NationStates Jolt Archive

Before you start :upyours: ing me, look at this:

If God is Almightly,
If God is All-seeing,
and all that other ****,

Why is there Evil, if god is almightly?

now the :upyours: and random :fluffle: ing can start.

because god IS evil?

Without evil, good is nothing in comparison.

A better question:

If God is perfect,
If we are made in the image of God,

Why are our balls hairy and wrinkled, if God has perfect balls?

A better question:

If God is perfect,
If we are made in the image of God,

Why are our balls hairy and wrinkled, if God has perfect balls?

Who says hairy and wrinkled isn't perfect?

Who says hairy and wrinkled isn't perfect?

Surely smooth balls are more perfect in their uniform geometric shape.

Ummmm... yeah. I'm voting we go back to the original question. First off, let's not all get into a debate about whether God exists- there are plenty of threads for that. Just to get that cleared out of the way.

Biblically, the reason evil exists is because of sin. Satan persuaded Eve to sin, and Eve persuaded Adam to sin, and thus sin entered the world. The world was perfect (God said it was good), but sin destroyed that perfection. "For the wages of sin is death..." (Romans 6:23) This is why death also exists. Man would never have known death if we hadn't screwed up. God called it [creation] good, but now it's not. So that's why there's evil.

Why is there Evil, if god is almightly?

I thought the Bible was simple on this? It's because Adam/Eve sinned causing evil to spread across the earth. If they didn't things would be fine (according to the Bible).

I'm telling you, no Christian I've known can defeat the Imperfect Balls Conjecture. There simply isn't a rebuttal. Stumps them every time.

Surely smooth balls are more perfect in their uniform geometric shape.

As with so many other things, it is with nards. What is inside counts most.

I'm telling you, no Christian I've known can defeat the Imperfect Balls Conjecture. There simply isn't a rebuttal. Stumps them every time.

God made us in his image. He did not make us clones.

Therefore, we have hairy balls, whereas god has smooth, round balls.

As with so many other things, it is with nards. What is inside counts most.

Yet God could not possibly be imperfect in any way, even in how his balls appeared.

God made us in his image. He did not make us clones.

Therefore, we have hairy balls, whereas god has smooth, round balls.

Why then did he not give us smooth round balls as well? Did he delibrately introduce this physical imperfection when it didn't exist before? Someone in the cosmos is going to catch hell for giving me imperfect balls, dammit!

And people think it is only Muslims that must endure trolls...

Why then did he not give us smooth round balls as well? Did he delibrately introduce this physical imperfection when it didn't exist before? Someone in the cosmos is going to catch hell for giving me imperfect balls, dammit!

Hairy balls is lik ignorence of the devine. We all have them, bit God doesn't.

Sorry, I feel your pain.

*feels pain*

Ummmm... yeah. I'm voting we go back to the original question. First off, let's not all get into a debate about whether God exists- there are plenty of threads for that. Just to get that cleared out of the way.

Biblically, the reason evil exists is because of sin. Satan persuaded Eve to sin, and Eve persuaded Adam to sin, and thus sin entered the world. The world was perfect (God said it was good), but sin destroyed that perfection. "For the wages of sin is death..." (Romans 6:23) This is why death also exists. Man would never have known death if we hadn't screwed up. God called it [creation] good, but now it's not. So that's why there's evil.

Who created Satan, knowing everything that he would do?

If a perfect God exists, at first alone, and creates a being He already knows will cause or engage in sin, who really created sin?

A God so powerful, He can't even take responsibility for creating creatures he knows will choose to sin.

"Well, I gave them a choice", God says.

Imagine ten rapists, only half of which will rape on any given night. But the warden already knows which half will rape. So, he puts them in a room with ten women. Then, after the raping, he punishes the rapists, because he's a just warden, and after all...

"Well, I gave them a choice", the warden says.

And people think it is only Muslims that must endure trolls...

This is serious business. If I were you I'd be pissed if someone messed up when your balls were designed (or your ovaries, if you're a woman, but I guess they're not wrinkled and hairy).

i'm just gonna say something about good and evil, which is from a movie

"without evil there is no good so it must good to be evil sometimes"

just for thought, and whoever knows what movie i got this from gets a burrito.

Before you start :upyours: ing me, look at this:

If God is Almightly,
If God is All-seeing,
and all that other ****,

Why is there Evil, if god is almightly?

now the :upyours: and random :fluffle: ing can start.
God is perfect, but he has an enemy, Lucifer (Satan). Satan is evil. In the beginning, he tempted Eve to eat the forbidden fruit, she gave it to Adam and he ate. That is when man failed. Man then became sinful by nature. This is proven when God tried to talk Cain out of murdering Able. Satan had to talk Eve into sinning, and now we have to be talked out of sinning.

Hairy balls is lik ignorence of the devine. We all have them, bit God doesn't.

Sorry, I feel your pain.

*feels pain*

Sadly, it is indeed a flaw in the creation theory.
At least they work.

Before you start :upyours: ing me, look at this:

If God is Almightly,
If God is All-seeing,
and all that other ****,

Why is there Evil, if god is almightly?

now the :upyours: and random :fluffle: ing can start.

I doubt you're interested in meaingful discourse, and I remain unconvinced as to any particular God, but...

Maybe he was lonely, and He/She wanted another sentience to chat with, but any other "perfect" sentience would be in perfect agreement with God on every subject, and thus be useless for conversation.

But an imperfect being, with proclivities of imperfection, including whatever might be called "Evil"....well....its somebody to talk to.

i'm just gonna say something about good and evil, which is from a movie

"without evil there is no good so it must good to be evil sometimes"

just for thought, and whoever knows what movie i got this from gets a burrito.

OOOOOOOOOOOOOO SOUTH PARK!!!!!!!!!!!! :fluffle:

i'm just gonna say something about good and evil, which is from a movie

"without evil there is no good so it must good to be evil sometimes"

just for thought, and whoever knows what movie i got this from gets a burrito.

South Park: Bigger, Longer, And Uncut

Because of free will. If I wanted to kill all of the kids at my school, I could. Nothing in the Bible says I can't. The Old Testement, the Gospels, and God simply say you shouldn't. God continues to give us free will because he doesn't want us to hate us. The people who do hate him for free will, are the ones that say God doesn't exist because their innocent friend was caught in the middle of gang fire but they don't realize the only reason they can say that is because God gave the gangbangers free will and the guy free will.

I'm going to ask another question: Would you give up everyone's free will, this includes the god-given right to look at this thread and say "this guy's saying bull", so that you can live in human peace while being ruled under a God that doesn't let you do anything?

Congrats Ginnoria , but after further review, you didn't give the name of the movie, you gave the name of the tv show, so Saint Curie gets the burrito

*burrito is given to Saint Curie*

congrats to all that tried......all 2

God is perfect, but he has an enemy, Lucifer (Satan). Satan is evil. In the beginning, he tempted Eve to eat the forbidden fruit, she gave it to Adam and he ate. That is when man failed. Man then became sinful by nature. This is proven when God tried to talk Cain out of murdering Able. Satan had to talk Eve into sinning, and now we have to be talked out of sinning.

An inability to instantly subordinate your enemy without harm to others is an imperfection.

God, if perfect, can have no enemy that he does not himself create, define, and allow. Hence, this "enemy" is only an appendage, playing the role God knew he would play. That's not really an enemy, its an accomplice.

Adam, prior to eating the fruit, had no way of knowing that its evil to disobey God. That's hardly a failure. A failure is letting the snake into the garden, knowing what would happen, and not helping Adam, who can't tell Good from Evil yet.

But then, God knew all this would happen when he created Satan, Adam, Eve, the Apple...

The moral is, don't write stories and then blame the characters for acting as you knew they would.

Congrats Ginnoria , but after further review, you didn't give the name of the movie, you gave the name of the tv show, so Saint Curie gets the burrito

*burrito is given to Saint Curie*

congrats to all that tried......all 2

Damn. I wanted that burrito, too. :(

Because of free will. If I wanted to kill all of the kids at my school, I could. Nothing in the Bible says I can't. The Old Testement, the Gospels, and God simply say you shouldn't. God continues to give us free will because he doesn't want us to hate us. The people who do hate him for free will, are the ones that say God doesn't exist because their innocent friend was caught in the middle of gang fire but they don't realize the only reason they can say that is because God gave the gangbangers free will and the guy free will.
God gives us free will because he wants us to love him by our own choice. Doesn't it feel better to have some one love because they chose to than if you made them?

Because of free will. If I wanted to kill all of the kids at my school, I could. Nothing in the Bible says I can't. The Old Testement, the Gospels, and God simply say you shouldn't. God continues to give us free will because he doesn't want us to hate us. The people who do hate him for free will, are the ones that say God doesn't exist because their innocent friend was caught in the middle of gang fire but they don't realize the only reason they can say that is because God gave the gangbangers free will and the guy free will.

I'm going to ask another question: Would you give up everyone's free will, this includes the god-given right to look at this thread and say "this guy's saying bull", so that you can live in human peace while being ruled under a God that doesn't let you do anything?

I can't do anything different then what God foresaw me doing when he created me, because if I do, God would be proven wrong.

The list of things he foresaw me doing existed before I existed, and I have to do them, or else God would be proven wrong.

So, from the moment I'm born, I have to do everything on that list, in order, or else God would be proven wrong.

True "free will" can only be excercised by somebody with "knowledge of good and evil", and God made it a sin to acquire that knowledge....

An inability to instantly subordinate your enemy without harm to others is an imperfection.

God, if perfect, can have no enemy that he does not himself create, define, and allow. Hence, this "enemy" is only an appendage, playing the role God knew he would play. That's not really an enemy, its an accomplice.

Adam, prior to eating the fruit, had no way of knowing that its evil to disobey God. That's hardly a failure. A failure is letting the snake into the garden, knowing what would happen, and not helping Adam, who can't tell Good from Evil yet.

But then, God knew all this would happen when he created Satan, Adam, Eve, the Apple...

The moral is, don't write stories and then blame the characters for acting as you knew they would.
It sounds as though you don't know how the story will end, and you don't see the war going on around you. In the end, God will defeat the enemy. Right now there is a great spiritual war between God and the fallen angels. God knew what would happen, but it Adam and Eve were at fault. God allowed for them to be tempted to test their faith- even Jesus was tempted. He promised that he would not allow us to be tempted beyond what we can bear, so Adam and Eve were capable of resisting, they just didn't.

As humans, we were created in the image of God. This means that we know right from. I believe that Adam and Eve know what was wrong and what was right.

God gives us free will because he wants us to love him by our own choice. Doesn't it feel better to have some one love because they chose to than if you made them?

What's the punishment for choosing to not love God?

What if I tell God I don't want his kid's blood all over my body and I choose not to love Him?

Will he let me walk away in peace?

Or will I be tortured forever for not loving him, for my sinful nature and not accepting his demand for blood sacrifice (whether of his own child or somebody else)?

Its not free will with a gun to your head, its "love" under duress.

What's the punishment for choosing to not love God?

What if I tell God I don't want his kid's blood all over my body and I choose not to love Him?

Will he let me walk away in peace?

Or will I be tortured forever for not loving him, for my sinful nature and not accepting his demand for blood sacrifice (whether of his own child or somebody else)?

Its not free will with a gun to your head, its "love" under duress.
The punishment for not chosing God is eternity in Hell. He can't do anything to stop, in fact he already knew your decision (pre-destination). He told you what would happen and the fact of the matter is that you can chose between Jesus and Satan, that is it.

It sounds as though you don't know how the story will end, and you don't see the war going on around you. In the end, God will defeat the enemy. Right now there is a great spiritual war between God and the fallen angels. God knew what would happen, but it Adam and Eve were at fault. God allowed for them to be tempted to test their faith- even Jesus was tempted. He promised that he would not allow us to be tempted beyond what we can bear, so Adam and Eve were capable of resisting, they just didn't.

As humans, we were created in the image of God. This means that we know right from. I believe that Adam and Eve know what was wrong and what was right.

Ah, God will defeat his enemy after a long fight with much suffering, is that yet? Yeah, that's a "perfect" general.

Perfect beings don't write their "master plan" in other people's blood.

How can you be at fault for an event that was foreseen before you were created? You can't do anything different, or God would be wrong.

If your God is real, we are what we are by his design, at every moment. Don't design a bad heuristic algorithm and then get thunderously, murderously pissed when it doesn't go the way you want...

Its just not a "perfect" thing to do.

Ah, God will defeat his enemy after a long fight with much suffering, is that yet? Yeah, that's a "perfect" general.

Perfect beings don't write their "master plan" in other people's blood.

How can you be at fault for an event that was foreseen before you were created? You can't do anything different, or God would be wrong.

If your God is real, we are what we are by his design, at every moment. Don't design a bad heuristic algorithm and then get thunderously, murderously pissed when it doesn't go the way you want...

Its just not a "perfect" thing to do.

And my balls are still hairy and wrinkled. Damn.

The punishment for not chosing God is eternity in Hell. He can't do anything to stop, in fact he already knew your decision (pre-destination). He told you what would happen and the fact of the matter is that you can chose between Jesus and Satan, that is it.

And yet you still think that's a choice?

You don't see the coercision?

"Love me or I'll torture you forever"...yeah, that's "real" love...

I love the way you say "God can't" and you don't see the conflict.

Could God have designed us such that we could choose an answer that wouldn't lead him to torture us forever?

Seems like a "perfect" God could.

Ah, God will defeat his enemy after a long fight with much suffering, is that yet? Yeah, that's a "perfect" general.

Perfect beings don't write their "master plan" in other people's blood.

How can you be at fault for an event that was foreseen before you were created? You can't do anything different, or God would be wrong.

If your God is real, we are what we are by his design, at every moment. Don't design a bad heuristic algorithm and then get thunderously, murderously pissed when it doesn't go the way you want...

Its just not a "perfect" thing to do.
He didn't design us to sin, that was our choice (this goes back to the free will he has given us). God can turn evil and use it for good, yes but because of our evil the war must be fought. I don't fully understand everything, God is beyond us, we are bound to time he is not. He didn't want it this way, and if Lucifer had not turned against him it would not be this way.

And my balls are still hairy and wrinkled. Damn.

I hate to introduce an unnecessarily pedantic point, but it seems your quarrel is with your scrotum.

Your testes themselves are of such a beautiful topology that, were you to gaze on them unobscured, you would be blinded and maddened by their flawless ovoid forms.

I hate to introduce an unnecessarily pedantic point, but it seems your quarrel is with your scrotum.

Your testes themselves are of such a beautiful topology that, were you to gaze on them unobscured, you would be blinded and maddened by their flawless ovoid forms.

I wouldn't recommend trying though. The words "cascade failure" come to mind".

He didn't design us to sin, that was our choice (this goes back to the free will he has given us). God can turn evil and use it for good, yes but because of our evil the war must be fought. I don't fully understand everything, God is beyond us, we are bound to time he is not. He didn't want it this way, and if Lucifer had not turned against him it would not be this way.

When he created Lucifer, he knew Lucifer would turn on him (and when) so you can hardly blame Lucifer for that.

When He designed us, He knew we would sin. Saying we weren't "designed" to sin implies God designed something that did something He didn't want it to do. Not very perfect of Him, but He's batting pretty low so far on that point.

And yet you still think that's a choice?

You don't see the coercision?

"Love me or I'll torture you forever"...yeah, that's "real" love...

I love the way you say "God can't" and you don't see the conflict.

Could God have designed us such that we could choose an answer that wouldn't lead him to torture us forever?

Seems like a "perfect" God could.
He DIDN'T design us to do evil, we were created in his image, but we couldn't even keep on commandment and because of this we have condemed ourselves to everlasting tourment.

Limited Atonment (yeah- I'm a five point calvanist) God is perfect, but we aren't this is where a conflict begins. I don't know how, but he choice who would be saved and who wouldn't (he knew who would accept him and who would not). Jesus died for those who would choice him; if he died for those who wouldn't his sacrifice would be pointless.

He isn't going to torture us. Hell is torture because it is place that is completly seperated from God. He cannot be near what is not pure, so those not born again in Christ must be seperated from him. If he allowed everyone into heaven, then he would not be perfect.

God designed us to have a relationship with him. This means that we must make the choice. He didn't want for us to be his robots, he wanted us to be thinking creatures.

When he created Lucifer, he knew Lucifer would turn on him (and when) so you can hardly blame Lucifer for that.

When He designed us, He knew we would sin. Saying we weren't "designed" to sin implies God designed something that did something He didn't want it to do. Not very perfect of Him, but He's batting pretty low so far on that point.
The Bible doesn't give an account of the creation of Heaven, so there are many questions that we must trust God knows best and live with them unanswered. I will do some research of this whole Lucifer thing tomorrow and get back to you on the whole fallen angels thing (I need to pray and study first).

I rather dislike this God creature. He creates humanity with free will. Yet when we use our free will to make choices that don't suit him, he punishes us via Hell. What an arsehole.

He DIDN'T design us to do evil, we were created in his image, but we couldn't even keep on commandment and because of this we have condemed ourselves to everlasting tourment.

Right, God just designed something that wasn't perfect, which is by definition imperfect design. I love a designer who claims to be perfect but can't even take responsibility for his own design. Well, actually, you love it.


Limited Atonment (yeah- I'm a five point calvanist) God is perfect, but we aren't this is where a conflict begins. I don't know how, but he choice who would be saved and who wouldn't (he knew who would accept him and who would not).

Grab this part and really listen to yourself. You just admitted that God chose who would be saved. So by your own words, its God choice, not ours, as to whether we're saved.


Jesus died for those who would choice him; if he died for those who wouldn't his sacrifice would be pointless.

Right, because saving everybody, not just the ones who obey you, is the sort of thing a perfectly mercificul, loving being would do. But then, God can't abide sin, they say. That's a rule. And God doesn't make the rules. Oh, wait, he does.


