything, and it is the same as Existence.

No, it only means "material existence." It does not comprise anything transcendent of that order.

Here's your basic mistake. You think Christians believe in a God that's less than the universe, subject to its rules and defeated by its terms. But if you check Christian theology, you'd find that we don't. We believe God is transcendent. He's not subject to physical laws, He's the law-giver, the creator of the very laws you cite.

That's the postulate you have to address. The belief in created gods is uninteresting to both you and Christians alike. Neither of us believes in it. And it's not what Christians propose. So really, your argument not only doesn't prove anything, it doesn't even address the Christian conception of God.

[Belinda]

Actually it doesn't prove that at all. All it shows is that God created the world out of matter. And nothing implies that an omnipotent God would be remotely incapable of doing exactly the lack of which what you say "proves" He cannot exist.

Meanwhile, you've forgotten the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, which shows that the universe had a definite beginning point. Entropy proves there was a state of higher order from which entropy is marking the decline to a state of lower order.

So there was some original "creation" event: now we have to find a plausible doer for the action of creating a universe.

I'm always bemused by the confidence with which skeptics claim to have closed the book on the question, while having no sufficient argument of the kind in hand at all. It's almost like they're in a desperate hurry to keep us from thinking further...

You deny my statement by confirming it.

Exactly. I agree that humans cannot create or destroy energy, (and in fact, aren't even quite sure what "energy" is. It's a catch-all term, really.) And I point out that any natural law applies only to things that are under natural law, which means "not transcendent." By definition, God is transcendent of all natural laws; He's not some kind of "product" of natural forces. He's the Originator of the natural processes which we humans know. He's above them and beyond them, so no term drawn from natural law represents some kind of blow against that conception of God.

As it turns out, then, to complain that we humans cannot create matter is just totally irrelevant to the concept in question -- and that's true whether or not one believes in God. The concept is not being addressed at all by reference to human natural laws, whether to support the concept or to refute the concept.

...your guilt for denying god's creativity...

You'll have to point out where I said anything but that God is the transcendent Creator. You'll find I never have.

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does not show "that the universe had a definite beginning point".

Yes, it certainly does. And beyond all reasonable doubt, as well. Go back and read it again, and this time, think carefully. You'll realize it does.

Here it is: "In any cyclic process,

The universe isn't "cyclic." It's linear. Entropy proves it's linear.

The 2. Law also states an important fact that entropy can stay the same,

The rate of entropy can "stay the same." But the rate means the world is still running down: it just speaks of the pace at which it's happening, not whether or not it is.

You're so eager to refuse the evidence, it seems, you're not really thinking through it's implications properly.

Existence - Pure Awareness (consciousness, attention, and awareness), and Energy (Matter), is eternal.

You're confusing different terms: energy is not "awareness." But God is both eternal and has energy at His disposal. So actually, you'd be making a case for God, but not using that name.

Universe means Everything, and it is the same as Existence.

No, it only means "material existence." It does not comprise anything transcendent of that order.

Here's your basic mistake. You think Christians believe in a God that's less than the universe, subject to its rules and defeated by its terms. But if you check Christian theology, you'd find that we don't. We believe God is transcendent. He's not subject to physical laws, He's the law-giver, the creator of the very laws you cite.

That's the postulate you have to address. The belief in created gods is uninteresting to both you and Christians alike. Neither of us believes in it. And it's not what Christians propose. So really, your argument not only doesn't prove anything, it doesn't even address the Christian conception of God.

That God made all the laws of nature, does not imply that God can intervene in the laws He created.

How can transcendent God and immanent God not be binary?

[Belinda]

I reply to the original post:-

But there were no atheists until the last few hundred years. There is no recorded history of people who did not believe in the existence of God or gods until the last few hundred years.

[Immanuel Can]

You deny my statement by confirming it.

Exactly. I agree that humans cannot create or destroy energy, (and in fact, aren't even quite sure what "energy" is. It's a catch-all term, really.) And I point out that any natural law applies only to things that are under natural law, which means "not transcendent." By definition, God is transcendent of all natural laws; He's not some kind of "product" of natural forces. He's the Originator of the natural processes which we humans know. He's above them and beyond them, so no term drawn from natural law represents some kind of blow against that conception of God.

As it turns out, then, to complain that we humans cannot create matter is just totally irrelevant to the concept in question -- and that's true whether or not one believes in God. The concept is not being addressed at all by reference to human natural laws, whether to support the concept or to refute the concept.

...your guilt for denying god's creativity...

You'll have to point out where I said anything but that God is the transcendent Creator. You'll find I never have.

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does not show "that the universe had a definite beginning point".

Yes, it certainly does. And beyond all reasonable doubt, as well. Go back and read it again, and this time, think carefully. You'll realize it does.

Here it is: "In any cyclic process,

The universe isn't "cyclic." It's linear. Entropy proves it's linear.

The 2. Law also states an important fact that entropy can stay the same,

The rate of entropy can "stay the same." But the rate means the world is still running down: it just speaks of the pace at which it's happening, not whether or not it is.

You're so eager to refuse the evidence, it seems, you're not really thinking through it's implications properly.

Existence - Pure Awareness (consciousness, attention, and awareness), and Energy (Matter), is eternal.

