Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Or, more correctly, the flaws I can see with believing in a God. I'm not going to embellish here, but these are some of the flaws I see in believing in God (meaning the God of Classical Theism):

1. Evolution.
2. Evil and suffering. Why would an all-loving God create a world where his 'children' are often subjected to pain? Before anybody mentions the fall from the garden of eden, an all-knowing God would have known this was going to occur, and planned accordingly.
3. The Bible. Two major points here - the fall from Eden. If Adam and Eve hadn't yet eaten from the 'Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil', then how can God hold them to account for doing so, since they obviously weren't aware what they were doing was wrong? Also, the sheer vindictiveness of God in the Old Testament astounds me.
4. Why would God want or need to create the world? If he really is infinite (in every sense of the word), then there would be no reason for him to create the world.
5. What did God do before creating the world, and what will he do afterwards?

I'm sure more will come to me, and if they do I'll post them up.

Oh, finally:

6. I see no reason to believe in God, especially the God of any particular religion. If I was to believe, I'd determine my own concept of a God, not let someone else tell me what to believe in.

Did you change the thread title?

Yeah, I did. I was trying to get across the purpose of the thread, and the first title sounded a bit convoluted.

And now I'm curious as to what the title was prior. hmm

A lot of your points simply stem from the way in which people read The Bible. People take everything said word for word and believe it, without even questioning it.

So, to you, which of these three don't apply to God:
Benevolent (all-loving), omnipotent (all-powerful), or omniscient (all-knowning)?

If they all apply, then points 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6 still stand.

Not what I was saying Trick. I agree with your post, I was just saying that interpratation is what causes the problems, as you said yourself in the 1st paragraph "Or, more correctly, the flaws I can see with believing in a God."...

Originally posted by Trickster
Or, more correctly, the flaws I can see with believing in a God. I'm not going to embellish here, but these are some of the flaws I see in believing in God (meaning the God of Classical Theism):

1. Evolution.
2. Evil and suffering. Why would an all-loving God create a world where his 'children' are often subjected to pain? Before anybody mentions the fall from the garden of eden, an all-knowing God would have known this was going to occur, and planned accordingly.
3. The Bible. Two major points here - the fall from Eden. If Adam and Eve hadn't yet eaten from the 'Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil', then how can God hold them to account for doing so, since they obviously weren't aware what they were doing was wrong? Also, the sheer vindictiveness of God in the Old Testament astounds me.
4. Why would God want or need to create the world? If he really is infinite (in every sense of the word), then there would be no reason for him to create the world.
5. What did God do before creating the world, and what will he do afterwards?

I'm sure more will come to me, and if they do I'll post them up.

Oh, finally:

6. I see no reason to believe in God, especially the God of any particular religion. If I was to believe, I'd determine my own concept of a God, not let someone else tell me what to believe in.

Since when was God limited to the Bible, and how exactly is ''bible'' problem with God?

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Since when was God limited to the Bible, and how exactly is ''bible'' problem with God?

Well, when talking about the God of the Bible some might say it is limited to that.

Perhaps you missed the term 'God of Classical Theism'? Since that expressly means a God based on Holy Scripture, the Bible would indeed be the source for any discussion of this God.

I'm aware I missed off the Qu'ran and Torah, but assume they are included. As for why the Bible is a problem, perhaps you can give me a satisfactory answer to my question on the Fall? There are other problems I have with the Bible, but I was trying to keep my post succinct

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Since when was God limited to the Bible, and how exactly is ''bible'' problem with God?

Well, the Christians (or alternatively Muslims of Jews) claim their God is the one and only - and the Holy Text of that religion is the pinnacle of Divine Interaction - the teachings as it were of the God itself.

Thus the Bible is a problem when one approaches the monotheistic Abrahamic deity for many reasons, including the ones listed. For some to believe in the God the Bible describes... well, many find problems with believing in the Biblical one - be it for theodicy (the question of good and evil) which is has always been a big question. An all good, all powerful God, ruling over a world were suffering and "evil" are commonplace.

I'm probably on your side in this debate Trickster, but there's at least 3-4 things on your list there that could easily be shot down by most rational theologians (not just of Christianity, but various religions).

That said, I agree that there's flaws with the mainstream conception of "God" (at least in the Western sense of the word), but your execution of the matter leaves a bit to be desired.

Besides, why attack a God you don't think exists? I try to extend understanding to others that I don't agree with....while saving my attacks for the negativity, racism, ignorance, hatred, and other undesirables that know no bounds of religion.

I'm not attacking any God - I'm just putting up the reasons I have for being cynical of such a God existing. It's a subject I'm interested in.

I imagine 1, 3 and 6 are the ones you're referring to, but I still think they are relevant points.

Originally posted by Trickster
I imagine 1, 3 and 6 are the ones you're referring to, but I still think they are relevant points.

...also 2, but yeah.

But hey, an opinion is an opinion. I'm glad you're at least getting yours out there.

Cheers.

I'd definitely like to see a theologian explain away 2 without raising more flaws.

All-loving... Which means he loves everything... Including evil and suffering?

Well, more that he loves all people. If he loves everybody, then why does he let some people suffer?

Because he doesn't exist... hmm

Originally posted by Trickster
Or, more correctly, the flaws I can see with believing in a God. I'm not going to embellish here, but these are some of the flaws I see in believing in God (meaning the God of Classical Theism):

1. Evolution. I do not see how this threatens the concept, unless of course one believes creation is limited to some method that cannot include evolution. Most intelligent believers in God should have no issue with the possible truth of evolution.
Originally posted by Trickster
2. Evil and suffering. Why would an all-loving God create a world where his 'children' are often subjected to pain? Before anybody mentions the fall from the garden of eden, an all-knowing God would have known this was going to occur, and planned accordingly. Evil is a product of erroneous use of freedom. Punishment prior to action would be unjust. As for naturally occuring suffering, I don't know. Perhaps chaos theory would predict that following thousands of years of free action man would have screwed the world up to the point that such would be a predictable result. There is little reference to naturally occurring suffering in the Bible prior to the flood, this is plenty of time to have begun a cycle that would lead to increased suffering.
Such a statement assumes that these are somehow God's fault. I find them amusing as in the same breath one would probably attack God as vindictive if he interfered with the "freedom" of man.
Originally posted by Trickster
3. The Bible. Two major points here - the fall from Eden. If Adam and Eve hadn't yet eaten from the 'Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil', then how can God hold them to account for doing so, since they obviously weren't aware what they were doing was wrong? Also, the sheer vindictiveness of God in the Old Testament astounds me. It is not vindictive since God did give Adam and Eve the knowledge that an undesirable consequence would follow the transgression.
Originally posted by Trickster
4. Why would God want or need to create the world? If he really is infinite (in every sense of the word), then there would be no reason for him to create the world. I think this comes from erroneous theological philosophies contrived by men. I think this is a valid question to ask most Christians, as for them God didn't need to do it. Mormons believe God did it because it is in his nature to create, and as such, creation is an eternal thing that God will continue to do. We are not the only world God has created, and we are probably not the first or last world he will create.
Originally posted by Trickster
5. What did God do before creating the world, and what will he do afterwards? Another valid question for most Christians. Mormons believe he continues creating, as stated in response to #4. Joy and rejoicing in one's posterity.