He isn't going to torture us. Hell is torture because it is place that is completly seperated from God. He cannot be near what is not pure, so those not born again in Christ must be seperated from him. If he allowed everyone into heaven, then he would not be perfect.

God designed us to have a relationship with him. This means that we must make the choice. He didn't want for us to be his robots, he wanted us to be thinking creatures.

Ah, more excuses for your perfect God. "He Cannot", you say. Does a different God make rules? God is so brittle, so fragile, that if our "impurity" (that he designed) gets near him, he'll....what, die? Explode? Start sneezing? Not only is your God imperfect, but he's allergic to the results of his own efforts. How sad for Him.

The Bible doesn't give an account of the creation of Heaven, so there are many questions that we must trust God knows best and live with them unanswered. I will do some research of this whole Lucifer thing tomorrow and get back to you on the whole fallen angels thing (I need to pray and study first).

To believe in your God without having these kinds of basic questions answered is an abdication of basic personal responsibility.

I'm not sure which is worse...that you would believe in Him prior to answering these questions for yourself, or that you'll now go manufacture whatever answers will allow you to keep believing.

Whatever need it is that drives you to unexamined devotion must be quite terrible.

I rather dislike this God creature. He creates humanity with free will. Yet when we use our free will to make choices that don't suit him, he punishes us via Hell. What an arsehole.

True story, there.

Yeah, on a somewhat related note, I just have a question about the whole "Fallen angels" deal. I think I recall hearing that God created the Angels without free will...although I may well be wrong. ANd the reason he created humanity was to have creatures with free will...so if thats the case, how is it possible for Lucifer to have rebelled? I'm probably wrong about the whole "No free will" thing, but it seems rather...odd if true. I suppose that we just have to trust that God's got his Ineffable plan. Which nobody knows. Except him. Cause that guy is an asshole who is playing games with His creation. And thats why I don't believe in God, at least in the Judeo-Christian form. Cause all He would be is a megalomaniac who has a love of manipulating others.

Who created Satan, knowing everything that he would do?
God did. I cannot say why, since I am not God, but one possible reason is that His glory is shown especially in weakness. He is all deserving of us giving glory to Him.

If a perfect God exists, at first alone, and creates a being He already knows will cause or engage in sin, who really created sin?
The one who originally revolted- Satan. Why did God create Satan? Not my place to say. I don't mean that as an excuse- I admit freely I don't know.
Although Satan was originally perfect as well...

A God so powerful, He can't even take responsibility for creating creatures he knows will choose to sin.

Taking responsibility isn't really the way to put it- that implies He made a mistake. Taking us back fits it. The sacrifice of Christ, I think, is an awesome way to do that. By sinning we leave God, but by Christ's sacrifice we have the choice to come back and recieve Him, thereby gaining entrance to eternity with Him. Something I can't wait for. What a day that will be!

"Well, I gave them a choice", God says.

Imagine ten rapists, only half of which will rape on any given night. But the warden already knows which half will rape. So, he puts them in a room with ten women. Then, after the raping, he punishes the rapists, because he's a just warden, and after all...

"Well, I gave them a choice", the warden says.
I see the point you're making and would like to thank you for bringing this up- it's a good question.
God doesn't place us in conditions with the "perfect" opportunities as in your story, unless it's for a specific reason- for example, to test us. And yes, we do have the choice to obey Him, but that's not an excuse God would need to make for creating us. In fact it's the reason we don't have an excuse for the mistakes we make- we have the choice to reject Him and the choice to obey Him, and that is where the unfaithful will fall to an eternity without Him. God knows we screw up but He gives us the chance to come back to Him- that's why He sent Christ to die for us. If only, if only, everyone would come to realize that and believe it.

Yeah, on a somewhat related note, I just have a question about the whole "Fallen angels" deal. I think I recall hearing that God created the Angels without free will...although I may well be wrong. ANd the reason he created humanity was to have creatures with free will...so if thats the case, how is it possible for Lucifer to have rebelled? I'm probably wrong about the whole "No free will" thing, but it seems rather...odd if true. I suppose that we just have to trust that God's got his Ineffable plan. Which nobody knows. Except him. Cause that guy is an asshole who is playing games with His creation. And thats why I don't believe in God, at least in the Judeo-Christian form. Cause all He would be is a megalomaniac who has a love of manipulating others.Manipulating? As was mentioned before, we have the choice to do anything. Yes, God does have His divine plans for everyone, but they are just and perfect plans, as messed up as they may seem to some. Keep in mind, though, if Jesus is the Son of God, there is judgement after death, and it doesn't matter whether you care. If His plan is the only thing holding you back from accepting Him, I challenge you in a friendly way to reconsider.

Because God is a libertarian!

God did. I cannot say why, since I am not God, but one possible reason is that His glory is shown especially in weakness. He is all deserving of us giving glory to Him.


His glory is shown especially in weakness? Don't get much more imperfect than that.


The one who originally revolted- Satan. Why did God create Satan? Not my place to say. I don't mean that as an excuse- I admit freely I don't know.
Although Satan was originally perfect as well...


So, a perfect being can become imperfect? A perfect being can create a perfect being whose perfection is temporary? Your God must be "perfect" in a sense that doesn't include actual perfection.


Taking responsibility isn't really the way to put it- that implies He made a mistake. Taking us back fits it. The sacrifice of Christ, I think, is an awesome way to do that. By sinning we leave God, but by Christ's sacrifice we have the choice to come back and recieve Him, thereby gaining entrance to eternity with Him. Something I can't wait for. What a day that will be!


Actually, taking responsibility is exactly the way to put, as putting it any other way evades responsibility.

But, oh, if we just stop expecting God to take responsibility, we can resolve (or dodge) these questions and imagine that wonderful reward, the expectation of which comes only with surrendering a diligent, rigorous examination! You couldn't wait! What a day that will be!

Your semantic evasion and subsquent euphoric expression nicely illustrate that your belief is born from a need to have some kind of heaven. If your illusions satisfy your needs, carry on. Wait, you already are.



I see the point you're making and would like to thank you for bringing this up- it's a good question.
God doesn't place us in conditions with the "perfect" opportunities as in your story, unless it's for a specific reason- for example, to test us. And yes, we do have the choice to obey Him, but that's not an excuse God would need to make for creating us. In fact it's the reason we don't have an excuse for the mistakes we make- we have the choice to reject Him and the choice to obey Him, and that is where the unfaithful will fall to an eternity without Him. God knows we screw up but He gives us the chance to come back to Him- that's why He sent Christ to die for us. If only, if only, everyone would come to realize that and believe it.

A test is an action to determine what will happen. God already knew what would happen, so for him to perform any kind of "test" is absurd.

If only, if only, you could throttle down on your "beliefs" and long enough question them.

(And I mean thoroughly and carefully, in such a way that you would understand that an omniscient being can't really test anything, because a test yields new information, which God can't receive since he already knows everything. )

Ummmm... yeah. I'm voting we go back to the original question. First off, let's not all get into a debate about whether God exists- there are plenty of threads for that. Just to get that cleared out of the way.

Biblically, the reason evil exists is because of sin. Satan persuaded Eve to sin, and Eve persuaded Adam to sin, and thus sin entered the world. The world was perfect (God said it was good), but sin destroyed that perfection. "For the wages of sin is death..." (Romans 6:23) This is why death also exists. Man would never have known death if we hadn't screwed up. God called it [creation] good, but now it's not. So that's why there's evil.

Let's just say that the story Eden is true for the sake of me pursing the following points. If God knows everthing, how would he not know that there is a snake in Eden? So he is basically telling Adam and Eve not to eat the apple, but then lets the snake come into the garden to tempt Eve. Why did he do it? Also, the apple signifies awareness or knowledge, which means that Adam and Eve have no awareness whatsoever before they eat the apple. So if they don't have awareness, how would they be aware of God's greatness? Can you blame Adam and Eve for eatting the apple? There is never the fear of God to begin with Adam and Eve, so naturally they would defy him. But then the question of why God allowed the snake to tempt Eve comes back again. Is it because God wants Adam and Eve to be aware that he is the :cool: ? A lot of parts in this story just seemed paradoxical.

Manipulating? As was mentioned before, we have the choice to do anything.

God foresaw what I will do in every moment. If I do anything different, God would be proven wrong, which is impossible. Are you saying I can choose to do the impossible?

I cannot choose to do the impossible, so I can only do what what was already foreseen. So, I can't choose to do anything different.

Thats obviously not "free will", and yes, I will point this out every time you try to reconcile "free will" with an omniscient "God".


Yes, God does have His divine plans for everyone, but they are just and perfect plans, as messed up as they may seem to some.

Right, because a "just and perfect plan" includes betrayal, suffering of the innocent (even if you only consider Jesus innocent), and ordering the death of toddlers for what Pharoah did. Again, your God is "just and perfect" in a pretty loose sense....


Keep in mind, though, if Jesus is the Son of God, there is judgement after death, and it doesn't matter whether you care. If His plan is the only thing holding you back from accepting Him, I challenge you in a friendly way to reconsider.

Translation: "Choose how New Rhodichia wants, or you'll get 'judged'."

Who would like to tell us the difference between choice and coercion?

God made us in his image. He did not make us clones.

Therefore, we have hairy balls, whereas god has smooth, round balls.
How do you know god has smooth, round balls? Have you met him before?

How do you know god has smooth, round balls? Have you met him before?

That's the great thing about "God". Make up anything about Him/Her/It that you want, lots of people do.

And if you really want, write it down, and in a long time, people will says its true.

You can say "God has smooth, round balls", or "God is perfect but melts into a puddle if he comes near the people he created unless they wash themselves in his child's blood", or "God is deserving of our praise/awe/blind devotion"...

Usually, the enduring ones are some version of "God says I'm right, so believe what I tell you to believe"

That's the great thing about "God". Make up anything about Him/Her/It that you want, lots of people do.

And if you really want, write it down, and in a long time, people will says its true.

You can say "God has smooth, round balls", or "God is perfect but melts into a puddle if he comes near the people he created unless they wash themselves in his child's blood", or "God is deserving of our praise/awe/blind devotion"...

Usually, the enduring ones are some version of "God says I'm right, so believe what I tell you to believe"


You know there's really no point arguing with the Christians. They have their beliefs and won't give them up for any reason, especially rationality. They need their beliefs to function properly. Without their religion they'd just give up on life. Since the evolutionary mechanism "you've got to survive no matter what" is still rampant in humanity, they're going to continue being religious for the sake of survival. Arguing the point with them is futile. Just let them have their fantasies and laugh at them from a distance if you feel the need.

You know there's really no point arguing with the Christians. They have their beliefs and won't give them up for any reason, especially rationality. They need their beliefs to function properly. Without their religion they'd just give up on life. Since the evolutionary mechanism "you've got to survive no matter what" is still rampant in humanity, they're going to continue being religious for the sake of survival. Arguing the point with them is futile. Just let them have their fantasies and laugh at them from a distance if you feel the need.

That's easily one of the smartest things I've ever read on a religious thread.

I just feel like the undecided 3rd party lurker has a right to hear a dissenting view, lest the 3rd party observer be saddled with the crutch of religion, a crutch that works, but doesn't let you heal to the point where you don't need it anymore...

His glory is shown especially in weakness? Don't get much more imperfect than that.
By that I meant compared to. Sorry about the mix-up.
So, a perfect being can become imperfect? A perfect being can create a perfect being whose perfection is temporary? Your God must be "perfect" in a sense that doesn't include actual perfection.
How so? If you were to make a clay pot (and for the sake of example not refine it or whatever so that it doesn't last), it would eventually rot or fall over or something. You, the creator, would not rot. Since in reality you are human, you will, but how this relates to God is that He is the Creator who doesn't rot (or become faulty), whereas we (either us or fallen angels) are the clay pots who rot (make mistakes). This is a terrible example, but the point I'm trying to make is that God made us perfect. But we "rotted." Did He have to allow it? No, but that brings me back to the original point I made in the post you quoted.
Actually, taking responsibility is exactly the way to put, as putting it any other way evades responsibility.
It's not His fault we make mistakes! There's nothing to take responsibility for!
He merely allows us to make the mistakes if we choose to, and the punishment(s) we recieve we fully deserve (unless He's testing us, one of those purposes I was giving an example of). That's how He's just.
But, oh, if we just stop expecting God to take responsibility, we can resolve (or dodge) these questions and imagine that wonderful reward, the expectation of which comes only with surrendering a diligent, rigorous examination! You couldn't wait! What a day that will be!As I just said, it's not dodging the question. Making us was not a mistake, so there's nothing to take responsibility for.
Your semantic evasion and subsquent euphoric expression nicely illustrate that your belief is born from a need to have some kind of heaven. If your illusions satisfy your needs, carry on. Wait, you already are. Carrying on? Sure. And I will continue to "carry on" unless it specifically angers you. But having a belief born from a need to have some kind of heaven? No. What a joke. I am merely firmly grounded in the belief that God exists, and that even though we are sinners we can still meet Him face to face thanks to the sacrifice of Christ. As I said, what a glorious day that will be, when I see my Maker. If you get the chance, read Revelation 4 for a little taste of what it will be like.
A test is an action to determine what will happen. God already knew what would happen, so for him to perform any kind of "test" is absurd. God knows what we will choose, but it is just to prove our character. God knows we will sin, but if He were to just keep that in mind and never test us, we would never sin and He would have nothing to judge us on, even though He knows full well we would. We would be entirely justified in saying He had no right to cast us in the lake of fire. So God puts us in these situations (or allows us to be put, depending) so we can make mistakes. If we repent and go to Him in prayer, we're fine. If not, that's what God judges on.
If only, if only, you could throttle down on your "beliefs" and long enough question them.
(And I mean thoroughly and carefully, in such a way that you would understand that an omniscient being can't really test anything, because a test yields new information, which God can't receive since he already knows everything. )
I have heard and read hundreds if not thousands of arguments about God not existing, and frankly I don't see how it's possible for us to come from nothing. That's what seems absurd to me. That is why I cling to the Bible- not just so I can be "happy" and "frolic in the hills with my blind devotion." It's because I believe it is scientifically, archeologically, and whatever-elsely impossible for God not to exist. I am only 16 but I have looked at so much stuff on all this- that is why I believe so passionately in this. You can dis me til you're blue in the face if you like but it won't do you any good. First of all I'm fine with that, I don't mind, and second, you're not gonna get a reaction anyway. Simply more explanations on why I believe the Bible to be true and how that can make a difference in your life, as ridiculous as it apparently is to you all. Part of why I enjoy these debates is because it strengthens my faith; some people claim to have proven I'm wrong, but really they haven't. So I encourage you to keep trying, so I can stop wasting my Sunday mornings if indeed I am wrong. I am willing to keep my mind open if you are. Until then I will do my best to respond to your arguments and questions.

It's not His fault we make mistakes! There's nothing to take responsibility for!
He merely allows us to make the mistakes if we choose to, and the punishment(s) we recieve we fully deserve (unless He's testing us, one of those purposes I was giving an example of). That's how He's just.
As I just said, it's not dodging the question. Making us was not a mistake, so there's nothing to take responsibility for.

Analogy: You are a child. Your parent allows you to run amok, stealing and vandalising. Of course it is the child's fault, but does the authority figure get away with no blame? God should actually prevent us from doing bad stuff, rather than punishing evil after it happens.

I have heard and read hundreds if not thousands of arguments about God not existing, and frankly I don't see how it's possible for us to come from nothing. That's what seems absurd to me. That is why I cling to the Bible- not just so I can be "happy" and "frolic in the hills with my blind devotion." It's because I believe it is scientifically, archeologically, and whatever-elsely impossible for God not to exist. I am only 16 but I have looked at so much stuff on all this- that is why I believe so passionately in this. You can dis me til you're blue in the face if you like but it won't do you any good. First of all I'm fine with that, I don't mind, and second, you're not gonna get a reaction anyway. Simply more explanations on why I believe the Bible to be true and how that can make a difference in your life, as ridiculous as it apparently is to you all. Part of why I enjoy these debates is because it strengthens my faith; some people claim to have proven I'm wrong, but really they haven't. So I encourage you to keep trying, so I can stop wasting my Sunday mornings if indeed I am wrong. I am willing to keep my mind open if you are. Until then I will do my best to respond to your arguments and questions

You're trying to say that it is scientifically impossible for God not to exist? :confused: Religion and science are mutually exclusive. In my opinion humanity appearing from nothing seems much more likely than having a corporeal being floating around up there who created us all.

You provided some great arguments here, so here goes.
God foresaw what I will do in every moment. If I do anything different, God would be proven wrong, which is impossible. Are you saying I can choose to do the impossible?
Ok... how to explain this. God knows what we're going to do. And that's part of His plan. But would you not agree that what you do on a daily basis is up to you? You can try to "mess God up" with that, but He would already know what you were planning to do before you even thought of trying to "mess Him up." If it was possible, I would agree with you. But having free will doesn't mean God doesn't know what you're going to choose.
I cannot choose to do the impossible, so I can only do what what was already foreseen. So, I can't choose to do anything different.You can't do anything different, but you can do whatever you want to do. Some choices are better than others, obviously, but you can in fact do whatever you want to do. It's just that God knows what those choices will be. That's it.
Thats obviously not "free will", and yes, I will point this out every time you try to reconcile "free will" with an omniscient "God".Yes it is- you get to choose whatever you want to do. By the way I would really appreciate it and think you're awesome if you didn't say that every single time.

Right, because a "just and perfect plan" includes betrayal, suffering of the innocent (even if you only consider Jesus innocent), and ordering the death of toddlers for what Pharoah did. Again, your God is "just and perfect" in a pretty loose sense....
The only reason you see problems in the world is because of sin- if you were in a little rowboat and someone got up and rocked it until it fell over, it wouldn't be your fault that you went in the water. It's the same way with sin. Sometimes it's not your fault, but it happens just because there's sin in the world.
Translation: "Choose how New Rhodichia wants, or you'll get 'judged'."
No- I am making these claims based on the Bible.

