Which is a more likely explanation for creation?

[knapplc]

Some people think that "if there is a God" why would he make us live here in this mess to "prove ourselves". I am one of those people. If I loved my child as much as god loves me, I'd keep them in my house where they were safe and could see me every day. That's what a loving father does.

Or at least that is your version of what a human, earthbound father should do. Probably best to not apply that standard to a supernatural eternal being.

They paint a picture of what they assume God 'should be' and then claim he doesn't exist because it doesn't match their own observations. The image of what god is or "should be" that I use comes from the Bible, from the way god describes himself. If his own words portray an image of god that I am misunderstanding, that's on god, not me. Your misunderstanding is on god and not you? Interesting. You told LOMS earlier "How you interpret that is on you." This standard only applies to others and not you?

Those of us that said yes to that option, happen to be Christian, whether that be by geography or whatever. It is entirely and only because of geography. This is a key factor in why I do not believe in god. I guess you missed the parts in the Bible and your studies about the Holy Spirit, us having souls, etc. you know, those ways that God reveals himself to us that is not dependent upon geography.

Those of you that said no, are spending a lot of time discounting the God we believe in. My point is, you are picturing a certain God and stating why you believe that "one" can not exist. Those of you professing to believe in god are spending a LOT of time claiming he's real. If that stopped, there'd be far less debunking going on. All I'm doing is replying to the deists. Again, for any Christian with an issue about this discussion, this thread was started by a Christian. This did not address the original bolded claim. It merely deflected and attempted to turn the issue. Maybe it's time to acknowledge that there may not be two people in the history of forever that view God in exactly the same way. What would make your specific understanding of God superior to anyone else's? Personally, I don't give much credit to the version proposed by somebody who doesn't even believe in the thing that is being discussed.

To be very clear, I'm stating there is no evidence that *ANY* god exists. It's just that the people professing a belief here happen to all be Christian. Were there to be Gozer worshipers here, we'd be talking about how sloars aren't real. I, personally, am picturing all gods.

To clarify, there is no evidence that YOU deem satisfactory. Others disagree with you.

I'm starting to look at this as fans of two teams trying to explain why there team is better the week before the game is actually played. Except that one group is cheering for the Yankees and the other is cheering for the Bad News Bears. One team is real, and plays actual baseball. The other is fiction.

In your opinion... I know the boiler plate response for somebody that would request proof that God is fiction but, you made the claim so you would have to provide proof for that. And here we find ourselves right back at the beginning, you with your beliefs and I with mine, neither one of us able to prove our beliefs suitably for the other. Did anybody expect it to end differently?

Or at least that is your version of what a human, earthbound father should do. Probably best to not apply that standard to a supernatural eternal being.I don't think supernatural beings, on whom there are no limits, should choose to be a worse father than I am, or than you are. If they choose to be a worse father, they show themselves not worthy of worship.

Your misunderstanding is on god and not you? Interesting. You told LOMS earlier "How you interpret that is on you." This standard only applies to others and not you? Because god holds all the cards here. The god of the Bible is omnipotent, omniscient. He created all the rules. He knows before I'm ever born the exact path my life will take - if he doesn't, he's not omniscient. The problem is, I'm not misunderstanding who or what that god is supposed to be. The Bible isn't ambiguous, is it? It's pretty clear what god is, right?

I guess you missed the parts in the Bible and your studies about the Holy Spirit, us having souls, etc. you know, those ways that God reveals himself to us that is not dependent upon geography. Of course I didn't miss that part. It's just not true. Were it true, everyone with a soul (who is everyone in the world) would have the same access to god. But they don't. People in Saudi Arabia have access to Allah. People who lived in Norseland in Middle Ages had access to Odin. People who live in remote tribes in the Amazon to this day have access to whatever god they've invented. The Holy Spirit seems to ONLY be accessible to people who live in Christian areas. Isn't that a crazy coincidence? Or maybe it's actually factually just a story that's passed down generation to generation.

If it's not dependent upon geography, Native Americans would have their own worship of the Triune God pre-dating Columbus (or the Vikings). Instead, they had a pantheon of gods wholly unrelated to Christianity. Those who lived and died before the advent of Christianity, whose geography prevented them from knowing about the god of the Bible, all don't get to go to heaven, and that's straight from the Bible:

Romans 10:9

John 14:6

John 3:36 - where it is explicitly stated that those who do not obey the Son will not see eternal life, but the wrath of God will be upon them.

