ForumsWEPR[redirected]If God created all things

1849 254510
DrCool1
offline
DrCool1
210 posts
Bard

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
Cenere
offline
Cenere
13,658 posts
Jester

Well the inevitable affects I suppose then.

In case of doomsday and so, yeah the consequences would be rather drastic, but in general, you can ignore pretty much everything.

If there was any evidence that any supreme being actually existed it wouldn't be called faith.

It would be awesome science.
There was a scientist (deja vu) who have been talking about some kind of - power (divine or otherwise)that has been reaching back from the future to stop humanity from doing extremely stupid things. Or so it seems.
samy
offline
samy
4,874 posts
Nomad

If there was any evidence that any supreme being actually existed it wouldn't be called faith.


Going back to a gravity related analogy..

We know the existence of hundreds of planets because of their gravitational effects on known space bodies. We know God through his effects on everyday life.

Side note: Can someone explain to me the difference between affect and effect..?
pHacon
offline
pHacon
1,903 posts
Nomad

There was a scientist (deja vu) who have been talking about some kind of - power (divine or otherwise)that has been reaching back from the future to stop humanity from doing extremely stupid things. Or so it seems.


I hope that's true, because it seems that people are getting dumber by the minute.
samy
offline
samy
4,874 posts
Nomad

I hope that's true, because it seems that people are getting dumber by the minute.


Proof were on the rebound.
Cenere
offline
Cenere
13,658 posts
Jester

Side note: Can someone explain to me the difference between affect and effect..?

I think I might be abusing the wrong words...
To effect: to produce as an effect; bring about
To affect: to act on; produce an effect or change in, to impress the mind or move the feelings of.
Ei. I have no idea right now, and I am too tired to figure it out.

I hope that's true, because it seems that people are getting dumber by the minute.

You don't say, you don't say.
pHacon
offline
pHacon
1,903 posts
Nomad

Added Riordan, "It is scientifically impossible for civilization to sink any lower than it will this Friday."


I'd like to see how he figured that out, things can ALWAYS be worse.
samy
offline
samy
4,874 posts
Nomad

I'd like to see how he figured that out, things can ALWAYS be worse.


It's the Onion that's how!

I think I might be abusing the wrong words...
To effect: to produce as an effect; bring about
To affect: to act on; produce an effect or change in, to impress the mind or move the feelings of.
Ei. I have no idea right now, and I am too tired to figure it out.


Gracis; doubt I'll remember that though =P

Anyway so God, yeah.
pHacon
offline
pHacon
1,903 posts
Nomad

To effect: to produce as an effect; bring about


Defining something with itself? That's brilliant.
As far as I can tell, affect is emotional, and effect is physical, but that probably won't help.
samy
offline
samy
4,874 posts
Nomad

Defining something with itself? That's brilliant.
As far as I can tell, affect is emotional, and effect is physical, but that probably won't help.


Hmm, I'll just go with that then.

Either way if Cenere doesn't know I'm not to worried about using the wrong one..
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,470 posts
Farmer

Going to make me work on this one I see.

Wrong; men using God for their own purposes doesn't constitute extremism. Also refer to my previous post about what I think extremism should be.


It was a time when people would kill you for not following the Bible how that isn't extremist behavior is beyond me. If your ignoring what an extremist is in favor of your own happy go lucky definition I'm sorry but that simply fails.

Emotional responses are how reality is generally judged.


Yes because we all know science is based on emotion bias and not objective evidence. If you can't tell I'm being sarcastic.

Emotions are subjective, reality is based on objective observations.

Oh, and your other responses to Beast on this matter.

Explain to me the last time you attempted to use science to determine why you love someone?


First of all this is a subjective matter unlike say humming birds can fly. Why do we love someone is likely an evolutionary response. Those of us capable of forming deep emotional bonds with one another increased there chances of survival and reproduction So this trait got passed on. But why one person over another such as in finding a mate? Well again certain traits would be desirable over others. The decision of one trait over another is based on both predetermined desires and desires developed through experience. As such someone with a reasonable number of those traits causes the brain to produce certain chemical responses.

According to pure logic the best way to reduce the hunger problem is to kill excess people; yet, emotionally, it's wrong.


When one is hungry the most logical response to to search for food. Extend this further to a group mentality and you have a number of those in that group looking for food for everyone as a survival tactic. As such it would have been counter intuitive to the survival of the species to just kill off the hungry ones.

For others yes but as far as my personal belief goes my own experiences are good enough for me.


That's quite obvious but my point still stands.

For the record Jesus didn't benefit from Christianity like L. Ron Hubbard did from Scientology which is a huge difference between the two.


Doesn't really matter for the point being made that it also experiences opposition. If your going to argue that Christianity experience more then other religions here that is reasonable considering the vast majority of Christians here compared to the other religions.

Where you asking where Christianity is illegal?


First off we can eliminate the obvious countries on that list that are run as extremist religious countries of other faiths. Since I already said besides such places. As for some of the others, like it or not Catholicism is a denomination of Christianity. Given that site lists places such as Cuba which is primarily Catholic as being anti Christian, this leaves me in suspect of the validity of this list.

For the general Christian who spreads their faith they practice through the mantra "Teach the faith always use words only when necessary" in other words act in a way that people question; that differs positively from society so they ask you whats going on then you explain what you believe after they have approached you.