By that I meant compared to. Sorry about the mix-up.

A perfectly attractive person doesn't need to bring an ugly friend to stand next to.


How so? If you were to make a clay pot (and for the sake of example not refine it or whatever so that it doesn't last), it would eventually rot or fall over or something. You, the creator, would not rot. Since in reality you are human, you will, but how this relates to God is that He is the Creator who doesn't rot (or become faulty), whereas we (either us or fallen angels) are the clay pots who rot (make mistakes). This is a terrible example, but the point I'm trying to make is that God made us perfect. But we "rotted." Did He have to allow it? No, but that brings me back to the original point I made in the post you quoted.

A perfect potmaker could make a perfect, indestructable pot. And yes, it is a "terrible example", the kind that would only convince someone who needs to believe.


It's not His fault we make mistakes! There's nothing to take responsibility for!
He merely allows us to make the mistakes if we choose to, and the punishment(s) we recieve we fully deserve (unless He's testing us, one of those purposes I was giving an example of). That's how He's just.
As I just said, it's not dodging the question. Making us was not a mistake, so there's nothing to take responsibility for.

If God created us knowing everything we would do ahead of time, our actions lay squarely at his door.


Carrying on? Sure. And I will continue to "carry on" unless it specifically angers you. But having a belief born from a need to have some kind of heaven? No. What a joke. I am merely firmly grounded in the belief that God exists, and that even though we are sinners we can still meet Him face to face thanks to the sacrifice of Christ. As I said, what a glorious day that will be, when I see my Maker. If you get the chance, read Revelation 4 for a little taste of what it will be like.

It doesn't make me angry, you are free to express yourself. Please don't feel that I'm asking you to stop selling your crutch here. Its your right to do so. I just want others to see the real product their getting, and your responses are illustrating that quite well.


God knows what we will choose, but it is just to prove our character. God knows we will sin, but if He were to just keep that in mind and never test us, we would never sin and He would have nothing to judge us on, even though He knows full well we would. We would be entirely justified in saying He had no right to cast us in the lake of fire. So God puts us in these situations (or allows us to be put, depending) so we can make mistakes. If we repent and go to Him in prayer, we're fine. If not, that's what God judges on.

Nothing needs to be proven to God, it supposedly is already aware of every possible fact and its veracity. "Proving our character" to an all-knowing being is as ridiculous as such a being conducting a "Test". A "perfect and just" being requires no justification. Of course, your God has failed on this account several times (making crappy pots, needing to "test things, etc), so I can see why He'd feel the need to go through the motions.


I have heard and read hundreds if not thousands of arguments about God not existing, and frankly I don't see how it's possible for us to come from nothing. That's what seems absurd to me. That is why I cling to the Bible- not just so I can be "happy" and "frolic in the hills with my blind devotion." It's because I believe it is scientifically, archeologically, and whatever-elsely impossible for God not to exist. I am only 16 but I have looked at so much stuff on all this- that is why I believe so passionately in this.

So, you couldn't come up with any kind of response to why an all-knowing being would need to (or be able to) test something, so you wandered off on your own little tanget. I've bolded some important parts, for 3rd parties.
Don't confuse obstinance with conviction.


You can dis me til you're blue in the face if you like but it won't do you any good. First of all I'm fine with that, I don't mind, and second, you're not gonna get a reaction anyway. Simply more explanations on why I believe the Bible to be true and how that can make a difference in your life, as ridiculous as it apparently is to you all. Part of why I enjoy these debates is because it strengthens my faith; some people claim to have proven I'm wrong, but really they haven't. So I encourage you to keep trying, so I can stop wasting my Sunday mornings if indeed I am wrong. I am willing to keep my mind open if you are. Until then I will do my best to respond to your arguments and questions.

My responses aren't really for you, as you're deeply mired (you call it "grounded") in your need to believe. They are so that others can see the price you have paid for your crutch.

You see, its precisely your "responses" to my questions that make my point.

That's easily one of the smartest things I've ever read on a religious thread.

I just feel like the undecided 3rd party lurker has a right to hear a dissenting view, lest the 3rd party observer be saddled with the crutch of religion, a crutch that works, but doesn't let you heal to the point where you don't need it anymore...

:fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle: :fluffle:

That is a good point. The bible bashing ones have a habit of preying on the indecisive.

Analogy: You are a child. Your parent allows you to run amok, stealing and vandalising. Of course it is the child's fault, but does the authority figure get away with no blame? God should actually prevent us from doing bad stuff, rather than punishing evil after it happens.
If my parents were to do that, they'd basically be saying it's ok and I wouldn't be punished for it. The difference is that you can choose to do what you want for now, but you will have no excuses come judegement time. So, again, God is just; He allows you to do whatever you want, yet there will be an ultimate consequence (eternity with or without Him), plus any minor ones you might experience before then (good or bad).
You're trying to say that it is scientifically impossible for God not to exist? :confused: Religion and science are mutually exclusive. In my opinion humanity appearing from nothing seems much more likely than having a corporeal being floating around up there who created us all.
They're not really exclusive. Thousands of scientists say evolution is true, whereas thousands of other scientists say otherwise. When you look at certain requirements for the Big Bang and evolution, however, it sometimes doesn't even make sense. For example, the whole "arising from nothing" thing. Is it really more likely that a bunch of nothing randomly exploded and formed everything? That a little blob formed out of nothing and came to life somehow? Examining the requirements kinda shoots that to pieces. First off, the nothing had to somehow find a way to explode, then stuff had to form out of that nothing, then it had to form planets and stuff, a bunch of amino acids had to form, a cell had to form from that (scientists still can't do that, even today)... the stuff just keeps going. I could keep going on this too but I'm guessing you wouldn't want me to so I'll leave it at that.
So there's all that random chance thing, or there is an eternal God, all powerful and all knowing and all loving, who decides to make a universe and speaks it into existance because He can.
It's not my decision what you believe, but those (in my opinion, nothing more) are the 2 likeliest answers. Either God exists or God doesn't.

You provided some great arguments here, so here goes.

Ok... how to explain this. God knows what we're going to do. And that's part of His plan. But would you not agree that what you do on a daily basis is up to you?

So, you fail to grasp the basic premise of how pre-ordination impacts free-will. No, I don't agree, I've explained why, you've ignored the explanation, but others might not.


You can try to "mess God up" with that, but He would already know what you were planning to do before you even thought of trying to "mess Him up." If it was possible, I would agree with you. But having free will doesn't mean God doesn't know what you're going to choose.

I've already presented the tautology that shows that God knowing ahead of time limits my action to a single possible action, which is not choice, by definition.

You can't do anything different, but you can do whatever you want to do. Some choices are better than others, obviously, but you can in fact do whatever you want to do. It's just that God knows what those choices will be. That's it.

Your statement here serves to illustrate the calibre of reasoning that has brought you to where you are. You wan't "it"? Here's "it": If you can't do anything different than what is already foreseen, you can't do whatever you want.


Yes it is- you get to choose whatever you want to do. By the way I would really appreciate it and think you're awesome if you didn't say that every single time.

I'm sure you would appreciate me not pointing it out, just as used-car salesman would appreciate it if there were no lemon laws.


The only reason you see problems in the world is because of sin- if you were in a little rowboat and someone got up and rocked it until it fell over, it wouldn't be your fault that you went in the water. It's the same way with sin. Sometimes it's not your fault, but it happens just because there's sin in the world.

How can anything exist that isn't called for by your God's "master plan", which includes sin? A God that makes a "master plan" that includes sin, then blames sin for everything. Yep, still reading zero on the perfect-meter.


No- I am making these claims based on the Bible.

And your claiming that anybody that doesn't believe what you believe is going to pay the "wages of sin", death.

Most people can quickly see that as "Believe what I tell you, or you'll be dead". See, in a just system, that's called "threatening".

Has the existence of Free Will been chalenged on this thread yet?

If So, again, God is just; He allows you to do whatever you want, yet there will be an ultimate consequence (eternity with or without Him), plus any minor ones you might experience before then (good or bad).

So, you've got a perfect being holding imperfect beings to a perfect standard. That's not really justice, in any sense.


They're not really exclusive. Thousands of scientists say evolution is true, whereas thousands of other scientists say otherwise. When you look at certain requirements for the Big Bang and evolution, however, it sometimes doesn't even make sense. For example, the whole "arising from nothing" thing. Is it really more likely that a bunch of nothing randomly exploded and formed everything? That a little blob formed out of nothing and came to life somehow? Examining the requirements kinda shoots that to pieces. First off, the nothing had to somehow find a way to explode, then stuff had to form out of that nothing, then it had to form planets and stuff, a bunch of amino acids had to form, a cell had to form from that (scientists still can't do that, even today)... the stuff just keeps going. I could keep going on this too but I'm guessing you wouldn't want me to so I'll leave it at that.
So there's all that random chance thing, or there is an eternal God, all powerful and all knowing and all loving, who decides to make a universe and speaks it into existance because He can.
It's not my decision what you believe, but those (in my opinion, nothing more) are the 2 likeliest answers. Either God exists or God doesn't.

I happen to have some modest background in science, and may I suggest that your interpretation of primal astrophysics and the entirely separate issue of biological evolution may not be completely accurate renderings of these models?

To dismiss these theories, you'd have to understand them. To understand them, you'd need the requisite background in biology, chemistry, physics, and most vitally, mathematics. In your own words, please state your understanding of the Big Bang, and tell me how confident you are that your statement represents the actual structure of the theory.

Has the existence of Free Will been chalenged on this thread yet?

Several times. Its been presented in reasonably salient ways. It doesn't appear that he understands the actual objection, as his responses just restate his assertion but don't address the presented paradox.

Bear in mind, I could certainly be wrong, but either way, he's not dealing with it.

Several times. Its been presented in reasonably salient ways. It doesn't appear that he understands the actual objection, as his responses just restate his assertion but don't address the presented paradox.

Bear in mind, I could certainly be wrong, but either way, he's not dealing with it.

I see. People like that irritate me.:headbang:


I've read several of your posts. We have a lot in common. :fluffle:

I see. People like that irritate me.:headbang:


I've read several of your posts. We have a lot in common. :fluffle:

You're also on the run from a cadre of Iranian biochemists, smoke a 40/60 mixture of black vanilla and cherry flavored pipe tobacco, and have the silhouette of a bald pregnant woman wearing a sports bra?

You're also on the run from a cadre of Iranian biochemists, smoke a 40/60 mixture of black vanilla and cherry flavored pipe tobacco, and have the silhouette of a bald pregnant woman wearing a sports bra?

No. :D

A perfectly attractive person doesn't need to bring an ugly friend to stand next to.It makes them seem even better, which is what one of our main purposes is in life- to glorify God. Does He need it? No, just like you said.
A perfect potmaker could make a perfect, indestructable pot. And yes, it is a "terrible example", the kind that would only convince someone who needs to believe.God did make us perfect. We were perfect. Then we screwed up. Which is why it was a terrible example and I apologize for even bringing it up.
If God created us knowing everything we would do ahead of time, our actions lay squarely at his door.
What do you mean, lay at his door? I'm a litte confused by that.
It doesn't make me angry, you are free to express yourself. Please don't feel that I'm asking you to stop selling your crutch here. Its your right to do so. I just want others to see the real product their getting, and your responses are illustrating that quite well. I'll say what it's like overall since that's your main interest apparently.
To all those reading this, I submit to you that being a Christian is nothing more than joyful, even in the midst of numerous hard times. Having faith in God brings you forgiveness and a deep joy I could never explain, and when the time comes you will see Him for who He is- God of the universe. It is your choice whether you think making a decision to follow Him is worth "sacrifices." By that I mean giving up things like a selfish nature you don't need anyway. Being a Christian is tough. God doesn't ever promise an easy life. Trust me, with some things I would know that from personal experience. But let me tell you something- if someone was to somehow accurately tell me that I am going to die tomorrow, as much as I love life I would be completely satisfied with God's decision (assuming the person was right). If that's the kind of emotional stability you are after, make Christ Lord of your life. If He truly resurrected 2000 years ago, He is the only way to make it to Heaven anyway. I can show you why I believe He resurrected, as well. For the sake of those not interested I will stop for now.
Nothing needs to be proven to God, it supposedly is already aware of every possible fact and its veracity. "Proving our character" to an all-knowing being is as ridiculous as such a being conducting a "Test". A "perfect and just" being requires no justification. Of course, your God has failed on this account several times (making crappy pots, needing to "test things, etc), so I can see why He'd feel the need to go through the motions.Again, God does not need to test us in a way so He can find out what we're about. I think the way I said that was not using the best words, but I'll try once again. First of all, He never made a "crappy pot-" as I said we, along with animals and the planet, were perfect. It is we who screwed it all up. I think what I was trying to say with the "proving the character" thing was that we have the ability to choose, and God is proving that. That's not exactly what I said, but it's closer to what I meant.
So, you couldn't come up with any kind of response to why an all-knowing being would need to (or be able to) test something, so you wandered off on your own little tanget. I've bolded some important parts, for 3rd parties.
Don't confuse obstinance with conviction. I already said He doesn't need to test anything.
My responses aren't really for you, as you're deeply mired (you call it "grounded") in your need to believe. They are so that others can see the price you have paid for your crutch.Noted.
And it's not really a crutch. If God exists, we have no excuse for not following Him. A "side-effect" of following Him is that we know our sins are forgiven and that we can see Him. That is the only reason Christians tend to be more joyous than the average person. It's not a crutch, it's a side-effect.
You see, its precisely your "responses" to my questions that make my point.Well, it seems more like I'm just not doing an adequate job of explaining, that's all. I'm thoroughly enjoying this though. Apologetics (defending the faith) is always fun for me.

God did make us perfect. We were perfect. Then we screwed up.

I believe you'll find that it is God who screwed up.

He made us perfect in many respect. But no completely perfect. He failed to leave out knowledge. He decided to make us innocent. Not knowing Good and Evil. Only knowing life. We had no foresight. Not precaution. No prudence. We didn't know we had to be careful. There was no death or pain. What was going to happen? They were innocent like children, and ignorant like children. They didn't understant the meaning of God's comand. They didn't appreciate the danger behind disobeying it. Yet God told them not to eat from the tree. He knew full well they would. He knew full we that we didn't have the capacity to understand the importance of such a command. But he insisted on punishing us anyway. It wasn't our fault, it was his. We knew no better, and so God, merciful God, introduced death into the world. Cast adam and eve from the garden. Allowed original sin to spread. God made us ignorant and irresponsible. And he punished us for it. What kind of God is that? If a child steals a cookie from the jar, do we put the child to death? Of course not. This, in a way, makes us more merciful than your glorious God.

God did make us perfect. We were perfect. Then we screwed up. Which is why it was a terrible example and I apologize for even bringing it up.


The entire structure of your argument, your belief, your entire mindset, is revealed by what you've just said.

You are a person who thinks a perfect being can "screw up".

A perfect being makes no mistakes, by definition.

You don't even understand the words you use.

You must be a valued member of your church. People like you are born worshippers, and church leaders survive on people like you.

But a crutch, relied on for long enough, will make you weaker, more dependent. Your best hope is that most people don't believe what they believed at 16. Print these threads out, hide them away with your birth certificate. Read them at 30.

They're not really exclusive. Thousands of scientists say evolution is true, whereas thousands of other scientists say otherwise.What thousands say deities & science are mutually exclusive?
I ask, because no-one with a basic grasp of what science is, would make such a claim. The scientific method cannot examine divinity. To claim otherwise is intellectually dishonest.
In your current situation, you cannot know what my desk is like, or whether there is one at all. That does not mean you can rule out the posibility, or make a credible postulate, it simply means you can't give any sort of answer. The deity & science thing, is no different.When you look at certain requirements for the Big Bang and evolution, however, it sometimes doesn't even make sense. For example, the whole "arising from nothing" thing. Is it really more likely that a bunch of nothing randomly exploded and formed everything? That a little blob formed out of nothing and came to life somehow? Examining the requirements kinda shoots that to pieces. First off, the nothing had to somehow find a way to explode, then stuff had to form out of that nothing, then it had to form planets and stuff, a bunch of amino acids had to form, a cell had to form from that (scientists still can't do that, even today)... the stuff just keeps going. I could keep going on this too but I'm guessing you wouldn't want me to so I'll leave it at that.For your sake, I wouldn't want you to continue. You already appear plenty ignorant.

How do you explain onmi-directional CMB & an onmi-directional expansion of the universe, without an origin?
These two little trivialities, are what undid our previous "steady-state" theory. The theory of the Big Bang, dubbed so by a steady state proponent, is the theory that there is an origin. It does not state what the origin is, just that there is one. The entire observable universe contradicts your point of view. You might as well be claiming that gravity doesn't exist. We don't know exactly what gravity is either, but in general, people tend to agree that it is there.

Assuming time is indeed a property of the universe we live in, trying to examine the exact origin of the state of the universe, is somewhat impossible. We'd have to invent a time machine that not only travels time, but can travel to a destination where there isn't any time at all. I'm sure you're bright enough to see the problem.

The consequence is, of course, that we can't really say what the Big Bang was. That isn't the same as saying "Nothing exploded into something", it's simply saying "Well.. Obviously something happened, and the result is the universe we know. What that something is, we might never know for certain".So there's all that random chance thing, or there is an eternal God, all powerful and all knowing and all loving, who decides to make a universe and speaks it into existance because He can.You can't possibly know whether anything random took place - unless you're God. I'm pretty sure you're not.

