Is God Real?

If there is a God, who or what created him? This is a question I’ve had trouble with my entire life. Throughout my spiritual journey in life, I always found myself coming back to this question. And I have never found a clear, defining, legitimate answer to this question.

So I did what most good Americans do when they are confused. I went to Google and typed in “who created God?” and clicked on a link which led me to this site.

The Bible & Faith
According to the above website, Christians answer this question in the book of Genesis. It states that God created the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1) The verse continues to describe God as being active before the time that he created the universe.

But really no clear definition of how God was created. He was just always around. Am I just to believe that God was hanging around in the universe and one day he suddenly decided to create everything? This truly baffles me.

When I question people about this scenario, they often offer the term “faith” as an explanation. For me, faith is merely a word to use when there is an absence of proof. I have never been able to rely on faith as an explanation to anything.

The Greatness of Nature
I often hear the argument that I should look around at the beauty of nature, the intricacies of the human body and understand that the creation of Earth could not have been some random Big Bang, but rather a planned out and orchestrated action by God. I fail to see the correlation of how something being beautiful translates into that something having to be created by God.

I agree, nature is beautiful and amazing and the human body is an incredible organism. But I tend to lean towards science and believe that it’s because of millions of years of evolution. I don’t understand how anyone can look at a sunset and say, Wow, how could God not have created that?” Don’t laugh, I’ve heard that many times in my life.

More Questions
I think one of the most difficult things for me is that this one question always leads me to more questions:

  • Is it possible that millions of people have simply relied on faith as the foundation for their belief system?
  • How can people believe in something that can’t be proven?
  • How can people believe in a book that was written so long ago and was passed down and translated over and over and over?

I am just a normal man. I’m not overly intelligent and I’m not dumb. I classify myself somewhere in between. But I fear that every time I think about this question, my mind will always end up more confused. I like for things to be explained to me with examples of proof, not faith. I like to rely on science to explain the things that I have no grasp of.

My spiritual journey in life has led me to the path of atheism and I’m okay with that. Unless someone can offer me some tangible, legitimate proof of God’s existence, I don’t think I will ever be able to believe in him.

This question brings me to the lyrics of one of my favorite songs:

“I won’t believe in heaven or hell. No saints, no sinner, no Devil as well. No pearly gates, no thorny crown.
You’re always letting us humans down. The wars you bring, the babes you drown. Those lost at sea and never found, and it’s
the same the whole world ’round. The hurt I see helps to compound that Father, Son and Holy Ghost is just somebody’s unholy hoax,
And if you’re up there you’d perceive that my heart’s here upon my sleeve. If there’s one thing I don’t believe in……. It’s you.”
Dear God by XTC


24 thoughts on “Is God Real?

  1. I am not an atheist, but I love this post because it uses sound logic and reason in a respectful way. Many times post try to slam others who do not believe the same way. They may or may not have anything to back up their words other than “They are wrong and I am right!”

    Thanks for blogging!

  2. Part of my reasoning against the existence of God comes from the attributes normally given to God such as omniscience and perfection. If God is perfect, one definition of the word being “without want,” then why did God create? If God is perfect, He needs nothing. He wants nothing. He has everything He needs within His own existence. But then combine that with His omniscience. Even if He had a desire or need, He would know the outcome of it beforehand! He could just think about it. It seems to me that God would not create humanity. Or anything for that matter.

    • It’s true that God didn’t/doesn’t need anyone, but it doesn’t necessarily follow that He would therefore not create. There are other reasons why He would (and why WE would) create apart from needing to.

      To understand why He would create humanity knowing how we mess things up requires a careful examination of His character, His plan for mankind, our God-given free will, and an acceptance of the reality that there are some things about an omnipotent, sovereign, perfect, infinite Being that our finite minds just cannot fathom.

      • Miss Smith,

        With all due respect, I find that answer to be wholly unsatisfactory. I’ll gladly tell you why. God could create out of His own free will, I will grant that. But I resort back to God being perfect and omniscient. Keep this two traits in mind. Focus on them. Given that God is perfect, He is without want or need. He exists perfectly as Himself. He does not get hungry or bored or tired, He is not even a material entity. But combine that perfection with His omniscience. Why would He create humanity, the universe, anything at all if He knows exactly what will happen to them? He can see their futures played out in His mind without having to take any action. So why would He create unless perhaps He is not omniscient? But if He is not omniscient, this raises a great deal of philosophical problems. For if He is not omniscient, what else can’t He do? Perhaps He could use His omnipotence to make Himself omniscient but then you just run into the original problem. It’s doomed to repeat an infinite loop of creation without a cause.

