Is god willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both willing, and able? then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god?
I don't mean to detract from this interesting conversation already at hand, but I'm thinking about this topic you guys are on and how it related to the OP. There's a whole lot of analysis and what I would consider to be pure conjecture taking place on God's behalf. Especially in regard to what God would and would not do, and how God would interpret our actions. Even motivations for why God sets certain standards. This also really tends to take place when people try to answer questions like those presented in the OP. So, my question is how is it that theists can simply help themselves to a God's-eye-view of, if not the universe, then at least humanity. The Christian Bible does not answer the questions of why, only how, who, and when. There is no explanation for why God created the earth or the animals or man (unless you consider "to have dominion over the animals" as a reason). Any explanations that do take place seem to be quite arbitrary and something we might assume anyway. So, can this debate really even take place? Or is this just a frail attempt by the theist to somehow resolve an untenable position?
There is no explanation for why God created the earth or the animals or man (unless you consider "to have dominion over the animals" as a reason)
To play devil's advocate, it can be said that the New Testament can be interpreted such that the purpose of man is to engage in relationship with God, therefore by extension the process of creation was that of creating distinct bodies with which to form that relation, and by extension of that, the role of Jesus i.e. God in human form (to put it simply) becomes clearer.
it can be said that the New Testament can be interpreted such that the purpose of man is to engage in relationship with God
I suppose so... But that seems to be a bit of question begging - at least on the part of the interpreter (not you). Man creating god seems to have the direct implication of there being a subsequent relationship - unless you're a deist. Either way, the question would then be either a) Why did God create man? (for the deist who sees no relationship) or b) Why did God want a relationship with man? Since, for the non-deist, God's creation of man does imply a relationship, then (b) is essentially equivalent (at least semantically) to (a). So the answer is a non-answer.
Hm... there has to be a hole in that argument. But right now I'm really proud of myself.
The Christian Bible does not answer the questions of why, only how, who, and when.
I don't think it does a very good job of answering how or when. Where does the bible say how god created Earth or all the life on it? When is very poorly done as well.
Who is the only answer it gives and does so with no evidence to back it up.
I wouldn't be so quick to assume. First of all, I think it's unfair to assume that just because the Bible does not explicitly answer "how" and "when," that it does a poor job. I trust in science to tell us that the Universe was created by the Big Bang and that this event happened billions of years ago. Certainly constraints of language combined with the fact that the Bible is not an exhaustive compendium of Life, the Universe, and Everything would explain why this is.
As for the why, in fact it's quite clearly stated. Revelations 4:11 states that by his will all things were created and have their being. Colossians 1:16 states word-for-word that "all things were created by him and for him." God, as a creative being, found pleasure to create us, for did he not remark after each day of creation that what he had created was "good"? God didn't create us because he needed to, or because he was lonely, because that would contradict his immutability. God created us simply because he found joy in doing so, and the fact that he would humble himself greatly to even be called a friend (John 15:14-15) is quite a reflection of how much he enjoys his creation.
I wouldn't be so quick to assume. First of all, I think it's unfair to assume that just because the Bible does not explicitly answer "how" and "when," that it does a poor job.
it's not an assumption. It doesn't say how god did what he did so thus it can't be said that it does a good job of explaining how. When is a bit more murky on this respect but considering the figures given by the bible are completely up for personal interpretation and non of the physical evidence we have found supports anything found in the bible I think it's safe to say it does a poor job at this as well.
When is a bit more murky on this respect but considering the figures given by the bible are completely up for personal interpretation and non of the physical evidence we have found supports anything found in the bible I think it's safe to say it does a poor job at this as well.
Sorry, but shoddy research won't do you well. You will be encouraged to read up on biblical archaeology and scholarship, because a bold, blatantly incorrect assertion will take you nowhere.
Sorry, but shoddy research won't do you well. You will be encouraged to read up on biblical archaeology and scholarship, because a bold, blatantly incorrect assertion will take you nowhere.
I take it you mean the no physical evidence remark. Please do show me this evidence because I have yet to see any to support anything the bible say in regards to it's time line.
Children also believe in the Tooth Fairy and Easter Bunny. Does that mean children are better with understanding who leave money under there pillow or who hides the eggs?
Touche'!
lol I kind of hope this thread wont die.... I like it
I agree this is the first time I have really jumped in to debate theistic views since I started to consider myself an atheist.