Interestingly, you shy away from applying your critical thinking to your religious beliefs. I, for example, have yet to hear a very good explanation for how & why a god suddenly popped into existence. You must have one, since you believe in it.. Right?It's not my decision what you believe, but those (in my opinion, nothing more) are the 2 likeliest answers. Either God exists or God doesn't.Until you think up a compelling reason to believe in magic, I don't see how you can call your god a "likely" answer. I mean, I could easily say that my boot kicked stuff into being. Without any sort of reasonable hypothesis to justify it, I don't see why your god is a more likely explanation than my boot.

So, you've got a perfect being holding imperfect beings to a perfect standard. That's not really justice, in any sense. Yeah it is. Because He provides away to make us perfect in His eyes again. The answer is Jesus. All you have to do to be perfect when you are judged is to worship God before you die (not just a little one-time thing, but to devote your life to obeying God).
"For by grace you have been saved, through faith..." (part of Ephesians 2:8)
He is just.
I happen to have some modest background in science, and may I suggest that your interpretation of primal astrophysics and the entirely separate issue of biological evolution may not be completely accurate renderings of these models?How so? As far as what I've always been told in school, that's the gist of what happened according to (a combination of) evolution and the Big Bang Theory. There was nothing, then there was something, through a bunch of processes that something became life, and here we are today discussing it.

To dismiss these theories, you'd have to understand them. To understand them, you'd need the requisite background in biology, chemistry, physics, and most vitally, mathematics. In your own words, please state your understanding of the Big Bang, and tell me how confident you are that your statement represents the actual structure of the theory.I just took a college-level biology course last year, and actually, as I recall, atheist scientists can't agree on how the universe came to be. They said maybe life on earth started underwater, maybe it came on an asteroid from outer space... What we learned was that the main theory is we came from water. The 1955 Miller-Urey experiment attempted to show how it was possible for life to come from inorganic materials, but what they didn't tell us was that besides the few amino acids they formed (which weren't even the right kind, I believe they were supposed to be "right-handed" instead of "left-handed" or the other way around), but they also formed a bunch of tar that would have killed any cells that might have formed anyway. And the results weren't even repeatable.
So there's that... ummmm... I don't know what else you would want me to say so I'll leave it at that for now.
I'm also in a college-level chem class at the moment. So am I highly educated? No, but I've read enough to convince me of some stuff- what makes sense and what doesn't. Please correct me on this if I'm specifically wrong on something.

The entire structure of your argument, your belief, your entire mindset, is revealed by what you've just said.

You are a person who thinks a perfect being can "screw up".

A perfect being makes no mistakes, by definition.

You don't even understand the words you use.

You must be a valued member of your church. People like you are born worshippers, and church leaders survive on people like you.

But a crutch, relied on for long enough, will make you weaker, more dependent. Your best hope is that most people don't believe what they believed at 16. Print these threads out, hide them away with your birth certificate. Read them at 30.


:D Oh you're good at this.

The entire structure of your argument, your belief, your entire mindset, is revealed by what you've just said.
That one particuar example was terrible. I couldn't think of a better example in the 2 seconds I thought about it. I don't see how that 2-second idea could define me and my faith. Hopefully what I said after that will be enough to show what it's all actually about.

You are a person who thinks a perfect being can "screw up".
We are the creation, not the Creator. So yes, especially with the existence of Satan, we as perfect beings were perfectly capable of screwing up. And the reason we are excuseless is because Christ went through the same kinds of temptations in the desert, yet He did not fail. Because He was the Creator.

A perfect being makes no mistakes, by definition.
Well, apparently we broke the definition a bit.

You don't even understand the words you use. What word have I used that I didn't understand?


You must be a valued member of your church. People like you are born worshippers, and church leaders survive on people like you. What am I, a drug all of a sudden? Christians don't "survive" on people. We survive on the belief in the absolute truth that God loves us and that we will spend eternity with Him.
But a crutch, relied on for long enough, will make you weaker, more dependent. Your best hope is that most people don't believe what they believed at 16. Print these threads out, hide them away with your birth certificate. Read them at 30.Dependent on what or whom? God? Like that could make me weaker! I already depend and rely on God. That's what we're called to do according to the Bible.

Aside from the fact that the big bang theory was put forth by priest Georges LaMaitre at the behest of the Catholic church, in an effort to explain God's creation of the universe, let's disregard the "scientific" coroborating evidence for said theory. I don't think that explaining the big bang in anyone's words is going to get you any closer to explaining the singularity than the greatest minds in the world--using the greatest supercomputers--can get you.

Fact is, we've really just gone way off topic here once we start talking about how science and religion are mutually exclusive. They are both merely tools for man to use in his attempt to understand the universe. All will be made clear with partical physics' maturity.

What we're here to talk about is how evil can exist, assuming an all-powerful God exists. You can debate free will until the cows come home. God allows us to commit evil acts because he loves us more than any other creature in creation. If you love something, you let it make its mistakes. You let it be redeemed. You let it "burn in hell" if need be. If I know for a fact that someone is going to do something, it's not the same thing as making them do it. Throwing that out there.

Yeah it is. Because He provides away to make us perfect in His eyes again. The answer is Jesus. All you have to do to be perfect when you are judged is to worship God before you die (not just a little one-time thing, but to devote your life to obeying God).

Most people see the flaw in "You're perfect if you just worship me". That's the attitude of a dysfunctional marriage, not a God.


"For by grace you have been saved, through faith..." (part of Ephesians 2:8)
He is just.
How so? As far as what I've always been told in school, that's the gist of what happened according to (a combination of) evolution and the Big Bang Theory. There was nothing, then there was something, through a bunch of processes that something became life, and here we are today discussing it.


You think that's the gist? A "bunch of processes"? It goes a little beyond that.


I just took a college-level biology course last year, and actually, as I recall, atheist scientists can't agree on how the universe came to be.


Evidently your professor didn't explain that "how the universe came to be" is a question of physics, not biology. You can't even keep your subjects straight. Of course they don't explain Big Bang in biology! They don't explain French Literature in a C++ programming class, either. Get your money back for that class.


They said maybe life on earth started underwater, maybe it came on an asteroid from outer space... What we learned was that the main theory is we came from water. The 1955 Miller-Urey experiment attempted to show how it was possible for life to come from inorganic materials, but what they didn't tell us was that besides the few amino acids they formed (which weren't even the right kind, I believe they were supposed to be "right-handed" instead of "left-handed" or the other way around), but they also formed a bunch of tar that would have killed any cells that might have formed anyway. And the results weren't even repeatable.
So there's that... ummmm... I don't know what else you would want me to say so I'll leave it at that for now.
I'm also in a college-level chem class at the moment. So am I highly educated? No, but I've read enough to convince me of some stuff- what makes sense and what doesn't. Please correct me on this if I'm specifically wrong on something.

What's wrong is that I asked you to present your understanding of Big Bang Theory, and you completely, but clumsily, dodged it. You regurgitated a bunch of ham-handed, nebulous creationist arguments on an issue I didn't even raise.

You need to back up a bit and take an entry-level class on formal logic.

What we're here to talk about is how evil can exist, assuming an all-powerful God exists. You can debate free will until the cows come home. God allows us to commit evil acts because he loves us more than any other creature in creation. If you love something, you let it make its mistakes. You let it be redeemed. You let it "burn in hell" if need be. If I know for a fact that someone is going to do something, it's not the same thing as making them do it. Throwing that out there.

If you go back, you'll find that New Rhodichia raised the subject of cosmology, rather than responding to the question at hand.

You feel that you can let something you love "burn in hell", I feel a true definition of love precludes that. We can disagree.

If you make something, create it in the most total sense, you thus are responsible for every aspect of its nature.

Your are thus culpable for its actions, particularly if you foresaw all such actions, and the being cannot do anything other than what you foresaw.

I keep hearing about this Christian God, a God so weak, it can't even take responsibility for the nature of its creations.

You are a person who thinks a perfect being can "screw up".

A perfect being makes no mistakes, by definition.

-snip-
This is exactly why, God or no, "Evil" must exist. Each deviation from perfection is a step towards uniqueness and, furthermore, a step towards existence.

The ultimately perfect state of being is one that isn't; everything that is makes no mistakes and is in perfect balance.

Perfection would destroy every last one of us.

Long live individuality.

Yeah it is. Because He provides away to make us perfect in His eyes again. The answer is Jesus. All you have to do to be perfect when you are judged is to worship God before you die (not just a little one-time thing, but to devote your life to obeying God).
"For by grace you have been saved, through faith..." (part of Ephesians 2:8)
He is just.And in your next post, you say Christ is the saviour because he didn't fall for the same temptations as us. And you go on to explain that he didn't give in to temptation, because he was infact a perfect, and thus infallible, being.

But your god isn't holding us to an impossible standard, even though you yourself claim that one would have to be an infallible god not to fall short?



How so? As far as what I've always been told in school, that's the gist of what happened according to (a combination of) evolution and the Big Bang Theory. There was nothing, then there was something, through a bunch of processes that something became life, and here we are today discussing it. Interestingly, you seem to know this isn't the case at all, because you go on to say:I just took a college-level biology course last year, and actually, as I recall, atheist scientists can't agree on how the universe came to be.So which is it?

And by the way, we've determined that stuff actually can come from nothing. "nothing", on a quantum level, is more of a state of probability than it is "nothing", at least in the dictionary sense. So no-one can actually claim that there's ever been "nothing".



They said maybe life on earth started underwater, maybe it came on an asteroid from outer space... What we learned was that the main theory is we came from water. The 1955 Miller-Urey experiment attempted to show how it was possible for life to come from inorganic materials, but what they didn't tell us was that besides the few amino acids they formed (which weren't even the right kind, I believe they were supposed to be "right-handed" instead of "left-handed" or the other way around), but they also formed a bunch of tar that would have killed any cells that might have formed anyway. And the results weren't even repeatable.You desperately need to read up on this. Not that I don't, but.. I'd get my college money back if I were you.


So there's that... ummmm... I don't know what else you would want me to say so I'll leave it at that for now.I'd want you to formulate a hypothesis justifying the existence of your god. You see, disproving something, isn't the same as proving something else.

You see some undetermined things in various fields of science & jump on them. That's OK. You should always do that. It's how you'll eventually learn things, which not only makes you more valuable to your society, but is interesting, and makes you a more well-rounded & pleasant individual.

But you never question your belief. There's undetermined things in science. There always will be. But there's nothing known about religion, at all. Yet you assume that because we aren't all-knowing ourselves, your god must be real... That's one fucking spectacular leap, I'd say.
Can you formulate one argument making your god more plausible than my boot? - Just one?

That one particuar example was terrible. I couldn't think of a better example in the 2 seconds I thought about it. I don't see how that 2-second idea could define me and my faith. Hopefully what I said after that will be enough to show what it's all actually about.

You backpedal a lot. Must be following your God's example.


We are the creation, not the Creator. So yes, especially with the existence of Satan, we as perfect beings were perfectly capable of screwing up. And the reason we are excuseless is because Christ went through the same kinds of temptations in the desert, yet He did not fail. Because He was the Creator.


So, he succeeded because he was the Creator, we thus failed because we aren't the creator...so, by your reasoning, its our own fault for not being God! How dare we! Whoever created us sure does suck at doing things right...


Well, apparently we broke the definition a bit.

What word have I used that I didn't understand?


These two answer eachother nicely.


What am I, a drug all of a sudden? Christians don't "survive" on people. We survive on the belief in the absolute truth that God loves us and that we will spend eternity with Him.

Beautiful. Keep holding the crutch up nice and high, so the customers know its a crutch.


Dependent on what or whom? God? Like that could make me weaker! I already depend and rely on God. That's what we're called to do according to the Bible.

I'm sure your Bible does call for dependence. Your dependency is key to your belief.

What thousands say deities & science are mutually exclusive?
I ask, because no-one with a basic grasp of what science is, would make such a claim. The scientific method cannot examine divinity. To claim otherwise is intellectually dishonest.
In your current situation, you cannot know what my desk is like, or whether there is one at all. That does not mean you can rule out the posibility, or make a credible postulate, it simply means you can't give any sort of answer. The deity & science thing, is no different.For your sake, I wouldn't want you to continue. You already appear plenty ignorant.Are you serious? You have never heard of Christian scientists? Well, they're there. That much I can assure you of.
I am sorry to say the scientific method doesn't work for evolution at all- in performing an experiment, you must make a procedure for how to repeat it. Can you do that with evolution? No, and according to one of the men who wrote the 4th edition of the Campbell and Reece Biology book, a theory must be able to be tested in order to be a legit theory. So evolution isn't even a theory, by an evolutionist's standpoint! If that's not ironic I don't know what is. Now is there a way to prove God exists scientifically? I'll admit it'd be most difficult to do it directly, but in proving evolution wrong that would almost be enough. Then there's all the other evidence, which I won't get into yet.
How do you explain onmi-directional CMB & an onmi-directional expansion of the universe, without an origin?
These two little trivialities, are what undid our previous "steady-state" theory. The theory of the Big Bang, dubbed so by a steady state proponent, is the theory that there is an origin. It does not state what the origin is, just that there is one. The entire observable universe contradicts your point of view. You might as well be claiming that gravity doesn't exist. We don't know exactly what gravity is either, but in general, people tend to agree that it is there.I'm claiming there was a beginning too. I'm not sure what the contradiciton is.
Assuming time is indeed a property of the universe we live in, trying to examine the exact origin of the state of the universe, is somewhat impossible. We'd have to invent a time machine that not only travels time, but can travel to a destination where there isn't any time at all. I'm sure you're bright enough to see the problem.
I'm missing how that proves God doesn't exist...
The consequence is, of course, that we can't really say what the Big Bang was. That isn't the same as saying "Nothing exploded into something", it's simply saying "Well.. Obviously something happened, and the result is the universe we know. What that something is, we might never know for certain".You can't possibly know whether anything random took place - unless you're God. I'm pretty sure you're not.
No, I'm not. But I believe the Bible tells us what happened from the viewpoint of someone who was there and was in fact the reason we came to be. My question is, all the matter we see today must have been made somehow. If no exterior force (like God) put them there, how could they have formed? If you don't know, then why isn't it possible that God did in fact do it?
Interestingly, you shy away from applying your critical thinking to your religious beliefs. I, for example, have yet to hear a very good explanation for how & why a god suddenly popped into existence. You must have one, since you believe in it.. Right?Until you think up a compelling reason to believe in magic, I don't see how you can call your god a "likely" answer. I mean, I could easily say that my boot kicked stuff into being. Without any sort of reasonable hypothesis to justify it, I don't see why your god is a more likely explanation than my boot.
I would never claim God had a beginning. God is beyond time- He created time. He looks over history kinda like one can look at a book. The physical sciences don't apply to God, because He created them. That's why we can call Him eternal.
I'm heading to bed now, but on a last note, how could you propose that your boot made a universe, especially since it was made itself? God would most definitely be a more likely choice for that.
I look forward to continuing this. G'night

This is exactly why, God or no, "Evil" must exist. Each deviation from perfection is a step towards uniqueness and, furthermore, a step towards existence.

The ultimately perfect state of being is one that isn't; everything that is makes no mistakes and is in perfect balance.

Perfection would destroy every last one of us.

Long live individuality.

But since I don't believe in any single vision of "God", I don't believe there's a central reference frame for perfection.

So, each of us can approach or flee from it as we see fit, withint the restrains of our reason and ethics.

If you go back, you'll find that New Rhodichia raised the subject of cosmology, rather than responding to the question at hand.

You feel that you can let something you love "burn in hell", I feel a true definition of love precludes that. We can disagree.

If you make something, create it in the most total sense, you thus are responsible for every aspect of its nature.

Your are thus culpable for its actions, particularly if you foresaw all such actions, and the being cannot do anything other than what you foresaw.

I keep hearing about this Christian God, a God so weak, it can't even take responsibility for the nature of its creations.

I don't agree with your very notion of culpability for one's creations. If you truly create something, it exists outside your influence. I can create a baby. I can create a table or a car. I am not responsible for their actions since I cannot directly influence their actions. God doesn't have to necessarily be Christian here, but the Christian God does help us mend our evil ways by sending his son to redeem us. A lamb, the blood of which we use to wash away our sins. (Do I sound like a hick redneck Bush supporter yet?)

Beautiful. Keep holding the crutch up nice and high, so the customers know its a crutch.
What's wrong with a crutch? If he can't walk by himself, would you deny him the chance to walk at all?

Sometimes damaged people need crutches. Yes, they need to learn to walk by themselves eventually, but that doesn't come instantly. Crutches are not the problem themselves.

I don't agree with your very notion culpability for one's creations. I can create a baby. I can create a table or a car. I am not responsible for their actions. God doesn't have to necessarily be Christian here, but the Christian God does take responsibility for our evil ways by sending his son to redeem us. A lamb, the blood of which we use to wash away our sins. (Do I sound like a hick redneck Bush supporter yet?)

Surely you see the difference between a human creating a baby (with nowhere near an absolute Godlike understanding of what genetic/behavioural/other matter is being passed) and God creating a human?

Do you really feel that a human creating a car and a God creating a human is a reasonable standard of comparison?

If God is perfect, he makes a flawless product. The only imperfections are one's he purposely introduces, which He then becomes responsible for.

I believe my notion of culpability stands in context of God's supposed perfection.

His willingness to blood sacrifice his own kid (sired on another man's wife, adultery very much) to assuage his own rule that imperfection demands death proves that he is
a)bloodthirsty,

and

b)content with the idea of punishing the innocent for the sins of the guilty (even if Jesus volunteers, no just judge would allow the innocent to be punished for the sins of the guilty, even to satisfy the judges own rule about killing its imperfect creations for being imperfect)

What's wrong with a crutch? If he can't walk by himself, would you deny him the chance to walk at all?

Sometimes damaged people need crutches. Yes, they need to learn to walk by themselves eventually, but that doesn't come instantly. Crutches are not the problem themselves.

