I don't see how that follows logically. Simply by instigating something does not mean you must therefore know everything. I instigate lots of things and have no idea where it will end up.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Just as another point, assuming this God we're talking about created the universe, then the idea that something exists that is unknowable to him is absurd. He created the universe, so logically he should be fully aware of everything in it.
Okay so it is obvious to you that God does not presently create people, right? I mean if He did, we would notice something like that, wouldn't you think?I'm an Atheist, therefore I don't believe God creates us as in my opinion, he doesn't exist.
However, I'm arguing from within the scope of Christian Theology. Many Christians believe God is indeed responsible for designing you. How many times have you heard a new mother call their baby a gift from God?
You may not be designed the same way as Adam was... seeing as he was supposedly made out of dirt. Likewise, Eve was supposedly made from a rib. Surprisingly, biologists have determined that this is not factually correct!
However, what's to stop God from creating a specific sperm and egg with a particular genetic code, then ensure those two meet up and implant, therefore creating you?
What type of evidence? Other than Biblical evidence, there is nothing empirical to support this.Can you please cite your evidence? How do you know this?
The laws of nature are a result of God's first creative act. He 'set' them into motion. This is not to say that God cannot control the weather, just that He doesn't all the time.And who created nature?
That isn't a lie. God said they would die, not that they would die immediately. They did die eventually, so it was true. It was also a spiritual death in that they were cut off from the presence of God.This is false, God does lie in the Bible. For example he told Adam and Eve that eating the apple would cause them to die. This was not true, he simply got [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]ed off and threw them out of the garden.
... Which of course you figure an omniscient God would have been aware of in advance, and put the tree somewhere that they couldn't have gotten to it. But hey, maybe God isn't a very good designer either! Is it possible to be omnipotent and still be a poor landscaper?
Then, by not acting, he's culpable for all deaths that result from weather.Okay so it is obvious to you that God does not presently create people, right? I mean if He did, we would notice something like that, wouldn't you think?
I understand that there are Christians who think God creates them, but you must also acknowledge the multitude that do not. I think my son is a gift from God but that doesn't mean I think he was created directly by God. And the fact remains we are not created in a similar way that A&E was, so in what sense does God "create" us now? And for whatever it's worth, I don't read Genesis literally, so I don't think Adam was formed from dirt. Though, I still don't think we are 'created' in an same way regardless of there being no special creation.
I am not saying God cannot do that, I am saying that I don't think He does.
What type of evidence? Other than Biblical evidence, there is nothing empirical to support this.
The laws of nature are a result of God's first creative act. He 'set' them into motion. This is not to say that God cannot control the weather, just that He doesn't all the time.
Well...That isn't a lie. God said they would die, not that they would die immediately.
If God didn't put the tree there at all, then no, they wouldn't have eaten from it. If God had had some foresight, he wouldn't have made it so that eating fruit damns all humans to hell, expels the species from paradise, makes roses grow thorns and lions eat meat, etc. If pain, suffering, evil, death, etc exist in the world because of the Fall, then God is at fault for making it that way - after all, God, not humans, set up the laws of the universe such that, if Eve ate a piece of fruit, then pain, suffering, evil, death, etc, would come into the world.They did die eventually, so it was true. It was also a spiritual death in that they were cut off from the presence of God.
God is aware of everything. No matter where He put the tree they would have eaten from it at some point. It has nothing to do with God or the way He designed things.
Only by acting as to cause weather is God culpable for deaths. He has no moral obligation to humanity, so He cannot be responsible for what He doesn't cause regardless of inaction.Then, by not acting, he's culpable for all deaths that result from weather.
I think I would interpret these words as "for in the day that you eat thereof your death penalty will begin." I wouldn't think as God so cruel as to literally kill me right away. He is slow to anger and gives us opportunities. There are two deaths, biological and spiritual. Both are indeed death, just in different senses.Well...
"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." - Genesis 2:17
If God spake those words to you, wouldn't you infer that eating of the fruit would make you on that very same day? And if the 'death' isn't death at all, but some spiritual separation, why wouldn't God state as such? Why would he use deliberately confusing language concerning a rather crucial point?
The point is sin would have happened regardless granting free will. Only the two deaths are consequences of the Fall. Roses would have already had thorns and lions were never vegetarian. God never said those things would happen as a result anyway.If God didn't put the tree there at all, then no, they wouldn't have eaten from it. If God had had some foresight, he wouldn't have made it so that eating fruit damns all humans to hell, expels the species from paradise, makes roses grow thorns and lions eat meat, etc. If pain, suffering, evil, death, etc exist in the world because of the Fall, then God is at fault for making it that way - after all, God, not humans, set up the laws of the universe such that, if Eve ate a piece of fruit, then pain, suffering, evil, death, etc, would come into the world.
This analogy is a dime a dozen. They all have the same inconsistency, too, which is they have relevant dissimilarities that make the analogy incomparable to the actual situation. One such relevant dissimilarity is that of the Rube Goldberg machine itself. That is designed specifically for death. It is a dangerous object in and of itself. Everything that God made in the beginning was inherently good and not dangerous. There was nothing special about the tree or the fruit, but it was the action itself that was dangerous and deadly.If I create a Rube Goldberg machine that beheads a mouse when it eats a piece of cheese (like an elaborate mousetrap), I am absolutely at fault if the mouse dies as a result. Likewise, God is at fault as he knowingly and willingly set the whole thing up.
