Forums → WEPR → [redirected]If God created all things
| 1849 | 255521 |
Here is something to get the brain going. It's been said that God created ALL things. Also it's been said that God is 100 precent pure/good. So God created man and it was said that because of man's sinful actions bad/evil things were created. But if God created ALL things then God created bad/evil things, not man. So by God creating bad/evil things this does not make him 100 precent pure/good.
- 1,849 Replies
'd like to point out you keep dodging Mage's question. furthermore rafterman is right. Finally, prove to me god is real.
I didn't answer Mage's question because we all know the answer:faith. And because there is proof, though any proof I say will just be argued against until we get back to square 1.
Yes, yes they are, they have no natural predators, that makes them the top of their food chains.
There is one major food chain of the world, of which we are the top.
Finally, prove to me god is real.
Really? How many times do we have to go through this argument?
Here's how it would happen: I would try to prove it, even though we all know that's impossible. Then you would be like "Well since you can't prove it he's not real", to which I say "You can't prove He doesn't exist". And we get no where.
Finally, prove to me god is real.
We've been going back and forth with this argument at least 30 times on this thread. You can question his motives, his mannerisms, his supposed 'need to intervene' for everything, but not his existence. That's something scientists cannot debunk yet.
I didn't answer Mage's question because we all know the answer:faith.
Faith isn't how that's only why. Faith offers nothing.
And because there is proof, though any proof I say will just be argued against until we get back to square 1.
If you actually had proof we could objectively test it and still come to the conclusion God existed. Since that does not happen what you claim to be proof isn't proof at all.
Really? How many times do we have to go through this argument?
Here's how it would happen: I would try to prove it, even though we all know that's impossible. Then you would be like "Well since you can't prove it he's not real", to which I say "You can't prove He doesn't exist". And we get no where.
I've already told you it's not up to him or anyone else to disprove God. So why would you keep asking that question? Your making the claim of existence so it's up to you to back up that claim. If you can't and you still hold fast to that claim it just makes you irrational.
We've been going back and forth with this argument at least 30 times on this thread. You can question his motives, his mannerisms, his supposed 'need to intervene' for everything, but not his existence. That's something scientists cannot debunk yet.
Yes we can question his existence. It's not up to scientists to debunk what doesn't exist but to prove what does.
Then how are we able to prove if God does or does not exist if we haven't found evidence or traces of Him yet? It's not there yet. Like I said, we haven't found anything that pertains to His existence yet. We are still looking, and eventually, we will find the truth to it. All we can do for now is continue to speculate. We've disproven everything except His existence beyond a shadow of doubt.
Then how are we able to prove if God does or does not exist if we haven't found evidence or traces of Him yet? It's not there yet. Like I said, we haven't found anything that pertains to His existence yet. We are still looking, and eventually, we will find the truth to it. All we can do for now is continue to speculate. We've disproven everything except His existence beyond a shadow of doubt.
If God doesn't exist we won't find any evidence. As I have said if there is no evidence it's reasonable to assume it doesn't exist. Given as you said that everything else pertaining to God has been disproven, this only reinforces the probability that he isn't real. This works for anything regarded as fictional such as magic pixies or leprechauns.
So, so long as we don't have a shred of evidence yet, he is regarded as not existing...in some ways this can work. However, there are things out there that haven't been found that can be plausible. For example, a second set of intelligent life somewhere. We haven't found evidence for this yet (we do have conjecture though), yet it can be possible for it to be around somewhere. What you said made sense though.
You said that since I said God exists, I have to prove he does. But I say that since you said He doesn't exist, you should have to prove He doesn't.
Then surely an omnipotent being would know what Man was to do with his free will? If so it makes his actions either an intentional creation of evil or signals that he is not omniscient. Hm?
Something I found on page one that sparked my interest and to attempt to divert people away from debating in a circle..Who could say what God's motive was for doing this (if He's truly omniscient)? There could be something set so far and complex in motion that it couldn't possibly be figured out until we came to realization what it truly was.
But yeah. This thread's main purpose was to question God's motives and mannerisms for creation and why He did what He did. Instead, it skewed off into "He doesn't exist : Prove it : prove he doesn't : we can't (multiplied by 35)" < this.
Lets talk about death or maybe miracles like u are a intelligent perfectly designed walking meat with emotions and 21 grams lighter and dead without a soul thing,lets say.
However, there are things out there that haven't been found that can be plausible. For example, a second set of intelligent life somewhere. We haven't found evidence for this yet (we do have conjecture though)
Yes we can make determinations on plausibility but we can't say it's exists until we find evidence.
You said that since I said God exists, I have to prove he does. But I say that since you said He doesn't exist, you should have to prove He doesn't.
No it's not. If I told you something existed and you didn't believe me it's not up to you to disprove it existed but it would be up to me to prove that it does. Your not required to prove a negative.
And yet again we reach the same point. I can say that it cannot be seen, or observed in anyway, yet that has flaws. And you can say it exists because you believe, yet that to has flaws.
How do you know that everyone else sees it except you?
For instance if I said there was an invisible flying elephant,
Is it an invisible purple elephant???
Even if this wasn't the case, not being able to disprove something doesn't automatically mean it exists.
Taking this into account, if one cannot prove something does exist doesn't automatically mean it doesn't.
If there is no proof that he doesn't exist, why are you saying God certainly doesn't exist?
I actually typed this with the same exact words then went to the next page and saw you said it.
Wasn't needed? Oh. So I suppose YOU would prefer to be an idiotic bottom of the food chain animal then an intelligent top of the food chain human...
This wasn't really needed, we can't prove that we're on the top of the food chain, do ya'll think there could be something higher up?
I'd like to point out you keep dodging Mage's question. furthermore rafterman is right. Finally, prove to me god is real.
Finally, prove to me he doesn't.
I didn't answer Mage's question because we all know the answer:faith. And because there is proof, though any proof I say will just be argued against until we get back to square 1.
NOOOOOO, we had a huge argument about faith a while back, and all christian v. atheist threads never leave square 1.
God existed.
omg, the words are next to each other and mage posted it, 0.0
Just like we proved Ra, Anubis, Poseidon, Zeus, Thor, Odin etc didn't exist
No-one proved they didn't exist, people just stopped worshiping them and turned to a better religion.
This wasn't really needed, we can't prove that we're on the top of the food chain, do ya'll think there could be something higher up?
It's called a food chain. God doesn't eat us!
[quote]And yet again we reach the same point. I can say that it cannot be seen, or observed in anyway, yet that has flaws. And you can say it exists because you believe, yet that to has flaws.
How do you know that everyone else sees it except you?
[/quote]
I didn't say everyone sees something besides me. What exactly are you talking about?
Finally, prove to me he doesn't.
I'm going to add the same thing that has been said dozens of times. You don't prove a negative, you have to prove he exists because that is your idea.
Thread is locked!