Forums → WEPR → [redirected]If God created all things
| 1849 | 255481 |
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
Sorry, adding to my post. When you do not select Omni-benevolent, then it is possible to say that you are selecting that God is cruel and sadistic.
Are we speaking of mythological gods/goddesses or are we more or less talking about the Judeo-Christian God? I suppose I don't understand how it isn't applicable.
I think the Judeo-Christian God is mythical. The only distinction I see is one is still believed to be real by many while the other is not.
To define god we must first define what god we are defining since each one has there own properties, if that makes any sense.
If we are to speak of god in a general sense I think I would go with this method and definition since it strips down the these individual attributes and just looks at the basic requirements to be a god.
What IS a God?
Mage, as in the video link you posted, it mentioned that in the dictionary it doesn't mention at all that there are any acknowledgements, nor statements that say that a god is omniscient, omnipresent, omni-benevolent, supreme creator, etc., correct?
Mage, as in the video link you posted, it mentioned that in the dictionary it doesn't mention at all that there are any acknowledgements, nor statements that say that a god is omniscient, omnipresent, omni-benevolent, supreme creator, etc., correct?
It's saying those aren't requirements for something to be god in a general sense. When we branch out further and specify exactly which god we are talking about then we can add attributes as that are stated.
Ah, well in that case, what is your definition of a god?
Well in the most general term the video does do a pretty good job, though it did seem to miss the worship part. So a god would be a being that has supreme control over some aspect of nature or reality that is or has been worshiped.
This of course is the most general definition of god. When going on to say the Christian god or the Norse gods we can begin to add other attributes.
Okay, good. We have our heading. Now then, shall we define the Christian God first or the Norse ones?
I don't really know if I want to get in on this debate, myself being a Christian....because I don't want everything that I say to be automatically overuled because I am a Christian - therefore I msut be wrong. Also, I do not wish to have my beliefs attacked etc...as it seems that LordRevan experienced...
Asherlee, your post on the neurological thingo overwhelming any other emotions is quite strange - because I have walked into a room and felt God's presence immediately...and surely mini-seizures would have other side effects.
Defining the Christian God could be quite a large task - as there are many factors that need to be accounted for.
So a god would be a being that has supreme control over some aspect of nature or reality that is or has been worshiped.
I feel like what you say here helps explain my point about the Do-It-Yourself-Deity. We are talking about the basic notions of what makes God, God. I feel that it does a pretty good job giving those options.
The entire point of the exercise it show that if you select certain options you will not be consistent in your thinking.
Okay, good. We have our heading. Now then, shall we define the Christian God first or the Norse ones?
which ever floats your boat.
I feel like what you say here helps explain my point about the Do-It-Yourself-Deity.
I don't see any of those factors listed on the Do-It-Your=Self-Deity. It does a pretty good job of deciphering the Abrahamic God, but moving outside of that it begins to fall apart.
Even with the base definition I gave it still leaves room for god to be a rather nebulous thing, so I'm not sure if even that definition is entirely useful. I'm finding myself wanting to tack on the requirement of god also being supernatural to it. With out it, we could essentially call certain people gods. But by doing so aren't we just applying a layer of special pleading, or just giving an added definition to something where it's not required?
Guess I will leave that up to debate, should a god by it's basic definition require that it be supernatural?
should a god by it's basic definition require that it be supernatural?
If you can not prove the existence of a God (or any other creature or thing) then it automatically gets labeled as supernatural.
I don't really know if I want to get in on this debate, myself being a Christian....because I don't want everything that I say to be automatically overuled because I am a Christian - therefore I msut be wrong. Also, I do not wish to have my beliefs attacked etc...as it seems that LordRevan experienced...
Don't worry, as long as you post intelligently, it doesn't matter. Be like Parsat or BigP.
Asherlee, your post on the neurological thingo overwhelming any other emotions is quite strange - because I have walked into a room and felt God's presence immediately...and surely mini-seizures would have other side effects.
The very definition of a micro-seizure is that it's, well, micro. If that theory is true, then it is quite possible that you had a micro-seizure, you were misinterpreting your feelings, or a god does exist(because however slim, possibilities can't be ruled out because of their unlikelihood).
I don't really know if I want to get in on this debate, myself being a Christian....because I don't want everything that I say to be automatically overuled because I am a Christian - therefore I msut be wrong.
Being right or wrong has nothing to do with that.
Asherlee, your post on the neurological thingo overwhelming any other emotions is quite strange - because I have walked into a room and felt God's presence immediately...and surely mini-seizures would have other side effects.
Speaking from years of experience, there are many different kinds of seizures. Some could have only one or two side effects and they can make it seem like all sorts of weird things are happening since it's something that's happening in your brain.
Any even if not how do you know it was God? A feeling isn't necessarily an accurate means of determining reality. For instance a small child is afraid of being in their bedroom when it's dark because they think something will get them. Just because they have that feeling, does that mean there really is something in the dark waiting to get them?
If you can not prove the existence of a God (or any other creature or thing) then it automatically gets labeled as supernatural.
That and I have met the excuse " You can't prove supernatural things in a lab test!" from Christians who want to avoid the facts...
I don't really know if I want to get in on this debate, myself being a Christian....because I don't want everything that I say to be automatically overuled because I am a Christian - therefore I msut be wrong. Also, I do not wish to have my beliefs attacked etc...as it seems that LordRevan experienced...
Asherlee, your post on the neurological thingo overwhelming any other emotions is quite strange - because I have walked into a room and felt God's presence immediately...and surely mini-seizures would have other side effects.
Defining the Christian God could be quite a large task - as there are many factors that need to be accounted for.
First, there are thousands of gods, all claiming to be the correct ones, all there followers saying things like " I feel (Insert name here) Exists!" as an example, lets say I see a girl and "feel" that she likes me, so I go and ask her out, then am slapped. Obviously my feeling is wrong.
This so-called "debate" is simply getting out of hand. It seems to me that there are simply not enough Christians in the argument and way too many atheists. I am one of the few Christians who is still even bothering to try. 90% of the world believes in higher beings. 10% don't. On ArmorGames it seems to be the other way around. But I digress. I found something that I found highly amusing. Mage and wolf both said that when they read the Bible they thought God was bloodthirsty and vicious and other things like that. But I will now use your own argument against you: just because YOU think a certain way about something does not mean it's true. And by the way, even if God has killed many, all of which deserved it I might add, he has definitely created more lives than He's destroyed, else we wouldn't be here. And I can understand KR's hesitancy to join the argument as it does seem that Christians seem to get beat down on this thread. Atheist would say that's because they have better evidence. That's a lie. The Christians simply don't know where to get their evidence, though there is plenty of it. You say the Bible isn't credible. But in reality, the Bible is one of the most accurate ancient texts in the world, in accordance to historical events. As to Christians using the "I felt Him" excuse, please don't. It makes us look stupid and I and everyone else would much prefer none used it anymore. And I did the Do-It-Yourself-Deity and my chances resulted at 20% likelihood. Now we all know that many people would say "That proves he doesn't exist because the chances are so slim!" but we also know that argument is simply stupid as such atheist beliefs as evolution and whatnot depend on way more astronomical chances being fulfilled. So I implore ANYBODY from using the "The chances are way too slim" argument, as we will get no where.
Thread is locked!