Originally posted by Trickster
I'm sure more will come to me, and if they do I'll post them up.

Oh, finally:

6. I see no reason to believe in God, especially the God of any particular religion. If I was to believe, I'd determine my own concept of a God, not let someone else tell me what to believe in. If there is a God, probability would state that he has manifested himself at some point. People are funny, they believe if there is a God that it should conform to what they believe God should be. Such is irrational, perspective is insufficient to know the impact of what we consider would be good and what we would consider evil, and our limited perspective cannot judge actions that impact millennia.

people made gods so..........

The idea that a "good" God allows "evil" to exist is a polarized view of the world.

In many traditions, the two don't exist. They're the same thing, and it's a matter of perception and levels of consciousness.

Christianity also has myths that speak to this theme, though they have gotten far, far away from them by emphasizing ideas of God=good and Satan=bad. An unecessary, and damaging duality-driven way of looking at the world.

as it is with all religions zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Originally posted by Trickster
Or, more correctly, the flaws I can see with believing in a God. I'm not going to embellish here, but these are some of the flaws I see in believing in God (meaning the God of Classical Theism):

1. Evolution.
2. Evil and suffering. Why would an all-loving God create a world where his 'children' are often subjected to pain? Before anybody mentions the fall from the garden of eden, an all-knowing God would have known this was going to occur, and planned accordingly.
3. The Bible. Two major points here - the fall from Eden. If Adam and Eve hadn't yet eaten from the 'Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil', then how can God hold them to account for doing so, since they obviously weren't aware what they were doing was wrong? Also, the sheer vindictiveness of God in the Old Testament astounds me.
4. Why would God want or need to create the world? If he really is infinite (in every sense of the word), then there would be no reason for him to create the world.
5. What did God do before creating the world, and what will he do afterwards?

I'm sure more will come to me, and if they do I'll post them up.

Oh, finally:

6. I see no reason to believe in God, especially the God of any particular religion. If I was to believe, I'd determine my own concept of a God, not let someone else tell me what to believe in.

Is everything you find in the flaws with God coming straight out of the Bible?! The Bible was undoubtedly edited over the years to fit certain cultures and beliefs! Nowadays, who honestly believes in the Adam and Eve story? God was busy creating other worlds and universes before ours.

Originally posted by finti
as it is with all religions zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Here we go again! Finti comes in and makes a snide remark. Are actually at one point going to post something constructive on this forum, or are you going to keep making snide remarks?

Originally posted by Regret
I do not see how this threatens the concept, unless of course one believes creation is limited to some method that cannot include evolution. Most intelligent believers in God should have no issue with the possible truth of evolution.
I tossed this one in because some people do believe in the literal Biblical creation story.

Having already accepted evolution, I assume you also agree that there must have been billions of years in which humans had no consciousness or ability to make decisions, so I don't see how you can claim that natural accidents are any fault of humanity. Meteors, for example, cannot have been affected by humans. Even less catastrophic events, such as death by disease, have been around longer than humans.
Also, since God would already know that all this suffering was going to occur, why would he create the world? Why didn't he create a world, and a humanity, which didn't suffer and receive pain, or at least had less pain?

I wasn't aware God had given them this knowledge. As such, I retract that statement, but replace it with the question "Why did God feel it necessary to tempt Adam and Eve when he already knew what would happen?"

(I put both these responses together, as they are the same)
It's an interesting response, and not one I've heard before. If we are not the only world God's created, then why do we hold ourselves in such an exalted status?


I wasn't quite sure of your point here, but it looks like you're criticising the nature of humans to define God - something I greatly agree with. As I said, I would prefer my own God, relevant to my own life, rather than a God defined thousands of years ago.

Thanks for your reply, by the way. My threads never seem to interest people.

Originally posted by Council#13
Is everything you find in the flaws with God coming straight out of the Bible?! The Bible was undoubtedly edited over the years to fit certain cultures and beliefs! Nowadays, who honestly believes in the Adam and Eve story? God was busy creating other worlds and universes before ours.

Yes. I already addressed this point in response to Lil's comment. However, 2, 4 and 5 are not just Bible-related. (6 too.)

Originally posted by Trickster
Perhaps you missed the term 'God of Classical Theism'? Since that expressly means a God based on Holy Scripture, the Bible would indeed be the source for any discussion of this God.

I'm aware I missed off the Qu'ran and Torah, but assume they are included. As for why the Bible is a problem, perhaps you can give me a satisfactory answer to my question on the Fall? There are other problems I have with the Bible, but I was trying to keep my post succinct

I don't believe Bible is the problem with God. I think the God is problem with the Bible.

Since I believe there are certain philosophical aspect of the Bible which can be taken away and implemented as a greater good, - the idea of Sadistic deity is the initial problem with it. Same applies to Qur'an and Torah.


Provided you take away the Deity, there could well be a lot of excellent philosophical and humaneterian ideas in there.

Problem with God isn't Bible, but other way around.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Well, the Christians (or alternatively Muslims of Jews) claim their God is the one and only - and the Holy Text of that religion is the pinnacle of Divine Interaction - the teachings as it were of the God itself.

Thus the Bible is a problem when one approaches the monotheistic Abrahamic deity for many reasons, including the ones listed. For some to believe in the God the Bible describes... well, many find problems with believing in the Biblical one - be it for theodicy (the question of good and evil) which is has always been a big question. An all good, all powerful God, ruling over a world were suffering and "evil" are commonplace.

Refer to above.


Besides, I believe it is wrong to limit God to Bible, Qur'an or Torah.
Limiting God to one of those scriptures, or even the three of them, is the same as claiming that there is one true path to a deity.

Based on that, furthermore, it is easy to dispute the lack of existence of a deity, because understanding of such deity is limited to three books.

Infinitively wise being, who has created everything and all, cannot be limited to books. I think the infinate would suggest that.