        Yet there’s a second dimension. If God creates despite knowing how much suffering will occur, does this not call His moral perfection into doubt as well? For if He can know what will happens when He creates the universe (a lot of human suffering) and continues with it anyways, does this not make him a Masochist? The Ultimate Masochist? So not only does creation from God not make sense, it calls God’s very moral qualities into doubt as well.

        But let’s look at the most irritating answer I have ever come across when discussing theology with people, “You cannot fathom God. He is infinite.” He’s really not. Aristotle claimed that whatever has parts can be divided. What is divided is inherently finite. God has multiple qualities and traits and descriptions, therefore God is divisible and God can be reduced down into finite amounts. But even without that argument, defining God as unknowable contradicts logic. Can you love what you do not understand? Is that truly love? Furthermore, doesn’t defining God as unknowable just stack the deck in the favor of religion? Suddenly the burden of proof is shifted to the atheist rather than the theist. But is the Atheist the person making the extraordinary claim? No. Thus burden of proof is on the theist. The God Question has not been proven and has to be disproven by the atheist. In actuality, the reverse is true. If you want to show that God exists, burden of proof is on you. Neither you nor any other theologian can merely quit when an impasse is reached and say, “God is unfathomable. We just have to accept His existence as is.” We don’t and to say that we do is an intellectual cop-out. Either explain God’s existence in clear, concrete, and concise terms or don’t bother expressing your opinion.

        All the best,

  3. God is eternal. He is the uncreated First Cause. This is perfectly logical because unless something or someone has always existed, we would be going on (for eternity) asking ‘And who or what created him?”

    I believe God exists based on the evidence. My faith is not in faith. The beauty and complexity of creation are evidence of God because they are evidence of intelligence. It has been estimated, by atheist Richard Dawkins, no less, that a single, tiny amoeba has as much information in its DNA as 1,000 complete sets of the Encyclopedia Britannica.

    The fact that the universe had a beginning, which is well-attested by science and accepted by most scientists, is also evidence of God. The way the earth is fine-tuned to a degree beyond the possibility it could have happened by chance, the fact that we recognize a moral law, the historical reliability of the biblical text which records the words and miracles of Jesus…all of these are evidences, as well.

    Everyone has faith, even atheists. What differs is what or whom your faith is in. Though I can’t prove Him, my faith in God is based on evidence that is beyond a reasonable doubt.

    • Similarly, you can believe that God exists and use the beauty of the natural world as evidence for His existence but that does not make it so. Science has been able to explain such beauty without invoking a supernatural being that lies outside of the universe, depending on one’s definition of God. Evolution can explain life. Astronomy can explain the origins of the universe. Physics can explain motion. Psychology can explain free will and human behaviour. Sciences trump religions. Your faith is not beyond a reasonable doubt. I encourage you to read as much outside literature regarding the sciences and philosophy in general as much as you read your Bible.

      And as a side note, if you’re reading books like “The Case for a Creator” and “I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist” – toss them out. I’ve read them too. They decry evolution of pseudoscience when what they are promoting is even more vile than psuedo-science. It’s religious science which, like psuedo-science, has no basis in reality. The truth claims that come from either are dubious and should not be trusted until after much closer examination.

  4. @magicalart: thanks for reading and commenting, I appreciate. I don’t ever want to slam anyone for their specific beliefs. I’m very open to everyone believing whatever they want.

    @Pigeon: thanks so much, I will have to get my arse in gear.

    @tafacory: thanks for reading and commenting, I appreciate it. Even if he did exist and did create everything, I think he would have aborted the experiment by now.

    @Caroline: thanks for reading and commenting, I do appreciate it. I have trouble with understanding your argument and it is one that is echoed by many believers. The “evidence” you speak of is not really evidence at all. Stories in a book written hundreds of years ago and stories of Jesus “miracles” are not even close to evidence. Remember, people used to think the Earth was flat. By your logic, that would have to be true as well.

    In my opinion, the Bible is just like the telephone game.

    • The Bible is the most well-attested ancient historical document we have today. The number of copies, the span of time between the events and their recording, the agreement between the copies, the supporting archeological evidence, the identified people and places, the supporting extra-biblical records, the prophecies fulfilled….just some of the evidences for its validity.

