Forums → WEPR → [redirected]If God created all things
| 1849 | 255416 |
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
No god exists and have never existed. Just like we proved Ra, Anubis, Poseidon, Zeus, Thor, Odin etc didn't exist. Everything has an explaination but humans doesn't know everything. Thats why people researches. None can prove im wrong. (SIC)
Noone has been able to prove one doesn't exist, so one may.
It's called a food chain. God doesn't eat us!
I mean like aliens.*creepy music*
I didn't say everyone sees something besides me. What exactly are you talking about?
You said it couldn't be seen or observed, so I said maybe everyone can see and observe it except you.
You don't prove a negative, you have to prove he exists because that is your idea.
and now you have to prove he doesn't. :P
You said it couldn't be seen or observed, so I said maybe everyone can see and observe it except you.
Hmm... that would explain all the scientists, atheists, and others who can't see or observe God. Oh wait, no it doesn't.
and now you have to prove he doesn't. :P
I don't remember saying he doesn't exist. I asked you for proof that he does.
There is one major food chain of the world, of which we are the top.
Completely wrong, there are multiple food chains, the energy transfer between organisms is usually to small to pass between more thane 4 or 5 species, outside of the ocean of course.
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
If you can't prove his existence you will have no reason to accept him as true.
The thing that really makes us different is a strand of DNA called HAR-1
If we are the image of God, then what your saying is the only difference between God and a worm is 1 strand of DNA.
Completely wrong, there are multiple food chains, the energy transfer between organisms is usually to small to pass between more thane 4 or 5 species, outside of the ocean of course.
So are you saying we're not the dominant species on the planet?
If we are the image of God, then what your saying is the only difference between God and a worm is 1 strand of DNA.
If God has it, His DNA would be RADICALLY different than ours. If it were the same, He would just be a normal person.
No god exists and have never existed. Just like we proved Ra, Anubis, Poseidon, Zeus, Thor, Odin etc didn't exist. Everything has an explaination but humans doesn't know everything. Thats why people researches. None can prove im wrong
And you can't prove yourself right.
If you can't prove his existence you will have no reason to accept him as true.
Right. No. Can you prove the existence of your best friends trustworthiness or whatever else you value in a friend? No. But you accept it as true.
If we are the image of God, then what your saying is the only difference between God and a worm is 1 strand of DNA.
Well your wrong her in a religious sense and in a biological sense. Being made in God's image most likely refers to emotions, thoughts, etc. Second HAR-1 is 118 DNA base pair sequence and we also have to account for HAR-2, FOXP2, AMY1, and ASPM.
20Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.
1 Corinthians 1:20-25
So are you saying we're not the dominant species on the planet?
In some situations we aren't. For instance there are plenty of bacteria that feed on us, or put a human in with a bunch of hungry lions. I'm sure our role as top in the food chain would look very different then.
Right. No. Can you prove the existence of your best friends trustworthiness or whatever else you value in a friend? No. But you accept it as true.
You don't just automatically truth someone when you first meet them. They have to first show they can be trusted. With a friend who's trusted that person had proven they can be trusted in the past and it's reasonable that they will continue to act in such a manner. So yes trustworthiness is indeed based on evidence.
Noone has been able to prove one doesn't exist, so one may.
This is illogical. The burden of proof is on those who made the original claim, i.e. that there is a god. We don't need to prove anything - you guys do.
Erp, asking the atheists/agnostics for proof he doesn't exist is what's illogical, not the possibility of a god.
In some situations we aren't. For instance there are plenty of bacteria that feed on us, or put a human in with a bunch of hungry lions. I'm sure our role as top in the food chain would look very different then.
This is ridiculous. We are the indisputable masters of this Earth. Lions aren't about to band together and take over and neither are bacteria.
This is illogical. The burden of proof is on those who made the original claim, i.e. that there is a god. We don't need to prove anything - you guys do.
Seeing as nobody has the necessary proof, putting the burden of it on one side is illogical. In an argument, both sides have to provide the necessary evidence for one side to win. Not just one side. Since no-one has the proof, all this arguing is really without reason.
Seeing as nobody has the necessary proof, putting the burden of it on one side is illogical. In an argument, both sides have to provide the necessary evidence for one side to win. Not just one side. Since no-one has the proof, all this arguing is really without reason.