What is more, if such deity does exist, it would logically lead me to believe that it does not hear prayers or answer them, it does not care for prayers or praises.

Truth is a pathless land - God, if it ineed does exist is everything around us, including ourselves.
There is, therefore, no need for belief in devil or a sadistic deity of the kind, because humans are lone are quite capable of every evil imaginable.

Reflecting, thus on my post, the initial thread theme is very limited - it DOES NOT at any level demonstrates any plausible ''flaws with God'' - it shows flaws with a single definition of God.

If you are trying to demonstrate the fallibility of Christianity, Islam or Judaism, those are more than evident, repeated and constantly revealed.

If you are trying to show the fallibility of existence of a deity, you are not, by any stretch of imagination, doing that.

Originally posted by Trickster

I tossed this one in because some people do believe in the literal Biblical creation story.
Yes, I believe these people are often in error.
Originally posted by Trickster
Having already accepted evolution, I assume you also agree that there must have been billions of years in which humans had no consciousness or ability to make decisions, so I don't see how you can claim that natural accidents are any fault of humanity. Meteors, for example, cannot have been affected by humans. Even less catastrophic events, such as death by disease, have been around longer than humans.
Also, since God would already know that all this suffering was going to occur, why would he create the world? Why didn't he create a world, and a humanity, which didn't suffer and receive pain, or at least had less pain? To tell you the truth I am not entirely positive as to the origin of man. I believe God created man and the other creatures, but man is a separate and more complex creation imo. As to suffering, perhaps it is necessary to teach compassion and empathy. Perhaps any creature that is not God is subject to these things by virtue of existence. Perhaps suffering and pain are inseparably connected to imperfection. Laws govern existence, I do not believe that God acts outside these laws, I believe he exists within them. Also, if man, supposedly the pinnacle of creation, has pain and suffering as a natural part of existing (e.g. growing pains, birth pains, deterioration due to age resulting in various pains), why would his lesser creations not be similar? As well as large creations such as the planets. Man isn't always the target of events causing pain and suffering, would we have discovered all the things we have without many of these tragic events? Perhaps the events are tragic, but there are positives associated with many. Would man have survived in a world populated with dinosaurs?
Originally posted by Trickster
I wasn't aware God had given them this knowledge. As such, I retract that statement, but replace it with the question "Why did God feel it necessary to tempt Adam and Eve when he already knew what would happen?" Without the possibility of disobedience, can one truly show that one is obedient? If you do not have the freedom to act in a way aside from the prescribed course are you free? I believe the possibility of improper action is necessary for freedom to exist. I don't think God tempted them, he merely told them not to do it, and left the choice to them. Also, consequence must follow action, regardless of proper or improper action.
Originally posted by Trickster
(I put both these responses together, as they are the same)
It's an interesting response, and not one I've heard before. If we are not the only world God's created, then why do we hold ourselves in such an exalted status? I think that is merely something we do. Look at many Christians, they exalt themselves and put down everyone else, such is the sin of pride. It isn't feeling good about oneself, it is feeling of superiority over others.
Originally posted by Trickster
I wasn't quite sure of your point here, but it looks like you're criticising the nature of humans to define God - something I greatly agree with. As I said, I would prefer my own God, relevant to my own life, rather than a God defined thousands of years ago. Yes, I think defining God is illogical. Given the scope of God and our limited perspective, there is no logical or rational way to define such a being. Unless of course he provides defining characteristics, something I feel hasn't truly been done in the Bible.
Originally posted by Trickster
Thanks for your reply, by the way. My threads never seem to interest people. You're welcome, this thread may garner a decent number of responses.

Regret...in your justification for human suffering you supposed that it must be necessary for the learning of empathy and compassion.

The claim that God needs anything implies he is finite and not truly infinite as you would try to push.

Can you show me proof of god? Of course not, evolution however has been proven by scientists plenty of times. You should really look it up someday, it isn't just a stupid theory.. It's as close to scientific fact as you can get.

Originally posted by Regret
To tell you the truth I am not entirely positive as to the origin of man. I believe God created man and the other creatures, but man is a separate and more complex creation imo. As to suffering, perhaps it is necessary to teach compassion and empathy. Perhaps any creature that is not God is subject to these things by virtue of existence. Perhaps suffering and pain are inseparably connected to imperfection. Laws govern existence, I do not believe that God acts outside these laws, I believe he exists within them. Also, if man, supposedly the pinnacle of creation, has pain and suffering as a natural part of existing (e.g. growing pains, birth pains, deterioration due to age resulting in various pains), why would his lesser creations not be similar? As well as large creations such as the planets. Man isn't always the target of events causing pain and suffering, would we have discovered all the things we have without many of these tragic events? Perhaps the events are tragic, but there are positives associated with many. Would man have survived in a world populated with dinosaurs?

That looks to me a somewhat controversial view. If God operates within the laws of nature, then how exactly did he create the universe? Ex nihilo? I don't think it's possible to create something from nothing, according to the governing laws of nature - though I'm open to being told otherwise.
I'm not arguing that the existence of pain in animals is a flaw in itself - rather questioning why an all-loving God would feel the need to create things such as disease and starvation. And if he was all-powerful, he would be able to create the positive effects without the negative. (For instance, he could have created a world in which humans and dinosaurs can co-exist.)

Questions also arise as to why God doesn't intervene in massive catastrophes - in the New Testament he heals single people, but he never manifests himself as a saviour during genocide or natural disasters. The bubonic plague would be a good example.



That's a fair enough point, but it still seems a somewhat petty experiment - God knew humans would disobey him. It's like leaving out some sweets in front of a small child and telling them not to eat any. Would it not be better for God to punish the person committing the improper action rather than allow that person to harm another?

It also still raises the point as to why God feels it necessary to have obedience - wouldn't it be better to create a human race that was able to determine for itself what is right and wrong? If not, he would have been able to minimise the effects of improper action upon innocents.



But even you say that humans are the pinnacle of God's creation - surely a more humble approach would be better? Gratefulness, rather than pride, that we are the ones chosen to have such a position. (For this one I'm arguing just for the sake of argument - I can see your point).



Yes, there really is no definition of God, other than that he is good. A real definition would probably help a lot of people. My original point still stands - I would rather come to my own understanding of a God, rather than subscribe to the somewhat rigid and conservative view of a deity.



Good to know. I hope it does.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I don't believe Bible is the problem with God. I think the God is problem with the Bible.

Since I believe there are certain philosophical aspect of the Bible which can be taken away and implemented as a greater good, - the idea of Sadistic deity is the initial problem with it. Same applies to Qur'an and Torah.


