AGS Steam Games

Forums → WEPR → [redirected]If God created all things

1849 284938
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
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,462 posts
Farmer

If needed I'll start a new thread, "Bible vs Science".


I was thinking the same thing when I was making my last post.
Moegreche
offline
Moegreche
3,826 posts
Duke

K, something I've heard alot around here about Religon is that is was made to explain the 'unexplainable'.


This is called a "God of the gaps" method of argument and it doesn't work. While it may make sense to say that religion was made to explain the unexplainable, no good theist will hold this position today.
The reason is that, as science progresses, it explains away God - at least if you subscribe to this God of the gaps thinking.

Poof. Evolution. Darwin made it so it could explain the 'unexplainable'

This just isn't the same this as religion's supposed role, anyway. Darwin came up with natural selection. And we wasn't trying to explain the unexplainable. He thought this phenomenon was explainable. Otherwise, he wouldn't have been working on it...
BeastMode10
offline
BeastMode10
374 posts
Nomad

Religon is that is was made to explain the 'unexplainable'.


I personally don't see how any form of religion can be used to explain any phenomenon, no matter how unexplainable. In a sense, religion is the easy way to answer questions. You simply kneel on the ground, pray, and shroud yourself in ignorance, and all your questions will be answered. Great.

In contrast, the process of science requires more of an intellectual, logical approach to answer the mysteries of the world.
wajor59
offline
wajor59
909 posts
Nomad

Wow. I thought we were going around in circles with this debate but a couple years for the "Let's talk about heaven" thread and then this one pales in comparison to 150 years of blah, blah...

This is the most comprehensive paper with 15 pages of footnotes. Not really but this PDF(http://www.biblearchaeology.org/file.axd?file=Creation+Evolution+Debate+Beall.pdf) is 10 pages long with footnotes, YAWN, on each page.

Trust me, a total stranger, haha, if I didn't think this topic was important I would have been asleep hours ago. Goodnight!

wajor59
offline
wajor59
909 posts
Nomad

Oh, just one more thing, want to see a really cool paicture of a "Bruiser", a young and massive star? http://newa.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2010/01/27-03.html?rss=1
yawn/cyl

Freakenstein
offline
Freakenstein
9,504 posts
Jester

So then what does that make science?
Just think about it. Really think about it. Newton must have had the thought; "Why do we stick on the ground?"
Poof, the Law of Gravity.
I'm not saying that I don't belive in gravity. That would be raither silly.
But the same thing can go for the big bang/evolution. Darwin must have thought; "Where did humans come from?"
Poof. Evolution. Darwin made it so it could explain the 'unexplainable'


Because something is unexplainable, Science beckons and we find that something and test it, in order to make it explainable. It is not 'oof', because these scientists do not just come up with a theory and stick with it; that is NOT how science works. You conduct research on the subject, run tests, make sure that the hypotheses, future theories, is actually stable. Darwin and Newton both did extensive, almost excessive, research to make their works as explainable as possible, without being too vast and general a subject, and as proven as possible. Later generations of scientists continue this legacy and re-test, re-test, and re-test these theories more, until they are disproven and showed back to the hypotheses tables.

And what of religions? They are exactly 'oofs'. It is what religions are based on: their deity(ies) 'oof' creating the universe. Some things that need to be explained in religious terms? Poof. The question of the night is, does religion itself test their "theories" as to why things happen? No. They stick with what their precious books imply and never give it a second thought. They also heed the words of their congregated leaders, or pastors in Christian terms, and just nod their heads and agree. "Oh, he's on our side; why disagree?", is the major reasoning. That's the whole reason why religious 'theories' are so fragile! No one bothers to check and see if what's written in the Bible, Koran, or Necronomicon exactly happened, because "the disciples of God wrote it, so it MUST have happened!".

While we scientists go out and further improve our theories and provide more questions and answers, your religions stick so conservatively to your 'theories', and occasionally, when something seems feasible to the head institution of your religion, they go ahead and mark it in your book.

"Yep, yep, the Earth revolves around the Sun now, sorry."

"Hmm...maybe Noah added different KINDS of animals instead of just 2.. that WOULD make sense.."

Later:

"Maybe God made it so that humans can evolve too... He never said so, but it makes sense to us! Plus those monkey-babies keeping putting more evidence on us so we gotta compete too!"

Yep..you're competing alright, Catholic Church..
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,462 posts
Farmer

Your second link isn't working wajor.

Not sure how it will translate. But reading this...