No, this is a fundamental part of argument called the burden of proof. The one who made the original claim is the one liable to find proof, not the rebutting person or group. In this case, you guys are making the claim that there is a Christian God, and atheism is challenging that. You, being the ones who made the original statement, are the ones who are supposed to get proof, not the ones arguing against the claim.
So are you saying we're not the dominant species on the planet?
I did not say that.
If God has it, His DNA would be RADICALLY different than ours. If it were the same, He would just be a normal person.
If he existed we would need to have the same DNA as him in order to look as him, otherwise it would be utterly pointless to say we were created in his image.
Can you prove the existence of your best friends trustworthiness or whatever else you value in a friend? No. But you accept it as true.
Trust is a concept. God is 'supposedly' an all powerful being.
But either way, I don't automatically trust every single person or thing when I first hear about it.
Well your wrong her in a religious sense and in a biological sense. Being made in God's image most likely refers to emotions, thoughts, etc.
Because its impossible for any animal (aside from us) to have any emotion at all?
This is ridiculous. We are the indisputable masters of this Earth. Lions aren't about to band together and take over and neither are bacteria.
And we can't band together and kill all the bacteria, or even rule over them completely.
Seeing as nobody has the necessary proof, putting the burden of it on one side is illogical. In an argument, both sides have to provide the necessary evidence for one side to win. Not just one side. Since no-one has the proof, all this arguing is really without reason.
In order to disprove something it has to have some sort of proof to begin with, and even then, all that can be done is to disprove any proof.
This is ridiculous. We are the indisputable masters of this Earth. Lions aren't about to band together and take over and neither are bacteria.
I think you don't quite understand food chains. In our environment we are the top. In other environments we aren't, other animals are.
If he existed we would need to have the same DNA as him in order to look as him, otherwise it would be utterly pointless to say we were created in his image
Not true. There are plenty of animals that imitate other animals but that are VERY far from the other species genetically. E.G.: Stick bug.
I think you don't quite understand food chains. In our environment we are the top. In other environments we aren't, other animals are.
I'm talking about putting every animal into one food chain on an environment called Earth. We are definitely at the top. If you were an alien species studying Earth and you made a chain of dominance, humans would be king.
In order to disprove something it has to have some sort of proof to begin with, and even then, all that can be done is to disprove any proof.
So you're basically just saying you can't disprove God?
No, this is a fundamental part of argument called the burden of proof. The one who made the original claim is the one liable to find proof, not the rebutting person or group. In this case, you guys are making the claim that there is a Christian God, and atheism is challenging that. You, being the ones who made the original statement, are the ones who are supposed to get proof, not the ones arguing against the claim.
It matters not who is supposed to get the proof, the fact is that it isn't there for either side.
This is ridiculous. We are the indisputable masters of this Earth. Lions aren't about to band together and take over and neither are bacteria.
I said in some situation we are not on top. A human in a room full of hungry wild lions is only going to be on top of the dinner menu.
Given the abundance and extreme environments bacteria are found in it would be very possible for bacteria to be the only living thing left on Earth if a bad enough catastrophe were to hit.
To regard ourselves to be so superior over any other living thing is nothing but arrogance.
No, this is a fundamental part of argument called the burden of proof. The one who made the original claim is the one liable to find proof, not the rebutting person or group. In this case, you guys are making the claim that there is a Christian God, and atheism is challenging that. You, being the ones who made the original statement, are the ones who are supposed to get proof, not the ones arguing against the claim.
Why is this so hard for some people to grasp?
We say the Big Bang, Abiogenesis, and Evolution accrued. We are required to provide evidence for this. You are not required to disprove it.
You claim it was all Gods doing. You are required to provide evidence for this. We are not required to disprove it.
We can dispute the evidence being presented. This however doesn't mean ignoring that evidence.
It matters not who is supposed to get the proof, the fact is that it isn't there for either side.
Ugh, YES IT MATTERS. Not necessarily even proof, just objective evidence. If you make a statement, it's your charge to back it up, not your opponent's charge to back up their denial of your statement.
Basically, you have to back up what you say, and the rebutter doesn't, unless he or she makes an unrelated claim.
Thread is locked!