Provided you take away the Deity, there could well be a lot of excellent philosophical and humaneterian ideas in there.

Problem with God isn't Bible, but other way around.

I'm grateful for your input, but the subject of the philosophical merits of the Bible are not what this thread is about.



I think it is clear enough by my initial post that I am not finding fault with the existence of any deity, but the God of Classical Theism. Since many people do in fact believe in this God, then it seems a relevant issue and one that can be discussed in depth.

As, regrettably, you feel the initial thread topic was limited, then I apologise. However, as I qualified what I meant by the thread title and clearly outlined my aims and arguments, I'd prefer it if you kept any further input in the thread on-topic - instead of criticising the thread itself.

Originally posted by Nocturnalwolf82
God created the world knowing man would fall so that God could die on the cross to save man from hell so that the fallen man could still go to haven even after falling and give God the glory.

God told them not to eat. The serpent (satin) tempted Adam and Eve. Then they eat.

For his Glory. (See #2)


So, to you, God is effectively a glory-seeker? But, because there's nobody he can show off to, he has created a race of people who will be awed by him? If so, he's succeeded in failing at that, because many people do doubt him. (In fact, the majority of the world doubt or deny the existence of the God of any religion.

(To clarify that point, I mean that religions almost always deny the existence of the gods of other religions.)

Originally posted by Trickster


I'm grateful for your input, but the subject of the philosophical merits of the Bible are not what this thread is about.



I think it is clear enough by my initial post that I am not finding fault with the existence of any deity, but the God of Classical Theism. Since many people do in fact believe in this God, then it seems a relevant issue and one that can be discussed in depth.

As, regrettably, you feel the initial thread topic was limited, then I apologise. However, as I qualified what I meant by the thread title and clearly outlined my aims and arguments, I'd prefer it if you kept any further input in the thread on-topic - instead of criticising the thread itself.

What ARE you talking about?
It is on topic. My post has covered everything you have raised in your initial post.

You have tried to somehow explain the flaws with God, and you went on to talk about bible. Initially, you went on to say you were covering Islamic and Jewish God.

You have at no point metnioned Abrahamic God, you have mentioned the flaws with ''god''

For you God is limited to these three religions, adn thus your thread is just exactly the same as every other thread in this forum.

Originally posted by Trickster
Why would an all-loving God create a world where his 'children' are often subjected to pain?

Tough love.

Kinda like when a parent spanks a child for getting out of line.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
What ARE you talking about?
It is on topic. My post has covered everything you have raised in your initial post.

You have tried to somehow explain the flaws with God, and you went on to talk about bible. Initially, you went on to say you were covering Islamic and Jewish God.

You have at no point metnioned Abrahamic God, you have mentioned the flaws with ''god''

For you God is limited to these three religions, adn thus your thread is just exactly the same as every other thread in this forum.

Sorry, but in my first post I make explicit reference to the God of Classical Theism. I have never said that God is limited to those specific three religions, just that it is their God that I would like to discuss in this thread.

Obviously, if I had included other definitions of God then your points would indeed be relevent, but I didn't, so discussing a God that does not care about his creation is not. The entire point of the thread is to discuss the problems with a God of Classical Theism, not suggest alternatives. You didn't 'cover' any of my post - instead you attacked the concept of a God of Classical Theism and the thread itself. As such, much of your post was totally irrelevant to the discussion I am trying to have.

For the purposes of this discussion, the Abrahamic God and the God of Classical Theism are one and the same.

Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Tough love.

Kinda like when a parent spanks a child for getting out of line.

But if God knew what was going to happen, why let it happen?

Like I said above, it's like putting a jar of sweets in a room with a small child and telling the kid not to eat them.

Originally posted by Fishy
Of course not, evolution however has been proven by scientists plenty of times. You should really look it up someday, it isn't just a stupid theory.. It's as close to scientific fact as you can get.
Not even close to scientific fact.
Close to scientific fact:
gravity, atomic orbitals, functions of some of the different parts of the human brain, etc.

Evolution is no where near to being considered a scientific fact yet. Way to many holes and the whole problem with spontaneous regeneration. This is just as closed minded as the Christian and/or agnostic view of intelligent design can be.

Like Regret I believe that evolution is a possilbe method through which God created man, but the scientific evidence does not add up enough for me.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Not even close to scientific fact.
Close to scientific fact:
gravity, atomic orbitals, functions of some of the different parts of the human brain, etc.

Evolution is no where near to being considered a scientific fact yet. Way to many holes and the whole problem with spontaneous regeneration. This is just as closed minded as the Christian and/or agnostic view of intelligent design can be.

Like Regret I believe that evolution is a possilbe method through which God created man, but the scientific evidence does not add up enough for me.

Perhaps you could offer answers to my other points as well?

Originally posted by Trickster
Yes. I already addressed this point in response to Lil's comment. However, 2, 4 and 5 are not just Bible-related. (6 too.)

Well burn me if I won't read everyone's post.

Originally posted by Trickster
Perhaps you could offer answers to my other points as well?
Sure.

God lets us make mistakes. This is how we learn. It is like putting the jar in front of the child. It happens every day in households. If we cannot control ourselves we are unworthy of God. That is why God forgives though. We wants us to learn without damning us and pushing us away.

Why God created the world is a question that is beyond the scope of any mortal to answer. I sometimes think that perhaps God was lonely. Jesus got lonely and I do not find it to be a flaw. God loves us and wants us to love Him back. Its a nice thing if you ask me.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Not even close to scientific fact.
Close to scientific fact:
gravity, atomic orbitals, functions of some of the different parts of the human brain, etc.

Evolution is no where near to being considered a scientific fact yet. Way to many holes and the whole problem with spontaneous regeneration. This is just as closed minded as the Christian and/or agnostic view of intelligent design can be.

Like Regret I believe that evolution is a possilbe method through which God created man, but the scientific evidence does not add up enough for me. "Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.
...
I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms."
Stephen Jay Gould

Originally posted by xmarksthespot
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.
...
I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms."
Stephen Jay Gould
He makes an assumption that humans evolved. He may be a brilliant biologist but he takes a leap of faith in saying it. Evolution is nowhere near fact despite his claim.

Originally posted by Nellinator
He makes an assumption that humans evolved. He may be a brilliant biologist but he takes a leap of faith in saying it. Evolution is nowhere near fact despite his claim. There is no "assumption" that humans evolved.

Incomplete scientific knowledge does not discredit fact nor theory. Argumentum ad ignorantium and god of gaps do not disprove evolution, human or otherwise. Nor geological dating of the earth. Nor astrophysical dating of the universe.