      Many wise, intelligent people, who have actually studied it, affirm that the Bible is a reliable document. Those who brush it off as nonsense have not examined it.

      • I’m not trying to be a dick, but does that mean that those same intelligent people would believe that Noah filled an arc with two of every animal on the planet? Or that Jonah was swallowed by a whale, but lived? Or that Moses parted the Red Sea? Come on now. I really don’t want to get into a pissing match here. I don’t believe, you do. I respect those facts.

      • If there is a God, miracles can happen. The coming into existence of time, space, and matter at a moment in time…from “nothing”… is a miracle in itself. You are living in and on a miracle. And that’s a fact.

      • Caroline, I’m confused; so do you believe all those stories to be real? Do you believe that the Earth is flat? A planet is not a miracle, it’s a process. Just like childbirth is no more of a miracle than me eating and then going to the bathroom.

      • Another problem with the arguments for the Bible:

        Numerous copies of the same manuscript do not prove something true. Nor does it prove that the entire religious foundation was not made up by the imaginations of other men.

        There may be historical nuggets of truth in the Bible, but by and large it’s a story of misquoted and misunderstood falsehoods.

        It was at least 30 years before the first Gospel was published. Look up something called the Documentary Hypothesis.

        Jesus was never believed to be the “Son of God” until there was a mistranslation from Hebrew to Greek after the Exile. Biblical scholar Geza Vermes notes “In Hebrew or Aramaic ‘son of God’ is always employed figuratively as a metaphor for a child of God, whereas in Greek addressed to Gentile Christians, grown up in a religious culture filled with gods, sons of gods, and demigods, the New Testament expression tended to be understood literally as ‘Son of God,’ spelled as it were with a capital letter: that is to say, as someone of the same nature as God.” Furthermore Craig Eisendrath notes from the work of Vermes, “The term “virgin” in Isaiah means “young woman,” not technically a virgin. In monotheistic Judaism there could have been no intention of giving a man, like Jesus, divine aspects. What appears in Matthew would make sense only to Hellenized people used to unions between gods and mortals.” Lastly, Eisendrath notes from the work from Vermes that “the term “Lord” carries the idea of “master” or “sir” in the intertestamental period, denoting a person in authority, rather than a deity, as this designation for Jesus came to be interpreted in Christianity.”

        Furthermore, miracles do not exist. Miracles do not break natural laws. Study quantum mechanics to better understand just how bizarre our universe really is. Things we take to be miracles are actually just bizarre products of our universe.

  5. Okay…so what began the “process”? And how did all that incredibly precise information get coded into your DNA? You may not like the creation explanation, but I would think you would then have a viable explanation of your own.

    And thanks for cleaning up your language. I’m pretty sure that’s not how you normally would have expressed that last point 🙂

    • There is a viable and natural explanation to how life arise it’s been documented for a long time and goes by the name “The Miller-Urey Experiment.” Research it. None of that space seed bs that Christian apologists peddle either.

  6. “Just like childbirth is no more of a miracle than me eating and then going to the bathroom.” That’s a pretty weak argument, by the way. I don’t think you have anything to thank your friend for. What comes out in the toilet is what’s left from what went in. What comes out in labor and delivery is something brand new that began from the joining of egg and sperm and transformed into an amazingly, wonderfully complex human being that didn’t even exist nine months previous. No natural, unguided, random, “chance” process can account for that.

  7. Bixby – as you know from my blog I focus mostly on my training and the life lessons I develop from it. I don’t write on my faith. I do agree with Caroline and I am a Christian. You bring up very valid points and you are right God can’t be proven with cold hard facts. I wouldn’t suggest looking around at what I believe to be His creation, but rather look inward. I can not change your mind or your beliefs. I believe only God can bring that change. If you are trying to figure it out, and from some of your writings it appears that you are, ask Him. What harm could it do? “If You are real, reveal Yourself to me.” Please don’t expect a puff of smoke and an immediate answer! To answer your question of what is faith – it is what we believe to be true. Atheists have faith as much as Christians, just faith in different things.

    One last thing – solid proof is always helpful. Scientific facts can prove theories. But take light. We all know light exists. We see it. But light defies all rules of physics. It is both a wave and a particle. And I find it ironic that in a book, the Bible, written thousands of years ago, all translations agree that God describes Himeslf as light. The one thing that defies science. Just something to think about.

