6days
New member
Crows are a bird with great intelligence. The concept of evil does not exist within crows or other animals. Does the concept of rape exist with dolphins? Is 'murder' evil for a dog? Animals have instincts. Humanity has morality.
Why Believe in a god?
- Thread starter 6days
- Start date
Good.
I haven't described my morality.
No, I did not.
You haven't begun to perceive your own blindness yet, so I wouldn't jump to conclusions.
Don't tell me what to do. That you think there is another reason beyond us being made, because you deny us being made, proves your own blindness and irrationality based upon childish fairy tales.
I have no other reasons, because there are no other reasons. Infant rape and murder is either evil, or it is not evil. Therefore, evil is either a thing, or it is not. Evil is a thing if and only if there is the Maker.
Yeah, that . . . 'has to do with "right(s)," yes? What's that?
"My god" has no need of justifying anything to me or you or any other creature. Self-evident.
Then you should have no problem with people raping and murdering infants. That you see the violation of the infant's rights, as being the basis for their rape and murder being evil, but see no evil in terminating that infant's life before they are delivered/born, proves once again the length to which you are blinded. Your views are less substantial than those who prefer this condiment to that condiment on their sandwiches.
You're not even trying. You're asleep. Snoozing. Wake up.
Tyrathca
New member
Sure you have. You've described how at least part of it is completely dependent on the existence of a god or not. Or to quote you "Evil is a thing if and only if there is the Maker."
Again " Evil is a thing if and only if there is the Maker.". The logical meaning of this is if there is no Maker (God) then evil isn't a thing, if evil isn't a thing then rape and murder can't be called evil can they? Fortunately I don't consider a god necessary to condemn such things.
If this isn't what you mean then you need to be clearer because it is what you have said, repeatedly.
I didn't realise telling you to stay Christian would be so controversial to you :chuckle:
You use this rationale to say that there must be a creator but equally this argument could be used to say there is not actually evil. Not that you have actually explained at any point how you know that the concept of evil can only exist if there is a god.
??? You're the first person in this thread to mention rights
Actually the cut off I have is if that I consider something a person if there is consciousness. Therefore I do not agree with late term abortions outside palliative procedures (e.g. severe congenital abnormalities which would doom the infant after birth). Earlier in pregnancy the nervous system is not well developed and therefore I see no problem. An extension of this is I value the life of the mother over that of a foetus, if the choice is between the protecting the life of the mother or the foetus my default is to preference the mother (unless they wish otherwise and can give informed consent)
This however is my own concept of what it means to be human so obviously other people's ideas may differ.
You're just repeating ad nauseum that your god is necessary but never explain why and I'm not the one trying?
Yes ...I might just be a robot typing notes on this forum.
"For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”
Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil"
The fruit was responsible for opening man's eyes. It seems to me that God did not want man's eyes to be opened.
But Adam ate the fruit and man's eyes were opened and Science and Technology and Math were invented by man.
In early Egyptian[7] and Mesopotamian thought the world was portrayed as a flat disk floating in the ocean. A similar model is found in the Homeric account from the 8th century BC in which "Okeanos, the personified body of water surrounding the circular surface of the Earth, is the begetter of all life and possibly of all gods."[8] The Israelites had a similar cosmology, with the earth as a flat disc floating on water beneath an arced firmament separating it from the heavens.[9]
6days
New member
Historian Jeffrey Burton Russell (1934–) thoroughly demolished the flat earth myth over 20 years ago in his definitive study Inventing the Flat Earth.
The famous evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould (1941–2002) favourably reviewed this masterpiece:
“There never was a period of ‘flat earth darkness’ among scholars (regardless of how the public at large may have conceptualized our planet both then and now). Greek knowledge of sphericity never faded, and all major medieval scholars accepted the earth’s roundness as an established fact of cosmology.”
Russell showed that flat-earth belief was extremely rare in the Church. The flat earth’s two main proponents were obscure figures named Lactantius (c. 240 – c. 320) and Cosmas Indicopleustes (6th century; the last name means “voyager to India”). However, they were hugely outweighed by tens of thousands of Christian theologians, poets, artists, scientists, and rulers who unambiguously affirmed that the earth was round. Russell documents accounts supporting earth’s sphericity from numerous medieval church scholars such as friar Roger Bacon (1220–1292), inventor of spectacles; leading medieval scientists such as John Buridan (1301–1358) and Nicholas Oresme (1320–1382); the monk John of Sacrobosco (c. 1195–c. 1256) who wrote Treatise on the Sphere, and many more.
http://creation.com/flat-earth-myth
Ben Masada
New member
God is the source of all science that works according to Divine reason.
glassjester
Well-known member
Yes, according to me.
