Creating God in one's own image.

[El JoNNo]

1/ you once again applied time to God. He's Omnipresent.

I did not; I put forth a rebuttal to your statements regarding omnipotent and omniscience. If this is an objection to the use of infinity, than you are mistaken. Infinity is not only defined within time. 

2/ it's a measurement of the gaps between events.

That is duration of time. Time itself I explained briefly and providing a link that defines it. It is not only a measurement.

3/ thankyou for proving the above point.

How is your point proven?

4/ the point is moot. Adami was beside the point and I was frustrated. I know the diamond ages and thankyou for saying that stuff at absolute zero doesn't decay. My point was that though they experience time they aren't affected by it.

Ok, fine.

5/ then use logic to debunk mine.

Ok.

God is perfect.
God is perfectly Loving
As a result of that he glorifies himself.

So perfection demands glorification? There is no logical step or link between the two. If someone wished to glorify something because they percieve that thing as perfect then that is there choice. If I created a bucket to hold water and it holds that water, it is perfect. I don't need to worship it. I also do not need to worship my creators (parents), I do not need to even respect them.

The only reason anything would create something to glorify one self is for self gratification, to inflate ones ego. 

Why?
To not glorify himself is unloving to us.
Why?
Because He's perfect.

This makes no sense what-so-ever... So god is perfect? So not to glorify himself, he is not loving to the nonexistant us which do not exist because he has not created us yet. He can't have that because who needs perfection if there is no one to mental masterbate you.  So as a result of his perfection (which should be always and makes no sence since our beginnings are finite) he creates us to inflate his ego because he's perfect.

This is retarded woo woo.. Do you have any idea how stupid this is? This is almost as bad as saying "God is real because the Bible says so and the bible is the word of god.".

You mentioned a causality argument. Causality falls apart without an uncaused event at the beginning.
I say that God was the uncreated creator.

What was my causality?

I'd like to note here that I have been respectful as I can and haven't descended to mudslinging statements like: this is not logical at all it is retarded woowoo.

I stand by my statement; feel free to state something similar if I say something equally dumb.

[rumborak]

I think 99% of the world does not know how we define our units of time.

It's one thing to define units of time, which is simple, but quite another to define time itself.  I doubt anyone really can.  It's one of those things that you really can't grasp.

Sorry for saying this bluntly, but just because you don't grasp it doesn't mean nobody can. Have you ever even bothered trying to understand what physics says about what time is?

rumborak

[Ħ]

I think 99% of the world does not know how we define our units of time.

It's one thing to define units of time, which is simple, but quite another to define time itself.  I doubt anyone really can.  It's one of those things that you really can't grasp.

Sorry for saying this bluntly, but just because you don't grasp it doesn't mean nobody can. Have you ever even bothered trying to understand what physics says about what time is?

rumborak

Yeah, but I don't buy it.  It's too sketchy, and not even they are very confident about it.

[Philawallafox]

1/ you once again applied time to God. He's Omnipresent.

I did not; I put forth a rebuttal to your statements regarding omnipotent and omniscience. If this is an objection to the use of infinity, than you are mistaken. Infinity is not only defined within time. 

huh? I don't understand your point. I was never arguing that God is Omnipotent or omniscient.

2/ it's a measurement of the gaps between events.

That is duration of time. Time itself I explained briefly and providing a link that defines it. It is not only a measurement. [/quote]
 :facepalm:I can't believe I let Adami sidetrack me to this.

He was trying to make an argument that foreknowledge or predestination because if God knows something will happen it can't not happen. I was saying that only applies to someone who isn't omnipresent. I was saying that Time is the gap between events of the universe. You came back at me with "time is the fourth dimension" I say that the dimensions are just different ways we measure gaps between events and places.

3/ thankyou for proving the above point.

How is your point proven?[/quote]

My point was that Time isn't a law and can't be defined as such because it isn't constant. You agreed with me.

4/ the point is moot. Adami was beside the point and I was frustrated. I know the diamond ages and thankyou for saying that stuff at absolute zero doesn't decay. My point was that though they experience time they aren't affected by it.

Ok, fine.

5/ then use logic to debunk mine.

Ok.

God is perfect.
God is perfectly Loving
As a result of that he glorifies himself.

So perfection demands glorification? There is no logical step or link between the two. If someone wished to glorify something because they percieve that thing as perfect then that is there choice. If I created a bucket to hold water and it holds that water, it is perfect. I don't need to worship it. I also do not need to worship my creators (parents), I do not need to even respect them.

The only reason anything would create something to glorify one self is for self gratification, to inflate ones ego. 

Why?
To not glorify himself is unloving to us.
Why?
Because He's perfect.

This makes no sense what-so-ever... So god is perfect? So not to glorify himself, he is not loving to the nonexistant us which do not exist because he has not created us yet. He can't have that because who needs perfection if there is no one to mental masterbate you.  So as a result of his perfection (which should be always and makes no sence since our beginnings are finite) he creates us to inflate his ego because he's perfect.

This is retarded woo woo.. Do you have any idea how stupid this is? This is almost as bad as saying "God is real because the Bible says so and the bible is the word of god.". [/quote]

the more you say "This is retarded woo woo" the more likely I am to report you to a moderator.

I don't know why people separated one statement into two.

I answered the question assuming the fact that God who created the universe is perfect in every way possible.

If God is perfect then to withhold his Glory from us and restrict us from worshipping him is less loving than it is to show us how glorified he is.

If God were to not do that we would see no reason to worship him because we would conceive no separation between him and us. we would see him as just like us and go worship someone or something else. Instead he shows off and reminds us to worship him so that we can share in his Joy.