This is not ambiguous stuff. Those Amazon tribesmen with their pantheon of gods - all condemned to hell because they didn't win the geographic lottery and didn't know Christ.

The Holy Spirit is NOT an answer to that problem. Romans 3: 9-19 tells you why. NO ONE is righteous. NO ONE.

It is ENTIRELY dependent on geography. There is zero way around this.

This did not address the original bolded claim. It merely deflected and attempted to turn the issue. Maybe it's time to acknowledge that there may not be two people in the history of forever that view God in exactly the same way. What would make your specific understanding of God superior to anyone else's? Personally, I don't give much credit to the version proposed by somebody who doesn't even believe in the thing that is being discussed. I'm giving very specific answers, many supported by texts from the Bible, to speak to you in a language that you may understand. If you don't like what you're reading, fine, but don't claim that I'm not addressing the questions. The problem becomes that you've closed your mind and your only answer will ever be the god you were taught about since birth, whom you believe in because of the region in which you were born. I've been where you are.

To clarify, there is no evidence that YOU deem satisfactory. Others disagree with you. Of course this isn't true. I'm looking for evidence of the truth as we speak. If that truth turns out to be God, I'm totally fine with that. It's just that the evidence I've seen to date doesn't point in that direction. What's wrong with that? An appeal to the popularity of the choice doesn't help you or me in this discussion. If I were the only person in the world who thought the Christian god myth wasn't any different than the myths of other gods, who cares?

Isn't the real goal here knowing the truth? Is the truth less true if only one person believes it?

In your opinion... I know the boiler plate response for somebody that would request proof that God is fiction but, you made the claim so you would have to provide proof for that. And here we find ourselves right back at the beginning, you with your beliefs and I with mine, neither one of us able to prove our beliefs suitably for the other. Did anybody expect it to end differently? No, the claim is that God is real. THAT is the claim that has to be proven. It would be swell if I could prove to you that the Bible isn't real, but I can no more do that than prove unicorns aren't real. You know that, and you know it's a non-starter before you wrote that.

 

[TAKODA]

[SIZE=10pt]Knapp;[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt] [/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]I respect the heck out of you and have respected your postings throughout the years but you bringing up the Unicorn is sincerely week, and is one of the biggest straw man arguments posed by those who need physical proof of “GOD”. I really hate to make any comments in these types of threads but to compare unicorns to the religious belief in GOD has no merit. You can continue to use that analogy if you want but show me within that analogy where thousands of years’ worth of human testimony, religious development and martyrs who suffered horrific trauma defended the unicorn. Although this in itself is not the proof you desire to be laid at your feet, you can[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt] find accounts in religious texts with historical and geographical corroboration surrounding GOD. Show me the same type of corroboration in your Unicorn theory! I am not trying to nor do I think it is possible at this moment to change your belief Knapp but it appears you are looking at this as if Christians believe in a material GOD. We believe in an immaterial God, thus to demand proof of his existence is nonsense. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt] [/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]I could raise additional viewpoints of mine that would be volleyed back and forth, but to what end?[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt] [/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]Again; I am not attempting to convert anyone because this age old discussion has been argued by highly intelligent individuals on both sides of the isle, with little movement by either side! [/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]I would also like to say that many people think it is us pushing the easy button by [/SIZE][SIZE=13.3333330154419px]believing[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt] in GOD and saying it is because it is, but I would say the easy way out is not having to defend GOD but rather to say "Show me proof". [/SIZE]

 

[Landlord]

We see lightning, that's Zeus (according to what's written in Greek mythology), we see the sun everyday, that's Apollo (according to what's written in Greek mythology), we see all of creation, written in Biblical mythology as being from the hand of Yahweh, but, that doesn't count, Zeus and Apollo have more evidence.

 

[knapplc]

We see lightning, that's Zeus (according to what's written in Greek mythology), we see the sun everyday, that's Apollo (according to what's written in Greek mythology), we see all of creation, written in Biblical mythology as being from the hand of Yahweh, but, that doesn't count, Zeus and Apollo have more evidence.

If you believed in the Greek gods, would you believe that Yahweh created the world? Obviously not, you'd believe Gaea came forth out of love and light.