A crutch is only helpful if you slowly wean yourself off, and eventually stop using it.

He's trying to give his crutch to people who don't need it, and if he convinces them they need it, they will become dependent on it as well.

Are you serious? You have never heard of Christian scientists? Well, they're there. That much I can assure you of.You really are clueless, aren't you?

I never said there aren't any religious scientists. I said religion can't examine such things. If any "scientist" disagrees with that, he, she or it, has no right to that title. And if you do not comprehend this, you desperately need your college fund back & to inroll somewhere else. You're apparently being fed outright lies by the bucket.I am sorry to say the scientific method doesn't work for evolution at all- in performing an experiment, you must make a procedure for how to repeat it. Can you do that with evolution? No, and according to one of the men who wrote the 4th edition of the Campbell and Reece Biology book, a theory must be able to be tested in order to be a legit theory. So evolution isn't even a theory, by an evolutionist's standpoint! If that's not ironic I don't know what is.See now I'm seriously starting to doubt you've had any sort of schooling at all. Visit www.talkorigins.org if you want to know just how mindblowingly wrong you are.Now is there a way to prove God exists scientifically? I'll admit it'd be most difficult to do it directly, but in proving evolution wrong that would almost be enough. Then there's all the other evidence, which I won't get into yet.There is no way to examine supernatural entities using the scientific method. It is only applicable to things on this side of reality. Again, you need a refund from your "school" & I'd suggest filing a law suit for neglect while you're at it. That's what I'd do if you were my kid.

Out of curiousity, as I've repeatedly stated, I should like to hear some of your evidence for your god.I'm claiming there was a beginning too. I'm not sure what the contradiciton is.You seem to be claiming the universe was created in the exact manner laid out in the Bible. If that is the case, you contradict all observable reality.I'm missing how that proves God doesn't exist...You're not the only one. Unlike you, I do not claim to know whether or not gods exist. I find the concept highly implausible, especially considering what we know of the origins of religions, but I can't be 100% sure. There might be an overweight invisible & immaterial bunny on top of my head as well, but I doubt it. Still, I fail to see how gaps in our knowledge about various aspects of life, the universe & everything, somehow makes the notion of gods more plausible?No, I'm not. But I believe the Bible tells us what happened from the viewpoint of someone who was there and was in fact the reason we came to be. My question is, all the matter we see today must have been made somehow. If no exterior force (like God) put them there, how could they have formed? If you don't know, then why isn't it possible that God did in fact do it?Why isn't it more plausible that my boot created everything?
Who says the matter wasn't there?
What makes you think there wasn't an "exterior force"?
Why exactly do your fantasies become more credible because we don't know the answers to everything?I would never claim God had a beginning. God is beyond time- He created time. He looks over history kinda like one can look at a book. The physical sciences don't apply to God, because He created them. That's why we can call Him eternal.If you can believe one thingy didn't have a beginning, why can't you believe another thingy didn't?

Conversely, if you can't believe that whatever was prior to reality as we know it, just was, how can you believe your god just was?I'm heading to bed now, but on a last note, how could you propose that your boot made a universe, especially since it was made itself? God would most definitely be a more likely choice for that.
I look forward to continuing this. G'nightYou know nothing about the spectacular & highly suspect origins of Dr.Marten's boots. How can you, with your complete lack of knowledge, make such horrendous accusations?!

Night night.

Surely you see the difference between a human creating a baby (with nowhere near an absolute Godlike understanding of what genetic/behavioural/other matter is being passed) and God creating a human?
No I don't see a difference, the physics are the same. Creating something from something.

Do you really feel that a human creating a car and a God creating a human is a reasonable standard of comparison?
Morally, they are the same.

If God is perfect, he makes a flawless product. The only imperfections are one's he purposely introduces, which He then becomes responsible for.
I don't assume any perfection on God's part. Anymore than you should.

I believe my notion of culpability stands in context of God's supposed perfection.
Even if God is perfect, it doesn't mean that his creations are perfect, nor does it mean that his guilt can be pondered by us. You presume to judge God, you have quite an ego.

His willingness to blood sacrifice his own kid (sired on another man's wife, adultery very much) to assuage his own rule that imperfection demands death proves that he is
a)bloodthirsty,

and

b)content with the idea of punishing the innocent for the sins of the guilty (even if Jesus volunteers, no just judge would allow the innocent to be punished for the sins of the guilty, even to satisfy the judges own rule about killing its imperfect creations for being imperfect)

By your argument, he is culpable for his creations. Why can't he "appologize" by sending his son to die?

At any rate, if you believe that God cannot exist in a universe that also houses evil, I admire your faith.

No I don't see a difference, the physics are the same. Creating something from something.Nope. Physics are only the same if you know the full scope of the consequences your creation can have.Morally, they are the same.Nope. I can easily make a door. I can't possibly forsee whether or not that door will eventually be the center of a disaster of some kind, nor do I have the power to prevent any such thing from happening.I don't assume any perfection on God's part. Anymore than you should.SC didn't. The Christian scriptures claims the god is perfect & omniscient.Even if God is perfect, it doesn't mean that his creations are perfect, nor does it mean that his guilt can be pondered by us. You presume to judge God, you have quite an ego.But it does mean that any imperfect creation, is purposefully flawed. Not unlike if I incorporated nitroglycerin, or some other unstable & potentially devastating, substance in the door from above.

Surely you won't argue that making doors into bombs on purpose, relieves me of responsibility for any casualties they might produce?By your argument, he is culpable for his creations. Why can't he "appologize" by sending his son to die?Veri simple: I never asked for anyone to murder anyone, so I'd be a better person. And I'm not going to accept blame for some bastard killing his only son in my name & then blaming me for not living up to that same moral standard.. If living up is indeed the right words..

No I don't see a difference, the physics are the same. Creating something from something.

The differring capacity to assess and mitigate consequences makes it different. Seriously, if you think you creating a baby is comparable to your "God" creating a human out of nothing, you're either twisted on biology or religion. That you would reference the respected name of physics in such a context is grotesque.


Morally, they are the same.

You consider your own creative acts on the same footing with your "God's" creative acts. And you point the finger at my ego...


I don't assume any perfection on God's part. Anymore than you should.


I don't. If you are admitting that your God is imperfect, do so implicity for clarity. If God is imperfect in your definition, it certainly explains alot about him.


Even if God is perfect, it doesn't mean that his creations are perfect, nor does it mean that his guilt can be pondered by us. You presume to judge God, you have quite an ego.

A perfect being doesn't make imperfect creations, unless its prepared to take responsibility for purposely introduced imperfections. Any important decision should be made in light of sound judgement, especially a decision about your life beliefs. You fail to judge your beliefs, you have quite an unexamined life.


By your argument, he is culpable for his creations. Why can't he "appologize" by sending his son to die?

I wish statements like this could be preserved forever, so people can see how some Christian defenders think. Apologize by sending his child to die. I hope you never feel the need to make that kind of apology, especially if you have kids.


At any rate, if you believe that God cannot exist in a universe that also houses evil, I admire your faith.

I believe that God as described by New Rhodichia is a profoundly and deeply flawed being, and such beings don't merit worship.

The question is: Is God powerful and smart enough to create a world that accomplishes all his aims without requiring the Evil that He cannot abide? If not, He sucks at his job, and should be replaced.

Nope. Physics are only the same if you know the full scope of the consequences your creation can have.Nope. I can easily make a door. I can't possibly forsee whether or not that door will eventually be the center of a disaster of some kind, nor do I have the power to prevent any such thing from happening.SC didn't. The Christian scriptures claims the god is perfect & omniscient.But it does mean that any imperfect creation, is purposefully flawed. Not unlike if I incorporated nitroglycerin, or some other unstable & potentially devastating, substance in the door from above.

Surely you won't argue that making doors into bombs on purpose, relieves me of responsibility for any casualties they might produce?Veri simple: I never asked for anyone to murder anyone, so I'd be a better person. And I'm not going to accept blame for some bastard killing his only son in my name & then blaming me for not living up to that same moral standard.. If living up is indeed the right words..

Damn, Sim. A cogent and insightful response. Wish it'd been mine...

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/bilenbwframe.htm

Big scary list of bible quotes!

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/bilenbwframe.htm

Big scary list of bible quotes!
That site is a very neat idea.

I don't agree with your very notion of culpability for one's creations. If you truly create something, it exists outside your influence. I can create a baby. I can create a table or a car. I am not responsible for their actions since I cannot directly influence their actions. God doesn't have to necessarily be Christian here, but the Christian God does help us mend our evil ways by sending his son to redeem us. A lamb, the blood of which we use to wash away our sins. (Do I sound like a hick redneck Bush supporter yet?)

If you create a car, and it blows up, whose fault is it? Of course if the person driving the car does something completely moronic, then it's probably their fault. However, since God is all-knowing and all-powerful, he KNOWS the "person driving the car" IS eventually going to do something stupid and should logically take steps to prevent that. Generally, a car maker has to take some responsibility if their car is flawed.

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/bilenbwframe.htm

Big scary list of bible quotes!

The scariest thing about it the argument that if it is found in the Bible (e.g., the women were taken as prisoners), then it must be the thing for all of us to do. What kind of logic is that?

Because of free will. If I wanted to kill all of the kids at my school, I could. Nothing in the Bible says I can't. The Old Testement, the Gospels, and God simply say you shouldn't. God continues to give us free will because he doesn't want us to hate us. The people who do hate him for free will, are the ones that say God doesn't exist because their innocent friend was caught in the middle of gang fire but they don't realize the only reason they can say that is because God gave the gangbangers free will and the guy free will.

I'd like to point out:

Gangbangers =/= Gang warfare

Gangbangers is more like equal to a bunch of sex depraved people who decide to have a lot of fun. With one girl.

He didn't design us to sin, that was our choice (this goes back to the free will he has given us). God can turn evil and use it for good, yes but because of our evil the war must be fought. I don't fully understand everything, God is beyond us, we are bound to time he is not. He didn't want it this way, and if Lucifer had not turned against him it would not be this way.

It turned out a way he didn't want it therefore, God isn't perfect.

You really are clueless, aren't you?

You should be ashamed of making such insults. If you really think you are more educated than the poster, why resort to bullying?


I never said there aren't any religious scientists. I said religion can't examine such things. If any "scientist" disagrees with that, he, she or it, has no right to that title. And if you do not comprehend this, you desperately need your college fund back & to inroll somewhere else. You're apparently being fed outright lies by the bucket.See now I'm seriously starting to doubt you've had any sort of schooling at all. Visit www.talkorigins.org if you want to know just how mindblowingly wrong you are.

Apparently you don't want to hold a reasonable civilized discussion without resorting to calling his/her education into question. Rather, you shout abuses and refer him/her to a website. As if talkorigins was even remotely objective about this issue. If New Rhodichia does lack some education about scientific matters, you certainly lack education about basic manners.


There is no way to examine supernatural entities using the scientific method. It is only applicable to things on this side of reality.

The first statement is one that I agree with. However, the second is not quite right. If, for example, we were to accept that God created the world, then our investigation of the world would tell us something about the God who created it (intelligent, big, powerful, etc.). In this way, although the scientific method cannot investigate the supernatural, the conclusions that come to us from the scientific method can be used to infer the attributes of God. This is not within the realms of the scientific method, but an example of taking knowledge from science and using it in religion. Thus facts which science uncovers IS applicable to the supernatural, in one way at least.


Again, you need a refund from your "school" & I'd suggest filing a law suit for neglect while you're at it. That's what I'd do if you were my kid.

That looks like patronizing.


Out of curiousity, as I've repeatedly stated, I should like to hear some of your evidence for your god.You seem to be claiming the universe was created in the exact manner laid out in the Bible. If that is the case, you contradict all observable reality.
You're not the only one. Unlike you, I do not claim to know whether or not gods exist. I find the concept highly implausible, especially considering what we know of the origins of religions, but I can't be 100% sure. There might be an overweight invisible & immaterial bunny on top of my head as well, but I doubt it. Still, I fail to see how gaps in our knowledge about various aspects of life, the universe & everything, somehow makes the notion of gods more plausible?Why isn't it more plausible that my boot created everything?

You are looking at his/her argument from your own world view, naturally, but this means you should be careful about assuming that he/she arrives at his/her conclusions the same way. His/her God is not the god of the gaps, but God on which all of reality hangs. That means that he/she is not trying to provide evidence of God that you must accept, only evidence that he/she has accepted, based on his/her world view.

A boot, as must people understand a boot, is not capable of creating. A God, by definition, is. It would be silly to try to argue that a boot is just as likely to create as God, since we know that boots don't create. If there was a boot that could create, we would call it the Creator Boot. Christians often call God the Creator God.



Who says the matter wasn't there?

That would be the argument that matter has always existed, that is has no source. I don't know anyone who seriously considers this. Do you? If so, you would be arguing that matter is eternal.


What makes you think there wasn't an "exterior force"?

I distinctly got the impression that he/she thought there was an 'exterior force' (i.e. God), but that when he/she tries to imagine the Big Bang in the absence of matter or force, it does not seem plausible. I'm no expert on the Big Bang theories, but I also have trouble imagining it. It would seem to go against anything that I have ever observed in this world, except for the fact that things tend to move away from the center of an explosion. Just about all the other 'laws of nature' are violated.


Why exactly do your fantasies become more credible because we don't know the answers to everything?If you can believe one thingy didn't have a beginning, why can't you believe another thingy didn't?

He/she is not claiming the answers to everything, but taking the definition of God to be someone who is without beginning or end, as it is described in the Bible. It is easy to see the difference between matter and God, because matter is finite while God is defined as infinite. Matter cannot create, but God can. The answer to your question lies in the definitions of the terms.


Conversely, if you can't believe that whatever was prior to reality as we know it, just was, how can you believe your god just was?You know nothing about the spectacular & highly suspect origins of Dr.Marten's boots. How can you, with your complete lack of knowledge, make such horrendous accusations?!


But we know that Doc Martens are made from matter. The origins lie in the material world. God, by definition, is the source of reality, and therefore there is intellectual satisfaction in accepting that our reality came from Him, and that before our reality, there was simply God (as far as we know).

The scariest thing about it the argument that if it is found in the Bible (e.g., the women were taken as prisoners), then it must be the thing for all of us to do. What kind of logic is that?
It's logical if you believe the Bible to be Infalllible, Unchanging Divine Mandate. God told them to do it, God tells us to do things through the bible, God doesn't change, therefore God must be telling us to do it.

The illogic is in the divine origin; not the implications of that.

It's logical if you believe the Bible to be Infalllible, Unchanging Divine Mandate. God told them to do it, God tells us to do things through the bible, God doesn't change, therefore God must be telling us to do it.

The illogic is in the divine origin; not the implications of that.

When the Bible states that God doesn't change, it isn't meaning that God doesn't bring about change. Otherwise He would never have sent Jesus into the world (and brought about all the change that comes with it.

God himself hasn't changed, meaning that the writers were claiming that his essential nature of goodness, mercy, justice, kindness and love is still the same. He causes change, and he himself gets angry or sad or joyful and thus experiences change in this way, but who he is does not change. Just like seeing an uncle again after 30 years, when the last time you saw him was when you were a child. 30 years later, there is more grey hair, but he is still the same fun-loving guy with a ready grin, a decent sense of humour, and still chasing adventure all over the world.

You cannot claim the non-logic exists in the divine origins of the Bible until you have demonstrated that the Bible itself is non-logic, and even then you need to have a way of showing that the non-logic isn't in your own understanding (or misunderstanding) of the Biblical account.

I suppose anyone could attempt to demonstrate how illogical the laws of nature are. But that wouldn't prove that the laws of nature are illogical.

Ummmm... yeah. I'm voting we go back to the original question. First off, let's not all get into a debate about whether God exists- there are plenty of threads for that. Just to get that cleared out of the way.

Biblically, the reason evil exists is because of sin. Satan persuaded Eve to sin, and Eve persuaded Adam to sin, and thus sin entered the world. The world was perfect (God said it was good), but sin destroyed that perfection. "For the wages of sin is death..." (Romans 6:23) This is why death also exists. Man would never have known death if we hadn't screwed up. God called it [creation] good, but now it's not. So that's why there's evil.
And satan was a fallen angel if I'm not mistaken, the angels would be created by god, and if they fall they are not perfect, thus god failed and the whole god is perfect-crap is bs.

God just got pwned...

You should be ashamed of making such insults. If you really think you are more educated than the poster, why resort to bullying?Apparently you don't want to hold a reasonable civilized discussion without resorting to calling his/her education into question. Rather, you shout abuses and refer him/her to a website. As if talkorigins was even remotely objective about this issue. If New Rhodichia does lack some education about scientific matters, you certainly lack education about basic manners.Same reason you do it; for kicks ;)The first statement is one that I agree with. However, the second is not quite right. <Snipped nonsense>Read the bit you quoted again. "It" clearly refers to the scientific method. There was a single point, not two. It was spread over two sentences, for clarity. I'll try bending it in neon next time, if you wish.That looks like patronizing.^ so does that.You are looking at his/her argument from your own world view, naturally, but this means you should be careful about assuming that he/she arrives at his/her conclusions the same way.S/he argued that the various scientific theories weren't plausible, or less plausible, than his/her religion. I pointed out the exact same thing you just did. Theories apparently can't be correct, if a few bits are unknown. S/he then makes the leap that his/her religion must be correct.

It's not unlike if you spot an object that you don't believe is a VCR, and thus conclude must be the Titanic. It's a bit of a leap.