    I look forward to your posts, always something to think about. Keep at it!

    • Thanks for commenting Elisariva, I appreciate it. I’ve searched, I’ve prayed, I’ve questioned and it has all led me to atheism and I am comfortable with that. I will always continue to question my beliefs though and will never be fully complacent with anything. I know that I could be wrong or I could be right. I’m ok with that.

  8. @Trafacory, You threw a lot at me at one time and I’m going to try and address all your points, though I don’t expect to persuade you. But just so you don’t think I don’t have answers for you….here we go.

    Let’s start with the easier ones. How do you know God is not infinite? You would have to know and understand Him to an incredible degree in order to make an absolute claim like that. Whatever Aristotle claimed, he was similarly unqualified to place absolute limits on an infinite Being. Besides, your conclusion that “what is divided is inherently finite” isn’t true. A line is infinite, but you can divide it at any point into 2 parts, one continuing to infinity going east, the other going west.

    About knowing God…we believers don’t claim that God is “unknowable”, only that He is not perfectly and completely knowable. We know a lot about Him, but because He is so much greater and different than we, we are not able to know Him completely…in the same way that an ant would sense your presence as you were getting close to stepping on it but cannot comprehend everything about you. And it’s only reasonable that we are unable to fully comprehend God. If we could, we could conceivably be like Him, and that would make us gods as well. And we know that’s not gonna’ happen.

    So, yes, though we cannot completely understand God, we can love Him because He has revealed enough of Himself and His love for us to enable us to respond in love.

    Regarding creation, it is not true that science can explain the origin of life and all that exists. Scientists have theories but they are incomplete. They can tell us that over time one species evolved into another, but such changes must occur at the molecular level and they have no workable model for how that might take place.

    And their theories for how the universe – something – came into being from nothing are also quite lacking, and some are downright silly. And that “space seed bs” you mentioned is definitely not something “Christian apologists peddle.” It’s one of the desperate theories Darwinists propose to try and avoid the involvement of God. And the Miller-Urey experiment has been largely discredited by the scientific community as a viable explanation for how life began.

    As for the validity of the Bible, I agree that “Numerous copies of the same manuscript do not prove something true.” But they do give evidence that the Bible we have today is an extremely accurate copy of the original manuscripts. The reason why we can believe that what it reports actually happened is that it has all the characteristics of a reliable, historical document: written by eyewitnesses or interviewers of eyewitnesses within only decades of the events; the people and places mentioned are confirmed by other contemporary, non-Christian records; the archeological evidence supports the places and events mentioned; all the books contained in the Bible, though written by many different authors, are consistent in what they describe.

    Jesus clearly claimed divinity at various times and in various ways, and the NT writers certainly taught that He is God. So, the different understandings of “son of God” and “Lord” do not prove that He wasn’t. As for miracles, please tell me how quantum mechanics can explain the parting of the Red Sea, the feeding of the 5,000+ with 5 loaves and 2 fish, the healing with a word of the blind and lame, and the resurrection from the dead of a Man whipped beyond recognition, crucified, and stabbed with a spear to make sure He was indeed dead.

    Now we come to the hardest question: why does a supposedly good God allow suffering? Or, from your perspective, why, if He is omniscient, would He even have created mankind knowing what suffering we would endure? Let me say first of all that we believers struggle with this also. It’s a tough one. I don’t have all the answers, but there are a few things I can say about it.

    First of all, most of the suffering is a result of sin, and that’s our fault. When God created man, I believe He had basically three choices: create us with free will – the freedom to choose and follow Him or not, make us without free will and obedient by design, or not make us at all. Having free will gives us the capacity to genuinely love Him because “love” that is forced is not real love. But it also gives us the freedom to reject Him and sin. Without free will we would be like robots and there’s no real potential for relationship with a robot.

    God could choose to prevent all the consequences of our sin, but then why would we stop? Consequences discipline us to choose the right and reject the wrong. I do believe He prevents or lessens some of them. None of us have any idea what horrible things we may have been saved from because of His compassion.

    But you’re probably saying, “But what about tsunamis and tornadoes and such that sweep away innocent children?” I don’t know how to explain that apparent injustice. But here’s what I do know: death is just the separation of our body from our soul. As C.S. Lewis is reported to have said, “You are not a body with a soul; you are a soul with a body.” So our death in this life is like a doorway to the next. And for innocent children and all who believe and trust in God, the next life is in Heaven with Him, which is a much better place to be.