So we have equal evidence of Yahweh creating Earth as Gaea being the creation of love and light.

You see how that's a problem when we're using the dirt beneath our feet as evidence of God?

[SIZE=10pt]Knapp;[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt] [/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]I respect the heck out of you and have respected your postings throughout the years but you bringing up the Unicorn is sincerely week, and is one of the biggest straw man arguments posed by those who need physical proof of “GOD”. I really hate to make any comments in these types of threads but to compare unicorns to the religious belief in GOD has no merit. You can continue to use that analogy if you want but show me within that analogy where thousands of years’ worth of human testimony, religious development and martyrs who suffered horrific trauma defended the unicorn. Although this in itself is not the proof you desire to be laid at your feet, you can[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt] find accounts in religious texts with historical and geographical corroboration surrounding GOD. Show me the same type of corroboration in your Unicorn theory! I am not trying to nor do I think it is possible at this moment to change your belief Knapp but it appears you are looking at this as if Christians believe in a material GOD. We believe in an immaterial God, thus to demand proof of his existence is nonsense. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt] [/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]I could raise additional viewpoints of mine that would be volleyed back and forth, but to what end?[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt] [/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]Again; I am not attempting to convert anyone because this age old discussion has been argued by highly intelligent individuals on both sides of the isle, with little movement by either side! [/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]I would also like to say that many people think it is us pushing the easy button by [/SIZE][SIZE=13.3333330154419px]believing[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt] in GOD and saying it is because it is, but I would say the easy way out is not having to defend GOD but rather to say "Show me proof". [/SIZE]

Thank you. I respect you and your belief, too.

 

[Landlord]

So we have equal evidence of Yahweh creating Earth as Gaea being the creation of love and light.

You see how that's a problem when we're using the dirt beneath our feet as evidence of God?

I do, but you're the one that said there is more evidence for the Greek gods than there is for Yahweh

 

[huKSer]

I DON'T SEE THE OPTION WHERE EVERYONE IS LIVING INSIDE A WORLD CREATED IN MY DREAMS

Calm down Neo

 

[zoogs]

Although ...

Are we living in a simulation?

 

[C N Red]

Be they theist, atheist or anti-theist, on this nearly all scientists agree: In the beginning there was nothing. There was no time, space or matter. There wasn’t even emptiness, only nothingness. Well, nothing natural anyway.

Then: bang! Everything. Nonexistence became existence. Nothing became, in less than an instant, our inconceivably vast and finely tuned universe governed by what mankind would later call – after we, too, popped into existence from nowhere, fully armed with conscious awareness and the ability to think, communicate and observe – “natural law” or “physics.”

Time, space, earth, life and, finally, human life were not.

And then they were.

Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Christian author Eric Metaxas notes, “The fine-tuning necessary for life to exist on a planet is nothing compared with the fine-tuning required for the universe to exist at all. For example, astrophysicists now know that the values of the four fundamental forces – gravity, the electromagnetic force, and the ‘strong’ and ‘weak’ nuclear forces – were determined less than one-millionth of a second after the big bang. Alter any one value and the universe could not exist. For instance, if the ratio between the nuclear strong force and the electromagnetic force had been off by the tiniest fraction of the tiniest fraction – by even one part in 100,000,000,000,000,000 – then no stars could have ever formed at all. Feel free to gulp. … It would be like tossing a coin and having it come up heads 10 quintillion times in a row. Really?”

And so, they have “reasoned” themselves into a corner. These same materialists acknowledge that, prior to the moment of singularity – the Big Bang – there was no “natural.” They admit that there was an unnatural time and place before natural time and space – that something, sometime, somewhere preceded the material universe. That which preceded the natural was, necessarily, “beyond the natural” and, therefore, was, is and forever shall be “supernatural.”

Reader, meet God.

In short: the Big Bang blows atheism sky high.

http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/j-matt-barber/big-bang-blows-atheism-sky-high-even-science-may-eventually-catch-gods-word

 

[NUtopia]

Isn't it possible that the universe was created by a higher being but that being does not interact with his creation?

If there is a Creator, there are certainly innumerable examples of how He/She does not interact with the creation, like He/She doesn't do much in the way of protecting anybody from harm. If, for e.g., a drunk driver kills you, you are dead, no ifs, ands, or buts. At best, He/She keeps a distant indifference.