Originally posted by Nellinator
He makes an assumption that humans evolved. He may be a brilliant biologist but he takes a leap of faith in saying it. Evolution is nowhere near fact despite his claim.

Plenty of scientists seem to believe they are justified in saying it is as much fact as the theory of gravity, and they feel the evidence supports it.

Likewise in the absence of reason for it to be discounted it is as close to fact as it can get. Is there valid reason for it to be considered less then fact? No. Incomplete fact? Quite possibly, but that doesn't put it in the green room of scientific theories awaiting its chance to come on stage.

Originally posted by Imperial_Samura
Plenty of scientists seem to believe they are justified in saying it is as much fact as the theory of gravity, and they feel the evidence supports it.

Likewise in the absence of reason for it to be discounted it is as close to fact as it can get. Is there valid reason for it to be considered less then fact? No. Incomplete fact? Quite possibly, but that doesn't put it in the green room of scientific theories awaiting its chance to come on stage.
I am not saying that evolution is an invalid theory. I am saying that the idea of evolution is an assumption. There are big holes as the beginning of life from no life. The origin of the universe for that matter. I am not against it being taught in universities and in the final years of high school, but I worry when they teach it as fact in junior highs. One my biggest issues is with the amount of evolution taught. In biological fields it should be minor in comparision to biochemistry, molecular biology, immunology, genetics and other studies that have more practical application. Evolutionary studies have advantages, but the weight put on pushing the theory is fairly ridiculous.

Originally posted by Nellinator
I am not saying that evolution is an invalid theory. I am saying that the idea of evolution is an assumption. There are big holes as the beginning of life from no life. The origin of the universe for that matter. I am not against it being taught in universities and in the final years of high school, but I worry when they teach it as fact in junior highs. One my biggest issues is with the amount of evolution taught. In biological fields it should be minor in comparision to biochemistry, molecular biology, immunology, genetics and other studies that have more practical application. Evolutionary studies have advantages, but the weight put on pushing the theory is fairly ridiculous.

Because it is an important part of biology. I did physics in high school and their were theories that reoccurred the whole way through. However biology is, for many students, and easier subject then physics and dpeneding on their field (which ranges from agriculture to animal care) relevant theory. There is nothing else in the field that can take the place of evolution so it is logical it recieves such attention. To be honest I worry about children being taught religion from a young age rather then being taught to think and then decide when they have sufficient understanding. Yet I would not advocate parents be stripped of the right to teach their children it (at least not yet...)

And assumption - it is no an assumption. It is a theory that has stood the test of time. Ultimately holes don't lessen the value of a theory or reduce to "mere assumption/hypothesis", especially when the weight of evidence for the known sections supports it so well. The only thing that can reduce the right of evolution to claim to be the correct explanation of the origin and development of life is if another theory is presented that is, through research, shown to disprove evolutionary claims or provide a better explanation.

Ultimately that hasn't happened yet. Thus it will continue to be portrayed as fact because that is what it is till proven otherwise.

I know exactly what you mean, because I also took physics. However, in physics we are taught as though it was theory. We were taught the development of the theory, holes in theory, and so on. Also, it was acknowledged when a theory produced close results with being perfectly accurate. Thereby acknowledging the need for a better theory. A lot of that is absent in the teaching of evolution.
I would argue that you are confusing evolutionary study with molecular and genetic study. Evolution is overtaught and is a useless requirement for a lot of higher level university classes and degrees that really need no basis in evolution.

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
Regret...in your justification for human suffering you supposed that it must be necessary for the learning of empathy and compassion.

The claim that God needs anything implies he is finite and not truly infinite as you would try to push. How does suffering being needed to enable man to learn empathy and compassion equate to God needing something?

Besides, isn't action a result of need? If there is no need, why act? If one acts and there was no need for the act, is it worthwhile? Why create if there is no need to? If we are created for entertainment, to gain worshippers, etc. are these purposes not defined as fulfilling some need? If there are any commands, they must fulfill a need, otherwise, what is the point? Need is inherent in action, action cannot occur without need. If ex nihilo creation occurred, God must have needed something, otherwise the entire concept is ludicrous.

Originally posted by Trickster

That looks to me a somewhat controversial view. If God operates within the laws of nature, then how exactly did he create the universe? Ex nihilo? I don't think it's possible to create something from nothing, according to the governing laws of nature - though I'm open to being told otherwise. Science has shown that matter cannot be created or destroyed, it exists in one form or another. LDS scriptures on the subject:

The spirit that all men have , and all existence, is an organized form of the primal matter referred to here as the light of truth, or intelligence.

Originally posted by Trickster
I'm not arguing that the existence of pain in animals is a flaw in itself - rather questioning why an all-loving God would feel the need to create things such as disease and starvation. And if he was all-powerful, he would be able to create the positive effects without the negative. (For instance, he could have created a world in which humans and dinosaurs can co-exist.)

Questions also arise as to why God doesn't intervene in massive catastrophes - in the New Testament he heals single people, but he never manifests himself as a saviour during genocide or natural disasters. The bubonic plague would be a good example. God is without limits. I believe this to be true. Yet, everything else is with limits. The question you state would be present in all possible imperfect versions of creation regardless of the absence of pain and suffering. Why didn't God just create Gods? If he had created Gods, there would be none of the imperfections that plague existence. Anything below God is imperfect if he is perfect.

Originally posted by Trickster
That's a fair enough point, but it still seems a somewhat petty experiment - God knew humans would disobey him. It's like leaving out some sweets in front of a small child and telling them not to eat any. Would it not be better for God to punish the person committing the improper action rather than allow that person to harm another?

It also still raises the point as to why God feels it necessary to have obedience - wouldn't it be better to create a human race that was able to determine for itself what is right and wrong? If not, he would have been able to minimise the effects of improper action upon innocents. If God were to punish someone for harming another, and yet the other did not receive harm, would the punishment be justified? Agency is a principle held with value, imo, as such improper and proper actions are required to be possible.

I believe this life is a proving ground. This existence is merely a test to show our ability to behave responsibly in a state with limited purview by God, where we are unsure of his presence or even his existence. Should we show our ability to behave appropriately and responsibility we will be given position equal to our capacity to be responsible.

Man is able to determine for itself right and wrong. I do not believe anyone is unable to discern such, regardless of popular belief to the contrary in some situations.

Originally posted by Trickster
But even you say that humans are the pinnacle of God's creation - surely a more humble approach would be better? Gratefulness, rather than pride, that we are the ones chosen to have such a position. (For this one I'm arguing just for the sake of argument - I can see your point). A more humble approach would probably be better, yes. I do not believe we were chosen as such though. I believe Man to be the progeny of God.