I've simply asked the poster to apply the same level of critical thinking towards his religious beliefs as s/he does towards various scientific theories. If you have a problem with me asking another poster to do that, then.. Tough.A boot, as must people understand a boot, is not capable of creating. A God, by definition, is.Wrong. One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed - that's the definition. I don't see why my left boot shouldn't fit that description.It would be silly to try to argue that a boot is just as likely to create as God, since we know that boots don't create.Not true. You can't prove my left boot didn't create the universe. It's too absurd to even argue about & I honestly can't imagine why you're trying, but I'll bite.

You have the exact same amount of evidence for my left boot's creative powers, as you have of God's creative powers. I can factually prove my left boot exists. You've even conceded that it does. We know nothing of the sort about God.
Does that not make it a fair bit more likely that my left boot it to blame? - At least we know it exists.If there was a boot that could create, we would call it the Creator Boot. Christians often call God the Creator God.You can call your god whatever you like, but kindly refrain from giving my boots silly nicknames.That would be the argument that matter has always existed, that is has no source. I don't know anyone who seriously considers this. Do you? If so, you would be arguing that matter is eternal.I've heard quite a few people argue that matter/energy is independent of our universe. Unless there was some staggering discovery yestoday that I missed, no-one knows precisely what the state of things was, or if there was a state & some things.

Personally, I'll go by the assumption that space squirrels, while robbing trolls on the melted seas of green cheese, accidentially blew the universe into existence, when they fired their new über gun, granted to them by Tyr, the norse god of glorious battle. I'm dead certain I couldn't be more wrong, but the mental image of it all is too damn good.I distinctly got the impression that he/she thought there was an 'exterior force' (i.e. God), but that when he/she tries to imagine the Big Bang in the absence of matter or force, it does not seem plausible. I'm no expert on the Big Bang theories, but I also have trouble imagining it. It would seem to go against anything that I have ever observed in this world, except for the fact that things tend to move away from the center of an explosion. Just about all the other 'laws of nature' are violated.Most of this is pointless. Natural laws only apply to this sort of universe. Whatever was around before that, if anything was, wouldn't follow any of those rules.. At least, there's no reason at all, to think that it would. The only applicable observation is the explosion bits, and those are observations of the universe after the fact, not of the occurance itself.

If you distinctly got the impression that his mover was god, then you're a very odd person. He distinguished clearly between his mover god & the mover he doesn't understand. I questioned why he didn't apply the same principles to both.

You can try to imagine the cause of the big bang all you want. It's an excercise in futility though. Your frame of reference is grounded in this universe. It's entirely possible that you can't envision the thing you're trying to envision.

And by the way, the most popular theories does not envision the prior state of the universe to be without matter/energy. I don't know exactly what you mean by force, so I won't comment on that.He/she is not claiming the answers to everything, but taking the definition of God to be someone who is without beginning or end, as it is described in the Bible. It is easy to see the difference between matter and God, because matter is finite while God is defined as infinite. Matter cannot create, but God can. The answer to your question lies in the definitions of the terms.The poster claims god is the answer to everything. Douglas Adams said the answer was 42. The problem with statements like that, is that they make no sense at all, without the proper questions. Unfortunately, Christians, and most other religious people, claim ignorance.

But for the sake of argument: why can't matter be eternal? For all we know, matter is eternal. Thermodymanica is god! Or something..
We also know that matter can create itself, and that matter, in the proper context, can yeild all sorts of results. Just look at what we, and everything else, is made of.

The problem with this god business, is that those attributes boggles the mind too much, when inanimate "stuff" posses them. For some inexplicable reason, though, they're perfectly easy to digest, if we replace matter with an intelligent being. Again, my question was why they're acceptable properties for a being we don't even know if exists, when they're impossible properties of something we already know exists. In fact, we know intelligent beings can be made of the stuff.

There's nothing logical about just saying "That's the way it is, now stop confusing me with reality." Quite the opposite, in actually.But we know that Doc Martens are made from matter. The origins lie in the material world. God, by definition, is the source of reality, and therefore there is intellectual satisfaction in accepting that our reality came from Him, and that before our reality, there was simply God (as far as we know).You lost me.

Either you're saying it makes you happy to live in an imaginary world, or you're dissing my boots. I'm not sure which. And I'm sure I don't get your point, if there was one.

Same reason you do it; for kicks ;)

I enjoy a good debate. Even more if there are no insults, since I gain no satisfaction from calling someone names. I got my mouth washed out with soap for swearing rudely at my brother when I was a child, and since then I have realized how unattractive it is. I don't know why people like using insults, except perhaps that it makes them feel better about themselves when they can pull the other person down, either to their level or lower. Or it could just be a habit. If humans really were evolving, we would leave behind us the unnecessary insults. My idea of progress is that we could all learn to debate using reason without insult. Insulting isn't even an animal instinct, as far as I know. Not even the animals would stoop that low.




Read the bit you quoted again. "It" clearly refers to the scientific method. There was a single point, not two. It was spread over two sentences, for clarity. I'll try bending it in neon next time, if you wish.^ so does that.S/he argued that the various scientific theories weren't plausible, or less plausible, than his/her religion. I pointed out the exact same thing you just did. Theories apparently can't be correct, if a few bits are unknown. S/he then makes the leap that his/her religion must be correct.

It's not unlike if you spot an object that you don't believe is a VCR, and thus conclude must be the Titanic. It's a bit of a leap.

But if there is no other possibility, then it may be that the thing that we thought was a VCR was actually the Titanic. The thing itself hasn't changed, but just our conclusions, because our knowledge is incomplete.


I've simply asked the poster to apply the same level of critical thinking towards his religious beliefs as s/he does towards various scientific theories. If you have a problem with me asking another poster to do that, then.. Tough.Wrong. One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed - that's the definition. I don't see why my left boot shouldn't fit that description.Not true. You can't prove my left boot didn't create the universe. It's too absurd to even argue about & I honestly can't imagine why you're trying, but I'll bite.

It that was all you were attempting, I think I would have left your carry on. As it was, I looked like you were trying to verbally bash a 16 year old, and trying to use arguments that were based on things that I didn't agree with. Personally, I have no problem with you challenging a poster, so long as you have no problem with me challenging your challenges.

I cannot prove that your boot didn't create the universe, neither would I be remotely interested in this, neither have I tried to.


You have the exact same amount of evidence for my left boot's creative powers, as you have of God's creative powers. I can factually prove my left boot exists. You've even conceded that it does. We know nothing of the sort about God.
Does that not make it a fair bit more likely that my left boot it to blame? - At least we know it exists.You can call your god whatever you like, but kindly refrain from giving my boots silly nicknames.I've heard quite a few people argue that matter/energy is independent of our universe. Unless there was some staggering discovery yestoday that I missed, no-one knows precisely what the state of things was, or if there was a state & some things.

The definition of a boot is something we all pretty much understand. Boots don't create. Whatever God is (he/she/it, etc.), we understand that he is a candidate for a creative being (in contrast to a boot). We are not discussing proof here, just what we think is the best bet. I find it quite likely that if God exists, he created the universe. I also find it quite likely that if your boot exists, it didn't. I cannot prove in the next few minutes that either God or your boot exists. I can even prove that you or I exist. At that level, we aren't interested in proof, only what we think is the truth.


Personally, I'll go by the assumption that space squirrels, while robbing trolls on the melted seas of green cheese, accidentially blew the universe into existence, when they fired their new über gun, granted to them by Tyr, the norse god of glorious battle. I'm dead certain I couldn't be more wrong, but the mental image of it all is too damn good.Most of this is pointless. Natural laws only apply to this sort of universe. Whatever was around before that, if anything was, wouldn't follow any of those rules.. At least, there's no reason at all, to think that it would. The only applicable observation is the explosion bits, and those are observations of the universe after the fact, not of the occurance itself.

Precisely the reason why we don't believe the above (space squirrels) is because we don't think that this is very likely to be true.


You can try to imagine the cause of the big bang all you want. It's an excercise in futility though. Your frame of reference is grounded in this universe. It's entirely possible that you can't envision the thing you're trying to envision.

Try telling that to the big-bang scientists. Imagination is a very important part of science.


And by the way, the most popular theories does not envision the prior state of the universe to be without matter/energy. I don't know exactly what you mean by force, so I won't comment on that.The poster claims god is the answer to everything. Douglas Adams said the answer was 42. The problem with statements like that, is that they make no sense at all, without the proper questions. Unfortunately, Christians, and most other religious people, claim ignorance.

If these so-called popular theories do not envision the prior state of the universe to be without matter or energy, then they have not dealt with the source of matter or energy. They are obviously not based on what we know about our current universe, e.g. to all reactions, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Thus, they cannot be science, because science depends on observation. Otherwise we could say that Star Trek was a viable field of science.


But for the sake of argument: why can't matter be eternal? For all we know, matter is eternal. Thermodymanica is god! Or something..
We also know that matter can create itself, and that matter, in the proper context, can yeild all sorts of results. Just look at what we, and everything else, is made of.

One reason I can think of that we don't think matter is eternal is because it degrades into it's components. All things tend toward disorder, while matter is essentially ordered energy. Matter certainly cannot create more matter. Through fission and fusion we are able to convert energy into matter and visa versa (thanks to Einstein), but conversion is not creation.


The problem with this god business, is that those attributes boggles the mind too much, when inanimate "stuff" posses them. For some inexplicable reason, though, they're perfectly easy to digest, if we replace matter with an intelligent being. Again, my question was why they're acceptable properties for a being we don't even know if exists, when they're impossible properties of something we already know exists. In fact, we know intelligent beings can be made of the stuff.

I see your point. It tends to depend on whether you have accepted that existence of the supernatural in the first place. Once you accept that God exists, the intelligent thing is to attribute otherwise unexplainable events to Him, providing you have done enough research to rule out natural causes. In the case of a big bang, we know enough about our world to know that it would not happen spontaneously today. So rather than assume that it did happen spontaneously, we attribute it to God. This isn't proof, obviously, but it is intelligent. It obviously depends on whether we accept that God exists in the first place. This is the mental hurdle, if you like. After that, it is all relatively logical.


There's nothing logical about just saying "That's the way it is, now stop confusing me with reality." Quite the opposite, in actually.You lost me.

Either you're saying it makes you happy to live in an imaginary world, or you're dissing my boots. I'm not sure which. And I'm sure I don't get your point, if there was one.

You were asking me why I prefer to believe that God created the universe, rather than your boots. I was trying to explain that based on what I know of both boots and God, I find that God is far more likely to have created the universe than your left boot. I mean no offense to your boot. It is simply a boot, like one my own Landrovers (a boot).

Why do people always feel that they need to debate the existance of God?

and why are all the other christians right wing nuts?

Why do people always feel that they need to debate the existance of God?

Some people have felt that it is people when God created mankind, He deposited a little bit of Himself in man, and thus mankind frequently has the tendency to desire to know their origins. Something to do with the desire for meaning. Now, why doesn't bothersome desire simply go away? Is it there because God created us or because it was somehow critical for our survival somewhere along the development of primitive life to humans.


and why are all the other christians right wing nuts?

Pardon? Which other Christians are you referring to? Anyway, it doesn't look like a real question, more like a rhetorical question, in which you mean to insinuate that Christians who believe that God e.g. created the universe are right wing nuts. But if so, you could hardly be further from the truth.

It turned out a way he didn't want it therefore, God isn't perfect.
He didn't want it this way, but that does not make him imperfect. God wanted to give people free will, and because we are weak, we sinned and turned against God. The punishment for eating from the tree was death, but God allowed man kind to live (though not eternally).

To believe in your God without having these kinds of basic questions answered is an abdication of basic personal responsibility.

I'm not sure which is worse...that you would believe in Him prior to answering these questions for yourself, or that you'll now go manufacture whatever answers will allow you to keep believing.

Whatever need it is that drives you to unexamined devotion must be quite terrible.
First of, I became a Christian when I was six, so there were many questions that I didn't ask because I didn't care (and no, I didn't become a Christian because of my parents, I was a Christian months before them). The reason I have to research this is because I never have questioned his holiness. Even though you are making some good points about how perfect God is, I will not stop believing. God is far to complex for the human mind. He exists outside of all of our standards. He is perfect because he determined what perfect is. He gave us all the gift of free will so that we would love him. He created us in his image, he gave us a disire to know more, that is why when the Devil tempted Adam and Eve they gave in, they thought that eating the fruit from the tree would make life better, but it didn't. They knew what they were going to do was wrong long before they did it because they knew that God had commanded them not to eat from the tree. God created us perfectly, and in his image. It is our fault that we aren't perfect, not his. He knew what would happen, yes, but he created us not knowing (in a way at least, as I said before, he exists outside of time). This whole subject is very complicated and there is no way for any man (or woman) to fully understand it. We are bound by time and we think and those terms, but God is outside of time so there is no way any human mind can comprehend how he works.

First of, I became a Christian when I was six, so there were many questions that I didn't ask because I didn't care (and no, I didn't become a Christian because of my parents, I was a Christian months before them). The reason I have to research this is because I never have questioned his holiness. Even though you are making some good points about how perfect God is, I will not stop believing. God is far to complex for the human mind. He exists outside of all of our standards. He is perfect because he determined what perfect is. He gave us all the gift of free will so that we would love him. He created us in his image, he gave us a disire to know more, that is why when the Devil tempted Adam and Eve they gave in, they thought that eating the fruit from the tree would make life better, but it didn't. They knew what they were going to do was wrong long before they did it because they knew that God had commanded them not to eat from the tree. God created us perfectly, and in his image. It is our fault that we aren't perfect, not his. He knew what would happen, yes, but he created us not knowing (in a way at least, as I said before, he exists outside of time). This whole subject is very complicated and there is no way for any man (or woman) to fully understand it. We are bound by time and we think and those terms, but God is outside of time so there is no way any human mind can comprehend how he works.

All of that, and you could have just admitted, in one sentence, that you're defensively clinging to a decision you made when you were six years old, and that you admit you don't understand the ramifications of that decision well enough to defend it reasonably.

If its more complicated than you can explain, its more complicated than you understand, and you are thus obstinately committed to a "belief", not an understanding.

To be clear, I don't expect you to stop believing. Your belief is caused and sustained by an intense need, not by deliberate, meaingful introspection. As a result, your pervasive coping mechanism cannot be supplanted by any "good points" that I make.

I'm making these points because there are people in the world who make their life-belief decisions in light of greater experience and development than what a six-year-old has, and I want those people to hear another view.

First of, I became a Christian when I was six, so there were many questions that I didn't ask because I didn't care (and no, I didn't become a Christian because of my parents, I was a Christian months before them). The reason I have to research this is because I never have questioned his holiness. Even though you are making some good points about how perfect God is, I will not stop believing. God is far to complex for the human mind. He exists outside of all of our standards. He is perfect because he determined what perfect is. He gave us all the gift of free will so that we would love him. He created us in his image, he gave us a disire to know more, that is why when the Devil tempted Adam and Eve they gave in, they thought that eating the fruit from the tree would make life better, but it didn't. They knew what they were going to do was wrong long before they did it because they knew that God had commanded them not to eat from the tree. God created us perfectly, and in his image. It is our fault that we aren't perfect, not his. He knew what would happen, yes, but he created us not knowing (in a way at least, as I said before, he exists outside of time). This whole subject is very complicated and there is no way for any man (or woman) to fully understand it. We are bound by time and we think and those terms, but God is outside of time so there is no way any human mind can comprehend how he works.

That's something I think I will never understand.

They ate from the tree and were supposed to know it was wrong without any concept of good and evil.

So either they were punished because it was evil to disobey god, then it would have been unjust to punish them, because they had no way of telling that it was evil.

Or it was not evil, then there would not have been to a reason to punish them.

He didn't want it this way, but that does not make him imperfect. God wanted to give people free will, and because we are weak, we sinned and turned against God. The punishment for eating from the tree was death, but God allowed man kind to live (though not eternally).

You still don't get the basic premise that a perfect being doesn't create something that acts contrary to the perfect being's desire. Any imperfection (or eventual, potential imperfection) is either placed deliberately, or is a failure on the part of the "perfect" being. Since the latter is impossible, the former shows that our proclivity for sin is part of God's "master plan", and He needs to take a little responsibility.

You aren't even addressing the presented tautology. Your response to every illustrated inconsistency and logical flaw is to just restate your own axioms, several of which have already been proven flawed themselves.

I see your point. It tends to depend on whether you have accepted that existence of the supernatural in the first place. Once you accept that God exists, the intelligent thing is to attribute otherwise unexplainable events to Him, providing you have done enough research to rule out natural causes.

Its a statement like this that makes me think your religious mindset has overwhelmed your scientific mindset.

Research is continuous and ongoing. The "natural causes" you consider "ruled out" couldn't be discovered at some later date?

What if scientists in the 18th century, or 19th, for that matter, fell victim to your reasoning, and started assigning supernatural causes to every principal that hadn't been explained yet?

By your own protocol of "intelligence", God would have been attributed lots of things. Fortunately, there are "unintelligent" folks like me that will continue to look for natural explanations, and hold our pesky belief that just because a natural cause isn't discovered as of today, it is by no means "ruled out".

I'm sure you're a great scientist, Bruarong, and I say that sincerely. But I must question your premise that a "ruled out" cause must be God, and not simply an undiscovered natural principal.

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/bilenbwframe.htm

Big scary list of bible quotes!
That site is ridculus. It takes the verses complely out of context. For example, in the Old Testiment, women were referred to as property because of God's curse on man. He cursed the woman to that way. In the New Testiment when Jesus died to save people, he completly realsed us from that curse.

As for the women keeping silent. Earlier, Paul had said that it was acceptable for women to publically prophesy and pray. He here is saying that is alright for women to remail silent as well. He is also saying that no one should speak out of turn in the church service.

The whole thing with marrying the rapist, was for the man and not the women. It said that he may not divorce her, not the other way around. Basically it says that rape is wrong.

The whole thing that Moses said about the virgins was that the men should not take the wives of those they had conquered. They had to kill the women who had a husband so that there were no children.