You mentioned a causality argument. Causality falls apart without an uncaused event at the beginning.
I say that God was the uncreated creator.

What was my causality? [/quote]

you talked about the big bang and asked what caused the big bang.

I'd like to note here that I have been respectful as I can and haven't descended to mudslinging statements like: this is not logical at all it is retarded woowoo.

I stand by my statement; feel free to state something similar if I say something equally dumb.

[/quote]

Well that's just disrespectful. If I have the decency to respect what you believe and not attack it like you do I expect mutuality.

[rumborak]

Yeah, but I don't buy it.  It's too sketchy, and not even they are very confident about it.

What part is sketchy?

rumborak

[hefdaddy42]

Phil, I know you're VERY confident in your belief, and that's cool. But you've been coming off as slightly condescending. It makes debating you not so fun. Maybe it's something you can take notice.

Adami, I'm sure you're very confident in your ability to make unsubstantiated assertions and have us respect you but you come off as slightly trollish and it makes debating you not so fun. Maybe it's something you can "take notice"

Kindly stick to the subject.

Watch it, Phil.  He made an observation and a suggestion.  Don't act like this, it definitely won't help you make an argument here.  And it may act toward curtailing your time here.

[Philawallafox]

Phil, I know you're VERY confident in your belief, and that's cool. But you've been coming off as slightly condescending. It makes debating you not so fun. Maybe it's something you can take notice.

Adami, I'm sure you're very confident in your ability to make unsubstantiated assertions and have us respect you but you come off as slightly trollish and it makes debating you not so fun. Maybe it's something you c an "take notice"

Kindly stick to the subject.

Watch it, Phil.  He made an observation and a suggestion.  Don't act like this, it definitely won't help you make an argument here.  And it may act toward curtailing your time here.

With all due respect Hef, he patronised me. How do you expect me to respond to being baited so often? He's been pushing my buttons since I got on...I wasn't commenting on that comment with my "unsubstantiated assertions" quip. It was to do with the majority of his comments.

[hefdaddy42]

If you feel that something crosses the line, then report it.  I haven't seen him be patronizing to you.  I only saw that post, with which there was nothing wrong. 

[El JoNNo]

huh? I don't understand your point. I was never arguing that God is Omnipotent or omniscient.

You said this..

Whether you mentioned it or not you seem to think that an omnipotent, omniscient, omniPRESENT God is restricted by time.

If time isn't a human concept then who created it?

And as far as your rebuttle goes, yes I know. We know it will always get it cut off because we've seen it happen. again though: Even though we know it will happen we didn't ORDAIN it to happen. We just know it will. We didn't priduce the movies.

I was informing the thread readers of the difficulties of being omnipotent and omniscient.

:facepalm:I can't believe I let Adami sidetrack me to this.

He was trying to make an argument that foreknowledge or predestination because if God knows something will happen it can't not happen. I was saying that only applies to someone who isn't omnipresent. I was saying that Time is the gap between events of the universe. You came back at me with "time is the fourth dimension" I say that the dimensions are just different ways we measure gaps between events and places.

If you say that then you are wrong, dimesions are not different ways to measure gaps..Rread the links.

Regardless of what Adami said, what you were stating is wrong in the context of how you were using it. If you had said time is a measurment of duration as well a dimension you would be correct but no you said this.

He's all powerful. what makes you think a human concept like time supresses him?

I was correcting you.

My point was that Time isn't a law and can't be defined as such because it isn't constant. You agreed with me.

We only agree in a minor proportion you are still completely wrong in your use of time.

the more you say "This is retarded woo woo" the more likely I am to report you to a moderator.

Please do and I'll start reporting people that say the earth is flat. It is equally ridiculous.

I don't know why people separated one statement into two.

You stated two different things; he has to glorify himself as a result of perfection and not to do so is unloving to us. Two seperate statements.

I answered the question assuming the fact that God who created the universe is perfect in every way possible.

You shouldn't assume he created the universe and you shouldn't claim to know the mind of said god.

If God is perfect then to withhold his Glory from us and restrict us from worshipping him is less loving than it is to show us how glorified he is.

So forcing people to love him is better? I don't care if he is "perfect" and is all full of "glory", no one is deserved worship. Further more if he did not create us in the first place there would be no need to force his love or us into worship. And don't say he isn't, that's what hell is for.

If God were to not do that we would see no reason to worship him because we would conceive no separation between him and us. we would see him as just like us and go worship someone or something else. Instead he shows off and reminds us to worship him so that we can share in his Joy.

His showing off is to give next to no indication that he is there other than what can be explained naturally?

you talked about the big bang and asked what caused the big bang.

I didn't actually ask what caused the big bang, I was giving an example of infinit regression. Sure you can take the diest approach and say the a god create the expansion of the universe but you have all the work cut out for you if you are going to insist it is the christian god.

Well that's just disrespectful. If I have the decency to respect what you believe and not attack it like you do I expect mutuality.

I'll respect it to the degree and rules of this forum. I will not insult you because of your beliefs. However I will let you know when an argument is completely lacking in intelligence. What you stated was rediculous; a respectful respond simply seemed to good for it. Your arguments regarding time and various other subjects have all been responded to in a respectful manner. The statement about god perfect love and glory was stupid.

[rumborak]

Yeah, but I don't buy it.  It's too sketchy, and not even they are very confident about it.

What part is sketchy?

rumborak

[EPICVIEW]

Im 100% sure God looks like Pam Anderson in about 1990

[Philawallafox]

huh? I don't understand your point. I was never arguing that God is Omnipotent or omniscient.