Originally posted by Trickster
Yes, there really is no definition of God, other than that he is good. A real definition would probably help a lot of people. My original point still stands - I would rather come to my own understanding of a God, rather than subscribe to the somewhat rigid and conservative view of a deity. Agreed, but if there is a God, I do not believe he does not provide some direction to men. A religion is a necessary part of such a belief.

ONe thing wrong with God. Who the hell invents someone, and then gives them a rule book. Wouldn't it be better to invent something that does what the manual says naturally? That's what everyone else would do.

Eg. If homosexuality is wrong and not what God wants, why does it exist in the first place? If evolution is wrong, why do people teach, study and know it? If Jesus is God, and someone we must know, why do we need to be taught it? If the clouds are a separation between God and the Earth, why are people going to quote me and ask me if the Bible actually says that, they should know naturally.

The Bible constantly says that God made us, he made our ancestors, Adam and Eve, he makes us when we're in the womb, he guides us through life, so why are we born with sin, why do we sin against people, why are we so poorly designed and so poor at following our creator?

Originally posted by Nellinator
I know exactly what you mean, because I also took physics. However, in physics we are taught as though it was theory. We were taught the development of the theory, holes in theory, and so on. Also, it was acknowledged when a theory produced close results with being perfectly accurate. Thereby acknowledging the need for a better theory. A lot of that is absent in the teaching of evolution.
I would argue that you are confusing evolutionary study with molecular and genetic study. Evolution is overtaught and is a useless requirement for a lot of higher level university classes and degrees that really need no basis in evolution.

Evolution is taught as a theory too.

Evolution is overtaught because its exceedingly obvious that people who speak out against it generally have no fricking idea what the theory says. Its reall easy to explain why a ball falls. Its a lost harder to teach some people a concept that many have never thought about and can't observe instantaneously.

Originally posted by lord xyz
ONe thing wrong with God. Who the hell invents someone, and then gives them a rule book. Wouldn't it be better to invent something that does what the manual says naturally? That's what everyone else would do.

Eg. If homosexuality is wrong and not what God wants, why does it exist in the first place? If evolution is wrong, why do people teach, study and know it? If Jesus is God, and someone we must know, why do we need to be taught it? If the clouds are a separation between God and the Earth, why are people going to quote me and ask me if the Bible actually says that, they should know naturally. Everyone else would not do that. Such a thing is contrary to what we consider intelligence. Intelligence is learning though experience combined with capability. A.I. as it is today is based in the learning of skills, not in the initial creation of said skills. If we as humans have moved in this direction in attempts to create A.I., it is logical that the heavily structured "natural" behavioral bounds you suggest may impede the intelligence of the creation.

Originally posted by lord xyz
The Bible constantly says that God made us, he made our ancestors, Adam and Eve, he makes us when we're in the womb, he guides us through life, so why are we born with sin, why do we sin against people, why are we so poorly designed and so poor at following our creator? Are we born with sin? Such is only the belief of a portion of Biblical religions. As to why we sin, we choose our behaviors, don't try to lessen our responsibility for our own actions. I know what right and wrong are, and I endeavor to avoid behaviors I believe to be wrong, and I believe others do similar. We were not poorly designed, we use our freedom, or more accurately agency, unwisely. The responsibility for our actions is ours, it is not some God's, nor is it some malicious "devil's", regardless of whether or not they exist.

Originally posted by Alliance
Evolution is taught as a theory too.

Evolution is overtaught because its exceedingly obvious that people who speak out against it generally have no fricking idea what the theory says. Its reall easy to explain why a ball falls. Its a lost harder to teach some people a concept that many have never thought about and can't observe instantaneously. I think Nellinator misunderstands how scientific theories work.

Evolution is a scientific theory. It describes to the best of our ability the evidence at hand. It is extremely stable and well supported. It can be used to predict occurrences as well as explain the occurrences we have uncovered from the past. Evolution should not be shrugged away as merely theory, it is robust and, given the information at hand, valid. Evolution, unless evidence presents itself to the contrary, is a fact. We have hard, solid and irrefutable evidence for very small changes in organisms as well as some evidence for fairly large changes. We do not have any evidence suggesting that evolution is not a fact. What we have are fanatic religious zealots struggling to reconcile the evidence at hand with beliefs that are contrary to what the evidence shows becoming frustrated and attacking the theory out of hand. They typically do not come up with alternative explanations that are as robust as evolution, they most often merely attack the theory.

On top of this, scientists get defensive because the attacks are most frequently ludicrous, and they overcompensate in showing that the theory is valid. What we see today is extremes at both ends. I would wager that there are scientists that do push the less credible, less valid, less supported areas as well, but the response is due in large part to the very ludicrous and wholly unsupported attacks at the theory.

Originally posted by Regret
I think Nellinator misunderstands how scientific theories work.

Evolution is a scientific theory. It describes to the best of our ability the evidence at hand. It is extremely stable and well supported. It can be used to predict occurrences as well as explain the occurrences we have uncovered from the past. Evolution should not be shrugged away as merely theory, it is robust and, given the information at hand, valid. Evolution, unless evidence presents itself to the contrary, is a fact. We have hard, solid and irrefutable evidence for very small changes in organisms as well as some evidence for fairly large changes. We do not have any evidence suggesting that evolution is not a fact. What we have are fanatic religious zealots struggling to reconcile the evidence at hand with beliefs that are contrary to what the evidence shows becoming frustrated and attacking the theory out of hand. They typically do not come up with alternative explanations that are as robust as evolution, they most often merely attack the theory.

On top of this, scientists get defensive because the attacks are most frequently ludicrous, and they overcompensate in showing that the theory is valid. What we see today is extremes at both ends. I would wager that there are scientists that do push the less credible, less valid, less supported areas as well, but the response is due in large part to the very ludicrous and wholly unsupported attacks at the theory.
I have a clear understanding. And I actually somewhat agree with Aliiance's theory. However, some of my personal observations show some barely excusable things in the way evolution is taught. I have taken university science and am not ignorant of the workings of evolution. Actually, science classes on evolution were not that bad in terms of bias. There was validity there. Anthropology from the arts department, however, was an embarassment to scientific theory and of what the principles of the education system should be. Why they even teach it in anthropology is beyond me when a much better and more credible classes on the subject can be taken in science.

To insert my own view here on evolution:
I think it makes Christians very comfortable to say "evolution is only a theory" to which I say don't let your belief blind you though. Find the facts yourselves rather than submitting your soul to a god, who might not actually exist.