Yes, I agree, although sometimes I feel like pulling my hair out when I read some of these posts ... but I am sure the rest of you can attest to that also.
To play devil's advocate, it can be said that the New Testament can be interpreted such that the purpose of man is to engage in relationship with God, therefore by extension the process of creation was that of creating distinct bodies with which to form that relation, and by extension of that, the role of Jesus i.e. God in human form (to put it simply) becomes clearer.
I know you are playing Devils' advocate, however, my problem with this statement is this: If God "exist", how was God himself created? Personally, if I can never get that question answered, I will never be able to minutely entertain the thought that God even exist. I started asking that question when I was eight in theology classes to the different priests that taught the class. There answer was always "That's a good question, but I can tell you that God has always been and will always be. Thats is something you will understand after you enter the gates of heaven, it's too complicated for we, as humans, to understand." That's the answer I received for 12 years of theology classes. Even when we were taught about other religions and their interpretation of "God", I still received the same answer about their "God". In essence, someone has to have a strong belief that God is infinite in order to even entertain answering a question like that. By the way, I am a plethora of years beyond eight years old now, and still get that same type of answer from religious theologians.
So, can this debate really even take place? Or is this just a frail attempt by the theist to somehow resolve an untenable position?
Well, this "debate" can take place, because it is (ok, it's trying to take place) ... the question is, is it worth it? I agree with you, it is NOT going to resolve any position to the opposing side, whether theist or atheist ... however, it IS fun to do.
Actually, like I said before, you are unknowingly making statement that pertain to the fact that God is evil. For instance, the statement "he cursed us" is a statement that is indicative of the act of evil.
No its something that is passed down, he cursed adam and eve, and they passed it down to there children and so on and so on, it is a sin just like I said be4 I am cursed wit thins my mother and fater did.
Children also believe in the Tooth Fairy and Easter Bunny. Does that mean children are better with understanding who leave money under there pillow or who hides the eggs?
they see good in everything, they laugh at everything, they are happy..... when children are born the little baby could look at anything and laugh just because they are happy, in the Bible it says that Jesus wanted the little chilrden to come over wit him, cause they are of pure hearts and can see what others can not.
Once again, you are ascertaining my belief that you really are not speaking from within your own mind
then you are very wrong, I am speaking from within my own mind, but if someone is not open to listen and is stuck in what they believe there is nothing I can do and they will not understand it.
If it wasn't for faith we wouldn't have had the holy crusades. If it wasn't for faith we wouldn't have had the dark ages that brought plagues and mass deaths and stunted human development for hundreds of years. If it wasn't for faith we wouldn't have laws denying certain people rights others have
okay I see your point, but did we learn from it ?? Im not going to say I think it was right, cause it was not.... but God has a reason 4 everything, I dont know what the reason 4 all of that was, but Im not going to question God.
If only one path leads to one place you can't take a different path to get there so no it doesn't work. That's one of the major flaws with Christianity is that it deals in such absolutes.
why would there be more than one path though.
So under that so of system if your mother drinks and drives even if you weren't there you should also be charged with a DUI as well as every female descendant you have.
No as the female discendant you would be cursed wit the aftermath of your mother drinking,
Actually, like I said before, you are unknowingly making statement that pertain to the fact that God is evil. For instance, the statement "he cursed us" is a statement that is indicative of the act of evil.
No its something that is passed down, he cursed adam and eve, and they passed it down to there children and so on and so on, it is a sin just like I said be4 I am cursed wit thins my mother and fater did.
Huh? Do you NOT see how contrary that statement is on its own? "He", meaning God, "cursed Adam and Eve" ... once again, a statement indicative of a malevolent act.
I don't understand how anyone can believe that it's OK to be malicious as long as you are God, but if you are the Devil,or a human being, it's against all moral fiber. Evil is evil no matter who it's perpetrated by; the delegation of evil is STILL evil; A transference of evil is still evil; Administering evil unto others is still evil.
Wow, what a great question. In a way, I believe that it is this question that reveals the truth, that God can't really exist at all. If God created the universe and everything in it, who created him? Everyone starts from humble beginnings, but like Creationists say a sudden explosion couldn't have created the universe, I don't think that some old guy poofed into existence and started creating everything. A higher power? Then where did that come from? Questions, questions.