You said this..

Whether you mentioned it or not you seem to think that an omnipotent, omniscient, omniPRESENT God is restricted by time.

If time isn't a human concept then who created it?

And as far as your rebuttle goes, yes I know. We know it will always get it cut off because we've seen it happen. again though: Even though we know it will happen we didn't ORDAIN it to happen. We just know it will. We didn't priduce the movies.

I was informing the thread readers of the difficulties of being omnipotent and omniscient.

yes but they are beside my point. however for the purpose of the argument. You're right. Omnipotence and Omniscience would fall apart of God wasn't Omnipresent. Also i'm gonna assume that if God knows what he's going to do tomorrow (because apparently he's restricted by time) he planned to do that anyway.

:facepalm:I can't believe I let Adami sidetrack me to this.

He was trying to make an argument that foreknowledge or predestination because if God knows something will happen it can't not happen. I was saying that only applies to someone who isn't omnipresent. I was saying that Time is the gap between events of the universe. You came back at me with "time is the fourth dimension" I say that the dimensions are just different ways we measure gaps between events and places.

If you say that then you are wrong, dimesions are not different ways to measure gaps..Rread the links.

Regardless of what Adami said, what you were stating is wrong in the context of how you were using it. If you had said time is a measurment of duration as well a dimension you would be correct but no you said this.

I was making a philosophical argument more than a mathematical one. On a mathematical basis I concede your point.

He's all powerful. what makes you think a human concept like time supresses him?

I was correcting you.

My point was that Time isn't a law and can't be defined as such because it isn't constant. You agreed with me.

We only agree in a minor proportion you are still completely wrong in your use of time.

the more you say "This is retarded woo woo" the more likely I am to report you to a moderator.

Please do and I'll start reporting people that say the earth is flat. It is equally ridiculous.

the difference is that they would be arguing a point. All you're doing is sticking your tongue out and blowing a raspberry.

I don't know why people separated one statement into two.

You stated two different things; he has to glorify himself as a result of perfection and not to do so is unloving to us. Two seperate statements.

but the progression fits together as a unit.

I answered the question assuming the fact that God who created the universe is perfect in every way possible.

You shouldn't assume he created the universe and you shouldn't claim to know the mind of said god.

well until someone can prove otherwise i'm going to go on assuming that I worship a God who's powerful enough, smart enough and loving enough to design the universe the way he did.

As far as claiming to know the mind of God. First of all I haven't said that. Second of all He's revealerd himself in the scriptures. They don't provide a complete picture but you don't need to watch the football in Full HD to know that someone just scored a touchdown. You don't even need full colour.

If God is perfect then to withhold his Glory from us and restrict us from worshipping him is less loving than it is to show us how glorified he is.

So forcing people to love him is better? I don't care if he is "perfect" and is all full of "glory", no one is deserved worship. Further more if he did not create us in the first place there would be no need to force his love or us into worship. And don't say he isn't, that's what hell is for.

He created us out of the joy that he had in the trinity. He is God he *is* worthy. It's not like he's some human on earth. He created the earth.

It's better than any alternative. What do you worship?

[/quote]

If God were to not do that we would see no reason to worship him because we would conceive no separation between him and us. we would see him as just like us and go worship someone or something else. Instead he shows off and reminds us to worship him so that we can share in his Joy.

His showing off is to give next to no indication that he is there other than what can be explained naturally?[/quote]

His showing off is to create a universe that is almost inconceivably complex. So complex we still haven't figured out how it was made outside of "God created it" or "We think that nothing exploded and look humans!"

Along with that he gave Israel to the ancient times, and Christians to the less ancient times.

Along with that he gave us the bible.

Along with that He came down among us.

you talked about the big bang and asked what caused the big bang.

I didn't actually ask what caused the big bang, I was giving an example of infinit regression. Sure you can take the diest approach and say the a god create the expansion of the universe but you have all the work cut out for you if you are going to insist it is the christian god.

Gen 1 and 2?

Well that's just disrespectful. If I have the decency to respect what you believe and not attack it like you do I expect mutuality.

I'll respect it to the degree and rules of this forum. I will not insult you because of your beliefs. However I will let you know when an argument is completely lacking in intelligence. What you stated was rediculous; a respectful respond simply seemed to good for it. Your arguments regarding time and various other subjects have all been responded to in a respectful manner. The statement about god perfect love and glory was stupid.

Well I did give you (all) a website to look at (twice) but no one did.

[Ħ]

I have a quick clarification to the omniprescence issue.  It is to my understanding that God is not literally everywhere (like burning in Hell) nor is he in all times at once, but rather that all things are in his presence.  For example, all the things on my desk are in my presence, and I can move things around as I will, but I am not literally inside my pencil cup.

That's just my take on it, if that helps anyone.

[Vivace]

https://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2009/11/30/creating-god-in-ones-own-image/

Psychological studies have found that people are always a tad egocentric when considering other people’s mindsets. They use their own beliefs as a starting point, which colours their final conclusions. Epley found that the same process happens, and then some, when people try and divine the mind of God.  Their opinions on God’s attitudes on important social issues closely mirror their own beliefs. If their own attitudes change, so do their perceptions of what God thinks. They even use the same parts of their brain when considering God’s will and their own opinions.

Pretty interesting read. What is DTF's opinion on this?

