Forums → WEPR → [redirected]If God created all things
| 1849 | 255440 |
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
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.
So your saying God failed at his intentions resulting in Satan and other behaving "evil"? So basically God is not omnipotent in your eyes?
You do realize that the concept of good and evil is complete subjective right? For instance I find it quite good to see an attractive girl in a way to short mini skirt. However someone from say Iraq could look at that same girl and just feel disgust and think it's evil how she's dressing.
Ooooh, a religion thread! I'll read this thread, then come back with my opinion on all of this. Posting soon!
SPOILER: I'm a Christian. *gasp*
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?
I don't get how that could be proof for God. I would call that coincidence.
Going to make me work on this one I see.
Ah, I do my best =P
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.
It is extremist behavior just not positive extremist behavior. An extremist atheist may kill people who believe in a god or may use their world view to better the present. Either way is extremist but one is negative while the other is positive.
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.
Well I'm sorry that not everyone in the world uses science to guide every action of their life; oh look it's more sarcasm. Reality cannot be based on objective observations it isn't logically possible as it's impossible to define reality in your world of relative truth, correct?
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.
Scientifically yes, but basically you just explained to me what emotions are; subjective.
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.
If your a sub-species to humans, but we've survived this long on intelligence and having a conscience on on trying to purely survive. Also I never said to kill off the hungry ones but to generally cull of the extras.
That's quite obvious but my point still stands.
Your point was never contested and never had much stability in the beginning. You obviously base everything you do on personal experience so I'm confused how this was even an argument in the first place.
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.
Obviously which is why the church is dying; the casual Christian is pointless and confused but generally needs the help of the more mature ones.
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.
I'm implying that your broad generalizations aren't doing you any credit.
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.
Life, love, morality, the feeling that there's something more. You can't examine emotions or the supernatural.
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
There's an enormous difference between the catholic, protestant, and orthodox churches.
Your God could divinely inspire the entire thing but couldn't divinely inspire an accurate translation of it for later use?
Ha, fair point.
Either way it's the lack of absolute knowledge of humans not the lack of absolute truth from God and the bible that causes this.
Er, actually, 72 pages is a lot. Could someone give me an update on where we are with the discussion so I don't have to read all these posts? I'd be grateful.
Almost everyone has an amazing story to go with their loved one. So how can science explain that?
Testosterone/Estrogen ..... Or it could be we are genetically wired to be attracted to people who are similar to us, and who provide mental support. What is romantic to some, is barbaric to others. Romance is relative.
You think that that is an "evolutionary reflex" or some other propaganda? I don't think so, sir.
You think it is a God's will to unite people or some other form of philosophical opinions twisted into political propaganda used by cults and churches to control the masses?
Well I'm sorry that not everyone in the world uses science to guide every action of their life;
Whether or not you accept scientific progress, our universe is governed by the forces physics, chemistry, and biology. Most everything can be explained using logic and observations.
Also remember this "You may not believe in Evolution, but Evolutions believes in you." You may deny something, but it doesn't mean it can't exist.
you'll be surprised what you can learn when you disregard your bias and beliefs. To see with out eyes unclouded by your own unfair judgments.
Who said " I'd rather be a free man in hell, than a slave to God?"
You obviously base everything you do on personal experience so I'm confused how this was even an argument in the first place.
your right! you do base your arguments off unproven results. Mage has provided more than enough evidence.
the casual Christian is pointless
Funny thing, you have called 60% of America pointless people. You have just that Extremism is the only way now. Have fun destroying basic civil liberties!
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.
It's only perfect like that in the movies, man. While it does happen, it happens infrequently, and there still exists singles, unhappy couples, and ugly divorces. Once again, the concept of chance can explain this phenomena.
@Necropaxx
Welcome to the battle, comrade. I'm on the atheist side BTW. You don't necessarily have to read all 70 pages, but skimming past the last 5~ pages might help. As for our current debating topics, just look at our quotes/responses. Feel free to ask for help if you need it.
@BeastMode10
Thanks for the welcome, I look forward to "doing battle" in the near future. Before I start postulating, I just want to say that I have seen a shocking amount of spelling mistakes. Forget betrayal, the deepest circle of hell is reserved for those who don't know their/there/they're and to/too/two!
If your a sub-species to humans,
What?
Also I never said to kill off the hungry ones but to generally cull of the extras.
You said it's logical to kill people to stop hunger. I pointed out as a survival tactic it's been more logical to instead attempt to find/produce more food.
Your point was never contested and never had much stability in the beginning.
Well if my point stand uncontested then it would seem to be more stable then you would like to admit. No I don't
You obviously base everything you do on personal experience so I'm confused how this was even an argument in the first place.