I disagree - the concept of criminal negligence exists for a reason. If a diabetic collapses and asks for his insulin, and I, with the insulin in my hand, stand over him and do nothing, I am culpable for his death. In the real world, when religious parents withhold medicine from their children and instead put their faith in God and prayer, they're held culpable for the inevitable death.Only by acting as to cause weather is God culpable for deaths. He has no moral obligation to humanity, so He cannot be responsible for what He doesn't cause regardless of inaction.
For such an important point, it seems strange that the Bible would espouse exactly the opposite view. It doesn't say "The day you eat this fruit you will suffer a metaphorical, non-literal death-like process of the spirit". It says, without qualification, "On that day you will die". Why the unnecessary confusion?I think I would interpret these words as "for in the day that you eat thereof your death penalty will begin." I wouldn't think as God so cruel as to literally kill me right away. He is slow to anger and gives us opportunities. There are two deaths, biological and spiritual. Both are indeed death, just in different senses.
No, so one wonders how suffering can exist (thorny roses, carnivorous lions, etc) prior to the Fall. Indeed, without a literal Fall to fall back on, at what point did sin enter the world? This isn't a trick question, I'm genuinely curious.The point is sin would have happened regardless granting free will. Only the two deaths are consequences of the Fall. Roses would have already had thorns and lions were never vegetarian. God never said those things would happen as a result anyway.
Suppose the machine incidentally kills the mouse when it ate the cheese. The actual function of the device is to be a piece of art. But so precariously is it placed, that a mouse, attracted to the cheese, ends up dead. The intention is all well and good, but the execution leads to death.This analogy is a dime a dozen. They all have the same inconsistency, too, which is they have relevant dissimilarities that make the analogy incomparable to the actual situation. One such relevant dissimilarity is that of the Rube Goldberg machine itself. That is designed specifically for death. It is a dangerous object in and of itself. Everything that God made in the beginning was inherently good and not dangerous. There was nothing special about the tree or the fruit, but it was the action itself that was dangerous and deadly.
So, God didn't really set up some death trap. He made things good, and man cam along and spoiled it.
Unlike the parents withholding medicine from their children, they owe the children something, while God does not owe us anything. He doesn't have to stop the weather.I disagree - the concept of criminal negligence exists for a reason. If a diabetic collapses and asks for his insulin, and I, with the insulin in my hand, stand over him and do nothing, I am culpable for his death. In the real world, when religious parents withhold medicine from their children and instead put their faith in God and prayer, they're held culpable for the inevitable death.
Likewise, God, having the power to control the weather and stop hurricanes (etc), is culpable for the deaths that result when he doesn't stop them.
The Bible does in fact state there are two deaths. The text doesn't need to say that, and nor does any other verse having "death" in it when it is referred to must, either. I see nothing confusing.For such an important point, it seems strange that the Bible would espouse exactly the opposite view. It doesn't say "The day you eat this fruit you will suffer a metaphorical, non-literal death-like process of the spirit". It says, without qualification, "On that day you will die". Why the unnecessary confusion?
I wouldn't say there really was 'suffering' prior to the fall, but rather plant and animal death. "Suffering" is a concept that is founded and experienced after the fall since it has to do with moral responsibility. There is a literal fall, a literal Adam and Eve, just not 6,000 years ago.No, so one wonders how suffering can exist (thorny roses, carnivorous lions, etc) prior to the Fall. Indeed, without a literal Fall to fall back on, at what point did sin enter the world? This isn't a trick question, I'm genuinely curious.
A machine that is designed to decapitate mice unintentionally does so? That seems to be stretching it a bit there. When it ate the cheese, the machine is set to go off, so how could that be accidentally? The intention is death. That is still unlike the one for creation as the intention was good.Suppose the machine incidentally kills the mouse when it ate the cheese. The actual function of the device is to be a piece of art. But so precariously is it placed, that a mouse, attracted to the cheese, ends up dead. The intention is all well and good, but the execution leads to death.
Okay so it is obvious to you that God does not presently create people, right? I mean if He did, we would notice something like that, wouldn't you think?
I understand that there are Christians who think God creates them, but you must also acknowledge the multitude that do not. I think my son is a gift from God but that doesn't mean I think he was created directly by God. And the fact remains we are not created in a similar way that A&E was, so in what sense does God "create" us now? And for whatever it's worth, I don't read Genesis literally, so I don't think Adam was formed from dirt. Though, I still don't think we are 'created' in an same way regardless of there being no special creation.
I am not saying God cannot do that, I am saying that I don't think He does.
What type of evidence? Other than Biblical evidence, there is nothing empirical to support this.
The laws of nature are a result of God's first creative act. He 'set' them into motion. This is not to say that God cannot control the weather, just that He doesn't all the time.
That isn't a lie. God said they would die, not that they would die immediately. They did die eventually, so it was true. It was also a spiritual death in that they were cut off from the presence of God.
God is aware of everything. No matter where He put the tree they would have eaten from it at some point. It has nothing to do with God or the way He designed things.
Wouldn't that make logic greater than God?For example. When theologians say God is omnipotent, they mean very simply that He is able to actualize any state of affairs so long as they are not logically impossible.
Wouldn't that make logic greater than God?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?