And 1 + 1 = 2, according to me. And it ought to be so, according to everyone. Right?
Because it's objectively true.
My believing it, doesn't make it subjective.
Can you think of any action or event that ought not happen, under any circumstances?
Dear 6days,
A very interesting link!! Taught me much that I didn't know! So that's how they realized the Earth was a sphere/ circle. By an eclipse. How very astute of them. I just can't believe it. Someone had a good brain then. And I also thought that Ben Franklin invented the spectacles. Still learning at my age! Just joking! Thanks for the post, Good Buddy!!
May God Shine Light And Love Upon You & Your Loved Ones,
Michael
PureX
Well-known member
Actually, it's not objectively true, it's only relatively true.
Objectively, no two things can be truly equal without being the same thing. Which makes the concept of equality objectively incoherent. Such that the ideal only works when we ignore the ways in which the objects the equation is being applied to are not equal. We pretend they are equal when they are not.
Not being omniscient, I have no way of determining "any circumstances". The best answer I could give is that what "ought not" happen is what cannot happen within the confines of existential possibility.
ttruscott
Well-known member
There is no reason for you to believe in GOD if you have no reason. Duh... When you get a reason, then you will believe as it is our of your hands. If you never get a reason then you stay in your sins. You CANNOT believe until GOD calls you and gives you reason to believe.
ttruscott
Well-known member
Again,
Without allowing evil we have no free will.
Without allowing free will we have no real love, holiness, worship nor marriage.
Without real love, holiness, worship nor marriage, then there can be no wedding of the Lamb to His bride the holy Church, HIS purpose for our creation.
glassjester
Well-known member
6days
New member
"...always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect "
6days
New member
Without free will, there can't be love.
Love always involves choice.
Prizebeatz1
New member
Isn't there such thing as unconditional love? Perhaps our natural state is unified oneness where love is all there is.
ttruscott
Well-known member
GOD abhors some people and has decided to destroy them. Either HE did not love them at their creation and chose to never love them or love can change.
Since love cannot change, and HE doesn't love those HE will destroy, and since HIS love for some and not others cannot be arbitrary but must reside in a reasonable decision, then it is obvious that the reason to love some and not others was in response to something they did, not who they were.
HIS children get chastisements as training in righteousness, Heb 12:5-11, but the counterfeit /reprobate children who are not HIS but illegitimate, Deuteronomy 32:5 "They have acted corruptly toward Him, They are not His children, because of their defect; But are a perverse and crooked generation. or: their defect is that they are not HIS children, get only judgment.
Did HE choose who to love and who to hate by looking into our futures to see who would love HIM? No because no human loves HIM without HIS grace bringing them to faith. So how did HE choose?
IF every person created in HIS image was created before the creation of the physical universe and then HE asked us to choose by their free will to put our faith in HIM (and unproven hope) as our creator GOD or to choose by their free will to put their faith in their estimation that HE was a false god and a liar and as the first liar in reality, then the worst sinner in reality, and
IF He gave us the loving promise of election to heaven as HIS Bride if we accepted HIS claims to deity and HIS promise of salvation from any and all sin to be found in HIS Son, the Lamb to come and
IF He warned that not putting our faith in HIM as our GOD and our Saviour that HE would never love us and we would be outside of all HIS loving grace for eternity and therefore we must be banished to the outer darkness as an absolute necessity...
THEN we can see a perfect reason for HIS choosing some and not choosing others. Those who put their faith in HIM were chosen / elected to be HIS children and His bride while those who rejected HIS deity and HIS promises were cast off as not HIS children.
Then and only then were all sinners sent to earth to be born as humans so the sinful but good, (ie, elect as none are morally good) seed can learn to be holy and return to GOD so the postponement of the judgment may end and be finished. All earthly life has one purpose, to separate HIS sinful elect from the reprobate by their holiness so the reprobate can be judged. That purpose was decided before the foundation of the world so the joining of some of HIS elect with the reprobate demons by their free will had to have happened before then.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument
Does God exist?
Or is the material universe all that is, or ever was, or ever will be?
One approach to answering this question is the Cosmological Argument.
It goes like this...
Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Is the first premise true? Let's consider...
Believing that something can pop into existence without a cause is more of a stretch than believing in magic. At least with magic you've got a hat and a magician.