God can never change. This is a theological fact and it is consider infallible by just about any religious body be it Christian, Jewish and Muslim. Our opinions change, like my opinion on homosexuality. I can start with a rather negative view and learn and few new things, especially from other people whom have a closer and better view of the truth and thus my opinion "should" change to fit the truth. There is a truth to all things and we simply cannot have it perfect. Nobody here has complete and perfect truth of all things, that is only God. The idea of being in the image of God reflects our "being" not our materialistic corpus body. That is we are beings of reason. We are rational beings just as God is a rational being. We have properties to this rational being that reflect the exact same properties of rational being in God. We do not contain all of the properties nor are the properties we do have created perfectly. As a human being we are imperfect creatures. We are not born as people doing devious things, we are born with the capacity to do devious things. This is what it means to be born into sin. You are not born evil, you are born with the capacity to sin. As a human being you have this property and it is simply a part of the nature of human beings. This part of our being is not in the image of God as God is not a human being. Sin is only applicable to the human being. So we can equate the human being to God insofar as both have reason and intellect, not in sin and the corpus or materialistical sense.

[Philawallafox]

heyyy straight back into it nice to see there.

So would you say that because we're made in the image of God if we use our reasoning to "divine the mind of God" It should be right?

[GuineaPig]

His showing off is to create a universe that is almost inconceivably complex. So complex we still haven't figured out how it was made outside of "God created it" or "We think that nothing exploded and look humans!"

 

[Philawallafox]

His showing off is to create a universe that is almost inconceivably complex. So complex we still haven't figured out how it was made outside of "God created it" or "We think that nothing exploded and look humans!"

 

YAY you laughed at my funny!

[j]

His showing off is to create a universe that is almost inconceivably complex. So complex we still haven't figured out how it was made outside of "God created it" or "We think that nothing exploded and look humans!"

 

  How did I miss that?

Also, glad to have you back Viv.

-J

[Seventh Son]

https://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2009/11/30/creating-god-in-ones-own-image/

Psychological studies have found that people are always a tad egocentric when considering other people’s mindsets. They use their own beliefs as a starting point, which colours their final conclusions. Epley found that the same process happens, and then some, when people try and divine the mind of God.  Their opinions on God’s attitudes on important social issues closely mirror their own beliefs. If their own attitudes change, so do their perceptions of what God thinks. They even use the same parts of their brain when considering God’s will and their own opinions.

Pretty interesting read. What is DTF's opinion on this?

God can never change. This is a theological fact and it is consider infallible by just about any religious body be it Christian, Jewish and Muslim. Our opinions change, like my opinion on homosexuality. I can start with a rather negative view and learn and few new things, especially from other people whom have a closer and better view of the truth and thus my opinion "should" change to fit the truth. There is a truth to all things and we simply cannot have it perfect. Nobody here has complete and perfect truth of all things, that is only God. The idea of being in the image of God reflects our "being" not our materialistic corpus body. That is we are beings of reason. We are rational beings just as God is a rational being. We have properties to this rational being that reflect the exact same properties of rational being in God. We do not contain all of the properties nor are the properties we do have created perfectly. As a human being we are imperfect creatures. We are not born as people doing devious things, we are born with the capacity to do devious things. This is what it means to be born into sin. You are not born evil, you are born with the capacity to sin. As a human being you have this property and it is simply a part of the nature of human beings. This part of our being is not in the image of God as God is not a human being. Sin is only applicable to the human being. So we can equate the human being to God insofar as both have reason and intellect, not in sin and the corpus or materialistical sense.

I suppose to someone like you that holds it as a theological fact it would seem that way. But to me (an outsider/non-believer) I would think that God is capable of doing anything he wants at any given time and thus could simply change who he is. Otherwise to me it suggests that something bounds God to do whatever and then he isn't omnipotent if that is the case.

[Ħ]

^ That's definitely a mind effer.  God can do anything, due to being 100% powerful, but at the same time, he can't, due to being 100% holy.  I think there was even a verse that said "God cannot lie." 

[Vivace]

I suppose to someone like you that holds it as a theological fact it would seem that way. But to me (an outsider/non-believer) I would think that God is capable of doing anything he wants at any given time and thus could simply change who he is. Otherwise to me it suggests that something bounds God to do whatever and then he isn't omnipotent if that is the case.

Here's an interesting question. If we postulate the existance of God we therefore must place God somewhere and best place for God is above all things for if anything were above God then God would be subject to that thing, so why not that thing be God? Now if in God exists all reason and rationality and from God came the creation of all things then if God were to change, what would he change into? If God CAN change, then how do we describe His current "state" for there must some defining state then and then we must define other states for God to exist and change into. Take for example a family tree. At some point there must be a first cause to your family. There cannot be two possible causes to a single family line nor can your first cause to your family change or else you change the very existance of your family. You change creation by changing your first cause. But with God, He is in all creation as we postulate God as "the" first cause. Thus if God were to change then he is no longer our first cause which I'm sorry... but that messes with my mind so much I have to stop writing and get drunk off some Rolling Rock. 

[hefdaddy42]

I think that God is just BEYOND and OTHER.  I don't attempt to classify him by what he can or can't do.  He's just God.

[kaelvin]

/lurkermodeoff

@Phil let me try and see if this line of reasoning makes sense to you.

Hypothesis: Time is a measurement of duration

1: Assume "Time is a measurement of duration"
2: We can measure time.
3: By measuring a physical quantity X, we get a measurement of the quantity, X.
4: Time is a physical quantity.
5: (by 3 and 4) By measuring time, we get a measurement of time.
6: (by 1 and 5) By measuring time, we get a measurement of a measurement of duration.
7: 6 is false because you cannot measure a measurement.
8: (by 1 and 7) The hypothesis is false.

