Forums → WEPR → [redirected]If God created all things
| 1849 | 255396 |
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
Well thats just it, We don't know how God got there. And Ya'll don't know what was "before" the Big Bang. Its just pick-and-choose beliefs systems.
No it's not. One is making assertions (God exists, God did it), while the other is not (we don't know). Unless there is evidence God exists and created the universe, then we can just as easily say Magic Flying Nose Goblins created the universe. But if we don't know something all we can say is "we don't know" until we can come up with evidence on how it happened.
There has yet to be any creationist who has won a religious debate with a real scientist.
That's because religion is a non debatable issue.
You see, religion is based on the faith that a greater being exists. In science, faith is not an acceptable argument.
Let me ask you this, is there a reason why one should not accept God?
The bigotry of the nonbeliever is for me nearly as funny as the bigotry of the believer.
-Albert Einstein
Let me ask you this, is there a reason why one should not accept God?
Beter safe than sorry, haha
I think we Christians and atheist should combine ourselves to a greater cause, us Christians will agree with all of that science stuff involving what has been proven and atheist will agree that GOD created all the matter that created the big bang, where Christianity leaves us, Science will pick it up. How does that sound? (we can do this till either side finds new / or disproves the other)
UNITE
Stoning non conformists is part of science. Stoning conformists is also part of science. Only those theories that can stand up to a merciless barrage of stones deserve consideration. It is the Creationist habit of throwing marshmallows that we find annoying...
Epic win.
I should note that the Big Bang is not incompatible with theistic belief. The Bible does not mention what mechanism God used to create the universe, just simply that He did. If anything, the Big Bang's connotation that the universe had a beginning (as opposed to, say, steady state theory) should make it clear that you're doing some friendly fire right now.
Beter safe than sorry, haha
I think we Christians and atheist should combine ourselves to a greater cause, us Christians will agree with all of that science stuff involving what has been proven and atheist will agree that GOD created all the matter that created the big bang, where Christianity leaves us, Science will pick it up. How does that sound? (we can do this till either side finds new / or disproves the other)
UNITE
There is no scientific proof of anyone creating the universe so it will not be accepted as science, and using your better safe then sorry you whould have to convert to everything...
Let me ask you this, is there a reason why one should not accept God?
Yes, actually
1. No fear of hell
2. No having to give your life to somthing probably false.
3. In some cases, a more open mind from not.
4. Extra time on sundays.
5. Not having to listen to the voices in your head thinking there god.
6. No having to believe in a 300 year old book made by desert hurders...
Let me ask you this, is there a reason why one should not accept God?
Same reason we don't accept Zeus, Odin, Ra, Mithra, Enki, Tezcatlipoca, Ngai...etc. etc. etc.
If you can answer why non of them are accepted then you have your answer why the Christian God isn't accepted.
All of the deities you mentioned have withered away in the face of the rise of Christianity. And the Christian God isn't accepted?
1. No fear of hell
2. No having to give your life to somthing probably false.
3. In some cases, a more open mind from not.
4. Extra time on sundays.
5. Not having to listen to the voices in your head thinking there god.
6. No having to believe in a 300 year old book made by desert hurders...
1. Why is wrong for people to beleive in hell? What harm is there?
2. So? If you enjoy giving your life to god, then your life is not a waste.
3. I'm sorry, but there are many smart people out there who do beleive in God. On the same note, there are many ignorant athiests. This reason is also invalid.
4. Extra time? People shouldn't beleive in God because it's a waste of time? You can argue that living is a waste of time. You can argue that video games are a waste of time. But if people are happy going to church, then it's not a waste of time.
5. That's just close minded. Most people who beleive in God don't hear his voice in their head. They may think he is trying to communicate with them, but what is the harm in this?
6. Not having to beleive in a 300 year old book? How is not beleiving in something a reason why I should stop beleiving in something?
I love how you completely lacked any actual reason why someone shouldn't beleive in God. All you did was list things that sound crazy to you, when really everything you mentioned is pretty much harmless.
Same reason we don't accept Zeus, Odin, Ra, Mithra, Enki, Tezcatlipoca, Ngai...etc. etc. etc.
Why don't we accept these gods?
If someone accepts God, will they get cancer from it? Will they become bad people? Will they become stupid? Will they kill someone?
Maybe. But all of the above is possibly for athiests too. The only difference between an athiest who kills and a thiest who kills is that one will probably blame God as the other will blame themselves or someone else.
All of the deities you mentioned have withered away in the face of the rise of Christianity. And the Christian God isn't accepted?
Okay, for the same reason you don't accept Allah, Vishnu, The Greenman, ...I'm pretty sure I have heard the argument before...(quick Youtube search)...FOUND IT!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0A4_bwCaX0
Why don't we accept these gods?
Do you?
