Summations Only

IF you don't understand the argument than ask the question. Nature has no proof in that it created itself. When I say YOU believe in nature that is meant as YOU believe that NATURE produced itself. Especially if we have in mind the full discussion. Duh.

I am spending entirely to much time, here, discussing these topics. I will no longer respond.

quote:

---

Actually creationist accept modern science including evolution,
  —Blue

---

You need to have a word or two with a YEC, they deny evolution, geology and great chunks of physics - to name but three of our very best sciences.

quote:

---

Typically discussions don't follow exact grammatical law. Further didn't you learn in college that you can BREAK grammatical law as long as you KNOW grammatical law?

---

I'm sure that by now you'll have re-read your sentence and realised what a mess you made of it and how it renders what you were trying to say incomprehensible so I won't rub your nose it it by quoting it again.

quote:

---

I am guessing you never went to college.

---

You seem determined to be wrong about everything....

quote:

---

ALSO there is no fact that man should decide what is moral.

---

Well that's another oddly constructed sentence so it's hard to guess at its meaning but it is a fact that man does decide what is moral. If only for the simple reason that there is no-one else here to do it.

quote:

---

FYI: I don't give a fuck if I am using correct grammatical rules on this forum. IF you get the point great if you do not get the point, then argue the point.

---

Yes well, the point I'm making is that your fucked up sentences are making it difficult to understand your meaning, so it's best to read what you've written before - or even after - pressing 'submit'. Then you wouldn't have to pretend poetic licence.

I'm not sure what to do with that, other than to say that I don't believe anyone has asked nature to present its proof; it would seem a rather strange thing to do. And again no. I don't believe nature produced itself. I don't even know what you mean by nature. Is a rock nature? In what way can a rock produce itself? Am I nature? I certainly didn't produce myself - I have a birth certifcate to prove it.It may seem irritatingly obtuse of me to mess around like this, but language has meaning and if you're going to argue difficult concepts here, you're going to have to start being more precise.

According to the Bible at least this passage.
God created both good and evil.

quote:

---

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.Isaiah 45
  —God

---

As far as angels are concerned they are as it was once explained to me by my priest refering to the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas in the Summa,
"creatures of pure spirit and intellect."One could ask how could such a intelligent spirit choose to be evil? Lucifer's blashphemy in thinking he could be as God is was what was characterized as evil. So the propensity for evil was created by God but was perpetuated by Lucifer. Well did not God create Lucifer?
And hence the evil that he perpetuates? Yes. Do we know why?
No. It is a mystery. As usual I was left just as confused as ever.
But this still does not get around evil being created by God.

Hello,I was not planning on responding because I honestly feel like it's pointless. However, you are asking a question so I will respond. I apologize in advance if I am coming off like I think I know-all. I just feel convinced of my arguments. Why else would I argue them, right? Lol.The argument that God did not create evil is based on free agency. The creator can't be held responsible for the acts of the created, in fairness, if the acts of the created were due to their freedom. God has no control over free thinking beings or their actions (God does not want to force you to choose God's laws). The best example I can give you is in relation to a computer. If I created a computer that was able to think freely. Then during the computer's existence it chose to kill somebody, would that be my fault? Why would it be my fault even if I knew it could kill somebody? The only responsibility, in fairness, I would have in the computer killing somebody is that I created something that could choose to do evil. However it would not mean I created evil. I just created something that could commit evil acts. You also have to remember the computer could have chose to help the person it killed, which is precisely why I created the computer. I want it to choose freely to do good. I don't want to exist with a bunch of programmed computers. I would rather exist with free thinking computers that choose to love however the only way to achieve this goal is by creating beings that can freely commit evil acts. Now you are probably thinking, we'll you are God, can't you do anything? This is when I ask a question. What other way can free thinking beings be created to choose good vs evil? Any reduction in free agency would mean less ability to choose to do good.I don't expect to convince you because I'm sure you have already thought about my argument above. The argument above I feel strongly about and it is logical. I honestly feel people choose to be atheist or theist based on desires. There is no amount of evidence that will convince an athiest God exists even if I was able to raise the dead. They would think of some natural process that brought the person back to life. Another point, within the above argument, if God appeared to prove God exists, it would result in a forced choice to follow God's laws. Do you really think if God showed up people wouldn't feel forced to choose to follow God's laws? Even if God was able to communicate choose freely? I think not.Edited by Blue, : AddEdited by Blue, : Add

Where it reads "and evil" is translated as "and calamity". Especially if you read the context of the whole chapter. However I'm sure you know that...Edited by Blue, : Err

If you were omniscient and knew exactly where and when that computer will kill somebody one day; yet you still go ahead and create that computer and the future victim of the murder, too, you sure are to blame for it.Edited by Pressie, : Changed sentence

The idea is we are judged by God when God's plan is completely played out. I also think it is important to realize there may be certain limits, in fairness, to knowledge with regards to free agency. God can most definitely predict precisely but actions must be acted out to be judged for them, in fairness.

There is always limits such as with free agency that can't be changed even if one is omniscient omnipotent and omnipresent. Essentially those phrases have a maximum in which nothing else is above you in those meanings. However it doesn't mean you know what choice a being is going to make before they make it in free agency. Even if you can predict it, to judge them the evil has to be played out.

blue, it's not pointless. Remember other people read here, too.Back in those days when I still thought I talked to Jesus and that he talked back to me, people with very similar arguments as yours convinced me to start seriously questioning my faith.Today I'm an atheist (someone described me as a radical atheist; I'm quite proud of it ).Just read your post again. It doesn't make any sense. Keep up the good work.

Duplicate.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

If your God exists the way you describe him, he is still responsible for creating that murdering computer or robot or whatever it is.

Ah, the mysterious plan again.

I think the idea is while God is responsible for creating free thinking things, justification is coming for those that follow God's laws.Edited by Blue, : Del