This is the most comprehensive paper with 15 pages of footnotes. Not really but this PDF(http://www.biblearchaeology.org/file.ax ⦠+Beall.pdf) is 10 pages long with footnotes, YAWN, on each page.


According to the Bible, plants were created the 3rd day,...The sun, moon, and stars were created the 4th day, after the plants (what about photosynthesis?).


Also according to science you can't have a planet with a sun first.

but evolution says that the birds evolved from the fish after
the reptiles (created on the 6th day).


No evolution does not say birds evolved from fish. Current models suggest they evolved from what we refer to as dinosaurs which evolved from reptiles, which evolved from an amphibious species, which evolved from fish.


I believe that they are wrong to give such great credence either to current
evolutionary theory or geology, since both are based upon the unproved assumption of
uniformitarianism: the idea that the processes we see at work now in the universe were always at work at
the same rate in the same way.


All you have to do is show evidence it hasn't.

So, for example, according to uniformitarianism, we can determine the
age of fossils by using Carbon-14, since the rate of decay has remained a constant throughout time.
However, a catastrophic event such as the flood of Gen 6-8 (see also 2 Pet 3:3-6) renders the
uniformitarian assumption invalid;


Don't forget potassium-argon dating and uranium dating. I'm pretty sure there are more methods as well.

A great flood wouldn't render all these method invalid, and would leave evidence of such an event which there is non. Besides how would you explain extraterrestrial rocks also being dated much older then what the bible would suggest? These wouldn't have been effected by a global flood thus if it was true then we should see this reflected in these rocks which we don't.

They, too, want to be known as reputable scholars, not simply knee-jerk fundamentalists.


Well then they should offer testable evidence for there claims, just as every else has to.

Also, let's take evolution as an example. If you were able to prove evolution wrong this doesn't automatically prove God did it to be correct. You would still have to offer evidence to support that claim.

I love the end of this.

If that causes some intellectuals to label us as ânarrow-minded clowns,â
then so be it.


Basically forget what ever is proven or has evidence and follow the Bible word for word regardless.


Do we really think that contemporary science is more authoritative
than Godâs revelation?


Considering we have evidence for what science says, then yes I do.

Sometimes our intellectual pride may get in the way of our faith:


YES! Exactly! Don't let reason and rational thought get in the way of your unproven, unfounded beliefs.

Thanks that was a great read.
cweb118
offline
cweb118
77 posts
Nomad

Actually, I just remembered something.
There is actually a guy who proved God's exsistance through numbers. I don't have the time right now, but I'll go find something on it later.

wajor59
offline
wajor59
909 posts
Nomad

I'm Sorry Mage Gray Wolf:
[i]

Your second link isn't working wajor.
http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencenow/2010/01/27-03.html?rss=1


I just tried it, working fine. Thanks for reading the 10 page pdf, I hadn't read it then but will now and pull up some foot notes.

Here's some more:

I'll start off by sharing the sad story of a theology student falling off the wall of faith, a highly respected professor at UNC-Chapel Hill who loves to bash the way the Bible was mis-quoted, poorly written,etc.:

[/url]


I beieve that a "master creator" must have designed all life. When I first saw a picture of a DNA strand I was excited because of the complexity of it. Deep down I knew that one day science would prove the existence of GOD, not the absense.:



This is why I believe intelligent design isn't being taught in public schools:


This is the part of evolution I can't wrap my arms around,"spontaneuos generation". Even Freak was saying it's religion that has the &quotoof" explainations but, sorry Freak it's really science that's said uncontrolled amino acids just started going nuts in the Great Dismal Swamp one day, while there was a lightning storm, and &quotoof".:



I don't disagree with the chemicals it takes to create life. I just disagree with the lack of supervision:

[url=http://http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20527463.700-helium-clue-found-in-echo-of-the-big-bang.html]




This one is the cover of the "Science Magazine" that I liked:

[url=http://http://www.sciencemag.org/content/vol302/issue5653/cover.dtl]


I'll go and read that 10 page pdf on the 150 yrs-old debate and cyl.
wajor59
offline
wajor59
909 posts
Nomad

I'm going to try this again. I'm still getting the hang of posting...

MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,462 posts
Farmer

Non of those links in your wall of text seems to be working for me there wajor....Got one working http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20527463.700-helium-clue-found-in-echo-of-the-big-bang.html
What's your point with that though?

rnrnrnI beieve that a "master creator" must have designed all life. When I first saw a picture of a DNA strand I was excited because of the complexity of it. Deep down I knew that one day science would prove the existence of GOD, not the absense.:rnrnrnrnrnrnrn Even Freak was saying it's religion that has the &quotoof" explainations but, sorry Freak it's really science that's said :rnrnrnrnI don't disagree with the chemicals it takes to create life. I just disagree with the lack of supervision:rnrn[url=http://http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20527463.700-helium-clue-found-in-echo-of-the-big-bang.html]rnrnrnrnrnThis one is the cover of the "Science Magazine" that I liked:rnrn[url=http://http://www.sciencemag.org/content/vol302/issue5653/cover.dtl]

This is why I believe intelligent design isn't being taught in public schools:


As for what your wall of text says I.D. isn't being taught in schools because it isn't science. It's just creationism with a fancy name to try and dodge being a religious construct.

This is the part of evolution I can't wrap my arms around,"spontaneuos generation".


I'm guessing you mean of life here which would be abiogenesis not evolution. Abiogenesis has been proven possible already as well.

uncontrolled amino acids just started going nuts in the Great Dismal Swamp one day, while there was a lightning storm, and &quotoof".


No it doesn't. First off This is again abiogenesis not evolution. Second there would be no swamp. Third the lightning bit is more what Ben Stein is saying science says. Current models suggest thermal or solar catalysts. Finally your basically saying the chemical reaction was random, chemical reactions aren't random.

If your going to debate evolution at least have some basic idea of what your talking about. I recommend you stay off those creationist websites there not good for you.
wajor59
offline
wajor59
909 posts
Nomad

[i]

I'll start off by sharing the sad story of a theology student falling off the wall of faith, a highly respected professor at UNC-Chapel Hill who loves to bash the way the Bible was mis-quoted, poorly written,etc.:





Before I go any further, I want to test this to see if I'm typing this correctly but first I want to include a companion site to the 10 page pdf, "Christian's in the Public Debate", for 150 yrs...
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,462 posts
Farmer

Sorry wajor your links are just coming up blank pages for me.

Chandler7
offline
Chandler7
36 posts
Nomad

http://www.biblearchaeology.org/

wajor59
offline
wajor59
909 posts
Nomad

I think I finally have the hang of inserting links into a post...

What's your point with that though?


Please disregard my mess

rnrnrnI beieve that a "master creator" must have designed all life. When I first saw a picture of a DNA strand I was excited because of the complexity of it. Deep down I knew that one day science would prove the existence of GOD, not the absense.:rnrnrnrnrnrnrn Even Freak was saying it's religion that has the &quotoof" explainations but, sorry Freak it's really science that's said :rnrnrnrnI don't disagree with the chemicals it takes to create life. I just disagree with the lack of supervision:rnrnrnrnrnrnrnThis one is the cover of the "Science Magazine" that I liked:rnrn[url=http://http://www.sciencemag.org/content/vol302/issue5653/cover.dtl]


I'll retype the above the way it should have been typed the first time.:
I believe a "master creator" must have designed all life. When I saw a picture of a DNA strand I was excited because of the complexity of it. Deep down I knew that one day science would prove the existence of GOD not the absense.:
[url=http://http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2009/08/19/Signature-in-the-Cell-DNA-and-the-Evidence-for-Intelligent-Design.aspx]

Now for "Spontneous Generation" to include the Big Bang Theory:



And what of religions? They are exactly 'oofs'. It is what religions are based on: their deity(ies) 'oof' creating the universe. Some things that need to be explained in religious terms? Poof. The question of the night is, does religion itself test their "theories" as to why things happen? No. They stick with what their precious books imply and never give it a second thought. They also heed the words of their congregated leaders, or pastors in Christian terms, and just nod their heads and agree. "Oh, he's on our side; why disagree?", is the major reasoning. That's the whole reason why religious 'theories' are so fragile! No one bothers to check and see if what's written in the Bible, Koran, or Necronomicon exactly happened, because "the disciples of God wrote it, so it MUST have happened!".

While we scientists go out and further improve our theories and provide more questions and answers, your religions stick so conservatively to your 'theories', and occasionally, when something seems feasible to the head institution of your religion, they go ahead and mark it in your book.[i][quote]

I say the proof is in the chemicals that are present here on earth and from meteorites, most recently in Australia. Yes, the meteorites show different amino acids than the earth has but the similar amino acids, I think are striking. Freak, I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just trying to say the what scientists are producing in a test tube must be controlled in order to exist, they aren't "stand alone" examples of lifes origin. Check this out:



Showing 361-375 of 1849