Controversial Topic (Creation vs Evolution 2?)
Sort:
Aug 16, 2019
0
#322
So yeah, the whole suffering thing is definitely the hardest point to answer. Don’t imagine I underestimate it. I’d like to see the evidence about Job too. I’ll check into it. I’d like to say that I can give you a wonderful explanation about why five year olds die of leukemia. I can’t. I don’t think anyone can give a satisfactory explanation for that. I have pretty answers I could give you, but they wouldn’t change anything. Also I’m too tired to do any more research....
Aug 16, 2019
0
#323
To design a world without plate tectonics would be illogical, since the conditions would no longer be livable....take any geology class and the decidedly evolutionary professors will tell you that
What about stepping out of a material perspective and seeing there’s Infinite Dimensions, and to such a Creator it’s as simple as blinking an eye? Such A Creator Being Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent His Infiniteness Has Him Constantly Create, Perhaps? Such A Creator Defining Intelligence, And He’s Given A Book To Seek Such Inquires To Whomsoever Desiring Every Answer Truth Has.
Aug 17, 2019
0
#325
Just because evil exists, doesn't mean that god has to create a world with evil and suffering in it.
He didn't! Man introduced evil by choosing to doubt the love of God and disobey Him.
Aug 17, 2019
0
#327
GRANDMASTER_100 wrote:
He didn't! Man introduced evil by choosing to doubt the love of God and disobey Him.
But that can't be an evil act (which is obvious anyway, eating fruit has never been a crime), since according to you evil didn't exist then so therefore god introduced evil into an otherwise alright world.
God did not introduce evil, the serpent, by his temptation, and Adam and Eve, by their disobedience, did.
And as for "eating fruit has never been a crime":
GRANDMASTER_100 wrote:
Regarding the discussion about the original sin a few pages back, I think some of you don not fully understand the event. Adam and Eve did not just decide to eat a fruit from a random tree. They were basically provided with unlimited access to the vast expanse of the Garden of Eden, except for the fruit of 1 tree. Yet they overlooked their blessings and decided to disobey their creator. This is not 'incredibly minor'
The analogy of telling a child not to eat a sweet is invalid here. Instead, try giving a child the choice of an unlimited supply of sweets, cakes, etc, as a symbol of your love for that child (as a parent) and then say but you can't have this particular one or you will be punished. What do you think the child will choose?
If the child somehow makes the wrong decision on this easy choice, even with the temptation of a stranger (referencing the devil here), then the child undermines the love that his/her parent has for him/her and does not deserve.
Aug 17, 2019
0
#330
GRANDMASTER_100 wrote:
And as for "eating fruit has never been a crime":
GRANDMASTER_100 wrote:
Regarding the discussion about the original sin a few pages back, I think some of you don not fully understand the event. Adam and Eve did not just decide to eat a fruit from a random tree. They were basically provided with unlimited access to the vast expanse of the Garden of Eden, except for the fruit of 1 tree. Yet they overlooked their blessings and decided to disobey their creator. This is not 'incredibly minor'
The analogy of telling a child not to eat a sweet is invalid here. Instead, try giving a child the choice of an unlimited supply of sweets, cakes, etc, as a symbol of your love for that child (as a parent) and then say but you can't have this particular one or you will be punished. What do you think the child will choose?
If the child somehow makes the wrong decision on this easy choice, even with the temptation of a stranger (referencing the devil here), then the child undermines the love that his/her parent has for him/her and does not deserve.
Disobedience is only serious crime in a dictatorship. If that's the justice system you want and think is moral then you can find your own way to North Korea.
Your thing about the unlimited supply of sweets doesn't work. If the child is told by a third power that they will get super powers or something they don't already have, then they are likely to eat the one sweet.
Undermining the love of a parent isn't a crime really. I think a lot of children have told their parents they hate them after they weren't allowed something.
Disobedience is the only thing Adam and Eve has done, which I think should be rewarded. The ability to think for themselves rather than just obey a set of commands by a complete nutter. Similar to the protests in Russia.
A dictatorship is not founded by unconditional love, and the leaders of this system of government does not create its citizens and provide them with all that they need. This comparison is therefore invalid.
That sweet analogy was in response to an similar analogy used earlier on. Knowledge of good and evil is not a superpower. Think of it this way, Adam and Eve were given the maximal amount of "things" (can't think of a better word) that they would ever a require to live a happy life that their creator wanted for them. Despite this, they decided to obey the serpent and disobey their creator.
First of all, in what world is undermining the love of your parent isn't a bad thing? When it leads to disobeying, do children not get punished? Secondly, it is imperative to understand that it would be foolish to directly compare the unconditional love of God to the conditional/fluctuating love that parents have. Note this is a generalisation (And before someone attacks me because of this, I don't have kids of my own)
So now think disobedience should be rewarded? I understand where you're coming from, but again context is important. Being granted everything to leave an eternal happy life is completely different to being in an oppressive state. (I don't know much about what's going on in Russia). Disobedience to a righteous, just God, undeserving of it, will always be a bad thing.
Aug 17, 2019
0
#332
GRANDMASTER_100 wrote:
A dictatorship is not founded by unconditional love, and the leaders of this system of government does not create its citizens and provide them with all that they need. This comparison is therefore invalid.
That sweet analogy was in response to an similar analogy used earlier on. Knowledge of good and evil is not a superpower. Think of it this way, Adam and Eve were given the maximal amount of "things" (can't think of a better word) that they would ever a require to live a happy life that their creator wanted for them. Despite this, they decided to obey the serpent and disobey their creator.