You're confusing different terms: energy is not "awareness." But God is both eternal and has energy at His disposal. So actually, you'd be making a case for God, but not using that name.

Universe means Everything, and it is the same as Existence.

No, it only means "material existence." It does not comprise anything transcendent of that order.

Here's your basic mistake. You think Christians believe in a God that's less than the universe, subject to its rules and defeated by its terms. But if you check Christian theology, you'd find that we don't. We believe God is transcendent. He's not subject to physical laws, He's the law-giver, the creator of the very laws you cite.

That's the postulate you have to address. The belief in created gods is uninteresting to both you and Christians alike. Neither of us believes in it. And it's not what Christians propose. So really, your argument not only doesn't prove anything, it doesn't even address the Christian conception of God.

That God made all the laws of nature, does not imply that God can intervene in the laws He created.

Sure it does. If He has the authority to MAKE the laws real in the first place, and the power to effect that, they it would be absurd to suppose he cannot suspend or even alter the thing he's created.

How can transcendent God and immanent God not be binary?

A law-giver (like, say, the king in a monarchy or perhaps, the president of the US) is said to be the giver of, and the authority behind a law. He can also suspend the law through things like pardons. And he is not subject to particular laws himself -- for example, he cannot be prosecuted for actions he performs in the course of acting in his office.

This is very routine in human affairs. So why should it surprise us if somebody says that God is both the establisher of the law, and has perfect freedom to suspend or alter that law when He so wishes? It's not even hard to conceive.

[Belinda]

Immanuel, your claim that God both made nature and intervenes in nature must depend upon God's being a person. This what persons do with their creations when they regard their creations as ongoing processes. The immanent God is an ongoing process.

However that leaves the transcendent essence of God a big mystery, and so it must remain because no human being can penetrate the mystery of God's essential being.

Immanuel C wrote:-

A law-giver (like, say, the king in a monarchy or perhaps, the president of the US) is said to be the giver of, and the authority behind a law. He can also suspend the law through things like pardons. And he is not subject to particular laws himself -- for example, he cannot be prosecuted for actions he performs in the course of acting in his office.

This is very routine in human affairs. So why should it surprise us if somebody says that God is both the establisher of the law, and has perfect freedom to suspend or alter that law when He so wishes? It's not even hard to conceive.

It is hard to conceive, because we can all conceive of the essence and immanent powers of a king or president of the US, but we cannot conceive of the essence of God.
I understand that Jesus Christ is both essence and immanence.So JC may bridge the epistemic gap.

[Immanuel Can]

Immanuel, your claim that God both made nature and intervenes in nature must depend upon God's being a person.

Well, not "depend upon," but yes, God is a person.

This what persons do with their creations when they regard their creations as ongoing processes.

That's not even true. But if it were, it would still not make your case that that was necessary. People finish things they create all the time.

...no human being can penetrate the mystery of God's essential being.

And nobody can drink the ocean. But you can take a cup. And you can stand on the rim of the Pacific somewhere, and truthfully say, "I've seen the ocean," though you cannot span it all, far less drink it.

So what's your point? Nothing is obvious from what you say.

[Gary Childress]

Immanuel, your claim that God both made nature and intervenes in nature must depend upon God's being a person.

Well, not "depend upon," but yes, God is a person.

This what persons do with their creations when they regard their creations as ongoing processes.

That's not even true. But if it were, it would still not make your case that that was necessary. People finish things they create all the time.

...no human being can penetrate the mystery of God's essential being.

And nobody can drink the ocean. But you can take a cup. And you can stand on the rim of the Pacific somewhere, and truthfully say, "I've seen the ocean," though you cannot span it all, far less drink it.

So what's your point? Nothing is obvious from what you say.

Unlike God, the ocean is easily visible. You can step in and feel the actual water around your feet. Apples and oranges. Your argument is based on a false and irrelevant analogy.

The world is a shit fest. Every human endeavor to eliminate or minimalize human suffering has been met with obstacles that seem insurmountable. If God wanted humans to live happily, HE WOULD HAVE MADE IT POSSIBLE FOR ALL.

[Immanuel Can]

Immanuel, your claim that God both made nature and intervenes in nature must depend upon God's being a person.

Well, not "depend upon," but yes, God is a person.

This what persons do with their creations when they regard their creations as ongoing processes.

That's not even true. But if it were, it would still not make your case that that was necessary. People finish things they create all the time.

...no human being can penetrate the mystery of God's essential being.

And nobody can drink the ocean. But you can take a cup. And you can stand on the rim of the Pacific somewhere, and truthfully say, "I've seen the ocean," though you cannot span it all, far less drink it.

So what's your point? Nothing is obvious from what you say.

Unlike God, the ocean is easily visible.

I think God is, too. You can know him from the natural world, from your own nature, from conscience, and from revelation...all of which he's made available to everybody. I find it personally amazing how hard people keep working to keep themselves from seeing it. But we all really know. See Romans 1.

Some people don't accept evidence as evidence. Again, that's their problem, not a lack of evidence.

The world is a shit fest.

It's not, actually. It's a mixture of good and evil. And some people experience more of one than the other, and some experience more of the other than the one. There's no simple link between being good and getting good, or being bad and getting bad, in this present world. The oldest book in the Bible, the Book of Job, says no less.