AGS Steam Games

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

1849 285045
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
thisisnotanalt
offline
thisisnotanalt
9,821 posts
Farmer

What I do not consider sound is the idea that the universe and life are somehow able to beget themselves out of nothing. Ex nihilo nihil fit.


None of the accepted theories say either of those things happen.

Big Bang - primeval atom was there, and then it decompressed. It may have just popped into existence, because when there is no time like 'before' the Big Bang(I use 'before' figuratively due to the syntactical limits of languages) the law of cause-and-effect cannot be applied, because that implies sequence, which falls under the wing of time. No time, no sequence, no cause-and-effect. So, though we may never know how it popped into existence, it's scientifically, theoretically, and logically possible that it did so.

On life, what theories are you opposing? Abiogenesis wouldn't really count, because it deals with amino acids, not the actual assembly of them . . . .
Zophia
offline
Zophia
9,434 posts
Scribe

I'm sorry, but there are many smart people out there who do beleive in God. On the same note, there are many ignorant athiests.
Agreed. But morons using "MY RELIGION SAYS SO" look stupider than morons going "SCIENCE SAYS SO" as their only argument, at least when both also provide references to the places so is said. This does not always apply to discussions between people who aren't stupid, but still.

I'd respond to the OP in some way, but I don't take well to circular logic. In my opinion people can believe in whatever they want, as long as they don't force their beliefs on others.
samy
offline
samy
4,871 posts
Nomad

If there is no evidence for God then how did you come to the conclusion he did anything?


An interesting question and one that I myself couldn't have answered until very recently. So here's my four points;

1. I see God at work at those who I love that love him; not those who say they love him but those who do.
2. I've experienced God not in a way explainable by the senses and not in a way that I could possibly explain to anyone so this pertains to just me.
3. The massive opposition that seems to center around Christianity seems like a clear indicator that there's something special about it.
4. C.S. Lewis :]

So why can't we assess Him logically? Or am I just missing something entirely here?


Hm, lets use an analogy here.

Imagine with me for a second that humans are two dimensional creatures so we have a concept of right and left, and forward and backward. Suddenly someone introduces a new idea, up. None of us would believe him and because we are two dimensional we wouldn't have the ability to research his claim. That's how I see the paradox of God.

No, my friend, it is YOU who are crap. There have been a lot of times where Atheists got their ***** kicked by the intelligence of some Christians... we can be WAY smarter than ANY Atheist in the world. So shut it.


"Sigh" really your arguing for God and your cussing..on a forum. Anyway I agree but I don't think this really has anything to do with the debate unless one side would say that the other lacked intelligence completely which would, in fact, be a very unintelligent statement.

If you can answer why non of them are accepted then you have your answer why the Christian God isn't accepted.


Well you see Christianity is one of the very few religions that claims to be the only way to god. Seeing this I think it should frighten you a little but were not Bush so we wont push the fear tactics.

Following flawed ancient texts to the point of ignoring evidence, yes, but not everyone goes that far.


Harsh. So I point to C.S. who was, arguably, one of the smartest men of his time, I point to Einstein who was a generally deist, I point to many of the members of this community.

In my opinion people can believe in whatever they want, as long as they don't force their beliefs on others


Right but remember a Christian saying they believe in God is often interpreted as forcing there beliefs on someone. Also Jesus's last command was to spreed his word so kind of an important part of my beliefs.

Anyway sorry for the long post.
Zophia
offline
Zophia
9,434 posts
Scribe

Right but remember a Christian saying they believe in God is often interpreted as forcing there beliefs on someone. Also Jesus's last command was to spreed his word so kind of an important part of my beliefs.
Difference between spreading the word and forcing beliefs...

Basing laws on religion? Forced for anyone who don't believe in that religion but still have to live under the laws.

Casually informing others of the teachings of your religion? Perfectly fine if the one you're informing is interested. If not, OH so annoying. But still not forcing.

The worst mistake ever a person can make is to assume its beliefs are true, no matter the beliefs of others. Be open about your opinions, respect that others disagree, understand why, and evaluate if it is something you should discuss, or something you need to agree to disagree on.
BeastMode10
offline
BeastMode10
374 posts
Nomad

Every year we find new evidence that fills in the gaps, and archaeologists and scholars continue to treat the Bible as a historical manuscript to find and identify said evidence. Even if you do not treat the Bible as historically accurate, it contains as good of a moral message as you can find in a religious text.


On the contrary, scientists, namely biologists, are constantly finding evidence that creates a plethora of additional gaps in the authenticity of the Bible.