...am I doing it right?

[XJDenton]

"We've tended in our cosmologies to make things familiar. Despite all our best efforts, we've not been very inventive. In the West, Heaven is placid and fluffy, and Hell is like the inside of a volcano. In many stories, both realms are governed by dominance hierarchies headed by gods or devils. Monotheists talked about the king of kings. In every culture we imagined something like our own political system running the Universe. Few found the similarity suspicious." - Carl Sagan

[Vivace]

^^^ I do like that quote. 

[Philawallafox]

/lurkermodeoff

@Phil let me try and see if this line of reasoning makes sense to you.

Hypothesis: Time is a measurement of duration

1: Assume "Time is a measurement of duration"
2: We can measure time.
3: By measuring a physical quantity X, we get a measurement of the quantity, X.
4: Time is a physical quantity.
5: (by 3 and 4) By measuring time, we get a measurement of time.
6: (by 1 and 5) By measuring time, we get a measurement of a measurement of duration.
7: 6 is false because you cannot measure a measurement.
8: (by 1 and 7) The hypothesis is false.

...am I doing it right?

...sure...
that wasn't my hypothesis lol I don't actually care all that much about what time is. It passes. Good enough for me Besides I conceded ElJonno's point yesterday

[kaelvin]

ohh. okay. sorry phil!

[El JoNNo]

yes but they are beside my point. however for the purpose of the argument. You're right. Omnipotence and Omniscience would fall apart of God wasn't Omnipresent. Also i'm gonna assume that if God knows what he's going to do tomorrow (because apparently he's restricted by time) he planned to do that anyway.

It falls apart regardless if he is omnipresent. Omnipresense also falls apart; unless - and I hate pointing this out because it gives you an alternative arguement - if God was not omnipresent but omni-observant whom has influence over all. Basically if we look at it from an M-theory point of view God would be a 7th (you could go as far as 10 if you wish) dimensional creature looking at the infinite timelines from the big bang. This way he would know all outcomes and we would have freewill. Still no proof that it is the Christian god lol     

Also if he is omnipresent he should realize when he makes a mistakes and not make them, but he does. Paticularly his biggest mistake allowing Satan too screw with humanity.

I was making a philosophical argument more than a mathematical one. On a mathematical basis I concede your point.

I suppose so; in light of philosphy in which I am not well versed.

but the progression fits together as a unit.

No it doesn't the is no logical step or go between the two. One does not beget the other, you made two statements.

well until someone can prove otherwise i'm going to go on assuming that I worship a God who's powerful enough, smart enough and loving enough to design the universe the way he did.

Where does love come into the equation? There is horrible suffering going on not just on humans, but in the animal kingdom. Most of the planet is inhospitible to humans; he knew the future and yet he didn't make anything to prevent us from making the planet even more inhospitible. The universe; if created with us in mind he did a shitty job.

As far as claiming to know the mind of God. First of all I haven't said that.

You do claim to know the mind of God, you claim he is loving and omnipresent. If I were to say based on everything around God is a malevalent jerk, I believe you would claim otherwise. You have made the claim.

Second of all He's revealerd himself in the scriptures. They don't provide a complete picture but you don't need to watch the football in Full HD to know that someone just scored a touchdown. You don't even need full colour.

Yes he has, hasn't he? The OT is riddled with his nastiness.

He created us out of the joy that he had in the trinity. He is God he *is* worthy. It's not like he's some human on earth. He created the earth.

If the OT is true, than he isn't worth my spit.

It's better than any alternative. What do you worship?

Well if you want a literal bible definition, I an antichrist. Typically called an Atheist, I prefer anti-theist.

If God were to not do that we would see no reason to worship him because we would conceive no separation between him and us. we would see him as just like us and go worship someone or something else. Instead he shows off and reminds us to worship him so that we can share in his Joy.

His showing off is to give next to no indication that he is there other than what can be explained naturally?[/quote]

His showing off is to create a universe that is almost inconceivably complex. So complex we still haven't figured out how it was made outside of "God created it" or "We think that nothing exploded and look humans!"

Aww yes the argumentum ad ignorantiam aka argument from ignorance. You know very well that is not what the what the Big Bang, Abiogenesis and Evolution: by Natural selection state. Funny thing though with all the knowledge, complexity and work it requires to study the universe it is still better than "God created it".   

Along with that he gave Israel to the ancient times, and Christians to the less ancient times.

and China to the chinese...

Along with that he gave us the bible.

Something which even he can't keep in it's original form. Oh and men wrote it nothing else...Well maybe there might have been a woman or two.

Along with that He came down among us.

Going to need proof of Jesus' divinity to believe that one. If you say the bible just remember even it does not agree with itself. Plus using something that claims something to varify itself just doesn't work.

Gen 1 and 2?

That proves nothing.

"ElJoNNo created everything in space including the earth. The earth was without form and lifeless. He sneeze and life appear and it was good."

The Awesomica of ElJoNNo
Bitchin' verse 1

Mine is newer it trumps yours :. You can't use the bible as evidence for creation. If that were the case all of the other creation myth are equally valid.

Well that's just disrespectful. If I have the decency to respect what you believe and not attack it like you do I expect mutuality.

I'll respect it to the degree and rules of this forum. I will not insult you because of your beliefs. However I will let you know when an argument is completely lacking in intelligence. What you stated was rediculous; a respectful respond simply seemed to good for it. Your arguments regarding time and various other subjects have all been responded to in a respectful manner. The statement about god perfect love and glory was stupid.
[/quote]

Well I did give you (all) a website to look at (twice) but no one did.
[/quote]

This? https://www.desiringgod.org/

It might be better if you point to a specific article, otherwise I doubt anyone will look at it. No one links the to just wikipedia homepage, right.