The thing about beatings kids was as a punishment. They couldn't kill them; it is kind of like a spanking (or when teachers used to hit kid's knuckles with a ruler).

When God told Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, he was not going to allow Abraham to actually sacrific Isaac. It was a test of Abraham's faith to see if he would hold nothing back for the Lord.

Japhthah did not offer his daugther as a burnt offering. Instead, she was not allowed to marry and her entire life was dedicated to God (that is why is mentions that she was a virgin).

The thing about slaves was about obeying authorities, God commands everyone to this (unless it confilcts with his commands).

There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.
-- Ezekiel 23:20 (NIV) It never said that she was in the right (there is a lot about sex in the Bible, but it doesn't say that sex outside of marriage is right even though some one did it).

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother...
-- Matthew 10:34-35 (AV) Here Jesus acknowledges that life as his follower is not easy.

That's something I think I will never understand.

They ate from the tree and were supposed to know it was wrong without any concept of good and evil.

So either they were punished because it was evil to disobey god, then it would have been unjust to punish them, because they had no way of telling that it was evil.

Or it was not evil, then there would not have been to a reason to punish them.
They were punished for their disobedience to God.

They were punished for their disobedience to God.
Then God is a sadistic asshole, because they couldn't have known that not obeying god was a sin.

Then God is a sadistic asshole, because they couldn't have known that not obeying god was a sin.
They knew. They already could distinguish good and evil, Satan is a liar and that is why they were told that it was a tree of knowledge.

They were punished for their disobedience to God.

Thanks for not adressing my points.

They knew. They already could distinguish good and evil, Satan is a liar and that is why they were told that it was a tree of knowledge.

Where does the Bible say that they were already able to tell good from evil before eating the fruit?

All of that, and you could have just admitted, in one sentence, that you're defensively clinging to a decision you made when you were six years old, and that you admit you don't understand the ramifications of that decision well enough to defend it reasonably.

If its more complicated than you can explain, its more complicated than you understand, and you are thus obstinately committed to a "belief", not an understanding.

To be clear, I don't expect you to stop believing. Your belief is caused and sustained by an intense need, not by deliberate, meaingful introspection. As a result, your pervasive coping mechanism cannot be supplanted by any "good points" that I make.

I'm making these points because there are people in the world who make their life-belief decisions in light of greater experience and development than what a six-year-old has, and I want those people to hear another view.
I understand all of that, and that I have a belief, but I do have partial understanding. My pastor and my mentors cannot fully understand God, no one can. It is more complicated than I can explain because it goes beyond words. It is spiritual and it is extremly hard to put the understanding I get through that into words. I suppose I could say that there is a peace. I don't know how else to say it. I am no expert on the Bible, so must of what I say comes from God himself (it is a Spiritual Gift). Whenever I referr to historical context, I have consulted my pastor and Brad Homan (a mentor of mine). They studied the Bible to understand things like this.

Yes, I do have an intense need. . . An intense need for God. We all need God, but we will not admit it.

Where does the Bible say that they were already able to tell good from evil before eating the fruit?
The Bible said that they were created in the image of God. God knew good from evil, so if they were created in his image, they had to know good from evil.

The Bible said that they were created in the image of God. God knew good from evil, so if they were created in his image, they had to know good from evil.

Hm, I get something different from the Bible:

Genesis 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever

God's comment after they ate the fruit. So it seems like they had NO knowledge of good and evil prior to eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Hm, I get something different from the Bible:

Genesis 3:22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever

God's comment after they ate the fruit. So it seems like they had NO knowledge of good and evil prior to eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
I believe that when God said that man is become as one of us; he meant that they could live forever. Earlier it said that he did creat us in his image, so to me it means that we must have known right from wrong. When it said that God said "to know good and evil" this was in a different way than you thing. Before that man had done no evil, so he could not know what it was like. Doing evil gave man a new understanding which made man sinful.

God already "knew" good and evil because he is good and he knows his enemy Satan, not because he did evil.

I believe that when God said that man is become as one of us; he meant that they could live forever. Earlier it said that he did creat us in his image, so to me it means that we must have known right from wrong. When it said that God said "to know good and evil" this was in a different way than you thing. Before that man had done no evil, so he could not know what it was like. Doing evil gave man a new understanding which made man sinful.

God already "knew" good and evil because he is good and he knows his enemy Satan, not because he did evil.

Let's look at some other translations:

Amplified Bible:

And the Lord God said, Behold, the man has become like one of Us [the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit], to know [how to distinguish between] good and evil and blessing and calamity; and now, lest he put forth his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live [b]forever

New Living Translation:

Then the LORD God said, "The people have become as we are, knowing everything, both good and evil. What if they eat the fruit of the tree of life? Then they will live forever!"

King James Version:

And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever

It seems pretty clear that they had no knowledge of good and evil before they ate the apple. It's also cleat that the "become as one of use" part does not refer to living forever.

Ummmm... yeah. I'm voting we go back to the original question. First off, let's not all get into a debate about whether God exists- there are plenty of threads for that. Just to get that cleared out of the way.

Biblically, the reason evil exists is because of sin. Satan persuaded Eve to sin, and Eve persuaded Adam to sin, and thus sin entered the world. The world was perfect (God said it was good), but sin destroyed that perfection. "For the wages of sin is death..." (Romans 6:23) This is why death also exists. Man would never have known death if we hadn't screwed up. God called it [creation] good, but now it's not. So that's why there's evil.


It is so nice to be an atheist. I do not have to uphold ridiculous claims such as that. Have you ever considered this thing known to "them intelekctualz" as "aging"? I know; I know; it's a radical concept.

Let's look at some other translations:

Amplified Bible:

And the Lord God said, Behold, the man has become like one of Us [the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit], to know [how to distinguish between] good and evil and blessing and calamity; and now, lest he put forth his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live [b]forever

New Living Translation:

Then the LORD God said, "The people have become as we are, knowing everything, both good and evil. What if they eat the fruit of the tree of life? Then they will live forever!"

King James Version:

And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever

It seems pretty clear that they had no knowledge of good and evil before they ate the apple. It's also cleat that the "become as one of use" part does not refer to living forever.
Still, these translations do not disapprove my theory (good try though). They use similar language as the first and I still feel the same way, they knew what was right and what was wrong before hand. You can know something, but you don't really know it until you have experienced it.

It is so nice to be an atheist. I do not have to uphold ridiculous claims such as that. Have you ever considered this thing known to "them intelekctualz" as "aging"? I know; I know; it's a radical concept.
On the subject of aging, you may notice as you get older your ideas on theology will change. That doesn't mean your new ones are any more correct than your old ones; it's simply the case that as people age, their views of life become more affected by reality than ideology.

Can I go out on a limb and suggest that perhaps Atheism is more idealist than Christianity? After all, it's easier to believe that all will become better after the destruction and reconstruction of reality than it is to believe in the innate power of the individual human to change the world for the better.

Still, these translations do not disapprove my theory (good try though). They use similar language as the first and I still feel the same way, they knew what was right and what was wrong before hand. You can know something, but you don't really know it until you have experienced it.
You should really work on your reading comprehension. All those quotes say that Adam and Eve knew what good and evil was AFTER they ate the fruit.

You should really work on your reading comprehension. All those quotes say that Adam and Eve knew what good and evil was AFTER they ate the fruit.
Notice my theory:
I believe that when God said that man is become as one of us; he meant that they could live forever. Earlier it said that he did creat us in his image, so to me it means that we must have known right from wrong. When it said that God said "to know good and evil" this was in a different way than you thing. Before that man had done no evil, so he could not know what it was like. Doing evil gave man a new understanding which made man sinful.

God already "knew" good and evil because he is good and he knows his enemy Satan, not because he did evil.

Not everything must be interperted literally.

I enjoy a good debate.Good for you. The rest was bollox. You took offence to my tone, nothing more. I'll conceede to being an arrogant arse, when you do the same.But if there is no other possibility, then it may be that the thing that we thought was a VCR was actually the Titanic. The thing itself hasn't changed, but just our conclusions, because our knowledge is incomplete.How do you know there's no other possibility? Christianity is one religion among many. It doesn't explain anything beyond what most religions do. It is almost exclusively based on other religions..
Apart from your own wish to believe its validity, there is absolutely no reason to think it is anything but fiction. Poorly written fiction, at that.

In a situation where you don't know the nature of an object, but think you can rule out a possibility, you can't automatically jump to conclusions, based on what you think it isn't. What if this - presumably - non-VCR turned out to be a fridge, a needle or perhaps a VCR of a make you'd never seen before? Claiming it's the Titanic isn't a rational thing to do, when you have no idea what it might be.It that was all you were attempting, I think I would have left your carry on. As it was, I looked like you were trying to verbally bash a 16 year old, and trying to use arguments that were based on things that I didn't agree with. Personally, I have no problem with you challenging a poster, so long as you have no problem with me challenging your challenges.You're always welcome to challenge my little rants. That said, it was indeed all I was attempting. The reason I didn't post a one line question, is because the poster asked to be corrected, asked for certain explanations & made some pretty strange assertions.
If someone appears to be making willfully ignorant claims, I'll call the person ignorant. I honestly don't care if that bothers you.I cannot prove that your boot didn't create the universe, neither would I be remotely interested in this, neither have I tried to.... But I was having such a good laugh.

It may have slipped by you, but the reason my boots got dragged into this, is because they're things we can easily prove the existence of. I'm sure you won't dispute this. They also happen to be the sort of object that fits the definition of a god. Many people show a great deal of reverence for them, threat them in a ritualistic manner & so on.

So. Why aren't my boots a perfectly good candidate for "creator of everything & then some"? They fit the definition of gods. You are now reading that they can create universes, if they so please, and that they did create this one. And lastly, the little bonus property: they exist.
Your god doesn't have as much going for it. It's written it can & did create the universe. Some people treat your god as a god. No-one can prove your god isn't a figment of your imagination.

Before you throw a fit, consider for a moment how absurd your religion appears to an outsider like me. You might think this boot talk is insane, but I honestly think your religion is even more ridiculous. Though it's all quite insane, placing your beliefs in something that it is wholly unreasonable to assume exists, kind of tops the boot thing.The definition of a boot is something we all pretty much understand. Boots don't create. Whatever God is (he/she/it, etc.), we understand that he is a candidate for a creative being (in contrast to a boot). We are not discussing proof here, just what we think is the best bet. I find it quite likely that if God exists, he created the universe. I also find it quite likely that if your boot exists, it didn't. I cannot prove in the next few minutes that either God or your boot exists. I can even prove that you or I exist. At that level, we aren't interested in proof, only what we think is the truth.We can't discuss "best bet's" without evidence.
If we accept your god as a candidate for the creator of the universe, we'll have to accept my boots as well. Because just like a book asserts your god is a candidate, this post asserts my boots are candidates.
IF your god exists, then obviously it did create the universe. Otherwise it wouldn't be your god.
You can prove my boot exists, if you're willing to try. You can't possibly prove your god exists.

If you're interested in what you think is the truth, then there's no reason to debate this any further. We both know you think your religion is the ultimate truth. If you're interested in "best bet's" then you should apply the same criticism to your religion, as you do to all your other beliefs, such as other religions, science & so on.
You reject a host of fairly solid ideas, because they aren't solid enough for you. Then you jump off the logic train & embrace your religious beliefs, despite having nothing but reasons for not doing it.
I'm inclined to ask you why, just like I asked the other poster.. But I doubt you'll answer.Precisely the reason why we don't believe the above (space squirrels) is because we don't think that this is very likely to be true.And that too, is precisely the reason we don't believe in the Christian God.Try telling that to the big-bang scientists. Imagination is a very important part of science.Indeed it is, but in a different context. You have no frame of reference. A high energy physicist does have some frame of reference. Idle speculation is pointless. All it'll bring you is religion, boots, Titanic, possibly a squirrel or two & a thoroughly pissed god of battle. You're of course free to engage in it anyway, but I'd advice you stock up on beer, just in case Tyr pops by.If these so-called popular theories do not envision the prior state of the universe to be without matter or energy, then they have not dealt with the source of matter or energy. They are obviously not based on what we know about our current universe, e.g. to all reactions, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Thus, they cannot be science, because science depends on observation. Otherwise we could say that Star Trek was a viable field of science.Maybe you should just check out some popular theories, instead of bitching to me. Theoretical science is just that. It isn't directly based on observations, because it can't be. There's limits to what we can observe.

While energy was created in the big bang, no-one knows whether energy was indeed what caused the big bang to happen. A good deal of people think that's the case. Some thinks that branes may have collided & others have other ideas.

Again, I'm not the person you need to bitch to. I've clearly stated that I don't know what happened & don't know how. All I know is the result.One reason I can think of that we don't think matter is eternal is because it degrades into it's components. All things tend toward disorder, while matter is essentially ordered energy. Matter certainly cannot create more matter. Through fission and fusion we are able to convert energy into matter and visa versa (thanks to Einstein), but conversion is not creation.Yea sorry about that. It got a little rushed. Matter doesn't create matter. Matter can be spontanously created, is what I meant to say. Matter & energy is interchangable. It doesn't vanish on it's own, though there's an argument to be made for the possibility of disposing of it. The lot of what we have is the result of the big bang.I see your point. It tends to depend on whether you have accepted that existence of the supernatural in the first place. Once you accept that God exists, the intelligent thing is to attribute otherwise unexplainable events to Him, providing you have done enough research to rule out natural causes. In the case of a big bang, we know enough about our world to know that it would not happen spontaneously today. So rather than assume that it did happen spontaneously, we attribute it to God. This isn't proof, obviously, but it is intelligent. It obviously depends on whether we accept that God exists in the first place. This is the mental hurdle, if you like. After that, it is all relatively logical.Why would anyone "accept" the existence of god(s), when they find a god-less explanation too incredible?
Once you've accepted the existence of a god, the logical thing would be to attempt to verify all your knowledge of it. Alas, even if it did exist, such a thing wouldn't be possible.

So regardless of how you approach this, there's no rationale behind blaming god for various things - even if god is there.You were asking me why I prefer to believe that God created the universe, rather than your boots. I was trying to explain that based on what I know of both boots and God, I find that God is far more likely to have created the universe than your left boot. I mean no offense to your boot. It is simply a boot, like one my own Landrovers (a boot).I'll try to make sure my boot doesn't see that. I think it'd get pretty pissed to learn that you think your god is a more likely candidate for creator of the lot, than it is. Can't say I blame it.

Not everything must be interperted literally.
Indeed. I prefer the "Man's choice is the source of his sinfulness but it is not itself sin" idea though.

Evil is what seperates something from God. Without it there would simply be nothing but him.

Evil is what seperates something from God. Without it there would simply be nothing but him.
Thank God for evil then?

But, are things good because God said they were or did God say they were because they in fact were inherently good, and vice-versa for Evil?

If God says things are good because they inherently are, then don't good and evil exist apart from and externally to God. They are in that case abstractions that transcend God. If that is so, then God knew what they were and created people and angels and gave them the the ability to choose between the two.

On the other hand, if things are good only because God says so, then it raises the question of "how does he decide what is good and what is evil?"

because when God gave Adam the priviledge of naming stuff, he gave man independance from god... man screwed it up all on his own

If God says things are good because they inherently are, then don't good and evil exist apart from and externally to God. They are in that case abstractions that transcend God. If that is so, then God knew what they were and created people and angels and gave them the the ability to choose between the two.

Something that transcends god???:eek:

Without evil there can be no good so it must be good to be evil sometimes.

Up there there is so much room
Where babies burp and flowers bloom
Everyone dreams, I can dream too

Up there, Up where the skies are ocean blue
I could be safe and live without a care
Live without a care
If only I could live UP THERE.

I want to live up thereeeeeeee.

because when God gave Adam the priviledge of naming stuff, he gave man independance from god... man screwed it up all on his own
Naming the animals showed that man had been given authority. Historically if you could name some one that gave you authrity over them.

Naming the animals showed that man had been given authority. Historically if you could name some one that gave you authrity over them.

I name you Squelcherous Mud. Ha.
Now you must obey me.

I name you Squelcherous Mud. Ha.
Now you must obey me.
Not in that way, you had no authority to name me to begin with, perhaps a better way of putting it would be that naming things demonstrates your authority (like you name your cat or dog or kid)

Ok. For those wondering about it, I think the Bible's pretty clear on the whole Adam and Eve issue. Did they know right from wrong? According to the Bible, no they didn't; God commented about that once they gained the knowledge. However, they were told not to eat of it. That much they knew- God said not to eat of it. Does knowing they should obey Him constitute the knowledge of good and evil? Not in their case- they respected God and, until they failed, were perfect. So their natural instinct- not knowledge of good and evil- said to obey God. The fact that it was a natural instinct was the reason they were capable of failing- just because they didn't have the knowledge. If that dang serpent hadn't convinced Eve that God didn't really say that, we could still be perfect today. If anyone would like to refute that biblically be my guest- if not all it was was an explanation of what the Bible says so don't try to prove God doesn't exist based on what I said.

Historically, Keyi, it would be impossible to find someone who gave us the authority to name animals (assuming God doesn't exist). It would be ridiculously useless. If God exists, however, He is the one who gave us the authority to do so. I'm not saying that to prove God exists, because that would be pathetic, I'm just answering your question.

I'll move on to the boot question/example and whether it's likely to be the creator. To start off with, I'm hoping you are willing to admit your boot was made by its respective company, as all other boots are. Assuming that, we all agree it had a beginning. If man made the boot, the beginning of your boot came after the beginning of man. It seems everyone would agree man came after the beginning of the world (and thus the universe), so your boot wasn't even around to create that. Not to mention that it's a creation anyway. Not only is it improbable, it seems impossible to honestly say it is the creator. Although-if you could work up a case for it I wouldn't mind reading it in something like Science magazine. I say go for it- who knows how much money you could make for stuff like that. I think the difficult part though would be finding any kind of evidence for it. Good luck on that.