The bible is acceptable as a moral suggestion, but to consider it more of a command would be irrational.

1. I see God at work at those who I love that love him; not those who say they love him but those who do.
2. I've experienced God not in a way explainable by the senses and not in a way that I could possibly explain to anyone so this pertains to just me.


I could argue that you're being delusional by claiming to physically perceive God, but then a flame war would ensue, and I'd rather stray away from that path

3. The massive opposition that seems to center around Christianity seems like a clear indicator that there's something special about it.


It could be an indicator, although probably not a "clear" manifestation. However, Christians assume it to be a positive indicator that suggests that Christianity is "special" in a good way, while there exists the possibility that this opposition could in reality be negative.

4. C.S. Lewis :]


For Narnia!! ^^
deserteagle
offline
deserteagle
1,633 posts
Nomad

C.S. Lewis :]


This pastor was trying to tell me that he was able to preform miracles. He apparently gave his bone mass to his dying wife to save her. Narina is a children's book that is fictitious and is really not that great of a series.
samy
offline
samy
4,871 posts
Nomad

I could argue that you're being delusional by claiming to physically perceive God, but then a flame war would ensue, and I'd rather stray away from that path


Perhaps I am, but I doubt it. Also I said not with the senses which would mean not physically.

Narina is a children's book that is fictitious and is really not that great of a series.


Meh, it's one of the greatest allegories of all time and is only paralleled by His Dark Materials.

Also this is just one of his [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._S._Lewis] many works; after reading The Screw Tape Letters and Mere Christianity you'll get what I mean.
samy
offline
samy
4,871 posts
Nomad

many works

:P

Moegreche
offline
Moegreche
3,826 posts
Duke

Difference between spreading the word and forcing beliefs...

There may be a linguistic or conceptual difference here, but I think when we consider the pragmatic consequences, they ended up being folded together.
Realistically, no one can force you to believe anything. You might just say you believe something, but apart from brainwashing (which isn't really what we're talking about) the only way to get people to form a particular belief is to suggest to these people the beliefs they should have.
The simple fact is that Christianity specifically has a message to evangelize others, and this is going to capture what we mean by forcing your beliefs on others.
Look at evangelizing Christianity and then compare it to some (equally ridiculous) notion like "There are pink elephants constantly watching us."
In the latter case, it's easy to see how we can fault the person for being a bad epistemic agent. They shouldn't believe pink elephants are watching us to begin with, and they sure as heck shouldn't try to get others to believe this nonsense.
The preposterousness of the pink elephant thing is comparable to how preposterous atheists find the notion of a god. Many consider those who believe in god to be poor epistemic agents.
As for me, I think belief in God can be justified - but I think it's like believing that you dreamed you ate a banana split last night. So you believe that - big deal. I don't really care or want to hear about it.

Casually informing others of the teachings of your religion? Perfectly fine if the one you're informing is interested. If not, OH so annoying. But still not forcing.


The above argument is what leads me to think that casually informing others of your religion isn't acceptable. It's just as silly as informing other of what you dreamed last night.

On the contrary, scientists, namely biologists, are constantly finding evidence that creates a plethora of additional gaps in the authenticity of the Bible.


I'd just like to point out, again, that this method of argumentation just won't work. This "God of the gaps" style of thinking limits the power of God to what is unexplained as of yet in science. And what is clear from this as that science and religion must be at odds - which isn't necessarily the case. But if you adopt a "God of the gaps" mentality, every scientific discovery has the potential of slowly eliminating God from the picture entirely.
Any theist is better of adopting the notion of a God who works through nature and natural, physical laws rather than outside them. Otherwise the theist gets backed into a corner, and they tend to get violent when threatened :P
samy
offline
samy
4,871 posts
Nomad

Because it be bedtime

Agreed^^^

MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,462 posts
Farmer

So what I'm trying to get at is this: What is the harm in people (the average Joes) beleiving in God?


This changes things a little. The only thing I can think of that I could possibly have a problem with when ti comes to the casual Christian would be that with a good number of them it creates an environment that allows the Evangelical extremist end of the scale to flourish. But casual Christian alone not really an issue.

1. I see God at work at those who I love that love him; not those who say they love him but those who do.


This is nothing more then an emotional bias.

2. I've experienced God not in a way explainable by the senses and not in a way that I could possibly explain to anyone so this pertains to just me.


Personal experience may seem like evidence at first but as long as it remains just that &quotersonal" it goes unexamined. Unless you some how objectively examine what you experienced, you can't be sure what you experienced is accurate. In a way this is basically just side stepping the question rather then answering it.
Also your argument that you didn't experience it with your sense makes no sense what so ever. If your talking about something that just happened in your head like a dream this makes this even less valid.