 

[Scratchtown]

Knapp you say God is a worse father than you?

Using terms from the stand point of there not being a God. Consider a God that is in fact omniscient and all powerful. If we were created from dust and nothing more. Considering the story of sin in the garden of eden (according to the Bible). We have violated God's command and through genetics inherited original man's sinful nature.

Assuming the Bible is true...What does God owe us? Who gives us authority to tell our "father" what to do? Do we as parents give in to everything our children want? Isn't it loving of God to be forgiving by giving us a single way to be with him after repeated rebellion? Why should there even be any way at all?

 

[Moesker]

Knapp you say God is a worse father than you?

Using terms from the stand point of there not being a God. Consider a God that is in fact omniscient and all powerful. If we were created from dust and nothing more. Considering the story of sin in the garden of eden (according to the Bible). We have violated God's command and through genetics inherited original man's sinful nature.

Assuming the Bible is true...What does God owe us? Who gives us authority to tell our "father" what to do? Do we as parents give in to everything our children want? Isn't it loving of God to be forgiving by giving us a single way to be with him after repeated rebellion? Why should there even be any way at all?

Assuming that Mormonism or Scientology is true....then what? Awfully big assumptions in any of these cases.

 

[C N Red]

Knapp you say God is a worse father than you?

Using terms from the stand point of there not being a God. Consider a God that is in fact omniscient and all powerful. If we were created from dust and nothing more. Considering the story of sin in the garden of eden (according to the Bible). We have violated God's command and through genetics inherited original man's sinful nature.Assuming the Bible is true...What does God owe us? Who gives us authority to tell our "father" what to do? Do we as parents give in to everything our children want? Isn't it loving of God to be forgiving by giving us a single way to be with him after repeated rebellion? Why should there even be any way at all?

Assuming that Mormonism or Scientology is true....then what? Awfully big assumptions in any of these cases.

Sounds like you are atheist or agnostic. Read article i linked in post #217. I think if one allows it really makes an atheist, agnostic, or "scientist" have to rethink things. It actually makes more sense that there is an all poweful being, God.

 

[84HuskerLaw]

I believe the decision as to whether or not God created the Heavens and the Earth is best considered following the reasoning explained as follows:

1. Almost everyone tend's to 'find God' as their death approachs, whether in a very fearful situation or as last illness takes its toll on the mortal body.

2. The incredible nature and scope of the universe(s) and all things and matters and forces within and without are only explained as being the creation of a devine creator

as nothing short of the indescribable power and supremacy of God offers any alternative explanation.

3. Breathtaking complexity and simplicity beyond the incalcuable intelligence of a supernatural being beyond our comprehension offer strong evidence not rebutted by any reasonable means to date.

4. To deny the Creator is to essentially to suspend one's faculties for reason and logic in the face of fundamental truth.

5. The atheist argues that from nothing came exerything as a result of a big bang, without offering any rational explanation or causation or force to iniate or instigate the said 'big bang,

6. Almost all scientist steadfastly maintain that in the beginning there was nothing - that time, space, Earth, life, humanity were not and then suddenly were.

7. The complex planning and design of things such as for life to exolve on a planet such as the Earth is miniscule in comparison to the unfathomable complexity of the planning and design of the universe or even many, many universes.

8. The details and intricate interactions of all things from gravity to the forces which hold the atoms together or repel them apart to the effects of light, radiation, wave patterns and many other scientific matters are beyond the theoretically possible of pure happenstance or 'luck' as any ever so slight variation of any of the many aspects of the universe would leave nothing instead of everything.

9. The chances of all of everything being formed, created, coming into existence or going out of existence without devine derivation are nil.

10. To simply say that all that is 'just kind of happened' magically or for any unspecified reason other than devine creation is nonsensical basically.

11. The mathematical logic of 1 + 1 = 2 and 2 + 2 = 4 is the same logic that says 0 + 0 = 0 EXCEPT that in the case of all things in the universe, 0 + 0 = Everything (nothing = everything.

12. If before the natural universe was formed by the big bang, there was nothing, then whatever preceded the natural was necessarily the unnatural or supernatural if you will (or God by another name essentially).

I am sure, if I spent more time, I could perhaps better explain these things but the burden certainly shifts to those in denial as to how one explains 'everything' but for God.