    But still there are children who suffer for years, abused, neglected, malnourished and always hungry. Why doesn’t God provide for and protect them, or take them off this wretched planet and into Heaven? I don’t know, but I do believe there is a reason. What it comes down to is that I am convinced that He exists and that He is good, merciful, loving, kind and omnipotent, based on how He has revealed Himself in the Bible, creation, and in ourselves. If we can conceivably be very good, then the one who created us must be even greater in goodness than we could possibly ever be. And then I trust Him. I cannot sit in judgment on the one who created me and the universe itself. He will make all things right, but it may not be until He brings this world to an end.

    And it’s not a cop-out to say “I don’t understand but I believe anyway.” None of us understands everything, but we each make a decision to believe in whatever, based on incomplete knowledge. Darwinists believe that life came from non-life without God, even though they don’t understand how. And atheists who say “Well, I won’t believe unless I have definite proof” are making a decision to reject the evidence for the existence of God and “put their trust,” if you will, in a Godless world even though they cannot prove that He does not exist.

    Can you prove that He does not exist? If you can’t, then you are taking His nonexistence by faith. I believe the evidence is overwhelmingly for the existence of God. So, no, I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist.

    • Caroline,

      Thanks for getting back to me.

      Regarding your response, I will not answer each individual section as it seems that many of them are absurd and not worth discussing. With that in mind, let’s get down to business!

      Here your example has a huge flaw. Ants and humans are both physically existing creatures that are directly observable. To even begin to defend your claim you need a more suitable and relevant example. Nice try though.

      Science can explain the origin of life. Science’s domain is all that is physical and observable. The origin of life is a physical event and though it is not observable, scientists can work backwards to try and recreate it using current evidence and critical reasoning. And who are you to claim that changes occur on a molecular level and there is no workable model? Do you have extensive education in evolutionary theory? I would suggest reading some books which explain evolution in detail before using nonchalant dismissals of it, despite an overwhelming amount of evidence which supports it.

      The Miller-Urey experiment has not been discredited. I recently watched an episode of Nova Science Now on PBS which explained that scientists have been able to replicate 2 of the 4 necessary base pairs required for life to flourish and they have done so using natural means. Your previous assertion of scientific theories being incomplete are correct. But the fact of the matter is that science has made progress into such a question and have shown how life could have arisen from chemicals and survived. I would argue that it’s only a matter of time until scientists uncover evidence and methods for the other 2.

      Let me ask you something. Do you really think people wouldn’t lie to keep their religion going? People often forget that Christianity was a radical sect of Judaism and during the early centuries they were persecuted for their beliefs. Their goal was to establish a religion. Once this had occurred, they canonized their sacred writings so as to consolidate power and differentiate among the various other groups vying for power at the time. And what archaeological evidence are you citing? Much archaeological evidence has shown the authors of the Bible to either be stupid or dishonest since many of the historical events they mention do not match up with what historians have explored. And the Bible has an entire slew of inconsistencies. There are failed prophecies, numerical discrepancies, traces of heretical beliefs, and much more. Have we read the same Bible?

      But this still doesn’t answer the question. If God is perfect, i.e., without want or need, why would He create? You should take a look at my most recent blog post. I explore this topic in detail. It makes no sense for God to create. Either we are misunderstanding Him or we are purposefully ignoring parts of reality.

      Here, again, the burden of proof is on you. You are a Theist. You are making a positive claim about reality. You are gathering evidence and reason to make a case as to why you believe God exists. As an Atheist, I am denying that evidence and attempting to explain it in an equally convincing way. Being on the negative spectrum of the debate, I do not have to show you anything. I do not have to make counter-arguments against yours. I must merely call the reliability and credibility of your evidence and arguments into question. If I do so correctly, it is to be taken that God exists. I, as an Atheist, who hold a negative view and made no such assertion, do not then have to prove the disproval of your belief. Once I have called your evidence and argumentation into question, if you do not respond or if you cannot satisfactorily respond, it is to be assumed that God does not exist until further time when the debate comes up again. Does that make sense? The burden of proof is not upon the Atheist. It’s upon the Theist.