3. The massive opposition that seems to center around Christianity seems like a clear indicator that there's something special about it.


We could make the same argument for the Islamic religion and countless others that have experienced opposition. When your religions doctrines include trying to convert others how do you not expect opposition?

4. C.S. Lewis :]


I'm guess this last one is more of a joke. But if not, while I will give a positive point to the Bible for influencing many good works of fiction.
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y163/MageGrayWolf/robocopunicorn.jpg
I don't see how that validates the religion.

Imagine with me for a second that humans are two dimensional creatures so we have a concept of right and left, and forward and backward. Suddenly someone introduces a new idea, up. None of us would believe him and because we are two dimensional we wouldn't have the ability to research his claim. That's how I see the paradox of God.


This is a possibility. But again as with the argument "where did all the stuff for the Big Bang come from" The only answer we can give to what's in these possible other dimensions is "we don't know".

Well you see Christianity is one of the very few religions that claims to be the only way to god. Seeing this I think it should frighten you a little but were not Bush so we wont push the fear tactics.


No it doesn't frighten me, I find it kind of pathetic actually. Also there are plenty of religions claiming to be the only way.

Harsh. So I point to C.S. who was, arguably, one of the smartest men of his time, I point to Einstein who was a generally deist, I point to many of the members of this community.


You might want to reread what I said, I wasn't referring to all Christians here.
Einstein is a horrible example here. First off he saw Religion as foolish and didn't particularly like being called an atheist. So I suppose the best term to use would be agnostic. However that really doesn't cover his beliefs. Besides Even if we can classify him as a Christian I've never seem him ignoring evidence in favor of what the Bible says.

As for C.S. Lewis I don't know to much about him but if had ignored what evidence points to in favor of what the Bible says then yes I would call him stupid for that. He might have been smart in other ways but that is stupid.
Zophia
offline
Zophia
9,434 posts
Scribe

There may be a linguistic or conceptual difference here, but I think when we consider the pragmatic consequences, they ended up being folded together.
Realistically, no one can force you to believe anything. You might just say you believe something, but apart from brainwashing (which isn't really what we're talking about) the only way to get people to form a particular belief is to suggest to these people the beliefs they should have.
The simple fact is that Christianity specifically has a message to evangelize others, and this is going to capture what we mean by forcing your beliefs on others.
Look at evangelizing Christianity and then compare it to some (equally ridiculous) notion like "There are pink elephants constantly watching us."
In the latter case, it's easy to see how we can fault the person for being a bad epistemic agent. They shouldn't believe pink elephants are watching us to begin with, and they sure as heck shouldn't try to get others to believe this nonsense.
The preposterousness of the pink elephant thing is comparable to how preposterous atheists find the notion of a god. Many consider those who believe in god to be poor epistemic agents.
As for me, I think belief in God can be justified - but I think it's like believing that you dreamed you ate a banana split last night. So you believe that - big deal. I don't really care or want to hear about it.

Agreeing with what you're saying there.

What I meant with the forcing was more of a law thing, though. "Oh, my holy book says this, may the entire country live by it!"

When preached to, you have the option to learn what someone else thinks and believe, or just walk away. When it is made law, you better at least act like you believe.

... Need to stop trying to discuss past 5am.
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,462 posts
Farmer

As for me, I think belief in God can be justified


Personal experience may suggest evidence but ultimately it's useless. It may amount to at least a partial justification but not full justification.

Any theist is better of adopting the notion of a God who works through nature and natural, physical laws rather than outside them. Otherwise the theist gets backed into a corner, and they tend to get violent when threatened :P


Unfortunately all we have to do is ask at what point was God necessary and the argument for a God who works through naturalist means often quickly turns into a God of the gaps argument.

The above argument is what leads me to think that casually informing others of your religion isn't acceptable. It's just as silly as informing other of what you dreamed last night.


BTW I dreamed I was Superman last night. Yous should believe bullets can bounce off me. Let me just put some Kevlar on and stand behind some bullet proof glass and I'll let you test that statement. :P
xtacox
offline
xtacox
37 posts
Nomad

whoa,you guys really pwn each other..

DrCool1
offline
DrCool1
210 posts
Bard

Wow I made this fourm a long time ago and its still going strong. I feel that this has become the main battle ground of the religion vs. Atheist. Well thanks everyone for making this fourm great and continue to fight. LOL

Showing 646-660 of 1849