 

[Moesker]

Knapp you say God is a worse father than you?

Using terms from the stand point of there not being a God. Consider a God that is in fact omniscient and all powerful. If we were created from dust and nothing more. Considering the story of sin in the garden of eden (according to the Bible). We have violated God's command and through genetics inherited original man's sinful nature.Assuming the Bible is true...What does God owe us? Who gives us authority to tell our "father" what to do? Do we as parents give in to everything our children want? Isn't it loving of God to be forgiving by giving us a single way to be with him after repeated rebellion? Why should there even be any way at all?

Assuming that Mormonism or Scientology is true....then what? Awfully big assumptions in any of these cases.

Sounds like you are atheist or agnostic. Read article i linked in post #217. I think if one allows it really makes an atheist, agnostic, or "scientist" have to rethink things. It actually makes more sense that there is an all poweful being, God.

Knapp you say God is a worse father than you?

Using terms from the stand point of there not being a God. Consider a God that is in fact omniscient and all powerful. If we were created from dust and nothing more. Considering the story of sin in the garden of eden (according to the Bible). We have violated God's command and through genetics inherited original man's sinful nature.Assuming the Bible is true...What does God owe us? Who gives us authority to tell our "father" what to do? Do we as parents give in to everything our children want? Isn't it loving of God to be forgiving by giving us a single way to be with him after repeated rebellion? Why should there even be any way at all?

Assuming that Mormonism or Scientology is true....then what? Awfully big assumptions in any of these cases.

Sounds like you are atheist or agnostic. Read article i linked in post #217. I think if one allows it really makes an atheist, agnostic, or "scientist" have to rethink things. It actually makes more sense that there is an all poweful being, God.

Hilarious. Just because science does not have all of the answers yet, it doesn't mean making things up in order to pacify the unknown is the proper way to do things. I have always said that I don't have enough proof to ultimately say that there is not a grand designer of things...but to believe any of the ridiculous religions that man has made is foolish in my opinion.

 

[Moesker]

I believe the decision as to whether or not God created the Heavens and the Earth is best considered following the reasoning explained as follows:

1. Almost everyone tend's to 'find God' as their death approachs, whether in a very fearful situation or as last illness takes its toll on the mortal body.

2. The incredible nature and scope of the universe(s) and all things and matters and forces within and without are only explained as being the creation of a devine creator

as nothing short of the indescribable power and supremacy of God offers any alternative explanation.

3. Breathtaking complexity and simplicity beyond the incalcuable intelligence of a supernatural being beyond our comprehension offer strong evidence not rebutted by any reasonable means to date.

4. To deny the Creator is to essentially to suspend one's faculties for reason and logic in the face of fundamental truth.

5. The atheist argues that from nothing came exerything as a result of a big bang, without offering any rational explanation or causation or force to iniate or instigate the said 'big bang,

6. Almost all scientist steadfastly maintain that in the beginning there was nothing - that time, space, Earth, life, humanity were not and then suddenly were.

7. The complex planning and design of things such as for life to exolve on a planet such as the Earth is miniscule in comparison to the unfathomable complexity of the planning and design of the universe or even many, many universes.

8. The details and intricate interactions of all things from gravity to the forces which hold the atoms together or repel them apart to the effects of light, radiation, wave patterns and many other scientific matters are beyond the theoretically possible of pure happenstance or 'luck' as any ever so slight variation of any of the many aspects of the universe would leave nothing instead of everything.

9. The chances of all of everything being formed, created, coming into existence or going out of existence without devine derivation are nil.

10. To simply say that all that is 'just kind of happened' magically or for any unspecified reason other than devine creation is nonsensical basically.

11. The mathematical logic of 1 + 1 = 2 and 2 + 2 = 4 is the same logic that says 0 + 0 = 0 EXCEPT that in the case of all things in the universe, 0 + 0 = Everything (nothing = everything.

12. If before the natural universe was formed by the big bang, there was nothing, then whatever preceded the natural was necessarily the unnatural or supernatural if you will (or God by another name essentially).

I am sure, if I spent more time, I could perhaps better explain these things but the burden certainly shifts to those in denial as to how one explains 'everything' but for God.

Pretty flimsy mental gymnastics you have going on here. Extraordinary claims call for extraordinary evidence. Where everything comes from certainly falls into this category but so does a revealed God.