Originally posted by Rabbit_hunter
To insert my own view here on evolution:
I think it makes Christians very comfortable to say "evolution is only a theory" to which I say don't let your belief blind you though. Find the facts yourselves rather than submitting your soul to a god, who might not actually exist. Your statement seems to imply that Christianity, particularly Biblical creation, and evolution are in some way diametric. Any intelligent individual can see that evolution is merely a process, creation could have been accomplished by God through the process of evolution. Given this, the two are not diametric unless of course one is close-minded and imbecilic in nature.

if god created us, why arent we the center of the universe? if we were created in gods image, supposed to be better, smarter etc etc, why aren't we in the best spot. The center. We arent even in the center of our own solar system. Or our galaxy. we're on the outside. wouldn't it be logical to place the most important beings(aside from god) in the most acclaimed(does this word work here?) spot? Also, what's the point of insects? And why did he make more planets. one is enough.

the list goes on and on

(im not sure if others will see this as a valid point, but i think it is)

Originally posted by allofyousuckkk
if god created us, why arent we the center of the universe? if we were created in gods image, supposed to be better, smarter etc etc, why aren't we in the best spot. The center. We arent even in the center of our own solar system. Or our galaxy. we're on the outside. wouldn't it be logical to place the most important beings(aside from god) in the most acclaimed(does this word work here?) spot? Also, what's the point of insects? And why did he make more planets. one is enough.

the list goes on and on

(im not sure if others will see this as a valid point, but i think it is) This assumes God created life solely on the Earth. The center of something from a philosophical stance is not necessarily the physiological center. Given the communication presented in Christianity, Man is the focal point, and thus the "center" of the universe. Now, if there are other inhabited planets with man on the planet, then Man is still the focal point regardless of the location/s of Man in the universe.

Why would God stop with one planet? The universe would not be as interesting to look at if there were not all of the objects present out there. Creation is not necessarily only a functional endeavor.

Originally posted by Regret
Everyone else would not do that. Such a thing is contrary to what we consider intelligence. Intelligence is learning though experience combined with capability. A.I. as it is today is based in the learning of skills, not in the initial creation of said skills. If we as humans have moved in this direction in attempts to create A.I., it is logical that the heavily structured "natural" behavioral bounds you suggest may impede the intelligence of the creation. If I make a computer, I would make sure it computes. If I make a hair dryer, I would make sure it dries hair. If I make a christian, I would make sure it believes the christian beliefs, not any other beliefs or the abscence of beliefs. I don't make a hair dryer, and I'm sure you won't either, that has to be changed into one. I'd make it dry hair in the first place, and I'll make sure it doesn't break or do anything else .

Originally posted by Regret
Are we born with sin? That's what Jesus (God)said.
Originally posted by Regret
Such is only the belief of a portion of Biblical religions. As to why we sin, we choose our behaviors, don't try to lessen our responsibility for our own actions. I'm not.
Originally posted by Regret
I know what right and wrong are, Really?
Originally posted by Regret
and I endeavor to avoid behaviors I believe to be wrong, and I believe others do similar. We were not poorly designed, we use our freedom, or more accurately agency, unwisely. The responsibility for our actions is ours, it is not some God's, nor is it some malicious "devil's", regardless of whether or not they exist. This makes me think that you are atheist. However other posts you have made think other-wise.

Originally posted by Trickster
Or, more correctly, the flaws I can see with believing in a God. I'm not going to embellish here, but these are some of the flaws I see in believing in God (meaning the God of Classical Theism):

1. Evolution.
2. Evil and suffering. Why would an all-loving God create a world where his 'children' are often subjected to pain? Before anybody mentions the fall from the garden of eden, an all-knowing God would have known this was going to occur, and planned accordingly.
3. The Bible. Two major points here - the fall from Eden. If Adam and Eve hadn't yet eaten from the 'Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil', then how can God hold them to account for doing so, since they obviously weren't aware what they were doing was wrong? Also, the sheer vindictiveness of God in the Old Testament astounds me.
4. Why would God want or need to create the world? If he really is infinite (in every sense of the word), then there would be no reason for him to create the world.
5. What did God do before creating the world, and what will he do afterwards?

I'm sure more will come to me, and if they do I'll post them up.

Oh, finally:

6. I see no reason to believe in God, especially the God of any particular religion. If I was to believe, I'd determine my own concept of a God, not let someone else tell me what to believe in.

I had long ago made a thread on idea two. My thoughts, summarized, where:

- Concept that God must be all-good.

- If God is all-good, good can only be defined when contrasted with evil.

- Therefore, for God to be all-good, evil must exist.

- If evil exists and God is all-good, then God's moral duty is to stamp out evil.

- He does not stamp out evil, as it still exists.

- Therefore, either God is not all-good, or if he is, he must be helpless to stop evil.

- If he is helpless to stop evil, then he cannot be God, because God is by definition a being with such power.

David Hume thought similar things.

Cool.

Originally posted by Janus Marius
I had long ago made a thread on idea two. My thoughts, summarized, where:

- Concept that God must be all-good.

- If God is all-good, good can only be defined when contrasted with evil.

- Therefore, for God to be all-good, evil must exist.

- If evil exists and God is all-good, then God's moral duty is to stamp out evil.

- He does not stamp out evil, as it still exists.

- Therefore, either God is not all-good, or if he is, he must be helpless to stop evil.

- If he is helpless to stop evil, then he cannot be God, because God is by definition a being with such power.

David Hume thought similar things.
Its good reasoning, but God being good also gave us free will. Therefore, he does not stamp out evil until the world is overtaken by evil (ie. the antichrist and the false prophet).

If he gave us free will...we can make our own dicisions.

If we can make our own decisions, he does not control us.

If he does not control us, he is not all powerful.

If he is not all powerful, he is not god.

Originally posted by Alliance
If he gave us free will...we can make our own dicisions.

If we can make our own decisions, he does not control us.

If he does not control us, he is not all powerful.

If he is not all powerful, he is not god.
Brutal logic. He does not control us because he does not want to. You have chosen to ignore that. But, ignoring what the Bible says makes you understand the God of the Bible better? No. Sorry, try again.

No. You see here.

"He does not control us because he does not want to."? WTF kind of an argument is that. Basically, you have no logic, so you spend your time trying to think of ways to attack mine.

Originally posted by Alliance
No. You see here.