Time to play every apologists favorite game Goalpost Moving.
Can't say I have really seen the casual Christian really follow the part of spreading the word. Most of the time at least in my experience it's more of a live and let live attitude for the most part. However this is not the case as you move further up on the spectrum. You almost seem to be trying to imply that just because the low end spectrum of this religion doesn't do it that it doesn't occur in the way I said in the religion.

How I feel about people saying God doesn't exist.


Present this evidence for examination then. So far every time someone has asked for proof that God exists it been given the run around or came back to "well I believe he exists so he exists" answer. Keep in mind saying "things exist proves God exists" is not proof for God existing only for things existing. We've been over that one already.

Yes because not believing in something (if it's true) makes it go away..


Your right if Christianity is true and God is as petty as he seems in the Bible us non believers will have a very toasty afterlife. But given the likely hood of it being true it's not something to worry about. There is an equal chance we are both wrong and Islam is the right answer. In that case we can both enjoy among other tortures being smashed in the face with a hammer for eternity.

Can't considering the fact that a perfect translation of the original language can't be created so updates are needed constantly.


Your God could divinely inspire the entire thing but couldn't divinely inspire an accurate translation of it for later use?

Actually... It does. The power of the human mind is amazing to say the least.


Let's test this. Disbelieve the screw drive on my desk out of existence.

I think if someone cared to try and figure it out, there would be as much evidence of faith as there is of gravity.


Considering the very definition of faith is believing without proof how does that work?

We know the existence of hundreds of planets because of their gravitational effects on known space bodies. We know God through his effects on everyday life.


We have yet to conclusively find anything that can be directly pointed to "God did it". In fact most things have been explained with other more likely possibilities moving Gods effects on us and the world to ever grow smaller.

Defining something with itself? That's brilliant.


I really hate when dictionaries do that.
Cenere
offline
Cenere
13,658 posts
Jester

Let's test this. Disbelieve the screw drive on my desk out of existence.

Okay. I don't believe your screwdriver is there. I can't see it, I can't see it!!
It's a subjective thing. And as mentioned, it doesn't take it away, nor does it remove the consequences, the person just refrains from acknowledging it.

Considering the very definition of faith is believing without proof how does that work?

and
We have yet to conclusively find anything that can be directly pointed to "God did it". In fact most things have been explained with other more likely possibilities moving Gods effects on us and the world to ever grow smaller.

There is no proof. That is the thing. You can't go measure it and say "there it is". Yet you can go to any religious person and see that it has an effect, or just look at this thread. If there is an effect, there must be something. But what that something is in reality, that is another question.
To see it from a strict positivistic position, faith isn't there. Gravity isn't there either. Any metaphysics are not there, because it can't be measured or sensed.
However, we can see the effects of those things, and you can measure the effects.
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,470 posts
Farmer

There is no proof. That is the thing. You can't go measure it and say "there it is". Yet you can go to any religious person and see that it has an effect, or just look at this thread. If there is an effect, there must be something. But what that something is in reality, that is another question.
To see it from a strict positivistic position, faith isn't there. Gravity isn't there either. Any metaphysics are not there, because it can't be measured or sensed.
However, we can see the effects of those things, and you can measure the effects.


Wait, are you arguing that faith exists or God exists here?
justaroundthecorner
offline
justaroundthecorner
78 posts
Nomad

How I feel about people saying God doesn't exist.
Present this evidence for examination then. So far every time someone has asked for proof that God exists it been given the run around or came back to "well I believe he exists so he exists" answer. Keep in mind saying "things exist proves God exists" is not proof for God existing only for things existing. We've been over that one already.

Ahh... I sense the presence of yet another Christian in this atheist infested area!
There is a lot of proof in God... haven't you ever wondered how two destined-to-be-wed people "accidentally" look at each other at the same time four years before they are married? It happens, you know. Ask around, look on the internet, you'll find it. Almost everyone has an amazing story to go with their loved one. So how can science explain that? You think that that is an "evolutionary reflex" or some other propaganda? I don't think so, sir.
justaroundthecorner
offline
justaroundthecorner
78 posts
Nomad

If God initially created all organisms to be pure and loving, and if God really is as omnipotent as they say, then Satan wouldn't have developed thoughts of conspiracy in the first place.

God's INTENTION was for everyone to be pure, that's what he WANTED. But God's gift to us is life, and our gift to God can be what we DO WITH IT. There's evil in this world, that's reality.
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,470 posts
Farmer

There is a lot of proof in God... haven't you ever wondered how two destined-to-be-wed people "accidentally" look at each other at the same time four years before they are married? It happens, you know. Ask around, look on the internet, you'll find it. Almost everyone has an amazing story to go with their loved one. So how can science explain that? You think that that is an "evolutionary reflex" or some other propaganda? I don't think so, sir.


Destined suggests that no matter what the odds would seem against it they will meet. If they were really destined to meet ( a system that is questionable to begin with) what would they need a God to intervene in order to accomplish this? How does having a story about meeting the person your with proof of anything? Of course that person will think back and have warm feeling of that meeting. That would be expected of thoughts of a person you have deep emotional attachments to.
When we look at what's going on in the brain of a person who is in love we find the chemical reactions to be similar of that of an addiction, triggering pleasure centers of the brain. In essence the pair become addicted to each other. So things such as memories of that person and important memories like first meetings or first dates could also trigger this response resulting in a very pleasant loving memory giving way to an 'amazing' story. And yes evolution is likely why we developed this response in the first place since it provides a method of bonding for improved child rearing. The offspring of those with the response survived better as a result and the trait was passed on.
Showing 676-690 of 1849