Forums → WEPR → [redirected]If God created all things
| 1849 | 255168 |
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
^ Try not to spam guys...Can we get back onto the topic at hand here, possum has earned the right to his opinion just as every single other person on this thread let him be, and samy that little piece about reputation was terrible....
Do you understand the annoyance of seeing everything you and your friends worked to build demolished. But whatever back to the topic at hand which appears to currently be non-existent. Actually wait I never said he didnt have the right to post on this thread I'm simply asking him to better represent what we believe.
Awwwww... Mage thinks I'm a troll....for answering his questions...perhaps I should just ignore him?
I'm beginning to think your a troll because of your continuous use of posting that seems to be made just to be extraneous and to elicit aggravation.
I answer with this, the credibility of evidence is also an opinion.
Objective evidence has nothing to do with opinion either.
Anyone can change the facts as u see.Representation by speeches mean nothing but offending ppl.Thus the true form is living it without despise the rest.I didnt see anybody overcome God's words yet.
Anyone can change the facts as u see.Representation by speeches mean nothing but offending ppl.Thus the true form is living it without despise the rest.I didnt see anybody overcome God's words yet.
Explain what the hell you're talking about
Anyone can change the facts as u see.
Nope. As I in my example of a red pen in another thread. The wavelength of the light being reflected is a fact. Just because someone sees it differently doesn't change the wavelength any.
I didnt see anybody overcome God's words yet.
Care to elaborate a bit more here?
you cant learn anything without making a mistake so what if god made Satan in the point of view of learning. Almost as learning mistakes, but through his own creation. Thats why he makes no mistakes. He learned everyone of Satan's which is about everyone in the universe.
you cant learn anything without making a mistake so what if god made Satan in the point of view of learning. Almost as learning mistakes, but through his own creation. Thats why he makes no mistakes. He learned everyone of Satan's which is about everyone in the universe.
um, dont know wat ur sayin but everything is made by God and For God.
Thats why he makes no mistakes. He learned everyone of Satan's which is about everyone in the universe.
Is that why Gods death count in the Bible is millions of times higher then Satans?
You can't prove we're wrong in the first place.
And you can't prove we are wrong, what we are trying to disprove is the existence of something, that is impossible to disprove, you're trying to prove somethings existence, which is possible.
Christianity is the biggest religion in the world. Majority rule, we win. And atheism isn't even close to majority. So even if you're talking about my version of God, the original thing I said was that, by majority rule, "religion is the most reasonable." I didn't say which religion, I just said religion. But since you're an atheist, none of the religions apply to you, making you wrong.
Christians, compared to the rest of the world are a minority,
majority can't even make an omnipotent being exist.
And you have dodged my arguments as well.
You have no argument except 'faith'.
To avoid a flame war, let's just talk about something else. Cookie or Muffin? *Wonders if wolf will ever answer his arguments with something better than "You have faith so that makes you stupid"*
If you want to talk about cookies and muffins, go find or make a thread about them.
And I'm sure wolf can argue something better, when you start to argue with something that has been built on something definitive, faith can lead everywhere, not just to your god.
Here's the problem with that: no matter what I say, you'll just say "How do you know", therefore, come up with a different question.
And when ever asked you'll just say 'faith'
the credibility of evidence is also an opinion.
Evidence is more credible than no evidence.
when you start to argue with something that has been built on something definitive, faith can lead everywhere, not just to your god.
If he had something more definitive to build on faith would not be required.
Having to rely on faith is just a weak position, as this latest argument has demonstrated.
And when ever asked you'll just say 'faith'
Not to mention his statement makes it seems the question "How do you know" is expected to be a one way street. How many times have we been asked "How do you know" when it come to any scientific claims? Almost every time I can think of for me, and rightly asked. We should be able to demonstrate how we know what we know. Faith, lacking this ability only further demonstrates what a weak position it is.
Since I'm on the subject of faith.
Why do you think faith is an accurate means of determining reality?
Since every religion relies on faith what makes it superior to any other method, such as actually gathering objective evidence and testing that evidence to be sure of accuracy?
And if your up to it explain in detail how you think scientists come to the conclusions they do? Since many of you seem to refuse to accept those conclusions when they are in opposition to your faith, I can only assume you find some sort of fault in this method.
Why do you think faith is an accurate means of determining reality?
Reality. In an attempt to gain some footing here I looked up the definition. Unfortunatly what I got was very vague and nothing close to what I wanted so; let's bring this back around to post-modernism and the idea of absolute truth. First let's understand that reality is based on our perception and therefore can be considered subjective. For example when I was younger (three or so) I didn't have any idea that there were people whodidn't believe in God as it was my perception that his existence as an absolute truth. As I've grown my perception of the world has changed and most of my thoughts of an absolute truth being able to be perceived by humans have faded away; however, I still believe that God is an absolute truth because this is my perception of reality. This is where my faith comes from; my fundamental understanding of the world. Of course your perception of the world is different than mine and has lead you to the inclusion that God isn't real, it has caused you to doubt. As doubt it the absence of faith I would argue that your beliefs require no more or less intelligence than mine simply that we view the world differently.
Since every religion relies on faith what makes it superior to any other method, such as actually gathering objective evidence and testing that evidence to be sure of accuracy?
It should never be claimed that it is superior, I do believe that it's more important or more prevalent in society than the scientific method. When you step into a cab you don't ask to see the drivers record you simply assume that you can trust him to get him safety to were you're going. Faith. Personally I also think that objectivity is impossible as previous understandings and opinions will always cause some subjectivity whenever something is touched by human hands.
And if your up to it explain in detail how you think scientists come to the conclusions they do? Since many of you seem to refuse to accept those conclusions when they are in opposition to your faith, I can only assume you find some sort of fault in this method.
Hrm. I don't have a problem with it. Although it should be noted that science is constantly changing as we gain new evidence and new technologies to get the new evidence; science should always be taken with a grain of salt although it is generally headed in the right direction.
@samy
Thanks for replying. Since I was asking simply to better understand concepts of faith from someone who actually uses it I won't rip apart your answers, maybe save that for one of the other atheists around here.
But I did want to touch on that last statement a bit.
Hrm. I don't have a problem with it. Although it should be noted that science is constantly changing as we gain new evidence and new technologies to get the new evidence; science should always be taken with a grain of salt although it is generally headed in the right direction.
Science constantly changing doesn't make it less reliable but more so. What it's doing is correcting it's mistakes when found and improving the correct answers it has.
Think of it like car drivers. Which would be more reliable? The one who never improves his driving ability and constantly makes the same mistakes when driving, or the driver who once made a mistake corrects it so he doesn't do it again and learns new tricks to improve his skills at driving?
My goal in quitting the thread was to kill it, that unfortunately hasn't happened. If you continue to make Christianity look bad I will continue to post on here. You need to get some forum recognition before you openly spam and insult two of the biggest players on this thread.
You can't leave me here alone samy, it wouldn't be that cool. I do agree with you on most of the things you posted.
don't think that you're actually that important to the thread, you are just the same as everyone else.
wow... samy is one of the most important people on this thread, and everyone isn't the same. You have to argue with respect to get recognition.
What makes samy so credible?
I do believe it is the fact that he knows what he is talking about, not blandly stating things.
Thread is locked!