"We've tended in our cosmologies to make things familiar. Despite all our best efforts, we've not been very inventive. In the West, Heaven is placid and fluffy, and Hell is like the inside of a volcano. In many stories, both realms are governed by dominance hierarchies headed by gods or devils. Monotheists talked about the king of kings. In every culture we imagined something like our own political system running the Universe. Few found the similarity suspicious." - Carl Sagan

He also wrote in The Demon Haunted World

Appeal to ignorance -- the claim that whatever has not been proved false must be true, and vice versa (e.g., there is no compelling evidence that UFOs are not visiting the Earth; therefore UFOs exist -- and there is intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe. Or: there may be seventy kazillion other worlds, but not one is known to have the moral advancement of the Earth, so we're still central to the Universe.) This impatience with ambiguity can be criticized in the phrase: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I especially like the bold part.

He was a great man.

[Philawallafox]

yes but they are beside my point. however for the purpose of the argument. You're right. Omnipotence and Omniscience would fall apart of God wasn't Omnipresent. Also i'm gonna assume that if God knows what he's going to do tomorrow (because apparently he's restricted by time) he planned to do that anyway.

It falls apart regardless if he is omnipresent. Omnipresense also falls apart; unless - and I hate pointing this out because it gives you an alternative arguement - if God was not omnipresent but omni-observant whom has influence over all. Basically if we look at it from an M-theory point of view God would be a 7th (you could go as far as 10 if you wish) dimensional creature looking at the infinite timelines from the big bang. This way he would know all outcomes and we would have freewill. Still no proof that it is the Christian god lol     

Also if he is omnipresent he should realize when he makes a mistakes and not make them, but he does. Paticularly his biggest mistake allowing Satan too screw with humanity.

thanks for M Theory lol I saw a video on that. Why would you not say God is in the 10th dimension? (assuming the multiverse... I reckon there's only one Universe because that falls in line with what I believe but I'm not gonna argue about how many universes there are.)

Secondly Why do you think God made a mistake when he allowed Satan to mess with Humanity?

I was making a philosophical argument more than a mathematical one. On a mathematical basis I concede your point.

I suppose so; in light of philosphy in which I am not well versed.

but the progression fits together as a unit.

No it doesn't the is no logical step or go between the two. One does not beget the other, you made two statements.

the logical step is the question "why?".

well until someone can prove otherwise i'm going to go on assuming that I worship a God who's powerful enough, smart enough and loving enough to design the universe the way he did.

Where does love come into the equation? There is horrible suffering going on not just on humans, but in the animal kingdom. Most of the planet is inhospitible to humans; he knew the future and yet he didn't make anything to prevent us from making the planet even more inhospitible. The universe; if created with us in mind he did a shitty job.

That's our own fault. Humans are responsible for their actions. When we introduced sin into the world it didn't just affect our own natures.

As far as claiming to know the mind of God. First of all I haven't said that.

You do claim to know the mind of God, you claim he is loving and omnipresent. If I were to say based on everything around God is a malevalent jerk, I believe you would claim otherwise. You have made the claim.

To say God is loving and everywhere all the time, and all powerful and knows everything isn't to divine the will of God. I know those are attributes of his character.

It'd be like me saying that Stephen Hawking is really smart and is fairly weak and only ever in one place at one time and a nice guy. Doesn't mean I know his mind.

Second of all He's revealerd himself in the scriptures. They don't provide a complete picture but you don't need to watch the football in Full HD to know that someone just scored a touchdown. You don't even need full colour.

Yes he has, hasn't he? The OT is riddled with his nastiness.

don't just say it. back yourself up.

He created us out of the joy that he had in the trinity. He is God he *is* worthy. It's not like he's some human on earth. He created the earth.

If the OT is true, than he isn't worth my spit.

That's not exactly relevant.

It's better than any alternative. What do you worship?

Well if you want a literal bible definition, I an antichrist. Typically called an Atheist, I prefer anti-theist.

Well thanks for telling me that but it didn't answer the question.

If God were to not do that we would see no reason to worship him because we would conceive no separation between him and us. we would see him as just like us and go worship someone or something else. Instead he shows off and reminds us to worship him so that we can share in his Joy.

His showing off is to give next to no indication that he is there other than what can be explained naturally?

His showing off is to create a universe that is almost inconceivably complex. So complex we still haven't figured out how it was made outside of "God created it" or "We think that nothing exploded and look humans!"

Aww yes the argumentum ad ignorantiam aka argument from ignorance. You know very well that is not what the what the Big Bang, Abiogenesis and Evolution: by Natural selection state. Funny thing though with all the knowledge, complexity and work it requires to study the universe it is still better than "God created it".   [/quote]

Actually I know that's exactly what they state. Once there was nothing then BOOM a universe. Then some blobs coagulated and BOOM intelligence. Then more blobs came out of the water and BOOM mammalian life. Then mammals start to proceate and some are hairy and some aren't and somehow the non hairy ones jump to the top of the pile and BOOM Homo sapiens sapiens.

Along with that he gave Israel to the ancient times, and Christians to the less ancient times.

and China to the chinese...

Israel as a witness to God and intercessor between him and the rest of the world.
Then they failed that job so he gave it to Christians.

Along with that he gave us the bible.

Something which even he can't keep in it's original form. Oh and men wrote it nothing else...Well maybe there might have been a woman or two.