And if something can come into being from nothing, then why don't we see this happening all the time?
No... Everyday experience and scientific evidence confirm our first premise—If something begins to exist, it must have a cause.
But what about our second premise? Did the universe begin or has it always existed? Atheists have typically said that the universe has been here forever-"The universe is just there, and that's all."
First, let's consider the second law of thermodynamics. It tells us the universe is slowly running out of usable energy... and that's the point.
If the universe had been here forever, it would have run out of usable energy by now. The second law points us to a universe that has a definite beginning.
This is further confirmed by a series of remarkable scientific discoveries...
In 1915, Albert Einstein presented his General Theory of Relativity. This allowed us, for the first time, to talk meaningfully about the past history of the universe.
Next, Alexander Friedmann and Georges Lemaître, each working with Einstein's equations, predicted that the universe is expanding.
Then, in 1929, Edwin Hubble measured the red shift in light from distant galaxies. This empirical evidence confirmed not only that the universe is expanding, but that it sprang into being from a single point in the finite past. It was a monumental discovery—almost beyond comprehension.
However, not everyone is fond of a finite universe... So, it wasn't long before alternative models popped into existence. But, one by one, these models failed to stand the test of time.
More recently, three leading cosmologists—Arvind Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin—proved that "any universe which has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be eternal in the past, but must have an absolute beginning."
This even applies to the multiverse, if there is such a thing.
This means that scientists "can no longer hide behind a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning." Any adequate model must have a beginning, just like the standard model.
It's quite plausible, then that both premises of the argument are true. This means that the conclusion is also true—the universe has a cause.
And since the universe can't cause itself, its cause must be beyond the space-time universe. It must be spaceless, timeless, immaterial, uncaused, and unimaginably powerful. Much like... God.
The Cosmological Argument shows that, in fact, it is quite reasonable to believe that God does exist.
Does God exist?
Or is the material universe all that is, or ever was, or ever will be?
One approach to answering this question is the Cosmological Argument.
It goes like this...
Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Is the first premise true? Let's consider...
Believing that something can pop into existence without a cause is more of a stretch than believing in magic. At least with magic you've got a hat and a magician.
And if something can come into being from nothing, then why don't we see this happening all the time?
No... Everyday experience and scientific evidence confirm our first premise—If something begins to exist, it must have a cause.
But what about our second premise? Did the universe begin or has it always existed? Atheists have typically said that the universe has been here forever-"The universe is just there, and that's all."
First, let's consider the second law of thermodynamics. It tells us the universe is slowly running out of usable energy... and that's the point.
If the universe had been here forever, it would have run out of usable energy by now. The second law points us to a universe that has a definite beginning.
This is further confirmed by a series of remarkable scientific discoveries...
In 1915, Albert Einstein presented his General Theory of Relativity. This allowed us, for the first time, to talk meaningfully about the past history of the universe.
Next, Alexander Friedmann and Georges Lemaître, each working with Einstein's equations, predicted that the universe is expanding.
Then, in 1929, Edwin Hubble measured the red shift in light from distant galaxies. This empirical evidence confirmed not only that the universe is expanding, but that it sprang into being from a single point in the finite past. It was a monumental discovery—almost beyond comprehension.
However, not everyone is fond of a finite universe... So, it wasn't long before alternative models popped into existence. But, one by one, these models failed to stand the test of time.
More recently, three leading cosmologists—Arvind Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin—proved that "any universe which has, on average, been expanding throughout its history cannot be eternal in the past, but must have an absolute beginning."
This even applies to the multiverse, if there is such a thing.
This means that scientists "can no longer hide behind a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning." Any adequate model must have a beginning, just like the standard model.
It's quite plausible, then that both premises of the argument are true. This means that the conclusion is also true—the universe has a cause.
And since the universe can't cause itself, its cause must be beyond the space-time universe. It must be spaceless, timeless, immaterial, uncaused, and unimaginably powerful. Much like... God.
The Cosmological Argument shows that, in fact, it is quite reasonable to believe that God does exist.
Prizebeatz1
New member
If this, if that. This sounds like the love of the personality. It is conditional, exclusive, dependent on criteria, circumstances, situations and events in time. The love of God is non-judgmental, unconditional, all-inclusive, unfaltering, unified, indivisible, forever everywhere because God is infinite and eternal. The purity of the virgin points to this but the moral of the story is usually overlooked and dismissed because it doesn't fit with the personality's view of God.