No I don't. Much of what I believe is based on objective evidence.
I'm implying that your broad generalizations aren't doing you any credit.
If you want to argue that Christianity is the only correct religion then it stand to reason we should look at it as a whole. Originally you claimed I didn't know what I was talking about when I said convert. I gave you the definition.
Convert to change from one to another. In this case changing one set of beliefs to another set. Many try to spread the word and try and get others to come around to Christian beliefs.
You then tried to move the goal post claiming this doesn't apply to casual Christians because they use there acts instead of words to convert others. It really doesn't matter what method a person uses, it's still an attempt to change another person's set of beliefs into your own. While I haven't encountered this from the casual Christian myself, those who are directly or indirectly trying to convert others do fit this definition.
Life, love, morality, the feeling that there's something more. You can't examine emotions or the supernatural.
How is life an emotion? Emotions are basically just a byproducts of physical reactions. As such things such as emotion and morality are subjective. As such trying to accurately discern any kind of objective truth from these concepts becomes nearly impossible. You are more likely to come to a bias assumption.
As for the supernatural what can you point to that suggests it's real? Your emotions? For proving something to be true or not your feelings are useless.
There's an enormous difference between the catholic, protestant, and orthodox churches.
You are still looking at different denominations of Christianity.
Either way it's the lack of absolute knowledge of humans not the lack of absolute truth from God and the bible that causes this.
This really just comes off sounding like an apology for Gods incompetence.
Er, actually, 72 pages is a lot. Could someone give me an update on where we are with the discussion so I don't have to read all these posts? I'd be grateful.
You could try reading from page 65-66 up. It's still a lot though.
Well, I read the pages, but I don't feel there's a specific issue crying out for my attention. So, uh, ask me something?
How about how do you know that Christianity is the religion that is actually *correct* and believing in a god that exists? Might it not be another religion that actually has the correct perception of god?
I guess I know that Christianity is the right religion because I've felt God's love for me. I've felt Jesus' mercy in my life. I've felt my quality of life improve when I live His commandments as opposed to when I don't.
But you make a good point, I could be wrong. There could be another religion or non-religion that is actually right. I've made myself a little familiar with most religions (not a degree in Comparitive Religion or anything, just layman's knowledge), and in my opinion Christianity provides the best explanation to why I am here, who God is, and all those other juicy little questions that keep us up at night.
Call it original research, but I consider myself something of a pragmatist. If it works (and it has, for me at least), then it is good. (That isn't a Christian belief per se, but I think it makes a good measuring stick.)
I've felt my quality of life improve when I live His commandments as opposed to when I don't.
Could you preform accurate research on that? Wouldn't anyones life "feel" better if they thought there was someone omnipotent looking out for them?
[quote]I've felt my quality of life improve when I live His commandments as opposed to when I don't.
Could you preform accurate research on that? Wouldn't anyones life "feel" better if they thought there was someone omnipotent looking out for them?[/quote]
I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm not saying He's looking out for me there, I'm saying that when I do what God wants me to then He will bless me. But it works both ways. If I'm not doing what He wants, then I'm saying that I've felt my quality of life has gone down.
No, I couldn't perform accurate research on that, unless (this is off the top of my head) I wanted to make a map of my emotions as I'm living my life, and compare my actions with my QoL (quality of life, since I perceive I'll be using it often). But again, I don't think that could be qualified as accurate research (unless of course it is, I don't know). Did I answer your question?
ALSO YOU GUYS: It be bedtime for me. Tommorrow, then. Ta!
I guess I know that Christianity is the right religion because I've felt God's love for me. I've felt Jesus' mercy in my life. I've felt my quality of life improve when I live His commandments as opposed to when I don't.
As I have said emotional bias makes for a poor gauge of reality. Just because something makes you feel good doesn't make it real. I know it would make me feel good to live in a Star Trek like utopia, but believing I did wouldn't make it real.
Even if we were to say that how you feel about your religion was evidence for that religion being the correct one, then we would have to say all religions have the same evidence. Since they all contain people who truly feel there belief is the correct one and likely feel good because of there beliefs. Just for the sake of argument let's say emotion is valid evidence. How do you determine the deference between the warm fuzzies you feel about your beliefs and the warm fuzzies someone else feels about there's? Why would your emotions be any more valid then someone else's?
But you make a good point, I could be wrong.
I have to respect you for saying that. I don't usually see to many Christians saying they could possibly be wrong about what they believe to be true. Considering there are about 10,000 practicing religions and even if we were to say Christianity was the right one that alone breaks down to around 35,000 denominations of just that one religion alone. I would defiantly say there is a good chance of picking the wrong belief system.
Thread is locked!