  9. Mr. Tafacory (Is this your name? What can I call you?) –

    You seem like a smart guy, and I see glimpses of congeniality in your posts, so I’m still hopeful that we can have a respectful discussion. But I feel I must object to your categorization of many of my arguments as “absurd and not worth discussing.” That’s very dismissive of what I believe most people would consider to be reasonable points, even if they don’t agree with me. Perhaps you could explain what exactly you find “absurd” and why.

    I will answer each of your points, beginning with your rejection of my analogy of our relation to God being akin to ants relative to humans. This was given in the context of God’s “knowability” and my point was that because of the enormous difference in the physical and mental capabilities between ants and humans, there is no possible way for an ant to know and understand you to any degree beyond general awareness of your existence. True, the ant can see you, and God, on the other hand, is unseen. However, you admitted that the evolutionist’s explanation for the origin of life is believed even though it was unobserved, and that scientists use “current evidence and critical reasoning” in their development of the theory and belief in its veracity. This is the same method we theists use in arguing for the existence of God. We don’t see God but we see His handiwork, in the same way that we don’t see the wind or electricity but we know they exist because we see their effects.

    If you’re like any normal human being, you believe a lot of things you have not observed…that Abraham Lincoln was assassinated at Ford’s Theater in 1865; that the earth’s inner core is about as hot as the sun; that the woman you know as Mom actually bore you. You believe them for reasons other than direct observation, and rightly so.

    You questioned my credentials for claiming that evolutionary changes need to happen at the molecular level. Do you disagree with this? Do you know of a workable model that adequately demonstrates how this could have happened by chance?

    Regarding the Miller-Urey experiment, my assertion that the scientific community had “largely discredited” it was a poor choice of words. What I wanted to point out was that many scientists now believe that the conditions they based the experiment on were probably incorrect as representative of conditions on earth billions of years ago. Even the National Center for Science Education, a very pro-evolution, anti-creation organization, states that “It is true that some textbooks do not mention that our knowledge of the composition has changed.”

    But even if the conditions were correct and we were able to produce all the amino acids found today, you still don’t have life. You still have to explain how simple amino acids could have assembled themselves undirected into the complex proteins which serve as code for determining traits. You still have to explain how evolution can account for the presence of an obvious, intelligent message in the DNA of every single cell.

    And you still have to explain how something came into being from nothing without the involvement of the supernatural. If the burden of proof is on the theist for the existence of God, it is likewise on the evolutionist for the existence of everything else without Him.

    Your evaluation of the origins of Christianity as built on lies is without foundation. And Jesus came and died not to “establish a religion” but to take the penalty for our sins. His disciples were fearful nobodies until they saw the risen Christ and the Holy Spirit got ahold of them. Then they suffered martyrdom preaching the gospel to anyone who would listen. Their lives were hardly those of power-hungry religionists.

    As for archeological evidence, a few examples are: the excavation of King Saul’s fortress at Gibeah and the discovery that slingshots were one of the most important weapons of that time period, supporting the story of David and Goliath as well as Judges 20:16; the excavation of 2 temples on one site, separated by a hallway, which supports the records from 1 Samuel and 1 Chronicles about Saul being beheaded and his head hung in one temple and his armor put in another; the 26,000 tablets found in an Assyrian palace that confirm every reference in the Old Testament to an Assyrian king; inscriptions found that corroborate people mentioned by Luke in his gospel, like Gallio, proconsul of Achaia and Lysanias, tetrarch of Abilene, to name just a few. What evidence do you know of that disproves something recorded in the Bible or shows any of its authors to be “stupid or dishonest”?

    “And the Bible has an entire slew of inconsistencies…failed prophecies, numerical discrepancies, traces of heretical beliefs, and much more.” Please give me one example and I will address it. Then give me the next one and I will address that. I will take every single one you can throw at me because I am confident that I can show that they are not what you think they are.

    And why does God’s perfection supposedly preclude Him from creating? Don’t we create for reasons other than need? You say that if God is perfect He has no need nor “want.” If you mean no desire, I think you’re wrong. Any person with a will has the ability to choose, and in order to make a choice we have to have a goal or purpose that we desire to have fulfilled. A reason to choose one thing over another…to create or not to create, for example.

    If you feel my answers are still unsatisfactory and would like to continue this discussion, I would be pleased to oblige. Only let’s not hog this gentleman’s blog. Perhaps you might respond on your blog and we can pick it up there.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s