A simple question

[ke1985]

Of course, because we understand every detail of that process so thoroughly that we can write God out of the equation with absolute confidence. Right?

 

[b&wpac4]

Of course, because we understand every detail of that process so thoroughly that we can write God out of the equation with absolute confidence. Right?

You write God in with absolute confidence.

 

[sidhe]

42​

/thread

Seriously, it's as reasonable an answer to "why" as anything else.

 

[Christ+a]

I believe in God. My beliefs on creation would be those of theistic evolution.


My question is simply this......Why?


Why existence?

love seeks expression, a counterpart to love upon, a recipient of that love.
God IS love therefore He created.

 

[The Nihilist]

love seeks expression, a counterpart to love upon, a recipient of that love.
God IS love therefore He created.

Love requires a direct object. If your god is love, what is its object?

 

[ChaliceThunder]

Love requires a direct object. If your god is love, what is its object?

US, of course!

 

[roflcopter101]

US, of course!

So he makes death and disease and suffering and pain because he loves us?

 

[ChaliceThunder]

So he makes death and disease and suffering and pain because he loves us?

I think we do a good enough job of creating those things on our own.

Your post had nothing to do with my post, which was an answer to a question.

 

[roflcopter101]

I think we do a good enough job of creating those things on our own.

Your post had nothing to do with my post, which was an answer to a question.

No, I believe it is relevant because it asks why an omnipotent, benevolent god would allow us to do these things you mention.
If said god creates humanity and allows it to suffer while supposedly loving us, would that not be like an adult allowing two children to fight each other with knives?
Additionally, why are we responsible for disease?

 

[soul_biscuit]

Regardless this brings up the question of why the god would allow us to do these things.
If said god creates humanity and allows it to suffer while supposedly loving us, would that not be like an adult allowing two children to fight each other with knives?
Additionally, why are we responsible for disease?

Because Eve talked to a snake and then ate an apple.

 

[The Nihilist]

US, of course!

If you'd carefully followed the post, you would have noticed that my question was about the proposal that god made humans because love seeks fulfillment. My argument is essentially that love cannot exist before the thing that is loved exists. That is to have an effect before a cause.

 

[ChaliceThunder]

No, I believe it is relevant because it asks why an omnipotent, benevolent god would allow us to do these things you mention.
If said god creates humanity and allows it to suffer while supposedly loving us, would that not be like an adult allowing two children to fight each other with knives?
Additionally, why are we responsible for disease?

I did not mention any "things."

I answered the question asked by another poster about:

"if God is love, then who is the object."

My reply was, "Us."

There are no "things" in my reply.

Your argument is with somebody else.

 

[ChaliceThunder]

If you'd carefully followed the post, you would have noticed that my question was about the proposal that god made humans because love seeks fulfillment. My argument is essentially that love cannot exist before the thing that is loved exists. That is to have an effect before a cause.

In your world, maybe.

With God, nothing is impossible...that's all I'm saying.
It's quite possible for us to be the objects of that all-encompassing love, even though it pre-existed us.

 

[roflcopter101]

I did not mention any "things."

No, as in your reply to my reply.

I think we do a good enough job of creating those things on our own.

My argument is on topic.
May I have an retort?

 

[ChaliceThunder]

Those "things" were not mentioned by me, but by you!

 

[roflcopter101]

Those "things" were not mentioned by me, but by you!

Correct.
And I am still wondering:
Why does a benevolent god create "death and disease and suffering and pain"?
If a god would create us and damn us, would not that suggest that this god created us for his sadistic amusement?

 

[ChaliceThunder]

Correct.
And I am still wondering:
Why does a benevolent god create "death and disease and suffering and pain"?
If a god would create us and damn us, would not that suggest that this god created us for his sadistic amusement?

Well buckaroo, that is something you will need to ponder for a very long time - and then come up with an answer.

It's not a question I ask, as I view life as a combination of good things and bad things. We find God, hopefully, in how we respond to both.

 

[morningstar2651]

I believe in God. My beliefs on creation would be those of theistic evolution.


My question is simply this......Why?


Why existence?

It just seemed like a good idea at the time.

 

[The Nihilist]

In your world, maybe.

With God, nothing is impossible...that's all I'm saying.
It's quite possible for us to be the objects of that all-encompassing love, even though it pre-existed us.

No. Feelings do not preexist that for which they are felt. Feelings are about something. You feel a way about something or someone. Even if you don't know what, they are necessarily relational.

 

[sk8Joyful]

What if it were shown
that the complexity and diversity of life can (and do) arise with no need of a creator?

Would you still prefer to believe in God?

Yeah, but 'mere existence' here, amounts to a waste,
of
abilities... God is like LOVE, & other abilities seeking in love to be shared,
which He programmed into various of His creations, for His good pleasures, praise, honor & glory
And using such for His good pleasures, as well as ours, in the vernacular "tickles him pink"

(Little of that would be the case via mere 'evolution'.)

Thank GOD!