In a way this is like asking why don't we accept magic pixies to be real. There just isn't sufficient evidence for them.
If someone accepts God
will they get cancer from it?
No
Will they become bad people?
Maybe
Will they become stupid?
Following flawed ancient texts to the point of ignoring evidence, yes, but not everyone goes that far.
Will they kill someone?
Maybe (read next statement below)
The only difference between an athiest who kills and a thiest who kills is that one will probably blame God as the other will blame themselves or someone else.
Far as I know there has never been a person who has committed a violent act based directly on not believing in a deity. However we can point to countless violent acts committed based directly on a persons belief in a deity.
Certainly I've heard your argument before, if anything. The argument cuts both ways.
Far as I know there has never been a person who has committed a violent act based directly on not believing in a deity. However we can point to countless violent acts committed based directly on a persons belief in a deity.
Far as I know there has never been a person who has committed a benevolent act based directly on not believing in a deity. However we can point to countless benevolent acts committed based directly on a person's belief in a deity.
Far as I know there has never been a person who has committed a benevolent act based directly on not believing in a deity. However we can point to countless benevolent acts committed based directly on a person's belief in a deity.
Your right, but do those benevolent acts out weight the malevolent ones? If they are even equal to each other was it worth it?
Also while you can say the person is a horrible person for committing his malevolent act for his deity can you really say a person is benevolent just because they did something nice because they thought there deity was watching?
Guess you could say "atheists do it unsupervised".
Your right, but do those benevolent acts out weight the malevolent ones? If they are even equal to each other was it worth it?
My contention is that, yes, it is indeed worth it. A malevolent act harms one party, but a benevolent act comes to the gain of both. Therefore, I consider a good act much superior to an evil act in the balancing scheme.
Also while you can say the person is a horrible person for committing his malevolent act for his deity can you really say a person is benevolent just because they did something nice because they thought there deity was watching?
Certainly, as benevolence does not make judgment on one's belief. Righteousness as a term would, but benevolence, no. Even if so, religious self-interest does not exclude benevolence, in fact, it can motivate one to do things that are completely against personal self-interest. Is that not benevolent?
Far as I know there has never been a person who has committed a violent act based directly on not believing in a deity. However we can point to countless violent acts committed based directly on a persons belief in a deity.
Of course nobody has ever committed a violent act based on not beleiving in a deity. But just because there have been violent acts relating to religion doesn't mean that religion in general is evil. People have killed through the influence of music. Should we all stop listening to music?
In fact, many great things have come from religion such as charities and art. Religion is used to bring many families together as well as help teach good morals. Do you need religion to do all this stuff? Of course not. However, you don't need religion to commit crimes and hateful acts either.
But let's face it, most people who beleive in some form of god do not perform violent acts in the name of their religion. What about the majority of people who beleive in God and aren't violent or hateful?
Following flawed ancient texts to the point of ignoring evidence, yes, but not everyone goes that far.
What evidence? Evidence trying to disprove the bible?
Right now, we are talking about the average person. What difference would it make if they beleived in the big bang theory rather than creatoinalism? What difference would it make if they beleived in evolution rather than Adam and Eve? Most people won't ever be in a position where these beleifs will effect their choices.
Scientists and other people who are using studies of evolution and such either beleive in God but apply science first and adapt their beleife in God around science, or they don't beleive in any god at all. There are very few people who let God interfere with science, such as the Pope and many other peopel from the Vatican.
So what I'm trying to get at is this: What is the harm in people (the average Joes) beleiving in God?
All of the deities you mentioned have withered away in the face of the rise of Christianity. And the Christian God isn't accepted?
I'm not sure if it's the spread of Christianity itself that has eliminated the previous religions, but more of the colonization of oppressive individuals who happen to carry the Christian religion.
So what I'm trying to get at is this: What is the harm in people (the average Joes) beleiving in God?
I suppose the average Joe Shmoe casually worshipping God is beneficial socially and morally, to a certain extent. If this Joe individual attends Church for more of a social hobby than an actual service, then I'm not against that. However, I'm more worried about fanatics who truly believe that God created the universe, and that evolution is a hoax.
However, I'm more worried about fanatics who truly believe that God created the universe, and that evolution is a hoax.
Count me a fanatic for the former. When it comes to evolution, I consider the majority of it sound. To propose it against creationism, as I believe in it, renders it but a straw man. What I do not consider sound is the idea that the universe and life are somehow able to beget themselves out of nothing. Ex nihilo nihil fit.
Following flawed ancient texts to the point of ignoring evidence
Every year we find new evidence that fills in the gaps, and archaeologists and scholars continue to treat the Bible as a historical manuscript to find and identify said evidence. Even if you do not treat the Bible as historically accurate, it contains as good of a moral message as you can find in a religious text.
Thread is locked!