"He does not control us because he does not want to."? WTF kind of an argument is that. Basically, you have no logic, so you spend your time trying to think of ways to attack mine.
Its a great argument. God never claims to want to control us and even shows otherwise (ie. free will). He gives us laws to show us how to live a good life and then leaves us to our own decisions. He then shows love by sending His son to show us once again and lead us to repentance.
You ignore what the Bible says about God and then make baseless claims about him without scripture to back up your assumptions of God's nature. I call that poor arguing.

Honestly, you're a wast of my time.

I have explained, AGAIN AND AGAIN, as have others, about WHY the Bible is not credible.

You don't get it. That is termed ignorance and blindness. A self-sustaining delusion.

You have no right to accuse me of having a poor argument when you make none. You're frankly a waste of my time tonight.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Its a great argument. God never claims to want to control us and even shows otherwise (ie. free will). He gives us laws to show us how to live a good life and then leaves us to our own decisions. He then shows love by sending His son to show us once again and lead us to repentance.
You ignore what the Bible says about God and then make baseless claims about him without scripture to back up your assumptions of God's nature. I call that poor arguing.


exactly.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Its a great argument. God never claims to want to control us and even shows otherwise (ie. free will). He gives us laws to show us how to live a good life and then leaves us to our own decisions. He then shows love by sending His son to show us once again and lead us to repentance.
You ignore what the Bible says about God and then make baseless claims about him without scripture to back up your assumptions of God's nature. I call that poor arguing.


You don't need a Bible or scripture to beleive in a Cosmic Creator.

I beleive that some powerful creational force constructed this universe. I do not thnk it is your same god you worship, no offense. Christian God is too limitted, hypocritical, narrow minded, sexist, wrathful, flawed, and indifferent to have created us and this universe (and i am making a judgment on this version of God from the people who represent him on Earth and from the literal terms in the Bible, so do not say my claims are baseless, thank you)

Originally posted by Lord Urizen
You don't need a Bible or scripture to beleive in a Cosmic Creator.

I beleive that some powerful creational force constructed this universe. I do not thnk it is your same god you worship, no offense. Christian God is too limitted, hypocritical, narrow minded, sexist, wrathful, flawed, and indifferent to have created us and this universe (and i am making a judgment on this version of God from the people who represent him on Earth and from the literal terms in the Bible, so do not say my claims are baseless, thank you)
I know, but his reference was to the Biblical God so he should have used something other than assumption...

The anger you express towards many of the Christians is one of the reasons why I have come to so deeply hate hypocrisy. I do not see God as a hypocrite, but way too many of his followers are and by your own confession it does a lot of damage.

Originally posted by Trickster
Or, more correctly, the flaws I can see with believing in a God. I'm not going to embellish here, but these are some of the flaws I see in believing in God (meaning the God of Classical Theism):

1. Evolution.
2. Evil and suffering. Why would an all-loving God create a world where his 'children' are often subjected to pain? Before anybody mentions the fall from the garden of eden, an all-knowing God would have known this was going to occur, and planned accordingly.
3. The Bible. Two major points here - the fall from Eden. If Adam and Eve hadn't yet eaten from the 'Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil', then how can God hold them to account for doing so, since they obviously weren't aware what they were doing was wrong? Also, the sheer vindictiveness of God in the Old Testament astounds me.
4. Why would God want or need to create the world? If he really is infinite (in every sense of the word), then there would be no reason for him to create the world.
5. What did God do before creating the world, and what will he do afterwards?

I'm sure more will come to me, and if they do I'll post them up.

Oh, finally:

6. I see no reason to believe in God, especially the God of any particular religion. If I was to believe, I'd determine my own concept of a God, not let someone else tell me what to believe in.


1. There is no absolute proof of evolution
2. He created a world for humans to have abundant happiness. Apparently, it was man and the devil who brought pain and suffering
3. God plain and simply told them not to eat from the tree. Their defiance caused them to be cast out of the garden of eden.
4. God loves. We were created as the object of his love.
5. I honestly dont know. I'll ask him that when I get to heaven.
6. Again, defiance. You'd prefer to live in a world controlled by you and not any being more superior. You probably indulge in sinful habits and would prefer to believe in evolution since this theory plays no governing role without rules to abide by.


Does that answer your question?

Originally posted by Nellinator
I know, but his reference was to the Biblical God so he should have used something other than assumption...

True



Originally posted by Nellinator
The anger you express towards many of the Christians is one of the reasons why I have come to so deeply hate hypocrisy. I do not see God as a hypocrite, but way too many of his followers are and by your own confession it does a lot of damage.


Agreed. I don't hate Christianity as a religion though. As a personal faith, i'm fine with it. But as a political movement, I find it nothing but conflict causing.

You are one of the few Christians that reminds me that it is only a religion, does not DEFINE a person, and that I should respect a person's individual beleif.

Originally posted by Up In Flames
1. There is no absolute proof of evolution

Fossils, D.N.A., and Carbon Dating are not proof enough? Wowzers...

What proof exists for the validity of the Bible ?

Maybe If I wrote about evolution on old pieces of paper, translated it through different languages, and told you to blindly beleive it, then and only then would you consider it truth.




Originally posted by Up In Flames
2. He created a world for humans to have abundant happiness. Apparently, it was man and the devil who brought pain and suffering

From the fruit of a Tree that GOD created. And God allowed the Serpant in the Garden.


They say there are two types of evil people: Those who DO evil, and those who SEE EVIL being DONE and do NOTHING to STOP it !



Originally posted by Up In Flames
3. God plain and simply told them not to eat from the tree. Their defiance caused them to be cast out of the garden of eden.



Why did God put the tree there in the first place ? God's unmerciful wrath caused their exile from the Garden. God did not HAVE to do it.....




Originally posted by Up In Flames
4. God loves. We were created as the object of his love.

Then why do those who claim to know God usually display the most hatred ?




Originally posted by Up In Flames
5. I honestly dont know. I'll ask him that when I get to heaven.


IF that ever happens......you are SO sure you will go to Heaven. That implies you are not a sinner, and that is an arrogant and even theologically incorrect claim to make.



Originally posted by Up In Flames
6. Again, defiance. You'd prefer to live in a world controlled by you and not any being more superior. You probably indulge in sinful habits and would prefer to believe in evolution since this theory plays no governing role without rules to abide by.


1) He just said he'd rather beleive in another god then yours....your so blind.

2) Oh yes Flames, we all simply INDULGE in evil, and only live to defy your God

Us living our lives has nothing to do with any other goal or goodness...its ALL about inentional defiance of your God and evil just for evil's sake.



You have proven how deluded and close minded you truly are. Thanks for making that clear.






Originally posted by Up In Flames
Does that answer your question?



No. you haven't answered how the Bible is Truth. You just keep vomitting the same BS over and over.