First of all, in what world is undermining the love of your parent isn't a bad thing? When it leads to disobeying, do children not get punished? Secondly, it is imperative to understand that it would be foolish to directly compare the unconditional love of God to the conditional/fluctuating love that parents have. Note this is a generalisation (And before someone attacks me because of this, I don't have kids of my own)
So now think disobedience should be rewarded? I understand where you're coming from, but again context is important. Being granted everything to leave an eternal happy life is completely different to being in an oppressive state. (I don't know much about what's going on in Russia). Disobedience to a righteous, just God, undeserving of it, will always be a bad thing.
In a dictatorship the people do believe that their dictator created and loves them especially North Korea where they believe that Kim jong Un's granddad is a god and President of North Korea. The state does provide them with government services which they need to survive.
The serpent convinced them that if they could get something they don't already have if they eat fruit from a specific tree. In this case it was knowledge, the snake is a con-artist, and Adam and Eve are merely victims of the snake. The fact that they only ate fruit from a tree is surprisingly important. If god didn't say anything to them, then eat fruit from that tree would be perfectly ok, but because the big dictator boss said it's bad, it therefore becomes evil is not how morality works. We don't kill people not because the law says so (well I hope not) we don't do it because it's an evil thing to do.
Undermining the love of a parent is a naughty thing to do and they are told it's wrong to do so. It in no way makes the child evil, kids do bad things because they're kids. Also, most and good parents love their kids unconditionally, ask your parents if you're unsure. You can see in the news commonly when people do bad things and their parents defend them! (wrongly or rightly is a different matter) Shamima Begum is an example. She joined ISIS and wants to come back to Britain and her parents merely taint it as a mistake.
How are people to know when to protest. Protests are unlikely in north Korea since they believe their leader is god-like and a lot of the people (probably not most though) their are happy to live in the dictatorship under their divine leader. God is oppressive because Adam and Eve can't eat from the tree for the only reason that god says so. If god says so is a reason to do anything then it isn't good enough. We forget God lied to them which is an immoral action. He said that they will die if they eat from the tree, they didn't.
Aug 17, 2019
0
#333
eryxc wrote:
FYI RULES:
1. All political topics, biblical topics, and all religious talk open (yes mods, i’ll PM you if there is need)
2. Post about my comment
3. Please no spamming. That’s all I ask!
My topic:
Have you ever asked yourself, where the universe came from? Why everything exists instead of just nothing? Typically disbelievers imply Out of nothing, comes nothing. So why does the universe exist instead of just nothing? Where did it come from? There must have been a cause which brought the universe into being.
Whatever begins to exist has a cause, The universe began to exist therefore the universe has a cause
given that this is a fact we can draw a conclusion that from the very nature of the case, this cause must be a changeless, timeless and immaterial being which created the universe. It must be uncaused because we have seen that there cannot be an infinite regress of causes. It must be timeless and therefore changeless-at least without the universe-because it created time. Because it also created space, it must transcend space as well and therfore be immaterial, not physical.
Summary of reasoning:
- Everything has a cause
- Therefore there must be something which has no cause
- Therefore something has no cause
- Therefore assumption 1 is wrong
- Who cares, it's not as if we really care about making sense
I do not accept the first axiom.
When you investigate the foundations of mathematics, what you find is what has been neatly described as a "primordial ooze" of truth. There is not really any unique bottom level, there are merely a number of places you can start all of which are consistent with each other.
Is it necessary to have a cause for the fact that counting makes sense? Is it necessary to have a cause for the fact that predicate logic makes sense? I don't believe so: these things are just intrinsically true. They are descriptions of abstract patterns that can exist. They don't need anything to make it possible for them to potentially exist, i.e. no cause is needed.
In my opinion it is in this sort of thing that the foundations of reality are to be found. There is no reason why all physical reality cannot be aspects of that which is intrinsically true. I can't think of a better candidate, because I am comfortable with the fact that intrinsic truth exists without the need for a cause.
My Amos quotes seem to have been ignored.
What if HEAVEN (God) was all there actually is and the only separation is based because the beginning rebellion from one who was claimed to be an angel, therefore causing such separation, and such void referenced in the beginning Chapter of His Scriptures, God’s that is, happens to be all the darkness since that rebelling angel, causing nothing but confliction, dismay, and stupidity?
To rebel The Infinite Intelligence Of The Altogether Lovely Creator, SOURCE Of Life has got to be why there’s such a word AS stupid.
gingerninja2003 wrote:
Just because evil exists, doesn't mean that god has to create a world with evil and suffering in it.
The Very First Chapter Of Genesis had not whatsoever an iota of anything that would oppose HIS Very Goodness He Only Created, not even a garden of eden referenced, with it’s pathetic tree of opposing knowledge of Such Goodness. That begins the following chapter at verse six with another form of creation, a false foundation that Isaiah 2:22 says to cease from. I say to HELL with evil. On An Eternal Note.
Aug 17, 2019
0
#338
TheBestBeer_Root wrote:
gingerninja2003 wrote:
Just because evil exists, doesn't mean that god has to create a world with evil and suffering in it.
The Very First Chapter Of Genesis had not whatsoever an iota of anything that would oppose HIS Very Goodness He Only Created, not even a garden of eden referenced, with it’s pathetic tree of opposing knowledge of Such Goodness. That begins the following chapter at verse six with another form of creation, a false foundation that Isaiah 2:22 says to cease from. I say to HELL with evil. On An Eternal Note.
I don't really get your point. Except that the bible contradicts itself with two different creation accounts.
The idea that God created the universe out of nothing (creation ex nihilo) has become central to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, but it is not found directly in Genesis, nor in the entire Hebrew Bible.
I will throw out there that most earthquakes are caused by movement along faults and plate tectonics. Just a funny not so serious point, but maybe if the folks in Cali weren’t living on a giant fault there might not be as many homes destroyed. Same goes for Japan.