Not in that way, you had no authority to name me to begin with, perhaps a better way of putting it would be that naming things demonstrates your authority (like you name your cat or dog or kid)

Just for the record, cats obey no one. They're evil.

Ok. For those wondering about it, I think the Bible's pretty clear on the whole Adam and Eve issue. Did they know right from wrong? According to the Bible, no they didn't; God commented about that once they gained the knowledge. However, they were told not to eat of it. That much they knew- God said not to eat of it. Does knowing they should obey Him constitute the knowledge of good and evil? Not in their case- they respected God and, until they failed, were perfect. So their natural instinct- not knowledge of good and evil- said to obey God. The fact that it was a natural instinct was the reason they were capable of failing- just because they didn't have the knowledge. If that dang serpent hadn't convinced Eve that God didn't really say that, we could still be perfect today. If anyone would like to refute that biblically be my guest- if not all it was was an explanation of what the Bible says so don't try to prove God doesn't exist based on what I said.

First, I'm not really sure if the serpent really lied to them, at least not in all points. The serpent claims that eating the fruit will make them like gods (knowing good and evil) - and God confirms that statement later on. Also, We have no reason to assume that Adam and Eve were immortal prior to eating the apple and God's statement "the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die" sounds more like they would die more or less instantly, which did not happen. God also fears that they might eat from the tree of life after they ate from the tree of knowledge and become immortal. There does not seem to be any indication that they were immortal, became mortal and could become immortal again. So I don't think the serpent really lied, it sounds more like God lied about the dieing thing, since they didn't die on the day they ate from the apple (unless you interpret it as some kind of spiritual death). Besides the snake could have simply been uniformed.

Second, this instinct of knowing it's bad to disobey God. I'm a bit unsure if it is ever mentioned anywhere. And even if, how could they tell that it's good to follow that instinct and bad not to follow it?

And basically wouldn't that mean that they were punished, not because they did something evil, but merely because they went against some kind of instinct?

Third, God does punish them for disobeying, but the reason he throws them out of the garden Eden is not because of that - he fears that they would become too powerful if they ate from the tree of life.

Just for the record, cats obey no one. They're evil.
My cat does tricks.

My cat does tricks.If it starts turning tricks, you should demand rent.

If it starts turning tricks, you should demand rent.

LOL. That is just too funny for words. :D

First, I'm not really sure if the serpent really lied to them, at least not in all points. The serpent claims that eating the fruit will make them like gods (knowing good and evil) - and God confirms that statement later on. Also, We have no reason to assume that Adam and Eve were immortal prior to eating the apple and God's statement "the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die" sounds more like they would die more or less instantly, which did not happen. God also fears that they might eat from the tree of life after they ate from the tree of knowledge and become immortal. There does not seem to be any indication that they were immortal, became mortal and could become immortal again. So I don't think the serpent really lied, it sounds more like God lied about the dieing thing, since they didn't die on the day they ate from the apple (unless you interpret it as some kind of spiritual death). Besides the snake could have simply been uniformed.

The serpent did lie- he/it said "You will not surely die." (Genesis 3:4, NIV). As you said, he did not lie on all points, but one lie is enough to show his purpose. He fooled Eve, who then gave the fruit to Adam, and there the perfecion of humanity ended. Keep in mind the Bible says the serpent was "more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made" (same chapter, verse 1).
Also, the Bible says that the serpent said, "... and you will be like God, knowing good and evil" (same chapter, verse 5). This doesn't mean becoming gods or immortal- at the time they were immortal anyway (more on that later). All it meant is that they would be able to tell whether something was right or wrong. What God "feared" (more like "dreaded") was that they would eat of it and become sinful (and eventually die because of it, which they did).
Which brings me to to the point you made that they didn't die that day (or until many years later). This was probably your strongest argument. For that I have two related answers: first of all, the death God was referring to was probably spiritual, which biblically means seperation from God. Secondly, a literal translation of the Hebrew is needed (this is directly in some versions of the Bible). The literal translation is "In the day you eat thereof, dying you shall die." So when they ate the fruit, they acquired a sinful nature, thus seperating themselves from God (dying spiritually). Then their physical bodies began the long process of deterioration, until they eventually died physically. This means it is true that dying, they died.

As for whether they were immortal to begin with, they had full access to the Tree of Life before they were booted out. There's no reason why they didn't eat of it before they sinned, so this means they were in fact immortal at that time, and then became mortal. Which means they could not become immortal again (unless you're talking about after death, which is kinda different from this).

Second, this instinct of knowing it's bad to disobey God. I'm a bit unsure if it is ever mentioned anywhere. And even if, how could they tell that it's good to follow that instinct and bad not to follow it?

Was it mentioned? No, but then again I never said I was absolutely sure about it. It does seem natural however. What else would it have been? (And again, it's not specifically mentioned in the Bible, so I very well could be wrong about this)
In any case, having whatever it was would not have meant they knew right from wrong (the knowledge of good and evi)- doing the right thing was merely natural to them, because they didn't know anything else they could do (or they simply weren't interested, which answers your last point).


And basically wouldn't that mean that they were punished, not because they did something evil, but merely because they went against some kind of instinct?

They were punished for disobeying (rebelling against) God by eating the fruit. He specifcally said to not eat of it, yet they both did. Eve could easily have said no, but the was convinced by the serpent that it was ok. She saw it was good for food (greed possibly?) and pleasing to the eye (lust, that's 2 sins right there), so she ate it (flat out disobedience). Adam was even more excuseless; he just randomly ate it when she gave it to him.

Third, God does punish them for disobeying, but the reason he throws them out of the garden Eden is not because of that - he fears that they would become too powerful if they ate from the tree of life.
He feared them having power? I'd have to disagree with that. Not allowing them to eat of the tree of life was the just thing to do. I'm assuming you're referencing to Genesis 3:22-23, the first of which says, "He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." Why did He say that? Because they had sinned and, as part of the punishment, had to die at some point. Eating of the tree of life would have stopped that from happening, so He said that musn't happen.

Its a statement like this that makes me think your religious mindset has overwhelmed your scientific mindset.

It could have, it could have, I am not in a good position to say. But if you were to meet God personally, I would imagine that lots of your 'scientific ideas' would go out the window also. All of our ideas are influenced by our experiences. I cannot stop believing in God just because I want to do science. Neither do I see any reason to stop doing science because I believe in a personal God. For me, science and faith are completely compatible, but obviously different areas of knowledge (with some overlap, of course).


Research is continuous and ongoing. The "natural causes" you consider "ruled out" couldn't be discovered at some later date?

This is a good point, of course, and the scientific position is one of 'never say never'. However, what I had in mind was the conclusion that, e.g., life must come from life. Once upon a time, people thought that living maggots came from dead meat. I think it was Louis Pasteur? that did the experiment to show that the maggots were only in the meat that was exposed, while the sealed meat was maggot-free. The conclusion was that life must come from life. Does anyone rule out the maggots can actually come from the meat (rather than the fly eggs)? Not really. But nobody continued to think that maggots may actually come from dead meat. In this way, a natural cause can not be completely ruled out, but shown to be rather unlikely, even to the point that no one really considers it anymore. I doubt that we will ever be able to demonstrate that evolution does or does not account for the origin of species. But we may uncover more information that will make it seem more or less likely. For me, it has a long way to go before I consider it likely. It seems to have already convinced others though. I am a natural skeptic, of course, even in matters of faith. Like the Apostles themselves, I tend to believe when I am presented with good reasons for belief.


What if scientists in the 18th century, or 19th, for that matter, fell victim to your reasoning, and started assigning supernatural causes to every principal that hadn't been explained yet?

I generally don't have that problem in my own research, so I guess I see no reason why my position should unnecessarily invoke the supernatural. When I realize that I lack information in my research, and that that information looks impossible to procure, I don't invoke a creator. This is not how the process works. I would only speculate on a Creator IF the information points that way, and if I have enough information that makes a Creator look more likely than the sum total of possible natural causes. As you pointed out, I cannot rule out the possibility of an undiscovered natural cause, but I can speculate over what I think is more likely based on what I currently know of natural causes.


By your own protocol of "intelligence", God would have been attributed lots of things. Fortunately, there are "unintelligent" folks like me that will continue to look for natural explanations, and hold our pesky belief that just because a natural cause isn't discovered as of today, it is by no means "ruled out".

By all means, folks like you should continue to look. I am certainly not against that. In fact, I spend all my research time looking at natural causes also. And I don't believe for a second that we should rule out possibility of discovering more natural causes. What we can do, though, is determine whether the known natural causes are sufficient. These causes may be 'ruled out', depending on how much we know about them.


I'm sure you're a great scientist, Bruarong, and I say that sincerely. But I must question your premise that a "ruled out" cause must be God, and not simply an undiscovered natural principal.

I've never claimed greatness in any area of my life, neither do I believe that I am great. Neither do I claim that ruling out causes means that 'it must be God'. I don't go there in my experiments and hypotheses. That is not how I discover how God did things. I believe that God exists and that He created the world. I don't know how He did it, neither does my science depend on this knowledge.
It may be that my belief does interfere with my science, but I cannot see how it does. I am open to the possibility of undiscovered natural causes, of course, but I am also open to the possibility of creation. I see my position as more open minded than the one that is restricted to natural causes. Since we are on the hunt for truth in the material world, must we be condemned to explaining everything in terms of natural causes, even when they do not appear to work? Why not live with open questions than embrace an obviously flawed theory?

How do you know there's no other possibility? Christianity is one religion among many. It doesn't explain anything beyond what most religions do. It is almost exclusively based on other religions..

How do I know? I suppose it's because I daily experience God in a way that validates what I find in the Bible. It is not my claim that Christ is the only way to God. It was Christ's, according to the Bible.


In a situation where you don't know the nature of an object, but think you can rule out a possibility, you can't automatically jump to conclusions, based on what you think it isn't.


I'm not suggesting that we ought to jump to conclusions, but to arrive at them in a reasonable and methodical fashion.


It may have slipped by you, but the reason my boots got dragged into this, is because they're things we can easily prove the existence of. I'm sure you won't dispute this. They also happen to be the sort of object that fits the definition of a god. Many people show a great deal of reverence for them, threat them in a ritualistic manner & so on.

What I hope doesn't slip by you is the incredibly big difference between the idea of a Christian God and that of a boot. The Bible also talks about humans making gods from inanimate objects, and ridicules it as foolishness. You can hold to the idea of a boot creating the world, but it isn't the same as believing that God created the world. You are comparing God (unlimited power) to a boot (no power).


So. Why aren't my boots a perfectly good candidate for "creator of everything & then some"? They fit the definition of gods. You are now reading that they can create universes, if they so please, and that they did create this one. And lastly, the little bonus property: they exist.

I don't believe that God created the universe simply because a someone claimed so. I first believed because I heard people that I knew and loved and respected claim so. I was fortunate to grow up in a community which had excellent Christian leaders, some in my own family. I believed their testimony because I could see by their lives that they were truthful, honest, intelligent, kind, gentle and wise. They were not faultless, but they were Godly people. They claimed that God not only existed but that they had personal experience of Him. The result was that I believed their testimony. A similar thing happens when a young person reads a book or hears a teacher proclaim that God does not exist, because of such and such. The young person is not necessarily doing the investigation personally, but often taking someone else's word for it, when they become an atheist.

As for myself, as I grew older, I came to experience God for myself and see His hand at work in everyday life. I can easily see the contrast between those who live with God and those who don't. It's like chalk and cheese. For me, evidence of God's existence fills my world completely. I live with Him daily. How could I not believe that He exists? I would sooner question my own existence, or that of my wife, or my mother and father. I'm not a fanatic. I simply have to be honest, when you question me, or simply shut up.


Your god doesn't have as much going for it. It's written it can & did create the universe. Some people treat your god as a god. No-one can prove your god isn't a figment of your imagination.

In the same way, no one can prove that you are not a figment of someone else's imagination. How does that help? I don't claim to be able to prove God to you, but I do claim that you are able to prove God's existence. It would mean that you would have to take a certain journey, a direction with your life, and allow God to do the rest.


Before you throw a fit, consider for a moment how absurd your religion appears to an outsider like me. You might think this boot talk is insane, but I honestly think your religion is even more ridiculous. Though it's all quite insane, placing your beliefs in something that it is wholly unreasonable to assume exists, kind of tops the boot thing.We can't discuss "best bet's" without evidence.

There is evidence, but it better when it is personally discovered evidence. The evidence that I could provide for can always be made to look absurd. Not that hard really. I suppose one could make anything look absurd if he really wanted to. Looking absurd is not the test of truth, since truth is often stranger than fiction. The only way you can really test the truth in the claims of Christianity is to 1. commit yourself to the truth, no matter where you find it, and 2. attempt a reasonable and thorough investigation of the claims of Christianity. But I have to ask you, do you love the truth?


You can prove my boot exists, if you're willing to try. You can't possibly prove your god exists.

Like I said before, I can satisfy myself intellectally that God does exist. But I admit that I probably cannot satisfy your demands.


If you're interested in what you think is the truth, then there's no reason to debate this any further. We both know you think your religion is the ultimate truth. If you're interested in "best bet's" then you should apply the same criticism to your religion, as you do to all your other beliefs, such as other religions, science & so on.

When discussing this issue with people in your position, I have to approach the existence of God from the 'best bets' position, not because I doubt God, but because I want to engage in a relatively intelligent discussion with a skeptic. For me personally, there is no question about whether I think God is true or not. I've gone past that point several years ago. It's a bit like meeting the woman of your dreams. Before you meet her, you wonder if she exists, and when you meet her, you are still wondering from time to time if she exists or is a figment of your imagination, but ten years after you meet her, you no longer wonder if she exists (except for those rare moments when the feelings of wonder seem overwhelming), but you are still grateful and glad to have met her. However, when discussing her with someone who is skeptical about her existence, you might take the 'best bet' approach, since the skeptic won't listen to you otherwise.



You reject a host of fairly solid ideas, because they aren't solid enough for you. Then you jump off the logic train & embrace your religious beliefs, despite having nothing but reasons for not doing it.

Sure, I reject the non-existence of God, because I have good evidence, good reasons, and it all seems to hold water for me. You, on the other hand, have rejected the existence of God because......why exactly? I certainly argue that my faith is a reasonable one, and that 'jumping off the logic train' is not only unnecessary, but foolish. What can be more reasonable than faith that is grounded in solid reasoning. It isn't a mistake that God gave us reasoning abilities.


I'm inclined to ask you why, just like I asked the other poster.. But I doubt you'll answer.And that too, is precisely the reason we don't believe in the Christian God.Indeed it is, but in a different context. You have no frame of reference. A high energy physicist does have some frame of reference. Idle speculation is pointless.

Speculation is not necessarily a bad thing. We all have varying degrees of understanding of the physical world, and should not be barred from speculation simply because our understanding happens to be less than the next person. I know enough about the material world to know that the concept of the big bang violates almost everything I know about the material world, except for the idea that things tend to move away from the center of an explosion, consistent with the observation that things in the universe are still moving. Matter does not appear spontaneously in this world. Neither do explosions. How is this idle speculation?


Theoretical science is just that. It isn't directly based on observations, because it can't be. There's limits to what we can observe.

Sounds like you are suggesting that theoretical science is somewhat like idle speculation. If there is no observations involved, then it isn't science. Science depends on the five senses, mostly sight. Remove the senses, and it isn't science. It has to be observable, in some degree or another. So no matter how theoretical science gets, it cannot be removed from its dependency on the senses. This would be a limitation on any science, not only theoretical science.


While energy was created in the big bang, no-one knows whether energy was indeed what caused the big bang to happen. A good deal of people think that's the case. Some thinks that branes may have collided & others have other ideas.

Energy was created? Good heavens, man, you are making idle speculations now. How could energy be created from nothing? Is there any evidence for this? And if 'branes' collided, where did they come from, or are they eternal?


Again, I'm not the person you need to bitch to. I've clearly stated that I don't know what happened & don't know how. All I know is the result.

Yes, we are both looking at the same material world. The difference is that you have your set of beliefs, with no physical evidence for them, while I also have a set of beliefs, based on personal experience of God.


Yea sorry about that. It got a little rushed. Matter doesn't create matter. Matter can be spontanously created, is what I meant to say. Matter & energy is interchangable.


I cannot agree that matter can be spontaneously created. Created out of nothing, that is. One can shift energy into matter and visa versa, but the idea of creating matter from nothing is based on the idea that anti-matter is a byproduct. We have no evidence for anti-matter.


The lot of what we have is the result of the big bang.Why would anyone "accept" the existence of god(s), when they find a god-less explanation too incredible?

For me, it's not that I find a big bang too incredible to believe, although there may be some in that position. For me, I am skeptical of a big bang because I have a personal knowledge of God, and while he may have created via a big bang, He certainly did not need to do it this way. I reject that idea that a big bang happened independently of God, not because it is absolutely impossible, but because it really is unlikely.


Once you've accepted the existence of a god, the logical thing would be to attempt to verify all your knowledge of it. Alas, even if it did exist, such a thing wouldn't be possible.

Of course one should attempt to verify the existence of God. Obviously not through science, but through the journey of one's life, using reason, logic, integrity, humility, and faith (and a healthy sense of humour certainly helps).


So regardless of how you approach this, there's no rationale behind blaming god for various things - even if god is there.

I think it is only normal to blame God for evil in the world, until one learns about the reason for evil as described in the Bible. Put together with the knowledge that you and I do bad things all the time, or at least things that we know are not right and good (another way of putting it), then we can perhaps see that humans are capable of evil and are perhaps the greatest source of evil in the world. Of course we are also capable of good. We are made, after all, in the image of a Maker.