I'd like to contest that claim. I'm very sure it's in it's original form. God inspired the men's writing. There were woman who wrote songs and poems which were included in the bible but (as far as i know) it was written by males.

Along with that He came down among us.

Going to need proof of Jesus' divinity to believe that one. If you say the bible just remember even it does not agree with itself. Plus using something that claims something to varify itself just doesn't work.

I'm going to say the bible and again I'm going to request proof.

Gen 1 and 2?

That proves nothing.

"ElJoNNo created everything in space including the earth. The earth was without form and lifeless. He sneeze and life appear and it was good."

The Awesomica of ElJoNNo
Bitchin' verse 1

Mine is newer it trumps yours :. You can't use the bible as evidence for creation. If that were the case all of the other creation myth are equally valid.

Mine is older and from a more reliable source. Trumps always wins. Besides I know you didn't create it. You're too young and stupid. (Not saying you're stupid. just not smart enough to create a universe, i'm pretty sure you wouldn't have been able to design even a human)

On the note of creation myths. The Bible actually places itself in History unlike Atheism.

Well that's just disrespectful. If I have the decency to respect what you believe and not attack it like you do I expect mutuality.

I'll respect it to the degree and rules of this forum. I will not insult you because of your beliefs. However I will let you know when an argument is completely lacking in intelligence. What you stated was rediculous; a respectful respond simply seemed to good for it. Your arguments regarding time and various other subjects have all been responded to in a respectful manner. The statement about god perfect love and glory was stupid.

Well I did give you (all) a website to look at (twice) but no one did.
[/quote]

This? https://www.desiringgod.org/

It might be better if you point to a specific article, otherwise I doubt anyone will look at it. No one links the to just wikipedia homepage, right.[/quote]

good point. now while the whole site is valid
https://desiringgod.org/resource-library/conference-messages/gods-passion-for-the-supremacy-of-god
this might be a good place to start. After that go back to the topical index.

"We've tended in our cosmologies to make things familiar. Despite all our best efforts, we've not been very inventive. In the West, Heaven is placid and fluffy, and Hell is like the inside of a volcano. In many stories, both realms are governed by dominance hierarchies headed by gods or devils. Monotheists talked about the king of kings. In every culture we imagined something like our own political system running the Universe. Few found the similarity suspicious." - Carl Sagan

He also wrote in The Demon Haunted World

Appeal to ignorance -- the claim that whatever has not been proved false must be true, and vice versa (e.g., there is no compelling evidence that UFOs are not visiting the Earth; therefore UFOs exist -- and there is intelligent life elsewhere in the Universe. Or: there may be seventy kazillion other worlds, but not one is known to have the moral advancement of the Earth, so we're still central to the Universe.) This impatience with ambiguity can be criticized in the phrase: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

I especially like the bold part.

He was a great man.

...cool

[GuineaPig]

Actually I know that's exactly what they state. Once there was nothing then BOOM a universe. Then some blobs coagulated and BOOM intelligence. Then more blobs came out of the water and BOOM mammalian life. Then mammals start to proceate and some are hairy and some aren't and somehow the non hairy ones jump to the top of the pile and BOOM Homo sapiens sapiens.

 

This is actually better than the previous post.

[Philawallafox]

Actually I know that's exactly what they state. Once there was nothing then BOOM a universe. Then some blobs coagulated and BOOM intelligence. Then more blobs came out of the water and BOOM mammalian life. Then mammals start to proceate and some are hairy and some aren't and somehow the non hairy ones jump to the top of the pile and BOOM Homo sapiens sapiens.

 

This is actually better than the previous post.

Thankyou, thankyou, I'm here until thursday. Remember to tip your waitresses

[El JoNNo]

thanks for M Theory lol I saw a video on that. Why would you not say God is in the 10th dimension? (assuming the multiverse... I reckon there's only one Universe because that falls in line with what I believe but I'm not gonna argue about how many universes there are.)

As you said this is the only universe that matters to you, there is no need to place him in the 10th spacial dimesion. The 7th would be the lowest dimesion to achieve what is needed out of the said hypothesis .

Secondly Why do you think God made a mistake when he allowed Satan to mess with Humanity?

He allowed an entity with capabilities far beyond man to roam free. He supposedly is able to fool the very same senses humans use to make decisions about the known reality. If any human faulters because of his middling that person is condemned to hell, hardly fair or loving. Granted he is supposed to be in hell, but he seems to be able to do what he wants.

the logical step is the question "why?".

That's not a logical step, that's a reason, but not a logical result.

That's our own fault. Humans are responsible for their actions. When we introduced sin into the world it didn't just affect our own natures.

God introduce sin; he is "omnipresent" remember. He knew what was going to happen and did nothing to prevent it, worse yet before he even created man he knew. If he knew that billions were going to suffer in hell, he had two choices A) Not create us B) Prevent "sin"; but no he went C) Create them and then judge them for being human.   

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”
 - Epicurus

To say God is loving and everywhere all the time, and all powerful and knows everything isn't to divine the will of God. I know those are attributes of his character.

Ok, let put this a little more simply. You say he is loving; that is a state of mind. You claim to know the mind of God. He if indeed exists maybe completely indifferent.

It'd be like me saying that Stephen Hawking is really smart and is fairly weak and only ever in one place at one time and a nice guy. Doesn't mean I know his mind.

There is a difference between the two. Stephen Hawking is manifested, your God is not.

Yes he has, hasn't he? The OT is riddled with his nastiness.

Have you ever heard of the website godhatesfags.com? If you believe that god it perfect, than perfection need not change. According to the OT homosexuals are abominations and should be destroyed. Granted I don't recall Jesus saying anything at all about homosexuals, but we're not talking about Jesus. God is perfect.   

That's not exactly relevant.

How is it not relevent? If he is indeed the same perfect god of the OT then he is not worthy of any worship. He is a tyrant.

Well thanks for telling me that but it didn't answer the question.

I fail to see how it does not answer your question? You asked "What do you worship?".

Actually I know that's exactly what they state. Once there was nothing then BOOM a universe. Then some blobs coagulated and BOOM intelligence. Then more blobs came out of the water and BOOM mammalian life. Then mammals start to proceate and some are hairy and some aren't and somehow the non hairy ones jump to the top of the pile and BOOM Homo sapiens sapiens.

Educated yourself on the subjects, you have a long way too go. :facepalm

Israel as a witness to God and intercessor between him and the rest of the world.
Then they failed that job so he gave it to Christians.

This leads me back to the China quip. It's awfully dumb to make your messiah appear in such an illiterate part of the world. Should have been China at least in China they were more advanced.

I'd like to contest that claim. I'm very sure it's in it's original form. God inspired the men's writing. There were woman who wrote songs and poems which were included in the bible but (as far as i know) it was written by males.

Original form eh? Is that why there are so many varitions?

I'm going to say the bible

Circular reason. 

Bill: "God must exist."
Jill: "How do you know."
Bill: "Because the Bible says so."
Jill: "Why should I believe the Bible?"
Bill: "Because the Bible was written by God."

See the problem?

and again I'm going to request proof.

Proof that it doesn't agree with itself?
MAT 1:16
LUK 3:23

Mine is older and from a more reliable source. Trumps always wins. Besides I know you didn't create it. You're too young and stupid. (Not saying you're stupid. just not smart enough to create a universe, i'm pretty sure you wouldn't have been able to design even a human)

How is your source more reliable? It was written over 2000 years ago by people you have never met. You don't know my abilities; how do you know I'm not God talking to you online?

On the note of creation myths. The Bible actually places itself in History unlike Atheism.

What does this even mean? What does the bible having been created have to do with anything? Why does the bible being in history have anything to do in comparison with lack of a belief?
Really don't know what you are saying here?

good point. now while the whole site is valid
https://desiringgod.org/resource-library/conference-messages/gods-passion-for-the-supremacy-of-god
this might be a good place to start. After that go back to the topical index.

I will listen to this, but not tonight. It is going to 2am here, so I'll have to listen another day.

...cool

Indeed.

Actually I know that's exactly what they state. Once there was nothing then BOOM a universe. Then some blobs coagulated and BOOM intelligence. Then more blobs came out of the water and BOOM mammalian life. Then mammals start to proceate and some are hairy and some aren't and somehow the non hairy ones jump to the top of the pile and BOOM Homo sapiens sapiens.

 

This is actually better than the previous post.

Thankyou, thankyou, I'm here until thursday. Remember to tip your waitresses

I really don't think he's laughing with you...

[Ħ]

We could go over so-called contradictions all day, but I want to address the one that El JoNNo brought up, because it's really simple.  Joseph is the son of Heli by marriage.  He was not "begotten" of Heli--that's physical.

By the way, John....refrain from posting as long as you can.  Having a post count of 1111 is quite epic. 

[El JoNNo]

We could go over so-called contradictions all day, but I want to address the one that El JoNNo brought up, because it's really simple.  Joseph is the son of Heli by marriage.  He was not "begotten" of Heli--that's physical.

By the way, John....refrain from posting as long as you can.  Having a post count of 1111 is quite epic. 

Fair enough, I will admit in my haste and not really feeling like looking up the specific verses in each book I copied and pasted a google search.

Here
Exodus 34:6
Numbers 25:4

[Vivace]

To this day I know quite a few religious who struggle with the idea that "God created evil" and then why. Most of the time they come back with the following statements (and let me say this, these are catholic priests saying this)

1) God did create evil
2) God also created good
3) Why does a hurricane destroy? Why can't it be peaceful?
4) Why does a virus exist? Why can't a virus not de destructive?
5) Where is this evil located? Is evil located in God? Does this make God evil? If so then why did he create good? Isn't evil the absense of good?

and the questions go on and on. Why can ask ourselves the same question. If we knew that our child was going to be a paralytic would we still bring him into this world? If not, why? What if this child made a huge impact on those around him? What if this child was the key to a cure? What if this child made a lot of friends in his life? What have you ultimately done by preventing the life of this child?

This are all very important questions in the light that most of the time we think we are doing the greater good but fail to see the ultimate good. Why is their evil? I don't think anyone can answer this in an "ultimate" way. The most general answer is evil exists because God created that which has free-will and the nature of free-will is towards the movement of either goodness or evil and the free ability to choose either one. If evil did not exist then we could very easily declare that free-will can no longer exist for if there is only one singular movement for us to take then how can we make a choice?

In the end, these questions have been asked for a VERY long time and they're actually quite a few answers to these questions. I point to many Catholic philosophers, greatest example being Aquinas. But to answer the question "Why did God create evil?" by saying, "God is evil" ignores many many other possible and more logical answers to the question and just takes the easy road by stating the following

A) God created all evil
B) All evil is devoid of good
C) God is devoid of good.

Looks good but it doesn't have validity. I'm surprised Dawkin's of all people holds onto this kind of logic when it blatantly ignores the material consideration of the topic at hand. That is, B assumes that God never created good and we all know this to be false thus B cannot be true and thus C must be false.